Display of discs in car windscreen.....

ELM327

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Can't believe this is still going around in a loop
OP is covered to drive his daughter's car, based on the information provided.
OP is open to prosecution if he displays a disc on his daughter's car which is designated to another vehicle

These are separate matters

^^this


QFT

liamog

Shield wrote: »

No. That clause would only apply if the certificate covers multiple vehicles. If you have temporary cover on a vehicle, a new certificate is not required, but you must inform your insurers when you revert back to your own vehicle. A significant minority of people forget this.

My certificate does cover multiple vehicles, specifically my policy covers my vehicle and me driving any other vehicle that isn't owned, leased, or hired by me or my employer.
In which case what disc should be displayed to cover this?

ohnonotgmail

liamog wrote: »

My certificate does cover multiple vehicles, specifically my policy covers my vehicle and me driving any other vehicle that isn't owned, leased, or hired by me or my employer.
In which case what disc should be displayed to cover this?

one NAMED vehicle.

whomitconcerns

liamog wrote: »

My certificate does cover multiple vehicles, specifically my policy covers my vehicle and me driving any other vehicle that isn't owned, leased, or hired by me or my employer.
In which case what disc should be displayed to cover this?

You can't display any disc unless it's specifically for that vehicle. Simple answer.

Doesn't matter what your policy covers you for

liamog

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

one NAMED vehicle.

It specifically does not say that.

Any other Private Motor Car being driven by the Insured provided such vehicle:
(i) does not belong to the Insured or belong to his/her Employer,
(ii) is not hired or leased to either of the parties described in (i) above under a Hire Purchase or Leasing Agreement,
(iii) is not the property of or in the custody or control of a Motor Trade Business of which the Insured is a Director, Member or Employee

whomitconcerns

liamog wrote: »

It specifically does not say that.

And for any of the aforementioned scenarios you will not display any disc you own on. If there is someone else's valid discs in and for that car you would display them as normal

If not, you drive with no disc. But bring your policy doc!!!

ELM327

Another point to note that, if you are driving someone else's car, the disc in the window is not a valid disc and therefore should not be displayed.

flexcon

ELM327 wrote: »

Another point to note that, if you are driving someone else's car, the disc in the window is not a valid disc and therefore should not be displayed.

oh I do love a good conundrum like this

ten years ago I was stopped at a checkpoint and given a fine at the time for non display of an insurance cert on the window.

I was driving my "mothers" car but I had my insurance cert from my my car folded and put in the pocket next to the NCT and TAX and I showed her this doc but she said come to the station to sort it out.

So off I went, arrived to the Guard station, together we made a phone call to Quinn Direct and they confirmed as far as they are concerned I am insured and there was no issue.

The guard and I parted ways agreeing we both learned something new, the attempted fine was cancelled.

So I am following this thread closely.

BTW I will come clean, it was the year 2009 and the definition of "fronting" a Jap import car was in full swing.

liamog

Isn't that where it gets interesting, there are two offences driving without insurance, and failure to display an insurance disc.
Your policy is clearly covering you to drive the car, so in that case no offence has been committed. However if no disc is on display you can also be fined.

The point I'd like clarification on, is whether displaying the disc from vehicle A on vehicle B covers your requirement to show a disc that is tied to the policy that is covering your usage of the car.

ohnonotgmail

liamog wrote: »

Isn't that where it gets interesting, there are two offences driving without insurance, and failure to display an insurance disc.
Your policy is clearly covering you to drive the car, so in that case no offence has been committed. However if no disc is on display you can also be fined.

The point I'd like clarification on, is whether displaying the disc from vehicle A on vehicle B covers your requirement to show a disc that is tied to the policy that is covering your usage of the car.

displaying a disc from vehicle A on vehicle B is specifically forbidden by law and is an offence in itself. the relevant legislation for this has been quoted already.

Witcher

liamog wrote: »

Isn't that where it gets interesting, there are two offences driving without insurance, and failure to display an insurance disc.
Your policy is clearly covering you to drive the car, so in that case no offence has been committed. However if no disc is on display you can also be fined.

The point I'd like clarification on, is whether displaying the disc from vehicle A on vehicle B covers your requirement to show a disc that is tied to the policy that is covering your usage of the car.

Displaying a disc from another vehicle is a more serious offence than having no disc at all.

GM228

ELM327 wrote: »

Another point to note that, if you are driving someone else's car, the disc in the window is not a valid disc and therefore should not be displayed.

