Is insurance needed for taxed vehicle?

[fv1609]

Obviously tax & insurance is needed to drive a vehicle on the highway. But what is the situation if the vehicle is taxed and the insurance expires but the vehicle is without a functioning engine & therefore cannot be used on the highway.

 

Given the level of DVLA computer capabilities, the system will flag up that there is a taxed vehicle without insurance. Therefore someone sooner or later will start investigating. I would like to declare SORN, but I see you can't SORN it if there is a current tax disc. But I don't want to pay insurance for nearly another year for a vehicle that's going nowhere.

 

The other thing I was toying with insuring the 1-Ton Cipher Trailer, which is my little caravan for shows. The idea would be to cover its value & secondly I wonder about public liability. If my insured vehicle was in some accident on or off road at a show, I have cover. But would that extend to what I was towing?

 

If I had a burst tyre & the trailer hit another car would the vehicle insurance cover it? Or if there was some incident with the public at a show would my vehicle insurance cover that or should I get some cover for the trailer in its own right?

 

 

[Degsy]

Hand in the tax and declare SORN, as regards your insurance, normally if your vehicle is insured to tow atrailer then in an accident it would be covered third party but you need to read the small print on the policy and then probably clarify the situation with your insurance company.

[Marmite!!]

Is this what you are looking for...

 

Parked car requires MOT and insurance certificate.

 

 

Pumbien v Vines

 

 

(1995) The Times June 14 Queen's Bench Divisional Court

 

 

A motor car parked on a road was being used on the road for the purposes of sections 47 and 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 even if it was totally immobilised and could only be moved by being dragged away, and, therefore, required both a valid MOT certificate and an insurance policy.

 

 

The Court so held in dismissing an appeal by way of case stated by Andee Pumbien against his conviction of offences of using a motor vehicle on a road without either a valid test certificate or insurance policy contrary to sections 47(1) and 143(1) of the 1988 act.

 

 

THE FACTS

 

 

The facts are taken from the judgment of MR JUSTlCE MITCHELL.

 

 

In March 1992 Pumbien (the appellant) parked the vehicle on a road at a time when the vehicle was in working order. He cancelled the policy of insurance covering the use of the vehicle and in August 1992 the MOT test certificate expired Pumbien had not driven it since parking it there in March.

 

 

No insurance policy or MOT test certificate were in existence for November 10. The prosecution alleged that by reason of the presence of the vehicle on the road on that date Pumbien was using it for the purposes of the two provisions under which he was charged.

 

 

On November 13 the vehicle was collected by a vehicle dismantler to whom it had been sold on a date after November 10. The condition of the vehicle was found to have been as follows:

 

 

The tyres were deflated, the handbrake was on and the rear brakes were seized. The gearbox contained n oil because there was a leak in the transmission pipe.

 

 

It would not have been possible to move the vehicle without first freeing the brakes, replacing the transmission pipe and oiling the gearbox.

 

 

The justices found that that Pumbien had taken no positive action to immobilise the vehicle. It was clear that in that state the vehicle, although clearly repairable, could neither be driven nor towed unless it was literally dragged.

 

 

THE LAW

 

 

The court considered the authorities and concluded that the position appeared to be:

 

 

1 A motor vehicle which was mobile at least to the extent that its wheels would rotate had to be insured and there had to be an appropriate test certificate in force in respect of it before it could lawfully be parked on a road: see Elliott v Grey [1960] 1 QB 367 and Gosling v Howard [1975] RTR 429.

 

 

2 A motor vehicle which was immobile at least to the extent that its wheels would not rotate did not require a current test certificate before it could lawfully be parked on a road :see Hewer v Cutler (1974) RTR 155.

 

 

In The court's judgment, provided (i) that a vehicle was a "motor vehicle" within the definition in section 185 of the Act and (ii) that the vehicle was on a road, the owner of that vehicle had the use of it on a road whether at the material time it could move on its wheels or not.

 

 

The court found it impossible either in law or in common sense to justify the proposition that a motor vehicle which was in good condition but which had been immobilised to prevent its wheels from rotating did not attract the insurance requirements whereas the requirements did apply to a vehicle in poor condition and without certain important parts if the wheels could rotate.

 

 

Such a distinction was both artificial and unfair; all the more so if the insurance obligation could be avoided simply · by immobilising the vehicle to the extent that the wheels could not rotate. The one was neither more nor less of a hazard than the other when standing stationary on a road.

 

 

Hewer v Cutler. could be distinguished on the ground that the insurance provision was not there under consideration and Thomas v Hooper [1986] RTR 1on the basis that Lord Justice Glidewell had emphasised that it was a decision on its own facts.

 

 

In The court's judgment the two allegations should stand or fall together. That had been the approach of the court in Gosling v Howard. It was true that both in that case and in Elliott the vehicle had not been immobile but, more significantly, Lord Parker, who presided on each occasion, made it clear in Gosling that in the case of each provision the test of user was the same.

 

 

The definition of user in those statutory provisions obviously had to have some regard to the mischief which the prohibition was catering for. The provisions were catering not for different mischiefs but for different aspects of the same mischief. Their object and that of many other provisions was to protect the safety of property of other road users.

 

 

The court did not. therefore. accept that as between the two provisions the word "use" had a different meaning Nor did he accept that the distinction between mobility and immobility had any greater relevance to issue of "use" in section 47 than it did in section 143.

