car insurance on a scrapped car?

Not if you've hired it, which most insurance policies exclude from cover

Brian

Not really.

They are only very slightly more stupid than those who currently drive without tax.

Except that where before they would been caught for *anything* unless detected on the road, now they *will* get fined for not doing either.

So if they want to pay nothing, they *have* to declare SORN.

I disagree.

Yes, the penalties for doing nothing will be lower than those for getting caught with the vehicle on the road after declaring SORN, but they will be certain penalties.

Indeed. But the likely penalties will often be higher for those getting caught if they have declared SORN. And I believe most will, because those are only "if caught" penalties, while the not declaring anything penalties are automatic.

That is simply incorrect.

We have been talking about policies that *do* specifically state that the insured is allowed to drive any vehicle not belonging to them, but with third party only cover.

Most comprehensive policies give this cover.

Precisely - if the penalty for doing nothing is lower than the penalty for driving an untaxed vehicle after declaring SORN, then why in their right mind would anyone intending to avoid paying road tax declare SORN???

Yes, true. Backs up exactly what I was saying about the DVLA inventing a new offence for its own sake. Like someone else said, all it does is enable them to send out automatic penalties.

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

Because the penalties for doing nothing are certain, while the penalties for getting caught after declaring SORN only happen if you get caught.

It pretty well takes away the "I forgot" excuse for driving without tax.

And it wasn't the DVLA that "invented" it anyhow.

So, its ok for me to take out insurance on my second car, get it taxed. Cancel the insurance and then run my second car quite legally on my first insurance?

Why does the PO clerk study your insurance cover and check that the car reg is stated on the document. Ever tried to get a car taxed with insurance cover for another car?

Foe a car to be legal on a road it has to be taxed and have insurance cover for that vehicle (plus mot if required)

Your third party cover is for you - not the car you are driving.

No.

It *must* be a car you do not own, or it must be specified on your insurance.

Because the law requires that in order to tax a car, you must have insurance specifically valid for that car, on the date the tax is due to start.

Wrong.

It has to be taxed, and has to have a valid MOT if necessary. But it does not require a current valid insurance specifying that vehicle, if it is being driven by somebody who has this "third party on other vehicles" cover.

Well yes. But it only applies while you are driving a car specified on the policy (when it will be the full cover specified in the policy), or one which does not belong to you (when it will be the minimum cover required by law).

sid wrote: ||||| Study your policy as much as you like but I for one would never ||||| take a car ||||| out on a road unless I knew it was legal, and that includes valid ||||| insurance ||||| cover for the vehicle. ||| ||| You would have valid insurance cover, by virtue of the policy on ||| your own car. || || So, its ok for me to take out insurance on my second car, get it || taxed. || Cancel the insurance and then run my second car quite legally on my || first insurance?

No, you can't. You are only covered for third party risks whilst driving another car which is not owned by you, or hired to you under a HP agreement, unless you have some kind of policy that covers you to drive any of your own cars, such as a company fleet but that is not the situation being discussed.

|| Why does the PO clerk study your insurance cover and check that the || car reg || is stated on the document. Ever tried to get a car taxed with || insurance || cover for another car? || || Foe a car to be legal on a road it has to be taxed and have || insurance cover || for that vehicle (plus mot if required)

A car on the road is being used by somebody. Either the owner/keeper or a driver, and it's one of them that will have to show if asked how their cover applies to that particular vehicle. If the owner, his cover will obviously do it, if another driver then his own policy will do, assuming it's a standard policy.

|| Your third party cover is for you - not the car you are driving.

Exactly so.

Yes, in that respect it can put people off avoiding tax, as they'll get a penalty anyway for doing nothing as it'll give them a kick up the arse to do

No, it makes it easier for the DVLA to legitimately send out more fines. Catching people driving without tax still requires exactly the same methods and resources that it did before SORN was introduced.

Government then. And what are the DVLA a department of?

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

Well, sort of. It is for you to *drive* other cars third party only, so therefore it must have something to do with the car you're driving. It covers damage to third parties and their property as a result of you having an accident whilst driving that car. All it doesn't cover is damage to that car.

Where the legal grey area is, is whether or not the car is covered when you leave it on a public road. Some would say no, but some people say that their insurance policy uses the word "use" rather than "drive" or "driving", which could be seen to imply that if the car is parked and in your care, then you are the user. But it is illegal to leave an uninsured vehicle on a public road.

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

No, a vehicle does need to have insurance to be on a public road. It's a very grey legal area as to whether or not a car left on a public road is still covered by the insurance policy of the driver who is borrowing the car and insured under their "3rd party on any other car" extension.

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

While it is being driven on the road, it does not necessarily need to have insurance specific to it. If the driver has cover saying they can drive other cars not belonging to them, and the policy does not specify that said vehicle must be insured separately, then it needs no more insurance *while being driven*.

I would say it isn't in that situation.

The insurance normally covers you for "driving" a vehicle not owned by you, not for "using" it.

Without a hint of irony, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (sPoNiX) astounded uk.legal on

Not quite. They almost certainly say that *you* are covered under those conditions.

That was my point - someone stated that their policy (or one they had seen) said something about "using" and not specifically "driving" other vehicles.

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

AstraVanMan wrote: |||| It's a |||| very grey legal area as to whether or not a car left on a public |||| road is still covered by the insurance policy of the driver who is |||| borrowing the car and insured under their "3rd party on any other |||| car" extension. |||| ||| ||| I would say it isn't in that situation. ||| ||| The insurance normally covers you for "driving" a vehicle not owned ||| by you, not for "using" it. || || That was my point - someone stated that their policy (or one they || had seen) said something about "using" and not specifically || "driving" other vehicles.

I think you are right about it being a grey area. If a borrowed car breaks down and the borrower (driving under the third party provision of his own policy) abandons it and returns home on the bus, who is using the car now? I assume in the absence of anything to the contrary that this would default to the keeper, as I say though that is just my assumption.

Nobody is "using it" then. So it is the responsibility of the keeper at that point. Even if you have one of those policy that does allow "use" rather than just "driving" of other cars.

I thaught we'd already established that it's only drivers that are insured. Not cars. Mike.

Yep, I thought we had as well. My point was referring to whether or not if a driver leaves a car parked on a public road, is that driver then considered to be still "using" the vehicle, making it relevant to whether or not it's covered under his insurance. I would say not, as like you say, he's not driving it at the time, but someone mentioned that their policy stated the words "use of" instead of something specifically relating to driving.

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

Well the lack of an indicator light would have been a posive benefit for me a while back. I pulled out while trusting someones indicator and it had been left on in error. Oops!! I've been driving long enough. I guess I should know better by now.