Stopped at a checkpoint, car taken due to no insurance for no tax!

CiniO

1874 wrote: »

What Ive read/been told is that this is not allowed as its in a spouses car, it may vary from insurer to insurer, but that seemed to be one of the hard and fast rules.

Indeed it varies between insurers, but I double checked and got a written confirmation from my insurer, that I'm covered under "driving other cars" to drive a car which is registered in my wife's name.

Routinely driving a vehicle in this way looks to be exceeding the reason for the 3rd party extension (emergency) and the reason it will essentially be eliminated.

Who says that reason for 3rd party extension is emergency.
Except from insurers which explicitly state in in the policy (like example above), most insurers don't require it being only for emergency.

1874

CiniO wrote: »

Indeed it varies between insurers, but I double checked and got a written confirmation from my insurer, that I'm covered under "driving other cars" to drive a car which is registered in my wife's name.

Who says that reason for 3rd party extension is emergency.
Except from insurers which explicitly state in in the policy (like example above), most insurers don't require it being only for emergency.

Its been mentioned here on this thread, hence my asking for any link to the 3rd party extension in law (irish or EU), Id like to find out myself, I did a quick few googles and my search terms didnt return anything specific.
Maybe Aviva are applying their own rules arbitrarily and have no right to, but no one has looked it up to confirm, or because they are concerned they will find it is for specific reasosns.

CiniO

1874 wrote: »

Its been mentioned here on this thread, hence my asking for any link to the 3rd party extension in law (irish or EU), Id like to find out myself, I did a quick few googles and my search terms didnt return anything specific.
Maybe Aviva are applying their own rules arbitrarily and have no right to, but no one has looked it up to confirm, or because they are concerned they will find it is for specific reasosns.

That's actually very interesting point that you make here, to find out if "driving other car" extensions is something which Irish insurers are required to provide by law in certain circumstances, or is it just a industry standard, not backed up by any law.

I strongly doubt EU would have anything to do with it, as that "driving other cars" is probably purely Ireland/UK thing, which no one ever heard of on the Continent.

Sue Pa Key Pa

CiniO wrote: »

But you must admit there's something not right in that wording.

f.e this: This extension applies while the Insured Car is being driven within the territorial limits
and only to private passenger cars. It does not include vans, car-vans, jeeps with no
seats in the back or adapted vans.

or this: • the Insured Car is in a roadworthy condition and has a valid NCT if required by
law;

To me it looks like there are mistakes in that text, mismatching "car" with "insured car".

No, I'm reading that as "the Driving of Other Cars extension is operative as long as YOUR car (Insured Car) is still in a noteworthy condition." In other words if your car claps out, you can't leave it parked up indefinitely and drive another car.

Sue Pa Key Pa

The "Spirit" of the extension was to provide occasional and emergency use.
The usual wording actually provided for continuous use.
The current practice is to abuse the facility.
The future is that is will be removed or heavily restricted by all insurers.

Lockedout2

MortGoldman wrote: »

It's a renewal of a policy I took out 4 years ago. There is no mention that the car had to be insured otherwise, which was also backed up by the guy on the phone when the guards were talking to him.

OP the Garda or Aviva rep may have said that it was tax but it clearly states in the Booklet http://www.aviva.ie/media-library/MotorCare%20Policy%20Booklet.pdf page 17

The car being driving has to have a current insurance certificate.

So the car could not be covered by the third party extension so was being driven with no insurance.

AndrewJRenko

CiniO wrote: »

Why do you think it's appalling or not ethically right thing to do?

If system allows for it to be done, then it's a right thing to do.
You'd have to be mad to be paying couple grand if you can do the same for 1/5 of the cost.

You can't do the same thing if you're being honest with your insurer. And if you're not being honest with your insurer, you have no insurance - good faith and all that.

CiniO wrote: »

His mother didn't answer anything, as she has no policy.

He doesn't actually confirm this either way, which is why I asked the question rather than jump to a conclusion.

CiniO wrote: »

Him, as policy holder probably had to answer who is the main driver of 1.4 car, but even if he said it was his mother, it probably wouldn't make much difference.

