# Insurance question



## Scrim-1-

My car is currently sorn, no tax, mot or insurance.

Im looking at getting it back on the road but want to get the mot sorted first but could my dad who is fully comp on his OWN vehicle and is able to drive other vehicles third party drive the car to the mot station?

Cheers


----------



## WhenIwake

Im pretty sure in the strictest eyes of the law it needs to be on a trailer.


----------



## shinyporsche

I'm sure that'd be fine. If you've got an mot booked and you're on a reasonable route between your address and the mot station even the most mean spirited copper would struggle to find anything much to complain about.


----------



## StevieM3

Don't think so mate....sure the car without MOT needs to be insured on its own right and then you could drive it to MOT station for MOT so long as its Pre booked appointment.


----------



## Darlofan

As above a car with no MOT can be driven to or from an MOT station legally. So surely someone with insurance to drive other vehicles can drive it there and back.


----------



## Hasan1

No. He would only be insured to drive another car third party if the car is insured and with the owners consent. I think you can get day insurance if you look


----------



## StevieM3

Hasan1 said:


> No. He would only be insured to drive another car third party if the car is insured and with the owners consent. I think you can get day insurance if you look


Correct:thumb:


----------



## MEH4N

Im sure your dad cant as anyone who is covered third party requires the car to be insured by the owner. There must be insurance on the car unless hes a trader. 

You can drive it to the mot station without an mot but you would need insurance


----------



## SimonBash

StevieM3 said:


> Correct:thumb:


+1:thumb:


----------



## Pezza4u

I would get a days insurance, it's around £20 from memory.


----------



## Rayner

Pezza4u said:


> I would get a days insurance, it's around £20 from memory.


This. Insurance companies will wiggle as much as possible ime.

Other alternative is get your dad to speak to his insurance company but I highly doubt he will be covered as ppl have said the car needs to be insured and have owners consent the only time this is waved is if he has trade insurance as they need to be able to drive uninsured cars from time to time.

Double check with insurance. I know 2 people who have been stung by them when they thought they were insured and paperwork made it sound as if they were...


----------



## Scrim-1-

Thanks for the help chaps, where best to get a days insurance from?


----------



## Shiny

Unfortunately not one correct answer so far.... 

The car does not need to have primary insurance if your dad is driving it on his driving other cars extension, because it will be insured whilst your dad is driving it (or in control of it - which becomes a grey area if he is asked to step outside the vehicle). But that isn't the issue here. 

The car does need to be taxed to be driven on the road. It is currently Sorn'd so you have declared it will not be driven on the road. Before it can be driven, it must be taxed and insured (so it appears on the MID) to comply with CIE. 

You then have the issue that whilst you can legally drive to a pre booked MOT without an MOT, the car must still be roadworthy. Also, many insurers now include in their policy wordings that a valid mot must be in force. So you may find that whilst you or dad may have insurance in force, neither can drive a vehicle without a mot.


----------



## Saj

Shiny said:


> Unfortunately not one correct answer so far....
> 
> The car does not need to have primary insurance if your dad is driving it on his driving other cars extension, because it will be insured whilst your dad is driving it (or in control of it - which becomes a grey area if he is asked to step outside the vehicle). But that isn't the issue here.
> 
> The car does need to be taxed to be driven on the road. It is currently Sorn'd so you have declared it will not be driven on the road. Before it can be driven, it must be taxed and insured (so it appears on the MID) to comply with CIE.
> 
> You then have the issue that whilst you can legally drive to a pre booked MOT without an MOT, the car must still be roadworthy. Also, many insurers now include in their policy wordings that a valid mot must be in force. So you may find that whilst you or dad may have insurance in force, neither can drive a vehicle without a mot.


But the car cannot be taxed with a valid MOT, so you need to get MOT done, but you can't because you have not got tax.

If its on a trailer, is it still classed as on the road?


----------



## Mattodl

www.tempcover.com - they provide daily insurance.


