Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: BigSi on October 23, 2007, 22:01:31
-
How does this work? After not having much luck with selling the Jeep on the internet, decided to park it on a large grassy patch of ground beside the main road. If somebody wanted to take it for a test drive, how does it work as the vehicle isn’t insured? It’s taxed and MOT’d, but just not insured.
I was under the impression that you could (policy allowing), drive any vehicle under third party, but that vehicle has to be insured? :-k :-k :-k :-k
-
Yep, the vehicle should have it's own insurance aswell..... also, i am led to believe that displaying a car for sale at the side of the road is no longer legal..... and besides that, if it's on the highway, it should be insured, i know you saod 'near' the road, but who actually owns that little bit of land..... could easily be the highways agency......
-
Just remember the public highway is hedge to hedge... I would insure it just to be on the safe side.
-
I thought it was dispelled on here that you needed to have the car insured if you were driving it on your own insurance under third party???
-
The car you are driving has to have its own Policy, be it fully comp or third party, for your own policy to be valid to drive on.
-
No the car needs to be insured. If you are insured to drive another car third party under your insurance then I am sure that car can't be registered to you, & needs to be insured seperately too. Stops people owning 100's of vehicles & only one insurance policy.
-
I think the land is owned by the Council (minor road on one side, main road sweeping around the front, with hedge behind). I really can’t justify insuring it as the insurance company want £400, as my NCD is now on the Land Rover.
AF told me that unless the vehicle was insured, it can’t be driven on the public highway, no mater what insurance I have (even though I own both vehicles).
So does this mean that nobody can take it for a test drive? :? :? :? :?
-
The problem is, reading through the insurance policy i have here, it states nothing about the other vehicle being insured. It just says it cant be owned by or hired to the driver. Which means you can drive it on the road, but once the driver leaves the vehicle parked up anywhere on a public highway it becomes illegal.
So by reading that ii should think as long as the other person is driving it for a test drive then all should be fine??
Oh, council owned land is public land thus means it would need insuring to park there.
-
Wasn't there some exception applying to the compulsory road testing in the case of sale or some malarkey like that???
-
the allowed to drive another vechicle bit on your insurance is no longer a standard thing. who ever is driving the car other than the insured would need to check that there policy allows this.
i used to have the ability to drive other cars when the zuki was insured but i dont get that ability with puggys insurance.
-
if you have fully comp insurance (like me!!) then you are 3rd party on another car.
Rob
-
as i said above rob thats not always the case now! its not a standard thing any more
-
if you have fully comp insurance (like me!!) then you are 3rd party on another car.
Rob
Only if that other car is insured, MOT'd, Tax'd, not owned/registered to you & you have written permission to drive it.
Check with your insurance company first!! :D
-
Not any more, you only get 3rd party cover from a fully comp policy if it specifically states you do.
-
if you have fully comp insurance (like me!!) then you are 3rd party on another car.
Rob
Only if that other car is insured, MOT'd, Tax'd, not owned/registered to you & you have written permission to drive it.
Check with your insurance company first!! :D
exactly.
so my dads lambo.... nah only joking .... he wouldnt let me :lol:
-
If I drive a vehicle, not belonging to me, with it's owners permission and I am not otherwise unable to drive (eg, disqualified driver etc) then my own insurers will cover the risks required for me to be insured under the Road Traffic Act and to third parties should an accident occur. If I'm at fault, damage to the vehicle I'm driving is not covered.
This is an arrangement between my insurers and myself to protect me and third parties. It has nothing to do with the owner of the vehicle and is not dependant on that vehicle being insured* and gives no benefit to them. Moreover, it unreasonable of my insurer to require me to KNOW the vehicle to be insured - sight of a policy document is not enough to KNOW that cover is effective and that any terms impossed have not been breached.
However, as has been stated in the posts above, a vehicle that is uninsured in it's own right has no right being on the highway (from verge to verge) or other public place. I have no 'insurable interest' in the vehicle which doesn't belong to me, so, if it to be stolen in my posession - no cover. Catches fire whilst in my posession, no cover. Parked on the highway whilst on loan (not hire) to me - no cover (& as such offences are being committed.)