Or he could declare him as main driver of 1.4 car, and drive it regularly (more than mother) to make this statement true.

I often wonder about this language of 'declaring' someone to be the main driver - you don't 'declare', you answer. You are asked who is the main driver of the car, and if you come up with a makey-uppey answer, then you may well be driving without insurance if the worst comes to the worst.

CiniO wrote: »

I moved to Ireland permanently around 2007, and got car insured in my name, with my wife as named driver.
We decided to get another car, register in in my wife's name, and we didn't buy insurance policy on it, but instead I was driving it under "driving other cars" extension on my policy, while my wife was driving my car.

All was above board, expect from lack of insurance disc, which is indeed an offence, but not heavily penalised if you get caught.
I thought it was worth the risk, and indeed it was.

We ceased doing it after a while, as it wasn't always convenient that my wife couldn't drive other car.

So just to be clear, you lied about who was the main driver of the insured car, right?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

The "Spirit" of the extension was to provide occasional and emergency use.
The usual wording actually provided for continuous use.
The current practice is to abuse the facility.
The future is that is will be removed or heavily restricted by all insurers.

I'm 15 years driving and the 3rd party extension is being used by people in various different ways as much then as now and it's been around a lot longer than that. Why do you think it's going to be removed now compared to anytime in the last 20years plus? In fact in recent years (in some situations) some companies have upped the extension to giving you fully comp cover when driving other cars - hardly the behaviour that would indicate the ending of the extension anytime soon.

A few people here who have a big love of thieving insurance companies appear to want to see it gone, even going so far as to say it's ethically wrong :rolleyes:(them big corporations we are forced to pay large amounts of money to are really deserving to be considered something that falls under the term "ethical").

Our way of insuring cars is stupid, or to the point we don't insure cars we insure people. In orther counties in Europe (excluding UK) you insure the car and anyone can drive it (no naming people or any of that nonsense), you can also easily (and for not much more money) insure multiple cars which is one of the main reasons people over use this extension - they have multiple cars and can't insure them for a reasonable cost.

I use the extension weekly to drive multiple different cars for various different reasons, in the majority of cases the cars are insured and in use by someone else but I've also driven otherwise uninsured cars and I'm perfectly entitled to do so.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So just to be clear, you lied about who was the main driver of the insured car, right?

Where did he say that? He could still easily be the main driver of that car also he just has to drive it marginally more often than his wife and in any case it's an impossible task to prove how long or often a person drives a car!

Seve OB

freddyuk wrote: »

You can't drive an uninsured car period.

As has been pointed out by other posters you clearly haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Period.

AndrewJRenko

Bryson Substantial Hamster wrote: »

Where did he say that? He could still easily be the main driver of that car also he just has to drive it marginally more often than his wife and in any case it's an impossible task to prove how long or often a person drives a car!

He said " while my wife was driving my car". I can't see any scenario that matches his story without lying about the main driver. But I did put it as a question, just to be sure.

As for the difficulty in proving the issue, are you saying that it's OK to lie because it is hard to prove?

sunnysoutheast

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

No, I'm reading that as "the Driving of Other Cars extension is operative as long as YOUR car (Insured Car) is still in a noteworthy condition." In other words if your car claps out, you can't leave it parked up indefinitely and drive another car.

I'll be confirming this tomorrow. The wording I find very confusing.

To me, at least, this looks like an attempt to restrict other cars cover under the policy to only those cars which the insurer have been told about. It's noticeable that Ivernia was much cheaper for me on renewal, maybe that's why.

I'll start a thread in the Insurance forum to stop dragging this thread off-topic.

CiniO

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So just to be clear, you lied about who was the main driver of the insured car, right?

First of all I don't actually remember them asking me about who was the main driver.
Maybe in case of policies on husband's name where wife is a named driver they don't even bother asking.

Secondly, god knows who was the main driver of the insured car.
My wife used it more often (f.e. 4-5 days a week) while I only used it 2-3 days a week. However my wife only did probably around 50-70km a week, while I did probably over 500km every week.
And who was the main driver? Even insurer wouldn't know.
Makes no difference anyway - They wouldn't make really any difference to the premium based on if I was main driver or my wife.