That is not true, the requirement to display the vehicles disc is not subject to the policy holder actually driving the vehicle.

square ball

Shield wrote: »

This is simply not true. Section 5 of the Road Traffic (Insurance Disc) Regulations 1984 is clear:

5. (1) When a vehicle is used in a public place the insurance disc for the vehicle shall be carried on the vehicle at all times after the expiry of 10 days from the date of authentication of the certificate of insurance.

(2) The insurance disc shall be carried in a conspicuous position on the windscreen of the vehicle in such manner that it shall be both visible and readily accessible for inspection and be so located that it does not obscure the vision of the driver while the vehicle is being driven or in the case of a vehicle not fitted with a windscreen in a conspicuous position on the near side of the vehicle.

Careful now!

You can't display a disc for another car on your windscreen. There is no valid disc for the vehicle in OP's example so the certificate of insurance is proof of cover in its absence.

When stopped at a checkpoint a guard may ask you to produce your Certificate of Insurance to a local station even when there is a disc on the windscreen anyway.

The disc doesn't actually show who is covered to drive a vehicle. It only shows policy number and expiry date. The disc is issued as part of the Certificate of Insurance which shows who is covered and what use they are covered for, gives the policy number, commencement and expiry date of the policy.

I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for non display of insurance when they had a certificate they were able to produce when stopped. If you have to show proof of insurance in Court it is your Certificate your produce not your disc.

liamog

In which case, how is it possible to legally drive the insured vehicle? The 10 day exemption due to certification of the policy does not apply in this case.
The insurance disc specifically indicates a policy that is tied to vehicle A and covers the use of vehicle B.

ohnonotgmail

liamog wrote: »

In which case, how is it possible to legally drive the insured vehicle? The 10 day exemption due to certification of the policy does not apply in this case.
The insurance disc specifically indicates a policy that is tied to vehicle A and covers the use of vehicle B.

it isn't. you are depending on the discretion of the garda that stops you.

GM228

square ball wrote: »

You can't display a disc for another car on your windscreen. There is no valid disc for the vehicle in OP's example so the certificate of insurance is proof of cover in its absence.

When stopped at a checkpoint a guard may ask you to produce your Certificate of Insurance to a local station even when there is a disc on the windscreen anyway.

The disc doesn't actually show who is covered to drive a vehicle. It only shows policy number and expiry date. The disc is issued as part of the Certificate of Insurance which shows who is covered and what use they are covered for, gives the policy number, commencement and expiry date of the policy.

I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for non display of insurance when they had a certificate they were able to produce when stopped. If you have to show proof of insurance in Court it is your Certificate your produce not your disc.

I have and on more than one occasion, there was a failed judicial review attempt in January this year for such an offence in 2017, I'll dig out the case, the person in that case even had the documentation on them at the time they were stopped proving they were insured (a garage policy no less) and were still convicted for non display.

The fact of the matter is that whilst there is no specific law requiring the other car to have a valid insurance disc of its own (as is often stated), the reality is there actually is such a law indirectly because the law makes no exemptions for such a scenario, unless of course it is within the first 10 days of taking out the policy.

flexcon

Here is a thought

The insurance disc is part of the same page as the insurance Certificate. It's like a summary.

So if I tear off the disc part of the insurance cert the assumption is both have the same value in some way?
And if both have the same value, why having my Cert in the window showing I am covered to drive the car that isn't insured is wrong? I get why they don't want you doing that - to prevent fraud, but it seems like an odd wording to use DISC rather than CERT. If CERT was used, then this conundrum would be solved.

I could be way over my head, probably am. But for discussion purposes.

ohnonotgmail

flexcon wrote: »

Here is a thought

The insurance disc is part of the same page as the insurance Certificate. It's like a summary.

So if I tear off the disc part of the insurance cert the assumption is both have the same value in some way?
And if both have the same value, why having my Cert in the window showing I am covered to drive the car that isn't insured is wrong? I get why they don't want you doing that - to prevent fraud, but it seems like an odd wording to use DISC rather than CERT. If CERT was used, then this conundrum would be solved.

I could be way over my head, probably am. But for discussion purposes.

the wording is quite deliberate. discs are designed to be displayed in a car window. they are straightforward to read from a distance. Insurance certs not so much.

GM228

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the wording is quite deliberate. discs are designed to be displayed in a car window. they are straightforward to read from a distance. Insurance certs not so much.

+1, and remember the cert just like the disc does not always give an accurate indication of who or what is insured, for that you often need the schedule and the cert.

liamog

I always thought the importance of showing the disc was to clearly indicate the policy number and the insurer which covers the operation of the vehicle in a publicly visible way.
In the case of OPs usage, they're caught in a gap because the vehicle does not have it's own policy and therefore cannot legally show a disc as required.

flexcon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the wording is quite deliberate. discs are designed to be displayed in a car window. they are straightforward to read from a distance. Insurance certs not so much.