*EDIT - You cannot be insured and subsequently claim for the same risk twice without running the risk of being accused of fraud.
If your policy provides third party cover for other vehicles AND you are a named driver on a policy, in the event of an accident it would have to be the policy where you're a named driver that would be used to settle any claim.
-
As explained above, the vehicle you are driving whilst covered by your own policy under 3rd party risks does NOT have to be insured.
-
The vehicle has to have its own insurance policy... The reason I say that is because as soon as you get out of the car, Its an uninsured vehicle on a public highway. Every vehicle on the public highway must have its own insurance or be covered company policy.
If you park your car badly and cause an accident and you are deemed at fault, then there is no policy covering it. You cannot go, oh well my other policy will cover it. Insurance companies are on the ball and the claim won't go anywhere.
If you are issued an HORT1 (or Producer) by the local plod, you will have to produce a valid insurance document for that car, as well as you own document proving you can drive it 3rd party.
The other reason is the insurance companies are hot on this is they had a problem with the boy racers buying an old metro and insuring it, then going out and buying a Toyota Celica and driving it 3 rd party on the other car policy. Nice scam...
I think Insurance companies should make this clear as not everyone knows this. I wasn't sure until I spoke to a Traffic sergeant and he explained the rules to me.
If this was the case I guess we would only have 1 insurance policy, and save a fortune.
-
The vehicle has to have its own insurance policy... The reason I say that is because as soon as you get out of the car, Its an uninsured vehicle on a public highway. Every vehicle on the public highway must have its own insurance or be covered company policy.
If you park your car badly and cause an accident and you are deemed at fault, then there is no policy covering it. You cannot go, oh well my other policy will cover it. Insurance companies are on the ball and the claim won't go anywhere.
If you are issued an HORT1 (or Producer) by the local plod, you will have to produce a valid insurance document for that car, as well as you own document proving you can drive it 3rd party.
The other reason is the insurance companies are hot on this is they had a problem with the boy racers buying an old metro and insuring it, then going out and buying a Toyota Celica and driving it 3 rd party on the other car policy. Nice scam...
I think Insurance companies should make this clear as not everyone knows this. I wasn't sure until I spoke to a Traffic sergeant and he explained the rules to me.
If this was the case I guess we would only have 1 insurance policy, and save a fortune.
True about it being uninsured when you get out, however to drive it on TPO it does not have to be insured under its own policy, guarenteed. Read your policy details if you dont believe me, or ring your insurance company cos i'm 100% sure i can drive any car on my insurance TPO regardless of it having its own insurance.
-
AFAIK that loophole was closed in the UK thanks to certain people taking a massive advantage of it....
-
AFAIK that loophole was closed in the UK thanks to certain people taking a massive advantage of it....
I'm not so sure about that. Any limitations with insurance have to be shown with your insurance documentation and the stuff i have here hasnt been changed.
Boggert, you made the point i said earlier about the vehicle being uninsured if the test drive person got out of the vehicle, but for example, if a person went from private driveway to private driveway on their third party insurance as part of their comprehensive policy then they would be legal??
-
My friend runs an insurance brokers, and I've just asked him about it.
When you policy states you have third party cover to drive another vehicle the other vehicle must already have insurance cover on it. If you were pulled you can potentially be done for no insurance, and the owner of the vehicle can be done for allowing you to drive it knowing you don't have cover.
If you need cover for just a few days there are plenty of companies offering cover on a dailly basis. I used one for taking my Landy for an MOT, it was about £12 for a days cover.
-
As explained above, the vehicle you are driving whilst covered by your own policy under 3rd party risks does NOT have to be insured.
YES IT DOES :evil: ](*,)
-
As explained above, the vehicle you are driving whilst covered by your own policy under 3rd party risks does NOT have to be insured.
YES IT DOES :evil: ](*,)
Keep banging your head against the wall and you will find that the vehicle does not have to be insured. If you drove from a private driveway to a private driveway on your policy as a third party insurance then the vehicle is insured as it is in the possession of a party who is insured.
-
If you need cover for just a few days there are plenty of companies offering cover on a dailly basis. I used one for taking my Landy for an MOT, it was about £12 for a days cover.