Additionally, you have to understand, then I was describing situation after I moved here, and I had no clue how insurance system in Ireland works.
All my knowledge came from citizens information, and reading insurance cert, schedule and policy.
If something was written there, I was going based on it.

If my insurer was saying in my policy that they cover me to drive other cars which doesn't belong to me, so for me it just meant that and nothing else.
I wasn't anywhere near thinking it might be non-ethical or similar sh1te some posters are suggesting here.
Why would it?

breakemall

I think that is many cases we only know if we are REALLY insured when we have to make a claim?

How many people actually read the "assumptions" when they take out a policy on line for example? I was taking out a policy with Aviva last year as they were the cheapest, and when I read the fine print before ticking the box (as you have to do to finalise the transaction) it appears that the quote was only valid if you did not own a second vehicle.

So I contacted Aviva for clarification, and they said it was not their policy to insure a vehicle if the proposer had 2 vehicles! I would have thought that having 2 vehicles should reduce the risk per vehicle because you can only drive one at a time, but not with Aviva it seems...

I wonder how many people THINK they are insured with Aviva, but are actually not insured because they own a second vehicle (even though this second vehicle has its own policy)?

Seve OB

breakemall wrote: »

I think that is many cases we only know if we are REALLY insured when we have to make a claim?

How many people actually read the "assumptions" when they take out a policy on line for example? I was taking out a policy with Aviva last year as they were the cheapest, and when I read the fine print before ticking the box (as you have to do to finalise the transaction) it appears that the quote was only valid if you did not own a second vehicle.

So I contacted Aviva for clarification, and they said it was not their policy to insure a vehicle if the proposer had 2 vehicles! I would have thought that having 2 vehicles should reduce the risk per vehicle because you can only drive one at a time, but not with Aviva it seems...

I wonder how many people THINK they are insured with Aviva, but are actually not insured because they own a second vehicle (even though this second vehicle has its own policy)?

I once bought a second car. Planned to keep my old one (still raging I sold it 10 years on). Anyway I went to get insurance, I was with Aviva (or probably Hibernian back then). The 4th would insure be right, but it was going to be a second policy. Fine. But they wanted to charge me full whack and not allow me any no claims discount as that was allocated to the other car. And there was a loading cause I have 2 cars no so double the risk I guess.

Make sense of that!

peteb2

CiniO wrote:

First of all I don't actually remember them asking me about who was the main driver. Maybe in case of policies on husband's name where wife is a named driver they don't even bother asking.

Come on now Cinio, that's bs and you know it. The policy holder would be the main driver. Anyone after that is referred to as the additional driver so it's not shared policy ownership.

peteb2

peteb2 wrote: »

Come on now Cinio, that's bs and you know it. The policy holder would be the main driver. Anyone after that is referred to as the additional driver so it's not shared policy ownership.

Remember that things are different when it's spouses involved.

cplwhisper

Driving other cars - extention to drive cars not registered to the
1. Insured(partner/spouse/married partner included) , owned by Garage/Rental car company or a company car - as permissions needed from vehicle owner themselves
2. Not a car that the insured would be financially effected/gained if accident occurred.
3. Said car but be compliant for RTA

Therefore other car has Tax & NCT (where applicable) and then insured provides the 3rd Party liability for use in public place

If Tax out then car should be declared off road thus SORN from Co. Council thus no use in public area is permitted
(Some insurerrs request other car has live insurance policy also in effect for 3rd party liability otherwise no cover applies outright)

Driver is responsible that any vehicle he-she drives is road legal before starting journey

Hopefully u come out not too bad

CiniO

breakemall wrote: »

I think that is many cases we only know if we are REALLY insured when we have to make a claim?

How many people actually read the "assumptions" when they take out a policy on line for example? I was taking out a policy with Aviva last year as they were the cheapest, and when I read the fine print before ticking the box (as you have to do to finalise the transaction) it appears that the quote was only valid if you did not own a second vehicle.

