Don't get pranged by the policy shunt

crazy init ?? you are the driver but if there is an accident because of the way you parked the owner gets the bullet,,,, so why do the driver need insurance ;0)

Because he/she might not be insured to drive it through the owner's insurance.

Peter

That shouldn't be the case as far as parking tickets go. I had one from the local council for a car I'd lent to a friend. I just wrote to them (as per the letter) with the details of the driver of the car at the time, as it wasn't me. But then, parking tickets are a completely different kettle of fish to driving offences.

I know what you mean, but you've got person B confused with person A!

Basically, all they need to do is to be selective about who they give the "3rd party on any car" entitlement to - rather than just give it on all fully comp policies, or to all drivers over 21/25/whatever, they should assess it on an individual basis, and perhaps only give it to drivers with 3 points or less, and with no claims in the last 5 years, or something like that.

Then they could quite simply have things as before, and have traffic wardens somehow checking that cars are insured by doing ANPR-style checks on all cars parked on a public road. Mind you, that would be a major headache for traffic wardens. They could just leave it to the traffic cops, who would pull over cars not down as being insured, to check them out.

Peter

I've got a funny feeling that the owner of the car can't be considered as a third party in a situation like this - only other parties directly involved in the accident.

Peter

Of course there is a big difference to the way the Police/law views a situation and the way insurance companies view their liability.

I can think of a grey area though - you are driving your mate's car (which _is_ insured in it's own right) on the 3rd party extension on _your_ insurance. You pull up a the side of the road (where parking is permitted) in order to go and buy a paper. You've applied the handbrake but the engine is still running, when a vehicle approaching from behind clips the back of your car and pushes it into the car in front, but drives off and you don't get it's number. Which insurance company os liable? You can bet that yours would say the vehicle was parked so therefore the owner's was liable, and his would say that you were driving so it's yours is liable. Imagine if it involved serious personal injury, e.g. the driver in front was getting something out of his boot and had both his legs badly smashed, where the claim could run into serious money.

OK, so the person that collided with your car is liable but, if they can't be traced, I believe (though IANAL) that the owner of the vehicle that yours hit could claim off you, even though the accident wasn't your fault.

Parish

Oh dear. It still needed to be insured as it was parked in a place accessible to the public.

But I'll bet that if the mate you grassed up :-) had said that he wasn't driving, they would be after you - no way they are going to miss out in the revenue - so you'd be in the situation of having to prove your innocence.

Indeed, but that's why the situation, especially as far as your insurance company is concerned, is unambiguous.

Duh!

Fair enough, but if it is a condition that the vehicle must be insured in it's own right then that should be included in the "The Policyholder who may also drive...." clause on the *certificate*.

Come to think of it, surely they *must* have to put it on the certificate as that is the only insurance doc the Police want to see so, if they do require the vehicle to be insured in it's own right and it doesn't state that on the certificate then you could satisfy the Police that you are insured when, in fact, you aren't - although maybe in that situation the Police would want to see both certificates (never been in that situation).

Exactly which traffic cops would that be then? There aren't any left once they've manned all the talivans ;-) Cynical? Who? Moi?

Parish

Parish

Conveniently enough, this situation should be ok. The letter was dated around 8 days before my mate and his wife emigrated to the USA. The letter gave me 14 days to reply. Everyone's happy. ;-)

Precisely. I was just about to say that before reading that next paragraph, where you said it. If this is a stipulation of this sort of cover, and it's not on the certificate, and the car was being driven *without* the vehicle being insured in its own right, then it would be being driven uninsured, and the driver would deserve the appropriate punishment. But if the police don't have that information to hand, then as far as they're concerned, the driver's done nothing wrong.

The ones on Traffic Cops on the telly. Surely that's a realistic picture of the amount of traffic cops out on the road, doing the job they should be doing, isn't it? :-)

Peter

Aye, true, but it would only ever come to anything if it caused an accident, and if it was someone borrowing it, chances are they'd be nearby and the police would catch up with them. Unless they did a runner, that is.

Peter

ROFL! although given the obsession with persecuting motorists these days, are you sure that they haven't started extradition proceedings? :-)

I bet you think that the Rovers Return and the Queen Vic are real pubs, don't you ;-)

Parish

It's the registered keeper who will have to produce documents (and/or name another party) if an unattended vehicle has has been left in a state such that an offence has been committed. Thus, I would have thought that responsibility for insuring an unattended car lies with the registered keeper.

D A Stocks

OK, I've 'phoned my insurance company, Fortis (I rang them, not the broker), and asked the question with respect to _my_ fully comp. policy.

I am covered 3rd party to drive another vehicle, with the owner's permission, even if the the vehicle is not insured in it's own right.

However, if I park the vehicle on the public highway then I am not insured and the responsibility for 3rd party cover falls on the legal owner.

Of course _your_ insurance company may have different conditions.

Parish

You mean to tell me they are not?? well that explains why their larger tasts like cold tea ;0)

Lucky you. I asked mine a few years ago the same question. The teledroid on the other end said they 'thought' it did have to be insured in it's own right, but when I pressed them about where it said it on the policy they weren't sure if it did. Didn't seem to have any way to find out either, even though I pressed quite hard.

I changed company next time round anyway (and most times) so who knows now...

No, 3rd party insurance is a requirement anywhere the public have access to such as supermarket car parks.

Wise move. The droid I spoke to put me on hold while he asked the underwriters since he didn't know.

Got to say that in your case I'd have written to them asking the question (when the phone call got that reply) and pointing out that they should have been able to answer it over the phone. If that didn't get a definitive answer a complaint to the ABI would have been in order, IMHO

Parish

I thought about it but I didn't *need* to know, it was only during a very similar thread to this one and I was curious lol ;-)

Hmm, the Highway Code,

but then goes on to state:

"It is important to note that references to 'road' therefore generally include footpaths, bridle-ways and cycle tracks and many roadways and driveways on private land (including many car parks)."

Note that it says *many* not *all* car parks but doesn't elaborate. This implies that some car parks are not covered and since the pub car park, and most others I've seen (and probably supermarket car parks), display a sign "This is a private car park for use of patrons only" suggests that these car parks may not be covered - although of course, patrons are the public.

The HC then goes on

"Some serious driving offences, including drink-driving offences, also apply to all public places, for example public car parks."

which again implies that some car parks are *not* public but, as above, doesn't elaborate.

Based on the wording I would say that council car parks are public, and pubs and supermarket ones are private but, as usual, IANAL.

I also wonder if, in the case of an uninsured vehicle parked on a pub car park (displaying a sign that it is private), whether the Police and the law would make a distinction between a car that is parked and one that is being driven, i.e. moving? I'll be seeing my Police Officer friend tomorrow night so I'll ask him (although at the time I mentioned in conversation that my car was uninsured and he never said anything).

Also, "many roadways and driveways on private land" kind of implies that the various Acts could apply to your own drive as the public have access to them - postie, meter reader, etc.

Parish