You have to have car insurance.
You have to pay insurance premium tax when you get insurance.
Therefore if you don't have insurance and drive a car you are not only breaking the law, but evading the payment of the tax.
As the police don't seem too interested in uninsured drivers - 'they are a "problem" is what I was helpfully informed' - isn't it about time Customs and Excise cracked down on them?
Piers
|
|
I seem to recall a gentleman called Capone got done for something similar.
|
|
Insurance companies can refuse to pay out claims if your car is mechanically unfit or you have made changes to to it and not informed them. Why don't they make it a rule that, if you car is not taxed or MOTd, your cover is automatically downgraded to 'Act Only'?
|
If I have time, I'll find the earlier discussion - but if you do a search on Insurance you should find a long discussion on exactly this point.
In fact, the law covers it pretty well. The problems come from understanding and enforcement.
|
P.U.
Some time ago it became politically incorrect to issue 'producers' HO/RT/1's
to certain drivers resulting in no doubt a why chance my neck attitude. Also P.A.C.E. didn't help spot checks did it?
Will be interesting to see if the new computerised system works.
Insurance is a serious business. I wouldn't like to be crippled and unable to get full compo through an uninsured driver despite M.I.B.
DVD.
|
|
|
|
Why is it so expensive for drivers to get insurance if they have been caught driving without insurance ?
A friend of mine failed to renew his insurance, got caught and given an IN10 endorsement. Now he has been quoted £2900 for a Group 3 car. This only "encourages" un-insured drivers to continue without insurance.
|
RogerL wrote:
>
> Why is it so expensive for drivers to get insurance if they
> have been caught driving without insurance ?
>
The logic being that since you have been prepared to break the law concerning insurance before, then firstly you have little respect for traffic law, insurance as a whole and little in the way of maturity or responsibility.
Therefore you are seriously high risk, and without serious month they would prefer to have nothing to do with you.
|
|
|
|
In twenty years practice I cannot ever recall a case of "No Insurance" that I could defend on a not guilty basis. I am now dealing with six cases mostly within
a crop of more serious offences. The best I can do is to mitigate the circumstances and reduce points and fines, the number of "detections" by routine stop/checks seemed to have slowed to a trickle over the last couple o years......either most drivers are now insured, or as I suspect that the Police don't issue as many producers as they used to thus causing more drivers to take a chance. The courts seem to take quite a hard line (around here). I think the system of Insurance should be reviewed in the UK and brought into line with, perhaps, the Canadian System where the driver is insured and not the car.
|
CORRECTION
I should have said where the state actually provides the insurance and there is almost 100% complience with the minimum requirments.
|
|
|
" quoted £2900 for a Group 3 car".
Just curious, what is the car worth?
|
|
|
|
|
The car's only worth £5,500 hence the dis-incentive for the owner to insure it.
|
|
|
RogerL, You asked why it's so expensive to re-insure after being caught without it. You did say that your friend " failed to renew his insurance....." and also that the car was only worth £5,500 hence "dis-incentive to insure it".
If I'm being too picky over the wording then I apologise and you must let me know, but it sounded as though there's might be a distinction between "failed to renew........" and "couldn't be bothered to...." or " couldn't see the point of........".
Furthermore the word "dis-incentive" rather suggests that there's an element of choice whether you do, or don't, insure your car - depending on the value of the car. It's not a question of there being an incentive to insure - you must insure.
You made the point about expensive premiums after conviction for no insurance, acting to discourage drivers from re-insuring again. This is of course a well argued point but surely isn't one that can seriously be supported. The most important aspect has to be the outcome of an uninsured driver causing death or serious injury to........you, me, your family, anyone, and there being no funds to support the resulting expenditure needed. For example life long care in the event of serious disability.
If a driver knows he can be convicted of driving without insurance and can subsequently just start all over again with no penalty, then even more will surely do it. None of us is perfect, but I've always thought that car insurance is the one thing that you shouldn't overlook for the above reasons.
|
|
|
I'm not trying to argue in favour of an un-insured driver but having seen the error of his ways it is very difficult to become an insured driver once you have been caught. I realise that he might re-offend but this CANNOT affect any insurer who accepts his premium.
Just for the record, the un-insured driver is not me; I have 18 years claim-free on my main car policy and 8 years claim-free on my other.
|
insurance isnt perfect, life isnt perfect
get your stereo nicked a few years in a row, have your wheels nicked, your car door kicked in etc, car nicked...
you end up with massive bills and no fault...
at least the guy who pays big bills after being caught with no insurance had a choice in his predicament... he just needs to drive a group one car on third party for a few years like the driver mentioned earlier has to...
i actually feel most sorry for people who hve worked abroad in say new zealand or canada for a few years, and come back to find they have to start with zero no claims, because a clean slate abroad doesnt count...
|
|
|
|
re: rdiving abroad..
Most companies will recognise any proven driving experience.
It can be a can of shopping around, but its quite normal amongst the composites.
|
|
|
I think the earlier suggestion of the driver being insured not the car is a great idea.
Would save a lot of hassle when changing cars/ test drives e.t.c
They should do the same for road tax one off yearly payment which entitles you to drive any car.
Perhaps a disc could be issued which has your insurance and road tax on it.
|
Here the car is insured, and its part of the annual registration.
No driver restrictions at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Re. the Canadian system.If the person was insured rather than the car, how does the insurance company distinguish between, say, a 21 year old in a £200 Metro and a £150,00 Ferrari? Or a Honda 90 versus a Honda Blackbird? Does this mean a 21 year old's premium goes down and a 60 year old's goes up?
|
|
|
I would imagine the insurance premium is based on the highest grouping of the cars you want to drive.
If your 21 years old and what to drive group 20 cars then it will be expensive.
or you could have indemnity levels, maximum value of any claim.
e.g indemnity £ 2000 ..if you claim the maximum you will receive is £2000 so driving a £150'000 Ferrari would be insane.This is very similar to motortrade insurance.
|
yea, dunno if its still the same now, but on motorbikes you could get an "any bike" policy limited to X cc
The bigger the engine you wanted to drive the more you paid, but it covered u for any bike up to that limit
Quite good for people who like to try their mates bikes out etc
Dont see why the same couldnt apply to cars
Obviously you need to have a mechanism for insuring the thing when no one is driving it
|
|
|
|