So I contacted Aviva for clarification, and they said it was not their policy to insure a vehicle if the proposer had 2 vehicles! I would have thought that having 2 vehicles should reduce the risk per vehicle because you can only drive one at a time, but not with Aviva it seems...

I wonder how many people THINK they are insured with Aviva, but are actually not insured because they own a second vehicle (even though this second vehicle has its own policy)?

What you mentioned it's a very big problem in Ireland in general.
Third party cover being legally required, but every insurer is allowed to make their own rules, conditions and tricks, so every driver has to actually take very much care to make sure they are always covered.
So many scenarios of driving uninsured is possible, that no wonder so many people drive uninsured.

One example being as you mentioned not reading assumptions or policy booklet properly.
But plenty more like:
- not checking other term and conditions in policy booklet
- forgetting to renew policy
- forgetting to buy policy in the first place
- driving on assumption that you're covered under "driving other car" while in fact you aren't for one reason or another
- forgetting to disclose some facts to insurer
- driving without being named on policy (f.e. friend driving your car back home after night out or something).
- modifications to car you're not aware off.

and millions more.

System should be as tight as possible not to allow anyone to be uninsured on the road. And plenty other countries manage to achieve this, simply by making third party policy rules straight and simple.

CiniO

peteb2 wrote: »

Come on now Cinio, that's bs and you know it. The policy holder would be the main driver. Anyone after that is referred to as the additional driver so it's not shared policy ownership.

That's assuming there even was anything like "main driver" clause in policy document.

I know it now - but believe me or not - as someone who moved to Ireland from foreign country at the beginning, I had no clue what possibly insurance companies could look at.
Term of "main driver" was absolutely unknown to me. It was beyond me, that private company like insurer could be cheeky enough to ask who actually drive's my car.

ohnonotgmail

CiniO wrote: »

That's assuming there even was anything like "main driver" clause in policy document.

I know it now - but believe me or not - as someone who moved to Ireland from foreign country at the beginning, I had no clue what possibly insurance companies could look at.
Term of "main driver" was absolutely unknown to me. It was beyond me, that private company like insurer could be cheeky enough to ask who actually drive's my car.

Have you ever seen a regular car insurance policy that doesnt have a main driver? they dont ask about your driver history and no claims bonus (which belongs to the driver) for a laugh.

CiniO

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Have you ever seen a regular car insurance policy that doesnt have a main driver? they dont ask about your driver history and no claims bonus (which belongs to the driver) for a laugh.

Before I moved to Ireland - I only seen policies without main driver listed.

ohnonotgmail

CiniO wrote: »

Before I moved to Ireland - I only seen policies without main driver listed.

this is a thread about a car seized in ireland.

CiniO

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this is a thread about a car seized in ireland.

But you replied to what I was saying which wasn't related to car being seized in Ireland.

ohnonotgmail

CiniO wrote: »

But you replied to what I was saying which wasn't related to car being seized in Ireland.

but it was related to a policy that you took out in ireland. You seemed to think that it might not have a main driver policy. which could not be the case.

CiniO

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but it was related to a policy that you took out in ireland. You seemed to think that it might not have a main driver policy. which could not be the case.

If it was the case, and it was written in policy document, I would have noticed that.
Beside, I already said that it was virtually impossible to establish who was the main driver, as we both (me and my wife) used the car regularly.

ohnonotgmail

CiniO wrote: »

If it was the case, and it was written in policy document, I would have noticed that.
Beside, I already said that it was virtually impossible to establish who was the main driver, as we both (me and my wife) used the car regularly.

One of the first questions an insurance company asks is who is the main driver. the policy will be in their name. If the policy is in your name you are the main driver.

CiniO

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

One of the first questions an insurance company asks is who is the main driver. the policy will be in their name. If the policy is in your name you are the main driver.

Then you can assume I was the main driver so.

peteb2

Aleena Small Wilderness wrote:

Remember that things are different when it's spouses involved.

