Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Car Insurance
Can I keep a car parked on the highway if it is taxed but not insured as long as it is not driven.
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dampdiver. 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 think we had quite a debate about this a few months back. As I recall it revolved about the term "in use". Some people believed that if a car was parked on a public road it was by definition "in use" and other opinions differed.
I don't think anybody knew of any specific prosecutions or cases.
I also recall that there's a move afoot to make it a legal requirement for a car (rather than a driver) to be insured in order to make it easier to prosecute cases but I don't think this has happened yet.
I don't think anybody knew of any specific prosecutions or cases.
I also recall that there's a move afoot to make it a legal requirement for a car (rather than a driver) to be insured in order to make it easier to prosecute cases but I don't think this has happened yet.
If it is parked on your land and off the highway there is no problem.
If the car is parked on the highway then it needs tax and insurance whether it is driven or not.
The police computer has a direct link with insurance companies and so can check immediately if a car is insured or not.By leaving it on the highway you risk it being clamped , towed away and then crushed
If the car is parked on the highway then it needs tax and insurance whether it is driven or not.
The police computer has a direct link with insurance companies and so can check immediately if a car is insured or not.By leaving it on the highway you risk it being clamped , towed away and then crushed
The thing is paul you need to be insured to drive a car right now there's no requirement for the car itself to be insured.
So the police might stop me driving my fathers car and say there's no insurance showing up on the car whereby I produce my policy showing that I'm insured to drive any car 3rd party.
No problem - but as Danny points out it's hard to get a tax disk without an insurance policy specifically identifying the car
So the police might stop me driving my fathers car and say there's no insurance showing up on the car whereby I produce my policy showing that I'm insured to drive any car 3rd party.
No problem - but as Danny points out it's hard to get a tax disk without an insurance policy specifically identifying the car
Hate to be pedantic but merely parking on the road has been shown in Plumbien v Vines (1996) is using therefore insurance is required.
Link
http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/pumb.htm
the third party element is something else that the police and insurers are addressing following the one person who turned up 30 times to reclaim cars that had been seized because the PNC/Insurers data base showed they were not insured.
The owners paid the particular individual to go with his insurance that included third party cover to reclaim their vehicles.
Link
http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/pumb.htm
the third party element is something else that the police and insurers are addressing following the one person who turned up 30 times to reclaim cars that had been seized because the PNC/Insurers data base showed they were not insured.
The owners paid the particular individual to go with his insurance that included third party cover to reclaim their vehicles.
If it's on the public highway it needs to be insured- I have been done for this in the past; having an uninsured and basically undriveable spares donor car kept on the road outside my house cost me a �250.00 fine and points.
That's an interesting link- I'm glad I just paid up and shifted it: it would have cost a fortune to fight it through the courts and then lose!!
That's an interesting link- I'm glad I just paid up and shifted it: it would have cost a fortune to fight it through the courts and then lose!!
I stand corrected this is exactly the sort of case that nobody could come up with when the issue first came up.
However in this case there is no MOT as well. The wording in the RTA referred to in the case says :
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act,
Now if a husbands 3rd party policy names a car and his wife can drive it under the terms of "any vehicle with the owners consent". If when the husbands policy expires, the wife's policy still covers it then the act of driving it is still insured to the same degree that it was before.
That judgement considered:
The definition of user in those statutory provisions obviously had to have some regard to the mischief which the prohibition was catering for.
So in my example wherethe car had an MOT and was effectively insured for the use to which it was being put rather nullifies that argument of 'mischief'.
All that not withstanding I believe this area to still be contraversial and that magistrates are advised that use involves a "degree of control" and that there has been a request for a change in the law for clarification.
You could try to appeal such a case as high as you liked and might well get it overturned providing you had an MOT
But who's going to spend that sort of money over that? and there's a very good chance that the law would change in the meantime and you'd be the last person it'd apply to.
However in this case there is no MOT as well. The wording in the RTA referred to in the case says :
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act,
Now if a husbands 3rd party policy names a car and his wife can drive it under the terms of "any vehicle with the owners consent". If when the husbands policy expires, the wife's policy still covers it then the act of driving it is still insured to the same degree that it was before.
That judgement considered:
The definition of user in those statutory provisions obviously had to have some regard to the mischief which the prohibition was catering for.
So in my example wherethe car had an MOT and was effectively insured for the use to which it was being put rather nullifies that argument of 'mischief'.
All that not withstanding I believe this area to still be contraversial and that magistrates are advised that use involves a "degree of control" and that there has been a request for a change in the law for clarification.
You could try to appeal such a case as high as you liked and might well get it overturned providing you had an MOT
But who's going to spend that sort of money over that? and there's a very good chance that the law would change in the meantime and you'd be the last person it'd apply to.
1 to 7 of 7
