Can you drive my car under your insurance?

I’m struggling to get a definitive answer to this, on Web or elswhere. My understanding, and another work colleague, are both of the opinion that you can drive my car under your own car insurance with my permission, although it would only be TPFT. I’ve heard this said so many times in my life I have taken it as a truism.

Now my other friend is saying that my car still has to be insured by me even though your insurance covers you in mine.

This query has come about because my ex’s old car has been sold and so when the guy comes to pick it up and take it away, (with her permission and sold to him or to test drive it), does it mean he cannot drive it away, covered by his insurance, unless she still has insurance on that old car which was hers?

Hope I’ve put that well...

 

Once she's sold the car to a stranger why would she want to be liable for any risks he decides to take. It's the responsibility of the buyer to sort out his own insurance. As she is no longer the owner of the car he is not driving with the permission of the owner (past). Whilst I know nowt about the legal side, this is just a common sense response.

 

Thanks Jackrae

What it is, she’s bought a new car and the old one has been sitting outside still taxed, MOT’d but uninsured by her for the past month. The guy will doubtless want to test drive it before handing over the cash. (He may say no I don’t want it yet). So, under these exact circumstances, is it covered under his insurance TPFT because he is insured to drive someone else’s car with the owners permission?

And actually, once he's handed the money over and it becomes his, does that mean he's not insured for what has just become his car?

Sorry, I knew I’d get tongue tied over this but I hope that’s better.

 

I think the law changed around 2010 which means that the car must be insured before it can be driven on the road, even if someone else is covered for other vehicles under their own insurance.

So to allow a test drive the owner must insure the car themselves but the prospective purchaser must also have insurance to drive any other vehicle (unless the owner has any driver cover). Even if they have Fully Comp insurance they are only covered Third Party to drive other vehicles, so any damage to the vehicle being sold that occurs during the test drive is down to the owner, not the purchaser.

 

So simplest and probably best/only legal solution is that prospective driver provides his own insurance for both test drive and purchase. I'd also suggest that before test drive he provides a receipt/affidavit confirming that he is driving on his own insurance. If he's unwilling to do so then that should raise questions as to "why not".

After all, if he's out "testing" and performs an illegal activity it'll be the the owners problem if they cannot provide suitable evidence to the contrary.

 

Yes I think you’re right Jack. One thing I know, there’s been a few people I know who have broken the rule. I’m sure it’s in all ignorance, rather than a deliberate act to flout the Law, but then ignorance is no defence in law.

The latest: I’ve also just spoken to the guy buying it and he said he “buys many cars” and said he's got Traders Insurance. So he must know the rules and seems on the up-and-up, just been reading about that.

So thanks, it looks like I was wrong on this one and shouldn't believe all we hear

 

Big Tone scenario you have described - vehicle taxed but not insured is in fact an offence and the vehicle can be seized!!

It is a legal requirement that unless the vehicle has a SORN declaration has been made to the DVLA then it has to be continually insured.

If a SORN notification has been made and then if it is later seen on the road it could be curtains!!

With regards your original query the vehicle MUST be insured in it's own right. I believe it is a strict rule across all the insurance companies that, if you wish to drive a vehicle belonging to another person, then that vehicle must have its own valid minimum of third party insurance.

However also remember you are allowed to DRIVE other vehicles that are LEGALLY able to used on the road. If it doesn't have insurance it could be argued it isn't legal.

A further problem can also throw its ugly head into the works. The operative word is permitted to 'DRIVE'. Stop and park the vehicle you are no longer driving it so it is uninsured and can then be seized by the police as being uninsured!!

Remember the driving of other vehicles excludes the driving of other vehicles in the family, such as a wives, as it can be argued you partially own it!

 

That's the salient part for me thanks Alan and, if true, dispels the myth of 'I'm insured in your car with your permission", as some kind of trump card.

I hope this is useful to others too because I'm sticking my neck out here as a bit thick. Well - it's not my forte'.

 

Don't think you have enough "IFs" in that statement.
Maybe it should read

"I'm insured to drive your car IF I have your permission, IF your car is insured, IF I have insurance or my own (If I'm not a named driver on your insurance), IF your car has a valid MOT, IF your car is taxed, IF your car is raodworthy, IF I am not disqualified, IF I am not under the influence of drink or drugs, IF, IF IF.....

Cor blimey, there are simply too many pitfalls .....

 

For a definitive answer, look at your own insurance certificate.

If it contains a clause "The Policyholder may also drive a motor vehicle not belonging to, or hired to himself" (or similar) then you may drive another vehicle on which you are not insured through the owner's or hirer's policy.

It usually provides nothing more than the minimum cover required by the Road Traffic Act, so be aware of this.

Since 2010 (or thereabouts) any vehicle not declared Off the Road (SORN) has to be insured, and thus the extension referred to above no longer covers driving a vehicle which is not separately insured. - Or that is how I interpret it. I daresay we will have to wait high-profile case(s) in the Crown Court/Court of Appeal for an exact definition!

 

Interesting Astra. This is precisely the scenario I talk of.

It's not SORN'ed but it has road tax and MOT. However, since she has bought a new car she is insured just for that; her new Fiat 500c.

Ok, you may say, what if the Mazda is trashed? Maybe foolish not to have it insured and she'd have to pay for any consequences, but not illegal so long as it's not on a public highway?

So I go back to my original question....

It's still wooly, I think, and I wouldn't personally blame someone for falling foul of the law on this, so far...

 

WRONG!!! Read the quote I posted above.

That quote was from the Motor Insurance Bureau. Have a look here:
http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/Continuous+Insurance+Enforcement/default.htm

Read the first line

By not insuring the vehicle the registered owner is making themselves liable for a fine of up to £1,000 and/or seizure of the vehicle. It DOES NOT have to be taken off the driveway for these penalties to be given.

Unused vehicles, even on private driveways MUST be insured or subject to a SORN notice. That IS the law.

It therefore follows from that that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for someone to legally drive a vehicle, on their insurance, if the vehicle being driven was not insured in its own right since it is ILLEGAL to own a vehicle, unless a SORN notification has been made, without it being insured!!

The SORN notification would make any use of the vehicle on the public highway illegal in its own right.

If you think about it that, these days or at least from around 2010 (I think it came about), is the definitive answer and not really open to ones individual opinions.

 

So what all of that boils down to is "If you are buying a new (or old) car then you effectively have to either insure both, SORN the second so it effectively can NEVER be driven, or get rid of it at the time of purchase (trade it in or scrap it). That should maybe stop the blight of front gardens full of scrap vehicles.

 

One mans scrap is another mans treasure. We are getting too quick to throw cars away these days. Thankfully the DVLA have finally seen some sense and you no longer have to SORN every year.

A note on SORN which have mentioned before and it was hotly contested last time but I know I am right.......The DVLA DO NOT actively look for vehicles that have no insurance but have current tax until it naturally runs out. If it is on the road it is the job of enforcement officers to find them, and that will get more difficult with the disappearance of the tax disc. If it is on your drive it is perfectly safe (unless spotted and checked) until the tax reminder comes in and even then you can ignore that for two weeks if you like a gamble.

Big Tone, the test drive is up to you to risk, he may be the type that will try to knock money off for not getting a drive before buying it.

 

The risk also must be losing the car if you just happen to happen across an ANPR equipped vehicle.

End of the day the various laws are there. Chances of being caught... Chance of an accident injuring someone.... (Remember registered owner gave permission for uninsured car to be used on the road and its obvious implications). As always your choice.