Hi

Last Friday I ran into a parked stationary car. The owner was unloading it at the time and he was lucky not to be injured. The accident was entirely my fault. The owner was extremely upset as the day before he had cancelled the insurance on that car to put onto his new car (same policy provider). The old car was due to be picked up for scrap the next day. I need to claim on my insurance but wanted to find out the position of the uninsured driver first - did he commit an offence by leaving an uninsured vehicle on a public road, and, if so, is my insurance company likely to pursue him to cover the cost of the repair to my car. If that is the case I would consider poaying for the repairs myself since the poor guy was a pensioner, was really shook up and was completely blameless.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks in advance.

Ooops . . . Yes, he did commit a very serious offence! Any motor vehicle in any 'public place' (and that includes many forms of private property) must have a policy of insurance even if it is standing still / disabled or immobilised. Even if all the tyres were sound, there was a tax disc, it had an MoT the biggie is the insurance and he would (technically) stand to get points on his license and a hefty fine if the insurers chose to dob him in by doing a search at DVLA.

Insurers generally do an overlap for literally a few pounds so if he had not asked for that he really was cutting it fine. I recommend such overlap cover to everyone as even leaving an uninsured vehicle on a friendly shop's car park let alone a public street could get you a hefty fine and points if discovered by an incident such as this.

As he is blameless (in terms of the collision) and you should not tell lies it would probably be best if you paid for the repairs and said nothing - you have to do that anyway either directly or by loss of NCB and it's not worth admitting to your insurers that you take random swipes at roadside cars!

The underlying problem for him is that many people have no idea of the current state of the law as the Road Traffic Act has been sneakily amended by everything from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, the Road Safety Act and even the Police Reform Act until it no longer resembles the text available to the public.

Hope that helps, Funforus

Sorry Mousetoo . . .

I've just read that over and it sounds a bit censorius! I didn't mean it to come out that way!

Funforus

I don’t believe the chap was committing any offence by keeping the car on public road uninsured. The road traffic act only states that the driver must be insured when the vehicle is in use. The Car MUST be taxed however. The pensioner could argue that the car was parked for the purpose of disposal.

There is a motion going through the courts at the moment to revise this so that a car must be insured at all times on a public road - but i don’t believe this has been passed.

I don’t believe that your insurance company will have any claim on this poor guy.

Smala01

I still believe that the old guy has not commited any offence.

Can someone please refer us to the relevent law if they know otherwise?

Smala01

Yes, you will find it buried and expressed in the most convoluted way possible in Sec 22 of the 2006 Road Safety Act which ammended the 1988 RTA to make it an offence to be the keeper of a motor vehicle that is not insured with certain exceptions but with the net result obtained by subtraction that it must have insurance in any 'public place' which is a very wide definition indeed! See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060049_en_3#pb7-l1g22 All part of the glorious plot to legislate us all to death!

KRs Funforus

Background was a famous case that went to the Lords saying that the RTA only required insurance on an actual 'road' thus exposing people to uninsured mayhem in all other public places . . . It is worth reading for amusements sake as it involves two guys roasting themselves in a car in a public car park in risible circumstances!

As soon as possible thereafter the muppets at the DfT put the gem I referred you to into the RSA, this avaided the scrutiny by interested parties that a new RTA would have involved . . . So, any motor vehicle in any public place must be insured or the keeper will be for it! This means that the old van festering at the back of the pub car park, historic vehicles immobile in museums etc. etc. must all be covered by an RTA compliant policy of insurance . . . as must all motor vehicles at race meets (yes, they are public places) etc. etc.

The muppet who drafted this was under the impression that the term did not include private property and, until recently the DfE actually told people that. Recently it appears that it leaked out that they had been mis-advising and folk like the motor sports governing bodies are now in a pickle as anything that moves in a venue has to have RTA insurance!

See: HOUSE OF LORDS, CLARKE (A.P.)(RESPONDENT) AND OTHERS v. KATO, SMITH AND GENERAL ACCIDENT FIRE & LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION PLC v. (APPELLANTS) CUTTER (RESPONDENT) v. EAGLE STAR INSURANCE COMPANY (APPELLANTS)(CONJOINED APPEALS) ON 22 OCTOBER 1998

KRs Funforus

smala01:

I still believe that the old guy has not commited any offence.

"Keeping a vehicle without insurance will be a criminal offence from 2009. If you are the registered keeper of a vehicle, you will be obliged to make sure that the vehicle is insured, unless you have notified the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency(DVLA) that it is off the road" Association of British Insurers 2008

will be a criminal offence from 2009. If you are the registered keeper of a vehicle, you will be obliged to make sure that the vehicle is insured, unless you have notified the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency(DVLA) that it is off the road" Association of British Insurers 2008

Can someone please refer us to the relevent law if they know otherwise?