Not if the vehicle is modified. Did try, but could not find any to insure the vehicle (only wanted a few months). :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
-
Try peter best, they did cover for a few days at a time.
-
I spoke to NFU about this. They said the 3rd party vehicle has to be insured by it's owner. Regardless of route taken. This form of insurance was brought in to be used in emergency situations...not for test driving vehicles :roll:
Maybe your insurance is different but that's what mine stated to me this afternoon.
If we could drive any vehicle on one policy why don't we?? ...because we can't!!
Anyhoo...I know what I can & can't do & am happy with that...drive uninsured at your own risk & remember they will not hesitate to crush the unisured cars driving on the road today.
-
im with jaimie on this one. and im with NFU.
R
-
Well its also NFU who say what you said isnt the case. As thats who the insurance is with.
Look through your documents, does it say that as a restriction on the ability to drive other vehicles? As the documents you recieve are whats legally binding.
-
You'd think that something as important as "to be covered by your own insurance whilst driving another persons vehicle with their permission, their vehicle must, itself, be insured.." would be included on the ABI's fact page. (http://www.abi.org.uk/Display/default.asp?Menu_ID=1140&Menu_All=1,946,1140&Child_ID=415)
I know that doesn't conclusively re-inforce the point I (and others) made above, but it's a start!
OK, so it's true that the original idea of third party cover for other people's vehicles was emergency use only, and it's true that it's been exploited by 21 year olds insuring a mini 1000 fully comp, registering 'their' chav chariot in their Dad's name but driving all the time themselves, and it's true that Norwich Union have stopped offering Drive Other Cars (DOC) cover - but MY insurer still offers it.
Please also consider that driving uninsured is an absolute offence, as such not being aware that you were uninsured is no defence. So DOC is of no use if the prudent driver has to insist on verifying a vehicle is insured before driving it. Might as well get added as a named driver & pay a small fee etc. Not always practical in an emergency.
-
You are quite right...it doesn't say the other vehicle has to carry it's own insurance.
It also doesn't state that the vehicle has to have an MOT or Tax.
However it does state various Road Traffic Acts & duty of care. Ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law. :)
-
Yes, but your missing the point, it doesnt say that it needs mot or tax, because these are required for the vehicle to be on the road in line with the insurance, but the vehicle is insured thus road legal whilst in your care as long as you dont own it or it isnt hired to you!
-
To my knowledge there is only one policy that will allow you to drive any car, even if it has no insurance and that it a trade policy and it should be accompanied with trade plates.
-
But the point here is, the vehicle surely becomes insured when the new driver gets in it and is thus insured third party???
-
But the point here is, the vehicle surely becomes insured when the new driver gets in it and is thus insured third party???
No, reading between the lines your insurance insures you against third party liabililty claims whilst in charge of the vehicle. Where as named drivers on a policy insures the car for those people & the car whilst it is not being used. A play on words I know but it's the best explanation I have :?
-
Hence the other point i made which stated that when the vehicle was unattended on a public highway after it has been driven then it becomes illegal, but whilst in the care of the person with the third party covered it is legally insured to be driven.
So as i say again, if the person with this entitlement drove the vehicle directly from one private driveway to another private driveway, surely no law is being broken as there is adequate legal insurance on the vehicle in the form of third party insurance? At no stage on that journey is the vehicle unattended so therefore insured on the total journey.
Obviously as has already been assertained on this one, the grass area the OP wishes to park his vehicle is public land so therefore would need insurance whilst unattended. But for actual driving the DOC entitlement on some peoples insurance should be legally adequate.
-
The third party insures you as a driver to drive the vehicle, not the vehicle to be on the road...that's how I understood it today when I spoke to NFU. :lol:
If it worked the other way round then we'd just have to have one insurance to drive any roadworthy car...It works the same when you go to get your road tax. You have to have an insurance policy that insures the car. You can't get it using your insurance & telling them your the driver!
I've got a headache now :( ...time for some whisky :D
-
This is what i have been saying all along, once the test driver gets in the car then its insured, but its not insured and thus illegal while no-one is in it.
