Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Dog In The Boot Of Car
I always take my dog on holidays in the boot of my estate car. He is big but just lies down for the 2 hour journey. Now I'm wondering is this legal?? Can it be used against in the event of an accident?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Mike25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//I should perhaps have put ‘could be subjected to a £5000 fine, and invalidated insurance’, if the unrestrained dog causes an accident.//
You could have but it would still have been incorrect. Leaving aside the fine issue, there are a number of reasons why Third Party insurance cannot be invalidated and having an insecure load (or dog) is among them (RTA S148(2)(d) provides the details. In fact it would be easier to say the reasons why insurers are entitled to invalidate such cover as they are very few and far between.
You could have but it would still have been incorrect. Leaving aside the fine issue, there are a number of reasons why Third Party insurance cannot be invalidated and having an insecure load (or dog) is among them (RTA S148(2)(d) provides the details. In fact it would be easier to say the reasons why insurers are entitled to invalidate such cover as they are very few and far between.
//Amanda Stretton, motoring editor of Confused.com says that drivers don’t realise that driving with an unrestrained pet which causes an accident can invalidate your car insurance, meaning you personally having to pay out for repairs in the event of a claim, and you may incur a fine of up to £5,000//
The she's wrong (at least as far as the insurance issue goes). If she had read the RTA S148 she would realise she was. There are very few grounds on which insurers can invalidate Third Party cover. S148 lists the grounds on which they may not (and in fact an EU directive goes even further than that but it need not worry us here). The list included in the RTA under which insurers cannot avoid cover is this:
(a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,
(b) the condition of the vehicle,
(c) the number of persons that the vehicle carries,
(d) the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,
(e) the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,
(f) the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,
(g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or
(h) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.
Clearly an unrestrained dog would come under (d). An insurer may restrict payments under the "Own Damage" section of a comprehensive policy (if their Ts&Cs permit them to) but they cannot, by law, restrict cover for Third Party damage or injury.
Quite simply Ms Stretton is wrong and she is misleading her readers. But she's not alone because you frequently see publications which suggest something similar (the most usual being that having no valid MoT certificate will void your insurance. This is also incorrect. It will be covered by (b) above. In a test case about ten years or more ago an insurer argued that having no MoT did not relate to "the condition of the vehicle" and they were entitled to void a policy. They lost.
The she's wrong (at least as far as the insurance issue goes). If she had read the RTA S148 she would realise she was. There are very few grounds on which insurers can invalidate Third Party cover. S148 lists the grounds on which they may not (and in fact an EU directive goes even further than that but it need not worry us here). The list included in the RTA under which insurers cannot avoid cover is this:
(a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,
(b) the condition of the vehicle,
(c) the number of persons that the vehicle carries,
(d) the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,
(e) the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,
(f) the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,
(g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or
(h) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.
Clearly an unrestrained dog would come under (d). An insurer may restrict payments under the "Own Damage" section of a comprehensive policy (if their Ts&Cs permit them to) but they cannot, by law, restrict cover for Third Party damage or injury.
Quite simply Ms Stretton is wrong and she is misleading her readers. But she's not alone because you frequently see publications which suggest something similar (the most usual being that having no valid MoT certificate will void your insurance. This is also incorrect. It will be covered by (b) above. In a test case about ten years or more ago an insurer argued that having no MoT did not relate to "the condition of the vehicle" and they were entitled to void a policy. They lost.
There's so much written on this type of topic couched in terms like 'could' 'might' 'if' etc ,it's little wonder people get mixed messages.
https:/
https:/
//Perhaps Ms Stretton is referring to the part of the policy which applies to your own car and is using loose language...//
Maybe. But I doubt it. "...can invalidate your car insurance..." to me seems to indicate that the entire policy would be void. But in any case it is an important issue and it should be correct and clear.
//There's so much written on this type of topic couched in terms like 'could' 'might' 'if' etc ,it's little wonder people get mixed messages.//
Indeed mamy, and journalists should get it right. However, the law is quite clear. The Express article you provide is equally misleading:
"The strict clause is seen in Rule 57 if the Highway Code which states animals must be suitably restrained when you are driving."
