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
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.
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?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » one NAMED vehicle.
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
liamog wrote: » It specifically does not say that.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