It's not in the slightest. Policy holder is main driver. Only thing that changes is you could insure the car in your name with you as main driver even if car was registered in your spouse's name.

peteb2

CiniO wrote:

I know it now - but believe me or not - as someone who moved to Ireland from foreign country at the beginning, I had no clue what possibly insurance companies could look at. Term of "main driver" was absolutely unknown to me. It was beyond me, that private company like insurer could be cheeky enough to ask who actually drive's my car.

Then you should have flagged it with insurers that you were a vunerable customer if English wasn't your natural language and you didn't have full understanding.

It's not in the policy document. It's on the proposal for or statement of fact or quote assumptions. But you come across as a smart type of person Cinio. So I have to assume you are taking the piss or acting less smart to suit your own end here.

CiniO

peteb2 wrote: »

Then you should have flagged it with insurers that you were a vunerable customer if English wasn't your natural language and you didn't have full understanding.

Oh no, no...
You got me wrong.
I had enough English to understand all policy wordings and documents.
What I didn't have, was knowledge passed from father to son with knowledge like that eveyone knows that fronting is not allowed, or that you need 4x4 to two double axle, and other pub talks....

It's not in the policy document. It's on the proposal for or statement of fact or quote assumptions. But you come across as a smart type of person Cinio. So I have to assume you are taking the piss or acting less smart to suit your own end here.

I'm saying genuinely here new, and I said it before in the thread that I don't remember if there was a question about main driver or not. I also don't remember if there was wording about who the main driver should be in the policy or proposal form, etc... It was 10 years ago.
If there was, I surely took account of that then.

Sue Pa Key Pa

CiniO wrote: »

Oh no, no...
You got me wrong.
I had enough English to understand all policy wordings and documents.
What I didn't have, was knowledge passed from father to son with knowledge like that eveyone knows that fronting is not allowed, or that you need 4x4 to two double axle, and other pub talks....

You had enough understanding to know that insurance is compulsory in Ireland, yet you've previously posted in this forum that you drove uninsured many times because it was too inconvenient. Hard to take you serious on this subject.

CiniO

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You had enough understanding to know that insurance is compulsory in Ireland, yet you've previously posted in this forum that you drove uninsured many times because it was too inconvenient. Hard to take you serious on this subject.

Could you quote me saying that please, because I honestly can't remember doing it or saying that.

I could have said that insurance rules in Ireland often require or force drivers to drive uninsured, but I rather never said or did it myself.

Only episode I drove honestly uninsured which I can recall, was when I was buying first car in Ireland around 2007, and took it for a test drive - only a mile around Claremoris.
I pretty much understood I was uninsured, but decided to take the risk as I didn't see any other option.
Car owner (seller) when I asked about insurance, said that surely I was covered under her policy (I'm sure she knew I wasn't, but that's how things were being done then in the West).

After than I honestly don't remember any case I drove uninsured.

Sue Pa Key Pa

CiniO wrote: »

Could you quote me saying that please, because I honestly can't remember doing it or saying that.

I could have said that insurance rules in Ireland often require or force drivers to drive uninsured, but I rather never said or did it myself.

.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97501440&postcount=82

CiniO

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97501440&postcount=82

You caught me then....
I don't know why I written that, but I honestly can't remember driving uninsured except from example above.

But maybe there was something else, which currently slipped out of my mind... who knows.

Sue Pa Key Pa

It stood out with me Cinio because you appear to have a good understanding of the technical aspect of insurance, yet you fail to acknowledge that practices like that contribute to the mess we are in now.

BTW, you used the phrase "Many Times"

CiniO

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

It stood out with me Cinio because you appear to have a good understanding of the technical aspect of insurance, yet you fail to acknowledge that practices like that contribute to the mess we are in now.

Practices like driving uninsured - obviously they contribute to mess we are in now.

Practices like driving other fast car, while small insured micra in on the driveway - what can I say - it's a way people use the system, considering it's designed that way.

If system was simple and didn't allow for things like that, people wouldn't do it.

BTW, you used the phrase "Many Times"

Yes, I can see that I've written that. I honestly don't know why. Maybe I just wanted to exaggerate.