----------



## Hasan1

Shiny said:


> Unfortunately not one correct answer so far....
> 
> The car does not need to have primary insurance if your dad is driving it on his driving other cars extension, because it will be insured whilst your dad is driving it (or in control of it - which becomes a grey area if he is asked to step outside the vehicle). But that isn't the issue here.
> 
> The car does need to be taxed to be driven on the road. It is currently Sorn'd so you have declared it will not be driven on the road. Before it can be driven, it must be taxed and insured (so it appears on the MID) to comply with CIE.
> 
> You then have the issue that whilst you can legally drive to a pre booked MOT without an MOT, the car must still be roadworthy. Also, many insurers now include in their policy wordings that a valid mot must be in force. So you may find that whilst you or dad may have insurance in force, neither can drive a vehicle without a mot.


So I can drive a car that is no insured what would happen if I crashed. I don't get it when ever I have taken insurance out I've always been told I can only drive a car that has insurance and with the owners consent


----------



## Shiny

The offence being committed will be driving a vehicle on the road that has been declared Sorn'd. 

Now assuming dad's insurance has a third party only driving other cars extension (that had no policy exclusions with regard to vehicles without an mot and that the vehicle is roadworthy), if dad drove the vehicle to a pre booked mot, he would not be committing an insurance offence. However, he will be committing an offence driving a vehicle that had been Sorn'd. 

There are only two solutions here, either a garage take the car for a pre booked mot on their trade plates (which is effectively a tax disc) and driving under their motor trade insurance, or the vehicle is trailered there with all four wheels off the ground.

Day insurance will not alter the fact that vehicle is Sorn'd (ie statutory notice has been given that the vehicle is off road and will not be driven on the road).


----------



## Sicskate

Just tow it, easy.


----------



## johnnyguitar

Shiny said:


> The offence being committed will be driving a vehicle on the road that has been declared Sorn'd.


Directgov.uk says otherwise:



> *If I make SORN does my vehicle have to be kept off the public roads?*
> 
> Yes. There is one exception - when the vehicle is going to a pre-arranged MOT test and the vehicle has valid insurance for the journey.


I seem to remember coming across this with the lady boss's Mazda - it needed a MOT but was SORN and checked that it could be taken to a pre-arranged test.


----------



## Rob74

For your dad to be covered on HIS insurance then the car his is driving MUST be insured on another policy 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Shiny

johnnyguitar said:


> Directgov.uk says otherwise:
> 
> I seem to remember coming across this with the lady boss's Mazda - it needed a MOT but was SORN and checked that it could be taken to a pre-arranged test.


Lol, you're right, I forgot about that bit.

In which case...

No mot / Pre booked mot = ok
No tax / pre booked mot = ok
Dad driving on TPO doc extension = ok provided he actually has doc, dad still owns his own car on which insurance applies, scrims car is roadworthy and dad's insurance contains no conditions in the policy regarding a valid mot being in place.

The vehicle will be flagged up on an anpr camera as uninsured so dad will have to explain to a copper he is driving on doc if stopped.


----------



## Scrim-1-

Shiny said:


> Lol, you're right, I forgot about that bit.
> 
> In which case...
> 
> No mot / Pre booked mot = ok
> No tax / pre booked mot = ok
> Dad driving on TPO doc extension = ok provided he actually has doc, dad still owns his own car on which insurance applies, scrims car is roadworthy and dad's insurance contains no conditions in the policy regarding a valid mot being in place.
> 
> The vehicle will be flagged up on an anpr camera as uninsured so dad will have to explain to a copper he is driving on doc if stopped.


Got there eventually so he will be fine to take it to the mot station.


----------



## bigmc

Shiny said:


> Lol, you're right, I forgot about that bit.
> 
> In which case...
> 
> No mot / Pre booked mot = ok
> No tax / pre booked mot = ok
> Dad driving on TPO doc extension = ok provided he actually has doc, dad still owns his own car on which insurance applies, scrims car is roadworthy and dad's insurance contains no conditions in the policy regarding a valid mot being in place.
> 
> The vehicle will be flagged up on an anpr camera as uninsured so dad will have to explain to a copper he is driving on doc if stopped.


So if I'm reading that right the car in question doesn't need valid insurance?


----------



## Shiny

The car will have valid TPO insurance in place, as it will be insured under dad's policy (provided dad definitely has DOC and it covers the car due not having an MOT etc) whilst he is in control of the vehicle.