-
But it's not the car that is insured whilst you are driving it under third party insurance...it's you. i.e. you are insured but the car is not. I know it seems petty, & a play on words, but the insurers will do anything to wriggle out of a claim...The insurers may/will ask for the owners insurance certificate in the case of a claim.
-
No, they will ask for proof that the driver is insured, not the owner. The third party insurance you get is only the same as the standard third party insurance you can take out on any vehicle.
-
But it's not the car that is insured whilst you are driving it under third party insurance...it's you. i.e. you are insured but the car is not.
No, they will ask for proof that the driver is insured, not the owner.
This is exactly the point; if the owner of a vehicle allows their vehicle to be driven by another person knowing that in the event of an accident they will not be able to recover the loss of the vehicle, so be it. BUT, where a driver has a policy with an insurer, that insurer MAY extend 3rd party cover to any vehicle they may drive,
This is an arrangement between you and your insurer. It's a perk, something to set them apart from their competitors (possibly).
Bottom line is, it's been exploited in the past and insurers generally are tightening their rules on this. There's nothing in legislation that says the other vehicle MUST have a policy in effect, but there MAY be in your policy documents (if you're covered DOC at all).
It's something I've taken advantage of in the past, and all the time that some insurers offewr this benefit, I will not give my business to one who doesn't.
-
Look through your documents, does it say that as a restriction on the ability to drive other vehicles? As the documents you recieve are whats legally binding.
That's not strictly true. It's the law that is legally binding ... and ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence in court.
-
Ignoring all the posts above, Jeep94 committed an offence taking the vehicle to the grassy knoll in the first place ~ unless he carried it there, of course :D
-
Look through your documents, does it say that as a restriction on the ability to drive other vehicles? As the documents you recieve are whats legally binding.
That's not strictly true. It's the law that is legally binding ... and ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence in court.
Yes, but those documents are supposed to be in accordance with the law, so therefore it wouldnt be ignorance of the law as you would quite rightly trust that the insurance company, governed by said laws, would have the documents in accordance with the law.
As it stands currently there is no real evidence for either side of the argument. As previously stated the NFU have said that both sides are right, once to L9000K and once to me. I remember last time this argument came up that our regular serving officers werent too sure on this one (even though boggert has stated something).
To the serving police officers on here, when you pull a vehicle and ask for documents, the insurance is for the driver to be able to drive the vehicle. Am i correct in assuming that (its been a while since i was pulled over). As stated in the insurance documents the only exemptions from the DOC entitlement on the certificate are "not owned or hired to under a hire purchase agreement". Surely if there was a part about insurance then it would say the vehicle must be insured as well??
It is a legal loophole, and one which should quite rightly be closed or clarified.
-
Ignoring all the posts above, Jeep94 committed an offence taking the vehicle to the grassy knoll in the first place ~ unless he carried it there, of course :D
Before the Boys in Blue come around, the Jeep is still at home! I was only asking the question to see if I could park it there in the first place! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
-
See the trouble youve caused now!!! Poor old L9000K has been driven to drink (although i dont think there was much arm twisting!!) lol
-
And to further support my argument!!
Many people assume that if they have comprehensive car insurance then they are automatically covered to drive other people's cars. This is not always the case. Some insurers no longer offer this cover and those that do don't offer it to everyone. The only way to know is to check your insurance certificate, which will state clearly if you have it.
One more thing to beware of is that the 'driving other cars' extension gives you just the basic insurance cover allowed by law. This is called Road Traffic Act cover, which is even less than third-party only insurance. The nub of this is, if you have an expensive accident whilst driving someone else's car, you may end up being liable for part of the other party's claim!
Also, when you park a car driven on this extension and walk away, it is no longer insured at all, which means you cannot claim for damage, fire or theft. At least, not until a named driver on the policy takes control of the vehicle again. Therefore you should use this extension as a last resort.
Taken from
http://www.fool.co.uk/insurance/information/car-insurance.aspx
-
And just for absolute clarification after just being pulled over whilst driving like that!
The traffic officer pulled me over for no insurance. I told him the vehicle had no insurance of its own and i was driving it under the 3rd part provision of my other insurance, and once this was confirmed everything was hunky dory.