But once we are talking, please tell me - as no one knows car insurance system here as well as you do - don't you thing it is in big mess?

Firstly lack of obligation to be insured, which even UK managed to patch making insurance obgliatory on car which is not SORNed. So many cars are just parked on driverways here, and anyone can take them and drive uninsured.
Secondly all the mess with named drivers, causing anyone else than policy holder and named driver being uninsured in that car.
Thirdly all complicated conditions relating to most aspects of insurance, and amount of data which you need to disclose to insurer, with clause of policy being void in case something is not disclosed or not disclosed correctly...

I know you might say all above is required, but don't you think it makes a hell lot of opportunities for people to drive uninsured?

I know plenty of posters don't like it here , but I honestly admire Polish obligatory car insurance system, simply for the fact that it's simple and effective, making driving uninsured extremely rare.

Firstly it's vehicle owner's responsibility to purchase insurance policy straight away with new car. No named drivers nonsense, no declaration of material fact, etc... Just give your name, address, vehicel reg, make, model, your age, years of no claims driving, pay for policy and it's sorted.
Car is always insured. Anyone can drive it. If you sell that car, policy transfers with it to new owner. And if policy run's out, it renews automatically.
No insurer can issue any own conditions, instead they all must issue policies in line with legislation.
Straight, simple and effective.

Why can't we have something similar in Ireland?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Our Insurance system is based on the UK version and modified by EU legislation. Most of the Insurers here prior to the 80's were British. Successive governments only tinkered around with the system and it is now like the HSE, it's too much of a cumbersome giant to fix. The legal profession, in my opinion, has a vested interest in maintaining things as they are. Premiums are too dear because there is little certainty that worldwide insurers can make a sustainable profit over a long period of time.

The insurers that are here are overly concerned that if they open up their acceptance terms (older cars, young drivers, novices, modified cars), they will be landed will all such risks and the balance of risks on their books could cost them dearly. People call it cartel behaviour, but the truth is that Insurers but as much effort in to avoiding business as they do in attracting what they consider profitable. They take great pleasure in offloading their crap on to a competitor. When an insurer quoted you silly money, they are hoping you don't pay it.

I have said it thousands of times here, but if an insurer thought they could make €1 profit out of you, they will. If big money was to be made, why doesn't some company not come in and offer to undercut everybody's quote by €50 and make a killing? Why hasn't any government introduced a State scheme to flood the coffers, rather than applying a risk free levy?

The "sneaky" terms, conditions and exclusions have evolved over decades of plugging gaps that cute hoors have tried to exploit . Premiums will always be the formula of Claims + Costs + Profit. For cover to be affordable, ALL 3 of those have to be right. Either that or the State subsidises a universal scheme.

beechwood55

OP - did you get the car back??

CJhaughey

IMHO. If a product is legally required such as insurance then the government has a duty of care to make sure that the product is available to all at a reasonable price.
You cannot simply allow private companies to provide the product and wash your hands (while collecting a nice levy) of responsibility.
The legal profession have no scruples for the most part they live well picking the rotting carcass that is Insurance in this country and while the Gov't has set up task forces and focus groups galore very little has been done as SuPaKeypa says because its "too hard".
The entire system is dysfunctional, has no deterrent for serial fraudulent claimants, and is a huge chunk of disposable income for many that could be spent in better ways.
I highly doubt that there is real political will to change the system, given how much pull the legal profession has within the corridors of Leinster house. FFS the IMF couldn't get them to change what hope have the short term residents of Dail Eireann?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Well said, good points

MortGoldman

Update - I've produced my documentation at my garda station as requested, and got my receipt for production and cover. I'm going up to hopefully get the car back tomorrow.

So I've had a preliminary chat with a solicitor and their belief is that an insurance company absolutely cannot withdraw cover based on the tax status of the vehicle. However, I've yet to see this written down anywhere as a law/rule for the insurance industry. I have written to the financial ombudsman requesting clarification.