 

 

Further, if a particular user was such as to warrant insurance he failed to understand why the same use might not warrant the existence of a current MOT certificate.

 

 

Applying those principles to the facts of the case, the appeal had to be dismissed. Pumbien's vehicle was on the road. It was a motor vehicle as defined in the Act, notwithstanding that one aspect of its condition was reversible immobility. In such circumstances Pumbien was under the obligations imposed upon him by sections 47 and 143 of the Act.

 

 

Comment

 

 

By distinguishing both Hewer v Cutler and Thomas v Hooper and marrying the requirements of the two sections (47 and 143); which was the approach of the courts in Gosling v Howard the Divisional court have simplified the law on the "use" of a motor vehicle in this circumstances.

 

 

When Elliott v Grey was reported in the Criminal Law Review, see [1960] Crim.L.R. 63 the learned commentator referred to the mischief the statute was aimed at. he said, inter alia, "A motor vehicle standing on a road clearly comes within the mischief aimed at by the Act..... The decision therefore achieves a desirable result from a social point of view".

 

 

It is submitted that it also makes good law, inevitable when a car has no MOT it more often than not has no insurance, or vice versa. Proving one set of facts should aid prosecutions.

[fv1609]

 

Not really Lee, I wasn't going put the pig out in the road. My reading of the Guidance Notes on the SORN Declaration V890 says I don't need to SORN it if it has a tax disc. But my worry is the computer tracking of a valid tax disc but no longer valid insurance.

[ashley]

Clive,

as i understand it third party cover is usually provided while attached to the vehicle, though not a legal requirement insurance is advisable for theft or damage to the trailer and its contents.

Ashley

[fv1609]

Clive,

as i understand it third party cover is usually provided while attached to the vehicle, though not a legal requirement insurance is advisable for theft or damage to the trailer and its contents.

Ashley

 

 

That was the sort of thing I was worried about. Once I have unhitched it in order to level it, then I suppose whatever vehicle 3rd party cover existed ceases at that point. Shows seem very keen for you to state that your exhibit has public liability cover, it does focus the mind.

 

Theft of course is a possibility especially at a big show. My wife's horse trailer requires a wheel clamp otherwise the insurance against theft is invalid. I don't think they make wheel clamps big enough for my wheels.

[ArtistsRifles]

Clive - re the first point on the vehicle - talk to your insurers. Most firms who insure vehicles like ours will also offer "Off-road cover" - for when the vehicle is not mobile. You get third party fire and theft cover BUT the vehicle cannot be moved under it's own power. Cover and costs will vary depending on whether the vehicle in on the public highway or not. I currently have 2 classic Saabs under this form of cover that are stored off the public highway with SORN declared.

 

As regards the cipher trailer - like a touring caravan I think you really need to get seperate insurance for this, again a talk to your insurers is a good starting point. They are usually quite keen to take more money off you!!! :-) :-)

[fv1609]

As far as Roadsure goes the premium is based on the value of the vehicle. Not whether it is immobile or goes out on the road (on its assumed low mileage).

 

As far as SORN goes V890 is not appropriate if there is a current tax disc. I was told I need V14 which is available on line as a pdf. I found this but it was shown as a "mock up" & real one needs to be obtained. Part of its function is to obtain a refund but as this doesn't apply I found an online opportunity were SORN can be declared without receiving a V11 tax renewal/SORN reminder. So I was able to do it with the number from the V5C registration book.

 

With the savings on that I have insured the Cipher Trailer as a vehicle in its own right, which gives some peace of mind.

 

 

[ArtistsRifles]

Well done sir!!!!

 

My old Saabs are insured with Aon - the off-road cover is £15/year. Cover being based on bands of vehicle values, IIRC. The road going policies are a bit more complex in that they are a % of the attested value of the vehicle plus premiums for things like engine size and mileage allowance over 4,000 - again IIRC.

 

The RoadSure scheme is a lot simpler and preferable I have to admit!!! :-) :-)

And they do breakdown cover... :-)

[berni]

we had insurance through road sure & they had an 'off road' policy that was 15.00 for the year as long as it was imobile. all we did then was as soon as we put it on road we paid the difference.

this was about 6 years ago so it may have changed

Berni

[fv1609]

we had insurance through road sure & they had an 'off road' policy that was 15.00 for the year as long as it was imobile.

 

Well £26.15 per vehicle on or off road. When you allow for inflation & insurance tax that has since come in it measures up fairly well.

 

But every year whether its a Shorland or a Pig the engine capacity appears as 200cc! I always ring up & they say they will inform the underwriters of the mistake. But this year I was told the computer can only print 200cc. As long as the registration is correct & the engine capacity on the log book is correct, not to worry!

[Guest JeepJockey]

Clive, don't leave anything to chance with insurrance companys. Why can't the computer print 2.0l if 2000cc is too many digits.

 

Regards,

 

Paul

[fv1609]

Roadsure man said that everybody has 200cc entered on theirs, the computer can't manage anything else. This seems extraordinary given that this computer must handle a lot of vehicles, how many domestic cars even, will have a capacity under 200cc.?

 

So if anyone is insured with Roadsure, could you check please to see if your policies say 200cc. is it just me they have messed up with or are there a lot of us with incorrect details? The annoying thing is, it doesn't show on the renewal but only comes with the certificates after you renew. Each year I ring up & the usual story is "Oh yes we will tell the underwriter". But this year I had a fairly confident man explained that it can't be changed & not to worry.