Although the cretin did decide to give me a £30 fixed penalty because me front number plate wasnt fixed on the front of the vehicle!!!!
-
If you can take the time to point out the small print on your insurance, he's entitled to take the time point out the small print on the legally correct display of registration marks on your vehicle, and issue you with a fixed penalty fine for not doing so.
Why call him a cretin? You were trying to be smart, and he turned out smarter, lesson learned.
Next time you'll check ALL the small print, and make sure you're completely legal.
-
I knew it wasnt legal, but he could have given a warning to get it fixed and shown at the police station, and yes i pointed out the small print in the insurance document as otherwise i would be approximately 6 points and about £500 worse off when i was actually legal in that regard.
-
And to add, he was a cretin cos his attitude towards it all was exceptionally poor and i didnt quite like being accused of lying to him about my details. I didnt give the whole transcript of the conversation as i felt it was irrelevant to every other person.
-
Several people have raised the point that ignorance is no defence in Law during this thread, yet you admit to prior knowledge of the vehicle not being legal.
You are correct, the Police do have discretion regarding how they deal with offences. So does the bench at a Magistrates Court, especially when presented with mitigating circumstances.
The Police obviously felt that there was an element of premeditation rather than ignorance with respect to the registration plate, and decided that a caution was not sufficient, especially as you'd taken so much care to bring along your insurance document to present to them if you were pulled over as uninsured.
You can't really expect to have results to your satisfaction both ways can you?
-
And i didnt have the insurance document with me, he followed me home to get it.
-
So you were pulled over before the journey home was completed?
I think he wanted to make sure the vehicle would be parked on a private driveway at the journey end, and check out your insurance document, I think he was giving you the benefit of doubt regarding these offences.
I'm not sure all officers would take that trouble, letting you drive what he suspects is an uninsured vehicle to your home, and following you.
I think you've actually been lucky.
-
He had no choice, if he has no real way of checking with the insurance company, which is one that is known to them as not being able to check with as 99% of their contact is web based, then they have to go with the certificate as a back up.
The company in question arent on their database so cannot be checked real time like most of the companies. In that situation they cannot arrest you on suspicion of anything as they are known to not be on the database and thus the details are inaccessible.
-
jesus
-
really interesting all this stuff excellent thread
Could anyone tell me if it was legal for you to park up along side a public right of way either tarmac or unsurfaced on land that you yourself owned, without tax and insurance.
Secondly could you be done for driving untaxed and uninsured on private unadopted roads which have no right of way for the general public except the lanes or roads themselves are used by properties which share that right of way. Residents have a right to drive on the route, the public only if they can show a reason to be there. Would this apply to residents or visitors
-
Welshlaner,
If its on private land then as long as the vehicle is sorn it can be parked there, as its not on a public highway.
Same goes for driving a vehicle, i dont know about unadopted roads or anything like that, but i know that private fields and stuff can be driven on, again as its private land and not a public highway.
-
Welshlaner,
If its on private land then as long as the vehicle is sorn it can be parked there, as its not on a public highway.
OK the "case" i'am thinking of is a cottage on a "greenlane", its not one to get excited about just a unsurfaced farm track leading to a farm and a couple of houses.
In the deeds it clearly states the cottage owns the track, but it has a right of way over it an OPPA, next to the cottage is a old landy without tax & insurance parked next to the track, but not on it.
Now some "pain in the neck" now wants the lane to be shut to motorised traffic and wipping up some local opperstition, they have noticed the untaxed and uninsured landy and approched the owner saying its against the law to park it there has its on the right of way. However if the lane was shut then such laws would not apply. There is no boundary line or anything just a grass verge.
Its a bit like the poster who said he would park up next to the road and leave a untaxed uninsured motor, does the law make allowances for the owner of the vechicle if they owned the land.
Put it another way if the farmer was driving along a legal row ie a greenlane, but he owned the land would they be commiting an offence if no tax/insur/mot.
I've approched the owner of the landy& cottage, they don't want to sell, neither do they want the lane shut, seems after taking legal advice they would be responsable for the up keep.
