Driving A Car Without Tax And Mot

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

She was insured 3rd party on any other vehical (it was mine as I just bought it, and signed the log boook etc),

 

 

The 3rd party extension only works when the vehicle in question is owned by someone else AND is insured in its own right. So if you had not insured it for yourself, your GF was not insured.

[RHULPUG 0]

The 3rd party extension only works when the vehicle in question is owned by someone else AND is insured in its own right. So if you had not insured it for yourself, your GF was not insured.

 

This is what I thought prior to getting a quote recently. On my motorbike it allows me to ride 3rd party only on another bike insured by the registered keeper. However, when speaking with Sky insurance, getting a quote on the 205, they informed me that I would be entitled to drive any other car 3rd party only, with the registered keepers permission, no matter whether it had other insurance or not. The prerequisite was that I wouldn't be able to leave the vehicle parked on a public road if it wasn't insured. So in theory, I could drive a car up to the value of £40k 3rd party only, using the cover note for my 205.

[jonnygoodhand 0]

As for ANPR, I'm firmly of the opinion that it is nowhere near as effective as the police would like to make out. Certainly for about two years up until recently I was driving around in cars that were not listed on the insurance database, and hence flagged up on ANPR as uninsured - considering I do 2000 miles a month, the number of times that I was actually stopped was very low (once every 2-3 months tops) and in every case, it was a random passing traffic car that pulled me over, and never once one of the ANPR traps that you see at the roadside and on TV.

 

I must've been extremely unlucky. My 205 was off the road for 6 months, having the engine rebuilt. When done I had it MOTed, Taxed and Insured all on the same day (the latter 2 done over the internet) and took it out for a drive. Within 10 miles, I was pulled over and the PC explained that the car was coming up as no MOT or TAX. Luckily, I had all the reciepts printed off in the glovebox. Copper then went on to explain that it can take a 'day or two for their database to cath up'.

Edited March 9, 2010 by jonnygoodhand

[pablo 0]

The 3rd party extension only works when the vehicle in question is owned by someone else AND is insured in its own right. So if you had not insured it for yourself, your GF was not insured.

 

Thats not strictly true. Directline and Quinn Direct both are ok with the other car not being insured. Unless its changed recently.

[richsmells 2]

I must've been extremely unlucky. My 205 was off the road for 6 months, having the engine rebuilt. When done I had it MOTed, Taxed and Insured all on the same day (the latter 2 done over the internet) and took it out for a drive. Within 10 miles, I was pulled over and the PC explained that the car was coming up as no MOT or TAX. Luckily, I had all the reciepts printed off in the glovebox. Copper then went on to explain that it can take a 'day or two for their database to cath up'.

 

Exactly the same thing happened to me after I picked up the 306. Apparently it was coming up as having "No registered keeper". Basically the DVLA still had the V5.

[Mongo 0]

Thats not strictly true. Directline and Quinn Direct both are ok with the other car not being insured. Unless its changed recently.

 

Depends on insurer, just check the terms and conditions, some have clauses and some don't.

[Tom Fenton 1,541]

Fair play, I didn't know that some insurers allow it. All of my policies have the clause to the effect that the vehicle to be driven under the 3rd party extension must be insured in its own right.

[mr_exe 1]

I also heard that if you are driving to your pre booked Mot, you cannot go on the motorway. How true that is I don't know.

[splant 0]

i used to have that insurance that let you drive a car that wasnt insured as long as you didnt own it that was great just had the v5 in my dads name if the car was high ins bracket ,, now im with swift and it has to be insured on its own ,, crap,, mot,s are a rip off they should be 2 yearly .nothing disintegrates dangerouslly in a year apart from tyres which any fool can test , i usually tax mine for 6 mnth then tax it for 12 mnth so i get longer without a mot.. shhhh dont tell anyone though

[Anthony 1,003]

mot,s are a rip off they should be 2 yearly .nothing disintegrates dangerouslly in a year apart from tyres which any fool can test , i usually tax mine for 6 mnth then tax it for 12 mnth so i get longer without a mot.. shhhh dont tell anyone though

Given that the only form of check many (most?) cars get is a yearly MOT, to only have them bi-annually would be asking for trouble. Plenty can deteriorate and fail within a year, not that an MOT should be an issue in the slightest if you've properly maintained the car throughout the year (or atleast gone over it and fixed anything that needs doing prior to the MOT)

[splant 0]

dum assed anpr system has made it so any thick plod can easily get you without them using any of there 8 brain cells , its all the cloned ringers and duplicate cars with one insurance they should be checking for , but most dont know how to check for them ..