A registered letter had an attempted delivery to my house today, but noone was home - I reckon its a summons. Can't think of anything else it could possibly be, and I did get the car seizure letter today. Seems very fast though, I only met the checkpoint last Thursday! I'll hopefully get the letter tomorrow and I can see whether the guard is already trying to go to court, despite me supposedly having ten days to produce insurance.

I'll be honest, I'm getting angry about this. I'm barely sleeping, and my heart rate has been through the roof the last few days. If I can figure out my exact defence in the next day or two (maybe via the Ombudsman), I'm tempted to see whether I have a case for damages against Aviva. That's how mad I am. I feel completely screwed over.

CiniO

MortGoldman wrote: »

Update - I've produced my documentation at my garda station as requested, and got my receipt for production and cover. I'm going up to hopefully get the car back tomorrow.

So I've had a preliminary chat with a solicitor and their belief is that an insurance company absolutely cannot withdraw cover based on the tax status of the vehicle. However, I've yet to see this written down anywhere as a law/rule for the insurance industry. I have written to the financial ombudsman requesting clarification.

A registered letter had an attempted delivery to my house today, but noone was home - I reckon its a summons. Can't think of anything else it could possibly be, and I did get the car seizure letter today. Seems very fast though, I only met the checkpoint last Thursday! I'll hopefully get the letter tomorrow and I can see whether the guard is already trying to go to court, despite me supposedly having ten days to produce insurance.

I'll be honest, I'm getting angry about this. I'm barely sleeping, and my heart rate has been through the roof the last few days. If I can figure out my exact defence in the next day or two (maybe via the Ombudsman), I'm tempted to see whether I have a case for damages against Aviva. That's how mad I am. I feel completely screwed over.

All the best to you.
Keep well.

longgonesilver

Have you or your solicitor written to Aviva asking them if you were covered to drive the car and if not, why not giving the specific clause in your policy that they consider voided the policy.

You got the opinion of one employee on the phone, others might have a different opinion and be willing to provide it in writing which should satisfy the guards.

freddyuk

Seve OB wrote: »

As has been pointed out by other posters you clearly haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Period.

S.I. No. 227 of 1986.


ROAD TRAFFIC (INSURANCE DISC) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1986.


The Minister for the Environment in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sections 5 and 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (No. 24 of 1961), hereby makes the following Regulations.

"5. (1) A person shall not use a vehicle in a public place, after the expiration of a period of ten days commencing on the date of authentication of the certificate of insurance, unless the vehicle carries an insurance disc in the manner specified in sub-article (2) of this article.

So your interpretation of this "law" would be that this only applies if you actually bother to apply for insurance and does not apply if you don't have insurance?

But then you have to have a valid tax disc on the vehicle which is only available if you have a current insurance policy in force which is a legal declaration made by the applicant. The fact the system allows abuse of the law because the system is not effectively enforced does not mean the law does not exist.

S.I. No. 385 of 1992.

ROAD VEHICLES (REGISTRATION AND LICENSING) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1992.

(5) On each application for a licence for a vehicle the owner of the vehicle shall produce to the licensing authority—


( a ) in the case of a pedestrian controlled vehicle which is excepted from Part IV of the Act of 1961, a declaration that the vehicle is so excepted, or


( b ) in any other case, the relevant evidence of insurance in respect of the vehicle.


(6) In this article, the relevant evidence of insurance in respect of a vehicle means either—


( a ) a certificate of insurance within the meaning of the Act of 1961, showing that when the licence comes into operation there will be in force an approved policy of insurance covering the use of the vehicle, or


( b ) such evidence as satisfies the licensing authority that the owner of the vehicle is either a vehicle insurer within the meaning of the Act of 1961, or an exempted person within the meaning of Part VI of that Act.

So how can you have a vehicle "in a public place" without insurance (excepting that the insurance may expire during the period of the tax period) as the law is quite clear you need both.

So in the context of parts of this discussion a Third Party being lent the vehicle under his insurance extension can drive the vehicle he does not own but by default the vehicle must be insured and taxed to be in a Public Place. The fact insurance companies do not always explicitly say the vehicle being driven on the policy TP extension must be insured in it's own right may be down to the fact the law already exists so it is presumed this does not need addressing and furthermore as the extension is for unexpected or emergency use (not a permanent way to avoid insurance premiums) it would be expected the other vehicle would be legal already however it would be a reason for subrogation against the driver in the event of a TP claim being paid out when the insurers discover the vehicle in question was not legally on the road.