-
The farmer in that example would still be prosecuted as the land still was a right of way, so therefore still a public highway.
If the untaxed and uninsured landy is off the actual right of way and on his private land next to the right of way then i cant see there being a legal issue. The only sticky point i can see is the boundary issue. How do you define where the right of way ends and his private land begins. Best argument there would be that the bit that is mostly worn through driving is the right of way and everything else isnt.
-
The farmer in that example would still be prosecuted as the land still was a right of way, so therefore still a public highway.
If the untaxed and uninsured landy is off the actual right of way and on his private land next to the right of way then i cant see there being a legal issue. The only sticky point i can see is the boundary issue. How do you define where the right of way ends and his private land begins. Best argument there would be that the bit that is mostly worn through driving is the right of way and everything else isnt.
Good point, some legal advice was taken but raised other issues if the road unadopted ie not maintened then the whole lot considered a private drive way although the pubic have access.
-
The farmer in that example would still be prosecuted as the land still was a right of way, so therefore still a public highway.
If the untaxed and uninsured landy is off the actual right of way and on his private land next to the right of way then i cant see there being a legal issue. The only sticky point i can see is the boundary issue. How do you define where the right of way ends and his private land begins. Best argument there would be that the bit that is mostly worn through driving is the right of way and everything else isnt.
I am not so sure about that bit now tbh, the more i think about it the more i think could be answered in court as it is his land and used for moving around his land.
That one i think might be a 50/50
-
just to keep this thread dragging on at the beginning someone said they thought it was illegal to offer a car for sale at the side of the road. Only if another car withineither 50 or 500 yards (can't remember which) is also been offered for sale. to stop homebased 2nd hand car lots springing up.
With regards to insurance there must be a valid certificate insurance on the car before anyone can drive it on their insurance. If you get a producer off the plod it says on the back, that producing your insurance alone is not enough and you must produce a valid policy for the car as well.
-
If the farmer owns the road, whether it's an ORPA or not, he can store and drive his own vehicles on his own land, including parking on the road that he owns without paying road tax or having it insured, all he has to do by law these days is SORN it.
These plonkers that want to close the route to motorised traffic have to realise that he is entitled to spread muck down both hedges of the lane twice a day if he wants to, it's his land.
Especially if they are causing a bit of a stink over his Landy.
-
just to keep this thread dragging on at the beginning someone said they thought it was illegal to offer a car for sale at the side of the road. Only if another car withineither 50 or 500 yards (can't remember which) is also been offered for sale. to stop homebased 2nd hand car lots springing up.
With regards to insurance there must be a valid certificate insurance on the car before anyone can drive it on their insurance. If you get a producer off the plod it says on the back, that producing your insurance alone is not enough and you must produce a valid policy for the car as well.
I beg to differ. This was confirmed by the police officer himself when he checked it out when i was pulled over. The vehicle itself does not have to carry valid insurance in order for the third party provision to drive other cars is being used as the vehicle is adequately insured for the road.
-
If the farmer owns the road, whether it's an ORPA or not, he can store and drive his own vehicles on his own land, including parking on the road that he owns without paying road tax or having it insured, all he has to do by law these days is SORN it.
These plonkers that want to close the route to motorised traffic have to realise that he is entitled to spread muck down both hedges of the lane twice a day if he wants to, it's his land.
Especially if they are causing a bit of a stink over his Landy.
Interesting cause I know of a case were a untaxed, uninsured sorn'ed vechicle was towed away on private land yet parked next to a right of way, an unsurfaced UCR.
Course the person complained, it was towed away by the council acting on a request from the police.
I've seen the place in question the exact spot, the UCR is tarmaced up to a certain point then becomes a gravel track but still a row, the vechicle for years parked outside a small house but off the track, still got towed away.
-
What was the result?
Police request to Council?
What possible right had the Council to interfere with a legally sorned vehicle parked on private land?
Sounds like a legal precursor for the NCP lot, but this time it was sorned!
I presume the vehicle/land owner is taking the Council to court?
-
What was the result?
Police request to Council?
What possible right had the Council to interfere with a legally sorned vehicle parked on private land?
Sounds like a legal precursor for the NCP lot, but this time it was sorned!