Smala01

It's quoted above, I can't find anything that says it is dated otherwise than by the Bill becoming an Act and receiving the Royal assent.

In any case I the car in this matter was quoted as being on a public road and the requirement for insurance at all times on a road or highway (which includes footpaths and bridleways) has been with us for very many years!

I think the ABI has it wrong, mind you if what I heard briefed by a lawyer in conference a few weeks ago is true if they had have asked the DfT until recently they would have been given the wrong advice. You can see for your self that the wording of the Act is so convoluted that you get a headache before a coherent understanding has had time to form!

Anyway, if you can find something that says it doesn't apply yet I know a few peole who would be interested so let us know.

KRs Funforus

Hi KR,

Yes - I stand corrected. Thanks for your information and a very interesting case study!

It does appear that that an offence of "keeping a vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements" has been committed.

“Exceptions may apply where the vehicle is no longer kept by the registered keeper; it is not kept for use on a road or other public place or has been stolen. The exceptions apply only if a prior statement (such as a statutory off-road "SORN" declaration) has been made to the appropriate authorities as required by regulations”

“Under the new section 144C the Secretary of State can serve a fixed penalty notice on a person whom he believes has committed an offence under section 144A. The amount of fixed penalty is £100 which is variable by statutory instrument”

The original poster has got to weigh his £2k bill against involving the insurance and the old guy potential maximum fine of £100.

Smala01

I've just had an informal conversation with an experienced 'traffic orfiser' who tells me that the wording of the law as it was was easily 'interpreted' to construe almost anything other than vandalised abandonment as 'use'. The poster said that the owner was 'unloading' it . . . in plods view that could be construed as evidence of 'use' even if only as a store . . . Mind you I don't suppose anyone would have been that vindictive!

As far as he is aware the requirement is now there as it was briefed as part of a package to tackle users of bikes and bangers on commons and in parks though no personal experience of using it so no direct knowledge.

That was where I first came accross it in a briefing to a Community Safety Partnership, it think I remember that it is also stressed in the Defra document dealing with motor vehicles in the countryside.

A complex one this . . . more to it than meets the eye

KRs Funforus

Someone better tell the ABI! I would have been with you if I had not had the presentation I referred to. The more I look at the state of the RTA (or more correctly the dogs breakfast of bits of other Acts that slice and dice it bit by bit) the more I lose faith in the bureacrats and the politicians who sanction their activities.

From what I heard the speaker say the DfT are not able to give definitive advice on what they think their legislation actually means but simply tell enquirers to go and get legal advice - which the differs according to interpretation and whether the latest minor legislation about nothing much to do with vehicles and roads has been combed . . . All the result of this urge to micro-manage everything and everything about our lives I fear . . .

Strangely, the relatively minor civil servants in Northern Ireland have done a much better job. NI road law is clearer, coherent and straightforward in comparison.

KRs Funforus

You are right when you say more than meets the eye…

I double checked that the Road Safety Act is actual Statute and found the following very interesting information:

The Road Safety Act 2006 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2007

“The following provisions of the Road Safety Act 2006 shall come into force on 27th February 2007—

(a)section 26;(b)section 36;(c)section 40;(d)section 50; and (e)section 59, in so far as it relates to paragraphs 9, 12 and 16 of Schedule 7, (and accordingly paragraphs 9, 12 and 16 of Schedule 7).”

The Road Safety Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2007

The following provisions of the Road Safety Act 2006 shall come into force on 24th September 2007—

(a)section 14;(b)section 23;(c)section 24;(d)section 25;(e)section 27;(f)section 28;(g)section 29;(h)section 30 in so far as section 3ZA of the Road Traffic Act 1988 F2 has effect for the purposes of sections 3 and 3A of that Act;(i)section 31;(j)section 32;(k)section 33;(l)section 41;(m)section 43; and (n)section 59 in so far as it relates to paragraphs 5 and 13 of Schedule 7 (and accordingly paragraphs 5 and 13 of Schedule 7).

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?TYPE=QS&Title=The+Road+Safety+Act+2006&Year=&Number=&LegType=All+Legislation

Therefore although Section 144 (keeping a vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements) passed in the commons bill in 2006 it is NOT law, and you cannot be prosecuted for it until it comes in force.

Smala01

Wow! That's a very clever and useful search engine thingy . . . Oh well, forget telling the ABI and stick the unused cars back on the road then!

That is a really useful device, thanks for highlighting its existence. So . . . where does one go to find out what is projected to come in at some future date, is there another nifty database search thingy that you can recommend?

KRs Funforus