Dealing With a Car thats off the road.

No. And the garage don't "cover" you for driving without tax. It's just the law that allows it, provided it's insured and booked in for an MOT.

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."

There is no need to have insurance, mot or tax to sell the vehicle, however the lack of mot will cut the value dramatically. You may not drive without insurance. You could ask the mot garage to collect, they will have insurance and the booking of an mot will cover tax to the mot station. get them to deliver back and advertise it. Any buyers will need their own insurance to testdrive it. The chances of it being noticed for no tax on a test drive are very slim. Once the car is sold, make sure you complete the paperwork correctly and the car is the new owners responsibility from then on. Send the V5 off by registered post to dvla. Only accept cash for payment.

mrcheerful

Might be easiest to get a mate to drive it to the garage for a pre-booked MOT. As long as their insurance covers him/her to drive other cars not belonging....etc. Mike.

Mike G was seen penning the following ode to ... whatever:

I would advise you to phone your insurance company before doing something like this - you'll probably find that you're insured to drive other people's cars *provided that the car is insured by its current owner*.

So just driving a car that doesn't belong to you and isn't insured may still get you into a lot of trouble...

Correct.

This has come up many times before. In many years of motoring, with many different ins Co's, I have never had such a condition imposed for driving other cars. I have 2 policies at present. Neither have such a clause.

From previous posts within these n/groups, it would appear that my experience is shared by many others, so I would say the probability is exactly the contrary of what you suggest.

Having said that, I accept that some ins Co's might have such a condition, so your advice to check makes good sense. It would also appear that ringing the insurance Co, might not be the best way to find out. Replies often come from clerks who are not qualified to give the correct answer, so ask for an answer from someone in their legal department.

The policy should include the clause if such a condition is in force. I would suggest reading the policy is the easiest way to check if ones personal ins cover has such a clause. Mike.

In news: snipped-for-privacy@nermal.unix-consult.com, Timo Geusch decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

I've never *ever* seen this clause on an insurance policy, people have been on about it for years but I've never actually seen it.

I'm beginning to think it's Urban Legend.

Pete M was seen penning the following ode to ... whatever:

If it is, then at least three separate customer service supervisors - not the actual customer service "agents" at Norwich Union's call centre (UK, not India) got it wrong.

All three of them independently confirmed the above, and *all* of them pointed out that the reason for this clause is so people would not register their second/third/whatever cars as a mate's or wife's and then drive around on their primary car's insurance. All of them also agreed that it made it almost impossible to test drive a car that was off the road and not insured.

So it certainly wasn't something that the bloke down at the pub told me after a few pints...

Yes, but common sense does seem to dictate the opposite. Like someone mentioned a while back - if I borrow my mate's car, driving on the 3rd party extension of my policy, and crash it, my insurance would pay up, as I was covered by my insurance to drive it, and not named on my mate's policy. Simple.

Also, a mate of mine got done for driving a car with no tax or MOT. He produced his insurance docs saying that he could drive other people's cars

3rd party (was his girlfriend's car) and he got a £100 fine + back tax for the tax, and £25 fine + £35 costs for the lack of MOT. So you could argue that it doesn't need to be separately insured. As long as it's not parked 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."

But it seems a widely held belief. I'm sure the majority of those who hold that belief, have never actually checked how true it is for themselves, but are simply going along with what they've heard from an equally misinformed source.

One thing can be guaranteed. It'll be trotted out every time the subject comes up.

If there are insurance Co's that have such restrictions, and I've yet to be convinced there are any, they must be so rare as to be almost non-existant. Mike.

Exactly the point I made in my second post. It seems such a widely held belief that even those in ins Co's offices get it wrong. That is why I advised speaking to someone in their legal dep't. Customer service staff are not qualified to give definitive answers to such questions.

You're not permitted to 'drive around' in a borrowed car on your own insurance anyway. The concession allowing the policyholder to drive a car not belonging to them etc, is specifically limited to occasional use. Driving a car to an MOT station is just such an occasion.

All of them also

Not true. If it were, maybe you could explain why I've never seen such a clause in any of my policies. Such an important condition to borrowing cars would certainly be in the policy if it were indeed true, as the policy represents the contract between the insured and the ins Co.

Futhermore I've never heard of a case where a motorist has been convicted of driving a borrowed car without insurance, because the borrowed car is not insured by it's owner.

I suggest you check again. This time with the insurance Co's legal dep't, and if they say it is indeed true, ask them to tell you where it says that in your policy. I'd put money on your policy not having such a 'driving a borrowed car' condition. Mike.

When I was younger my father said he didn't think I'd be insured to drive somebody else's non-insured car, so worrying more about gettting into trouble with the law rather than with the insurance company I went to the police station and asked them. They said if the insurance says I'm covered then I'm covered. I've never seen a clause that the car must be also be insured by someone else.

If you have insurance on another car maybe you can get it switched temporarily.

SAys it on mine.

I hold that belief. I checked it in the policy documentation. Insured with NIG Skandia through Hill House Hammond.

im a bit confused, is this about your own car isn allowing you to drive other cars with permission? all mine have allowed that at least over years or so now.

The message from "JULIAN HALES" contains these words:

It's about your insurance not covering you for other vehicles unless that vehicle is insured in its own right somehow.

I wondered when you were going to join the debate. :-) Any chance of emailing me with the actual wording? Never having come across it, I'd be interested in what the policy actually says.

I've never denied the possibility of an ins Co's having such a condition, but IME and that of others apparently, the majority do not. Therefore it should not be stated as the norm. As it certainly isn't.

The chances are that most policyholders _are_ insured to drive a car not insured by it's keeper, but even before you saying that your policy does not allow it. If asked specifically, I would still have advised they carefully read their policies terms and conditions. Mike.

I'll have a hunt around for it.

Absolutely. Other things which your policy may or may not allow is driving of vans on it. Mine doesn't allow for driving anything other than cars or car derived vans. Trannies are out.

Right...

It would appear that last year I couldn't drive a vehicle unless it was insured in its own right and this year I can. Bugger. Wish I'd known this in August...ah well.

When I renewed my insurance in June I didn't actually look at the book this time as it looked pretty much like the last one. Looking at the HHH policy I'm insured with Equity Red Star this year who it would seem DO allow it whereas the past two years I've been covered by NIG Skandia who don't.

I'm sure I posted the actual wording one of the last times this issue did the rounds. Still, I tend to hoard crap like this so I'll have a dig about and see if I can find my old one.