I presume the vehicle/land owner is taking the Council to court?
Sorry for not getting back sooner, I needed to check the final outcome
The incident happened in a North Wales town, a SORN'ed vechicle was parked down the side of a private road that was unadopted.
Police/local authority have the powers under new ABSO laws to remove any vechicle not showing a in date tac disc thats parked on the public highway and they did so. In this case a Police Notice of removal was placed on the windscreen, the owner noticed it and next day contacted the council to say it was private land. But in the mean time council contractors removed it under the new 24 hour rule, prevoius to that it was 7 days. The vechicle was deamed to worth less than £100 and damaged in transit current where abouts unknown.
Now the owner complained both to the Police and the local authority, both claim they were within there rights. He's been to the council and showed his property deeds which out lines the boundarys and the vechicle was parked on such, but to no effect. The person at the council (not got a name) pointed out they believe highways consider a right of way to be 18 feet and that included any private land.
The land was a grass verge next to a tarmac/rough road about 9 feet across, the other side has a brick wall and behind someones garden, before the properties were built that was a back lane running along these houses. Now its become, according to the council a legal right of way under some 20 year rule (implied use) but "unadopted".
I spoke to the owner not long ago, he given up taking any action as he been told the most he could claim is £100 and legal costs if he to win or lose could be more, course he is bitter as the motor might have been road worthy and also the council never maintained the patch of land, it was him who used to mow the grass etc
-
This is why this country sucks. Where your private land is no longer private :(
The other thing i hate is that if the council want to regenerate an area, they can force you to sell your house by getting a compulsory purchase order. So it means even if you own your house basically at the end of the day you dont :(
-
This is why this country sucks. Where your private land is no longer private :(
The other thing i hate is that if the council want to regenerate an area, they can force you to sell your house by getting a compulsory purchase order. So it means even if you own your house basically at the end of the day you dont :(
Its not just councils, any private developer can get planning permission to knock down your's and everyone elses house, then once they have planning permission get the council to enforce it and knock your house down to make way for there development.
Tesco have done it to get rid of businesses on land they do not own so they can build a new superstore
-
To my knowledge there is only one policy that will allow you to drive any car, even if it has no insurance and that it a trade policy and it should be accompanied with trade plates.
right, i got to about page 2 in this thread and it was going round in circles.
First rule is know what your talking about. I know pleanty of people with traders policys and believe me they would be very annoyed f you told them they had to put trade plates on their car everytime they drove it. Trade plates are for cars that arent registered or are not legal to drive on the road in some other way.
To my knowlege the 3rd party cover does not require thge other vehicle to be insured, otherwise it would say in the legal documentation, and it doesent. cant argue with that. you can say you rang up and the woman on the phone said whatever, but in court would you like to say that whatever you were doing was ok cos the woman on the phone said so? In the document it states you are covered 3rd party on vehicles not belonging to or hired to you. full stop. that is a legal contract which will stand up in court.
-
try this site to check
www.askmid.com
-
To put another nettle in the flower bed BE WARNED if you let another driver drive your car on the grounds that his insurance covers him TPO and he is not insured to do this in the event of an incident your insurance is duty bound to pay the claim as they insure the vehicle under the road traffic act and you will loose your no claims bonus.
Also seeing the policy is not a guarantee that it is currant and I think that only the police have the authority to check so be sure you trust the person is telling the truth.
Therefore if it is Jo Public come to test drive the car you are playing with fire.
Having said that I do not know the answer to the problem other than insuring it yourself and you are still risking loosing your no claims bonus on all the policies you have as if you claim on one policy you are legally bound to declare it to all the other policies.
The bottom line is no matter what happens if you are stopped by the plod or try to help out a friend you will be the one that pays.
-
I`ve got a headache :(mad):
-
I agree that the vehicle does not have to be insured. If it did it would say so on the policy. There is no clause number linked to the fine print. Regardless of what people say the police have said, what the insurance co's have said. If it is not written down on your paperwork then its bull!
I have a trade policy so dont really care anyhow. BTW I do not need to use trade plates unless the car has no tax in the window. I can drive any vehicle upto a certain value, fully comp.