But do they both contain the same value? One is torn from the same sheet of the other.

So somehow the cert if worthless, but the Disc is everything.

Just seem chaotic and silly.

ohnonotgmail

flexcon wrote: »

But do they both contain the same value? One is torn from the same sheet of the other.

So somehow the cert if worthless, but the Disc is everything.

Just seem chaotic and silly.

they do not contain the same value for legislation purposes. you display the disc in the window. if you are asked to produce insurance at a garda station you bring the cert. no chaos involved.

GM228

flexcon wrote: »

But do they both contain the same value? One is torn from the same sheet of the other.

So somehow the cert if worthless, but the Disc is everything.

Just seem chaotic and silly.

The information they contain is irrelevant when you are simply satisfying a legal requirement.

Put it this way, displaying the cert instead of the disc does not satisfy any legal requirements to display, the same way producing the disc instead of the cert does not satisfy any legal requirements to later produce, what information is contained or not on either piece of paper is of no consequence to the legal requirements set out in legislation.

flexcon

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they do not contain the same value for legislation purposes. you display the disc in the window. if you are asked to produce insurance at a garda station you bring the cert. no chaos involved.

GM228 wrote: »

The information they contain is irrelevant when you are simply satisfying a legal requirement.

Put it this way, displaying the cert instead of the disc does not satisfy any legal requirements to display, the same way producing the disc instead of the cert does not satisfy any legal requirements to later produce, what information is contained or not on either piece of paper is of no consequence to the legal requirements set out in legislation.

Schooled. Thanks.

square ball

GM228 wrote: »

I have and on more than one occasion, there was a failed judicial review attempt in January this year for such an offence in 2017, I'll dig out the case, the person in that case even had the documentation on them at the time they were stopped proving they were insured (a garage policy no less) and were still convicted for non display.

Please do I am genuinely interested in seeing the case.

What documentation had they when they were stopped?

mgbgt1978

flexcon wrote: »

BTW I will come clean, it was the year 2009 and the definition of "fronting" a Jap import car was in full swing.

Of course my Mother drives a 'tezza Guard.
She only uses it to go to Mass and for the odd trip to the Shops :D;);).

Eggs For Dinner

ELM327 wrote: »

Another point to note that, if you are driving someone else's car, the disc in the window is not a valid disc and therefore should not be displayed.

Christ on a bike!

GM228

Kirby vs DPP [2021] IEHC 21, whilst the case dealt with wider issues, one thing stands out:-

The learned District Court [judge] made it clear that she was satisfied that the applicant had the insurance disc on his person for the purposes of moving cars in and out of the relevant garage and she also believed that the applicant may very well have endeavoured to display it at a later stage.  However, in the context of an offence for the non-display of an insurance disc, the learned District Court Judge was satisfied, on the basis of the evidence given by Garda Reynolds, that the applicant did not have the insurance disc displayed.

Whilst the applicant never appealed and tried instead to jump to a JR for various reasons it should be noted that there has never been a successful appeal to a non display charge where someone later showed they actually had insurance (bar where the 10 day rule applies), because that fact is not relevant, having insurance (or not) is not a qualification for the charge and therefore not valid grounds for appeal in law.

square ball

GM228 wrote: »

Kirby vs DPP [2021] IEHC 21, whilst the case dealt with wider issues, one thing stands out:-



Whilst the applicant never appealed and tried instead to jump to a JR for various reasons it should be noted that there has never been a successful appeal to a non display charge where someone later showed they actually had insurance (bar where the 10 day rule applies), because that fact is not relevant, having insurance (or not) is not a qualification for the charge and therefore not valid grounds for appeal in law.

The one thing is the person had a disc but didn't put it in the window and the motor trade policies are known to be strict. If there was no disc from driving other cars extension it's impossible to display a disc so the certificate is the only option.

What a waste of time and money for that case to go to court though.

Claw Hammer

square ball wrote: »

The one thing is the person had a disc but didn't put it in the window and the motor trade policies are known to be strict. If there was no disc from driving other cars extension it's impossible to display a disc so the certificate is the only option.

What a waste of time and money for that case to go to court though.

The defendant was unlucky in that he was charged at all, that the prosecution went ahead at all, that he got the DJ he did and that the JR went the way it did.
There must have been other factors in the situation.
The moral of the story is not to believe everything written on internet fora.