I usually advise against it though as there are grey areas. If a policeman stops dad and asks him to step out the vehicle and sit in the back of the Panda car, it could be argued that dad would no longer be in control of the vehicle. If the vehicle had primary insurance in place, then this would come into effect so the vehicle would therefore not be parked on the highway uninsured. However with no primary insurance in place, the vehicle will then be on the highway with no insurance in place. Chances of being prosecuted for this are unlikely, but possible. 

I don't know of an cases that define how many steps away from a vehicle you have to be before you are no longer classed as in control of the vehicle, so it could be messy.

This kind of scenario was quite common place in the not sol far away good old days before CIE (Continuous Insurance Enforcement). Occasions would quite often arise where DOC was the only insurance in place, such as buying a car and getting your mate to drive it back home for you, or a garage queen that was taxed and not insured and your mate would drive it to a garage for a service or an MOT a couple of times a year.

But since CIE has come into place there will be very few occasions where a vehicle will not have primary insurance in place. The new law states that if it has tax, then it must be insured, so you can no longer lay a car up in the garage taxed but not insured.

I guess the only time this could ever arise is in a situation like Scrim's where there is an exception that an untaxed vehicle can be driven to a pre booked MOT.

I would urge Scrim's dad to thoroughly check his policy wordings and check with his insurers that he covered to drive a vehicle without an MOT on his DOC extension.

The other problematic area is that the vehicle must be roadworthy. It will be very difficult to defend a case if the car is deemed unroadworthy and there is no MOT in place. 

By far the safest bet is to find an MOT tester that will collect the car on their trade plates & trade insurance.


----------



## Rob74

I would ring the insurance company and double check as I was always told I could only drive another car on my insurance if said car had its own insurance. 
For the sake of a phone call or two I would be covering my back, might be worth popping into your local police station and asking them as its them who will be stopping you if its not covered 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Scrim-1-

I will make sure he checks his insurance policy over before driving the car, Thanks for the helps guys.


----------



## Shiny

Rob74 said:


> I was always told I could only drive another car on my insurance if said car had its own insurance.


To be honest, this is probably the "safest" answer to give, but technically not the correct one, unless of course a particular insurer specifically states otherwise on the DOC extension on the Certificate of Insurance (although i've never seen this before).

There have been discussions in recent years about abolishing DOC as it has been abused in the past (although not so easy to do now that CIE is in force) and also the police are sometimes misinformed on what it actually covers.


----------



## StevieM3

I called my insurance company a few years ago when going to take a project car down for an MOT and was told that despite the fact I had comp cover on my day to day car that let me drive other cars third party I could not drive the project as it was not insured elsewhere....same for my old man. We ended up getting a tailor to take the car down for the mot. Definitely advise checking with insurance company before letting anyone drive thinking car will be covered third party only.


----------



## Shiny

I've just had a look through a load of policy booklets (about 10) and this will depend on who you are insured with.

None of them gave any mention to insurance being in force on the car you want to drive other than Admiral (never dealt with these as they are a direct company.

Admiral do actually state in their policy:

_1b Driving other cars
If you are 25 or over and qualify under this section, cover is for the policyholder only and is third party only, while driving a private motor car within our territorial limits. Your current Certificate of Motor Insurance will say if you have this cover.
You will be covered for everything listed in clause 1a when you are driving any other car as long as:
■■
your current Certificate of Motor Insurance says so
■■
you hold a valid Driving Licence and are not disqualified
■■
the other car is not owned by you, a rental car, nor hired to you under a hire purchase or leasing agreement
■■
you have the owner's permission to drive the car
■■
*there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car*
■■
you are not covered by any other insurance to drive it
■■
you still have your car, and it has not been damaged beyond repair, stolen nor sold_

This isn't the norm, most policies do not contain this condition. So check with your policy booklet and ring your Insurers. If your Insurers say the car has to be insured, challenge them and ask them where it states this in your policy, unless of course you are with Admiral!