If this is entirely wrong then please explain it to me in simple language.

beechwood55

longgonesilver wrote: »

Have you or your solicitor written to Aviva asking them if you were covered to drive the car and if not, why not giving the specific clause in your policy that they consider voided the policy.

You got the opinion of one employee on the phone, others might have a different opinion and be willing to provide it in writing which should satisfy the guards.

I agree. Have you made contact with Aviva to ask exactly what your situation is with regard to your 3rd party extension and what it covers.

beechwood55

Just wondering if any update OP? Especially re the third party insurance cover.

Voodoomelon

I just read through this whole thread as I was away when this topic was active.

It's remarkable how many people have little knowledge of their policies, largely in relation to driving other cars.

It's also crazy the amount of loopholes and games that car owners, insurance companies and Gardai can play when it comes to the "was he insured?" racket.

Instance number one. You are insured to drive other cars on third party extension, that you do not own. How do you prove you own a car or not? Gardai request you produce the logbook at the station, it has your cousins name on it, even though you own it. You're covered. Even though a logbook has no representation of who owns a car, as opposed to the registered keeper.

Instance two. You're requested to show your insurance policy at a Garda station, showing you were covered to driver other cars on third party extension. The certificate says as much, but the terms and conditions state the vehicle must have its own policy. Get a Garda half asleep on the day and he could miss it.

Instance three. It's an offence to not display an insurance disc on a windscreen on a public road. But as far as i'm aware, there is no stipulation that the disc on display must be for that vehicle. So if you're driving a car with no policy on it, put you're covered to drive it third party, you could stick your own disc on the windscreen.

Also regarding that poster who drives the higher performance car with no policy on it, whilst he's registered on his mothers car; by the letter of the law he can do so. But as Cinio said, it may be a fifth of the cost, but he's getting frig all value if he damages his car or writes it off. Depending on the value of the car, it could be financially ruinous to take such a risk. What if he's in a single car accident and is seriously injured or requires ongoing care? You'd be left at the mercy of the public system with no costs paid. Even private health insurance would only cover initial costs. You get what you pay for.

MortGoldman

No updates. I've received two fixed penalty notices relating to non display and not having tax, but nothing else so far.

GM228

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Instance number one. You are insured to drive other cars on third party extension, that you do not own. How do you prove you own a car or not? Gardai request you produce the logbook at the station, it has your cousins name on it, even though you own it. You're covered. Even though a logbook has no representation of who owns a car, as opposed to the registered keeper.

The VLC details the legally registered owner of the vehicle irrespective of who actually keeps it.

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Instance two. You're requested to show your insurance policy at a Garda station, showing you were covered to driver other cars on third party extension. The certificate says as much, but the terms and conditions state the vehicle must have its own policy. Get a Garda half asleep on the day and he could miss it.

This is not always the case - it is insurance provider dependent.

Voodoomelon wrote: »

Instance three. It's an offence to not display an insurance disc on a windscreen on a public road. But as far as i'm aware, there is no stipulation that the disc on display must be for that vehicle. So if you're driving a car with no policy on it, put you're covered to drive it third party, you could stick your own disc on the windscreen.

Not just a public road, but any public place.

You are not required to display an insurance disc for the first 10 days of cover, only after 10 days failure to do so becomes an offence.

It's also an offence to stick your own disc (or any disc not relating to the vehicle) in another vehicle (even if you own it and have transferred the insurance), many do it and are unaware of this.

loyatemu

re: the scam of registering a car in your cousin's (or whoever's) name - this is fine for a banger, but if you did it with, say, a Lambourghini you'd effectively be giving them a very valuable gift and they could get a call from the taxman.

Also if you can be shown to have paid for a car, paid for the insurance and are driving it every day, regardless of whose name is on the VLC, a judge could still find that you're the effective owner of the car.