-
The Z Club relies on the support of it's paid members - join the club or renew your membership here.
New Log Books !
- Thread starter zpuppy
- Start date
Phoned DVLA to enquire and was told "we dont care who owns the vehicle" 
Throttleton
Well-Known Forum User
Your name on the logbook is not proof of ownership neither is it proof of being a registered owner. It has been like that for a long time.
The document states 'who is the registered keeper'. You can 'own' a car and have the log book in someone elses name who is the registered keeper!
It is without doubt a system designed to catch people out but has big advantages when it comes to grey areas.
I will explain as it is still the law today and if any busybodies are reading they know allready.
Everyone thinks that the car needs to be insured rather than the person....it doesn't.
If you have a car insured fully comp and can drive another car 3rd party on that insurance belonging to someone else then the other car that you drive does not have to have any insurance what so ever!
Before the insurance guys and the coppers reading this start disagreeing............
The 2nd car you are driving has been stopped by the police as uninsured by the clever data base they have, it has no insurance.. but you are insured to drive any other vehicle etc....
The old bill fume at this and possibly rightly so.
The law states you can drive any other vehicle 3rd party providing it does not belong to you.
The sticky point is you have to be in the vehicle for 3rd party law to be valid...if you leave the car on a public highway and get out of the car you are then in charge of an uninsured vehicle!!
Bizzare but true.
The document states 'who is the registered keeper'. You can 'own' a car and have the log book in someone elses name who is the registered keeper!
It is without doubt a system designed to catch people out but has big advantages when it comes to grey areas.
I will explain as it is still the law today and if any busybodies are reading they know allready.
Everyone thinks that the car needs to be insured rather than the person....it doesn't.
If you have a car insured fully comp and can drive another car 3rd party on that insurance belonging to someone else then the other car that you drive does not have to have any insurance what so ever!
Before the insurance guys and the coppers reading this start disagreeing............
The 2nd car you are driving has been stopped by the police as uninsured by the clever data base they have, it has no insurance.. but you are insured to drive any other vehicle etc....
The old bill fume at this and possibly rightly so.
The law states you can drive any other vehicle 3rd party providing it does not belong to you.
The sticky point is you have to be in the vehicle for 3rd party law to be valid...if you leave the car on a public highway and get out of the car you are then in charge of an uninsured vehicle!!
Bizzare but true.
tel240z
Club Member
Er not quite right there Craig if a vehicle is taxed it has to be insured and on the MID database or a fine will be in the post for the registered keeper, even myself i have to inform the mid for any stock cars i have within 14 days on my trade policy, although i must admit that i have no idea if when i drive a customers car if it is insured or not so i always have a copy of my traders policy with me, also i thought that driving another vehicle on your own policy required that vehicle to be insured renember the old trick buy yourself a V12 jag put in your mates name get yourself a mini 850 insure it for 100 quid then terrorise the locals
it didn't workThrottleton
Well-Known Forum User
That must be a newish law is it Tel240 ,about if a car is taxed it has to be insured?
I know I managed to get away with it last summer.
I was stopped by the police driving a car with no insurance at all, on the morning of the case I took my car insurance to the court before the hearing and they told me to go to the police station with my insurance and get it stamped, took it back to court and that was that, they cancelled the hearing!!
Sounds like it's different now though??
I know I managed to get away with it last summer.
I was stopped by the police driving a car with no insurance at all, on the morning of the case I took my car insurance to the court before the hearing and they told me to go to the police station with my insurance and get it stamped, took it back to court and that was that, they cancelled the hearing!!
Sounds like it's different now though??
Gio
Well-Known Forum User
The Motor Insurance Database (MID) : Directgov - Motoring
"All insurers must provide details of your motor insurance policy to the MID. It’s no longer enough just to be insured, all vehicles must be listed on the MID."
"All insurers must provide details of your motor insurance policy to the MID. It’s no longer enough just to be insured, all vehicles must be listed on the MID."
Regarding insurance and driving other persons vehicles, sorry but the vehicle must have prior insurance.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696
Therefore, in order to drive someone elses vehicle (legally) on a public highway on your insurance, it has to have an existing keeper who is insured with a stand alone policy which is registered on the NIDB, otherwise the registered keeper is breaking the law (all vehicles not on sorn must be on the insured database)
In the fine print of my insurance policy it clearly states that I may drive another vehicle with 3rd party cover on condition that I have permission and that the vehicle has current policy against it from the registered keeper.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696
Direct Gov said:
Therefore, in order to drive someone elses vehicle (legally) on a public highway on your insurance, it has to have an existing keeper who is insured with a stand alone policy which is registered on the NIDB, otherwise the registered keeper is breaking the law (all vehicles not on sorn must be on the insured database)
In the fine print of my insurance policy it clearly states that I may drive another vehicle with 3rd party cover on condition that I have permission and that the vehicle has current policy against it from the registered keeper.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gio
Well-Known Forum User
Good point, Ashwood. Clearly someone's breaking the law but is it the driver? If I drive someone else's car on my insurance but that someone else hasn't insured it or SORNed it, I can see that someone else is breaking the law (either no insurance or not SORNed) but am I? And in that case, is my insurance valid?
The registered keeper would definitely be in trouble (failing to correctly register SORN or insure a vehicle) however technically you could be as well because under road traffic law the driver of the vehicle is duty bound to ensure that the vehicle is road legal (although this normally applies to road worthy)....it all depends on the copper that nicks you or how thorough the insurance company is when you make a claim.
Utlimately your insurance could be deemed invalid as the vehicle doesnt comply with the law.....anyone want to put it to the test.
Last edited by a moderator:
Throttleton
Well-Known Forum User
Well like I said I put it to the test last year when it was legal to drive a car with tax,mot but no insurance under your own insurance (3rd party). and was fine ,allthough you couldn't exit the car on a public highway, as once you left the vehicle it had no insurance once you leave the seat.
As of the date of the new rules,20 June 20011 you now can't do that.
From what I can see this has fock all to do with robbers,thiefs and otherwise dodgy boys avoiding insurance but is another trap to fine normal people.
Now I can't borrow a mates car which is taxed and mot'd but with no ins. and use my ins. 3rd party!
All this seems to do is make life more difficult for decent people and the bad boys just drive anything and don't give a fock anyway.
How does that help.
The real dodgy boys have cars that are not even 'cars' as far as the dvla are concerned.
So data base or not the fuzz have to actually clock the car in real life to make a conviction. *****...
As of the date of the new rules,20 June 20011 you now can't do that.
From what I can see this has fock all to do with robbers,thiefs and otherwise dodgy boys avoiding insurance but is another trap to fine normal people.
Now I can't borrow a mates car which is taxed and mot'd but with no ins. and use my ins. 3rd party!
All this seems to do is make life more difficult for decent people and the bad boys just drive anything and don't give a fock anyway.
How does that help.
The real dodgy boys have cars that are not even 'cars' as far as the dvla are concerned.
So data base or not the fuzz have to actually clock the car in real life to make a conviction. *****...