----------



## Scrim-1-

Shiny said:


> I've just had a look through a load of policy booklets (about 10) and this will depend on who you are insured with.
> 
> None of them gave any mention to insurance being in force on the car you want to drive other than Admiral (never dealt with these as they are a direct company.
> 
> Admiral do actually state in their policy:
> 
> _1b Driving other cars
> If you are 25 or over and qualify under this section, cover is for the policyholder only and is third party only, while driving a private motor car within our territorial limits. Your current Certificate of Motor Insurance will say if you have this cover.
> You will be covered for everything listed in clause 1a when you are driving any other car as long as:
> ■■
> your current Certificate of Motor Insurance says so
> ■■
> you hold a valid Driving Licence and are not disqualified
> ■■
> the other car is not owned by you, a rental car, nor hired to you under a hire purchase or leasing agreement
> ■■
> you have the owner's permission to drive the car
> ■■
> *there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car*
> ■■
> you are not covered by any other insurance to drive it
> ■■
> you still have your car, and it has not been damaged beyond repair, stolen nor sold_
> 
> This isn't the norm, most policies do not contain this condition. So check with your policy booklet and ring your Insurers. If your Insurers say the car has to be insured, challenge them and ask them where it states this in your policy, unless of course you are with Admiral!


Thanks for that, Im sure he is with hastings, will have a word with him when he gets home from work.

I usually would get insured first then take to MOT myself but i dont want to pay out on the insurance, for the car to fail miserably on the mot (im almost certain it wont).


----------



## Shiny

It looks like Hastings have the same wordings as Admiral -

_Where cover is provided by the effective Certificate of Motor Insurance, your insurer will indemnify you while
personally driving, with the permission of the owner, any car not owned by you or hired to you under a hire purchase
agreement or leased to you under a leasing agreement or provided to you as a courtesy car and not owned or hired or
lent to you by your employer or partner.

Your insurer will not indemnify you where the insured vehicle specified in the current Schedule, which forms part of the
Policy, has been disposed of or has become the subject of a total loss.

Note: Cover is not provided:
a) For loss or damage to the car you are driving.
b) If you are covered by any other policy of insurance to drive the car.
c) If the vehicle is being used outside the territorial limits of this Policy.
*d) Unless a current and valid policy of insurance is in force for the vehicle being driven under this section of this Policy.*
e) For recovery of any vehicle which has been impounded by any police or local authority._

http://www.hastingsdirect.com/documents/Policy_documents/Car/HD_Defaqto_Policy_Book_10-2012.pdf


----------



## Nanoman

Simple thing to do is get garage to pick it up on trade plates - the only other option is to trailer it unless you want to get into murky grey areas.

Shiny - I don't think I've read a policy booklet that doesn't state the other car must have valid insurance for me to be able to drive it TPO on my own cover. I also thought this was the law. Seen plenty of Road Wars where the police stated this also.


----------



## Hasan1

Nanoman said:


> Simple thing to do is get garage to pick it up on trade plates - the only other option is to trailer it unless you want to get into murky grey areas.
> 
> Shiny - I don't think I've read a policy booklet that doesn't state the other car must have valid insurance for me to be able to drive it TPO on my own cover. I also thought this was the law. Seen plenty of Road Wars where the police stated this also.


I've not seen one that's why I posted what I did. Must be some that do it. Would be good to know who


----------



## Shiny

Nanoman said:


> Shiny - I don't think I've read a policy booklet that doesn't state the other car must have valid insurance for me to be able to drive it TPO on my own cover. I also thought this was the law. Seen plenty of Road Wars where the police stated this also.


Most of the ones I checked don't state the other vehicle needs to be insured. This a reasonably new thing and perhaps more and more insurers will introduce it to reinforce CIE?

Those that checked which don't have the requirement include LV, Ageas, Markerstudy, Zenith and few others.

Aviva normally set trends and it is not in their 2012 policy. http://www.aviva.co.uk/library/pdfs/multi-vehicle/54535-NMDMG10249.pdf

I thought this may be a "Direct Insurer" thing, but have just checked Direct Line and there is no requirement in their policy either http://www.directline.com/pdf/motor/car-policy-document.pdf

This a new discovery for me to be honest, but having not dealt with likes of Admiral or Hastings, I wouldn't know.

It emphasises the need for people to check their own policies for anomalies though :thumb:


----------