No it doesn't. Rule 57 says this:
"When in a vehicle make sure dogs or other animals are suitably restrained so they cannot distract you while you are driving or injure you, or themselves, if you stop quickly. A seat belt harness, pet carrier, dog cage or dog guard are ways of restraining animals in cars."
There's no "must" (which would indicate a legal requirement) about it. It is advice. I don't doubt that in certain circumstances a fixed penalty might be issued or even the driver taken to court (but where there is no prospect of a fine being as much as £5,000). But there is absolutely no chance of Third Party insurance cover being invalidated for the reasons I have explained. I know journalists like to embellish the truth for reasons best known to them. But I really don't know why they seek to misled motorists in this and so many other ways.
Maybe. But I doubt it. "...can invalidate your car insurance..." to me seems to indicate that the entire policy would be void. But in any case it is an important issue and it should be correct and clear.
//There's so much written on this type of topic couched in terms like 'could' 'might' 'if' etc ,it's little wonder people get mixed messages.//
Indeed mamy, and journalists should get it right. However, the law is quite clear. The Express article you provide is equally misleading:
"The strict clause is seen in Rule 57 if the Highway Code which states animals must be suitably restrained when you are driving."
No it doesn't. Rule 57 says this:
"When in a vehicle make sure dogs or other animals are suitably restrained so they cannot distract you while you are driving or injure you, or themselves, if you stop quickly. A seat belt harness, pet carrier, dog cage or dog guard are ways of restraining animals in cars."
There's no "must" (which would indicate a legal requirement) about it. It is advice. I don't doubt that in certain circumstances a fixed penalty might be issued or even the driver taken to court (but where there is no prospect of a fine being as much as £5,000). But there is absolutely no chance of Third Party insurance cover being invalidated for the reasons I have explained. I know journalists like to embellish the truth for reasons best known to them. But I really don't know why they seek to misled motorists in this and so many other ways.
//...goodness knows what would have happened in the event of an accident with the airbag going off.//
The dog would almost certainly have been killed. Babies - even in a rear facing child seat - and young children should not be seated in the front passenger seat of a car where there is an active airbag because of the potential danger posed by the expanding bag. An unrestrained dog on the driver's lap would stand no chance.
The dog would almost certainly have been killed. Babies - even in a rear facing child seat - and young children should not be seated in the front passenger seat of a car where there is an active airbag because of the potential danger posed by the expanding bag. An unrestrained dog on the driver's lap would stand no chance.
Maybe Ms. Stretton is trying to warn motorists of the worst case scenario, perhaps she has some knowledge of something like this happening. I can’t see she has anything to gain by telling people something which is totally untrue.
Whatever the legalities of this, personally I would never have an unrestrained dog/pet of any description, in my car, for both the animals sake, and my own peace of mind.
However, as always, people must do as they see fit.
Have a nice evening ;)
Whatever the legalities of this, personally I would never have an unrestrained dog/pet of any description, in my car, for both the animals sake, and my own peace of mind.
However, as always, people must do as they see fit.
Have a nice evening ;)
There are many articles online saying the Highway Code tells folk that dogs must be restrained. The Code is explicit about its use of "must" or "must not" and does so only if there's a legal requirement.
Needless to say the Highway Code does not say folk MUST restrain dogs in a car. It says, "make sure dogs or other animals are suitably restrained so they cannot distract you while you are driving or injure you, or themselves."
Needless to say the Highway Code does not say folk MUST restrain dogs in a car. It says, "make sure dogs or other animals are suitably restrained so they cannot distract you while you are driving or injure you, or themselves."
I remember taking our border collie out in my 2CV6. I removed the parcel shelf and he used to jump in via the tailgate and quite happily sit there with his head poking through. I took him home one day and after a while the husband said...What on earth have you done to the dog as he had brown stripes on the back of his head...I'd put on the heated rear window..?......
Latest Posts
Should I Send This Card Or Not?
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles47 mins ago
