Guess how many drivers didn't have insurance?

[Dmcd33]

This is an article from my local paper saying how many people they stopped in cars who did not have appropriate car insurance? I couldn't believe it when I read it!

http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/new...iving_without_insurance_in_one_day/?ref=var_0

'More than 350 drivers were caught driving without insurance during a police operation yesterday.'

 

[vickster]

And knowing Sutton not one of them was wearing a seatbelt. I'm not surprised given where they did the stopping

 

[TheJDog]

6 penalty points and a £200 fine is probably well worth it if insurance costs upwards of £2k for some people

 

[uclown2002]

The police have powers to seize a non-insured vehicle. Apart from paying a release fee, the owner must produce all documents including a current certificate of insurance.

 

[David L]

2k for my 1st policy at 18,
some say its too expensive thats why they dont have it,

If you cant aford the insurance dont drive a car get public transport or cycle,

Dont the police do a release where if your caught you can sign the. car to them for crushing instead of paying fines?? Sure I seen it on police interceptors

 

[numbnuts]

I went to tax (VED) my car the other day gave her the form, MOT, cheque and insurance documents she gave the MOT and the insurance papers back saying “we don't need these any more”, this is because of vehicle recognition by the police. The way I see it is a way to not have an MOT or insurance, and in October we won't even have a tax (VED) in the window.

 

[classic33]

And the reason that the insurance is so high...


...all the uninsured nobbers out there.

Any uninsured vehicle should be seized and crushed.

Going off-topic slightly. But why not provide the Emergency Services with those vehicles for practice. Then when there done with them send them for crushing?
Local Fire & Rescue Authority have to buy any vehicle they want to use in practice or displays. Money they could spend elsewhere.

 

[Matthew_T]

I dont get insurance. You can have a house and not insure it, so why not a car? If you want to take the risk of having to pay out of your own pocket, then you should be able to do that. It should just be a choice because it makes no difference to they way people drive (well it might make them drive more carefully).

 

[mcshroom]

The difference is that you can do large amounts of damage to other people using a car which isn't so easy with a house. The requirement for insurance is only for '3rd party', meaning that you are covered to recompense someone if you hit them.

Oh, and IIRC you don't have to have insurance in the traditional sense. You can choose to post a £500,000 bond instead if you really want to.

 

[400bhp]

You do have to have buildings insurance if you have a mortgage. You don't however have to insure personal belongings, like you do not have to insure your own car. But as above you do have to be insured against damage to the property of others, be it a car or a house in the case of the mortgage provider as it's their house not yours

Nope

 

[Cycling Dan]

There will be loads of drivers out there who drive without insurance.
I am willing to bet that a majority of banned or disqualified drivers also Dont care and drive.
If you have no insurance they are the registered owner they should seize the car, sell it or crush it.
My response would simply be tough. You played by the book the first time round you would have a car.

 

[Dragonwight]

I went to tax (VED) my car the other day gave her the form, MOT, cheque and insurance documents she gave the MOT and the insurance papers back saying “we don't need these any more”, this is because of vehicle recognition by the police. The way I see it is a way to not have an MOT or insurance, and in October we won't even have a tax (VED) in the window.

I thought the reason they didn't need to see the actual documents anymore was because they put it all online a while back anyway. MOT was the last to go online as I recall. I agree about the tax discs though seems daft given where I live there isnt a single fixed ANPR camera and a very rare mobile one.

 

[400bhp]

Well I always have had to provide proof of buildings insurance when I have taken our or revised my mortgage, probably had 5 or more different providers, even with a ltv of around 35% last time

Oh, well you're anecdotal evidence must mean it can be extrapolated to the point of it being a legal requirement.

 

[David L]

Well I always have had to provide proof of buildings insurance when I have taken our or revised my mortgage, probably had 5 or more different providers, even with a ltv of around 35% last time

http://www.tescocompare.com/home/ho...ldings-and-contents-insurance-explained.shtml

Not a requirement but some lenders do like to see insurance proof when you sign up,

 

[400bhp]

I never said it was a legal requirement, but it is a requirement to have a mortgage in my experience and looking at other sources e.g.

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/do-you-need-buildings-insurance

However, of course I am sure you are right as ever

By talking about the legal requirement for car insurance you replied with an erroneous statement about house insurance.

Do carry on.