I'm a bit annoyed

[LifeImplosionImminent]

A few weeks back I mentioned on a thread that if I thought if you had a car accident during lockdown then you could have problems with your policy. I got shot down for scaremongering but now it seems the papers have picked this exact point up, originating from some lawyer I've never heard of admittedly but he says

“If you have an accident and can't prove your journey was essential, your insurance may be void.”

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-8180853/Celebrity-lawyer-Mr-Loophole-outlines-10-point-coronavirus-road-traffic-charter.html

I still maintain that driving without a valid reason that can be proved is still a massive risk.

" may be void" - I think I need a bit more evidence that there is actually an issue here. First article that comes up on Google quotes the ABI (which represents insurers) saying insurance not invalidated if you drive during lockdown. www.expressandstar.com/news/motors/2020/04/15/is-my-insurance-invalidated-if-i-drive-during-lockdown/

So, I think it's a bit hard to be definitive. It's not illegal to drive you car for non-essential reasons, just against government advice. It's against government advice to drive in severe weather conditions if not essential, but you're still insured if you do.

Exactly as DadDadDad says. What are you annoyed about? Anybody who is still insistent on driving for a reason other than one considered reasonable presumably also isn’t going to care that it might invalidate their insurance. And it is scaremongering to suggest that the vast majority of people who will have a reasonable purpose for driving, should be worried that they will be asked to prove it or risk their insurance being invalid.

Also, note official Police guidelines (England) for what constitutes a reasonable reason to be outside of the house: they make it clear that driving is considered allowable in a number of circumstances: www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/COVID-19/Documents/What-constitutes-a-reasonable-excuse.pdf

I'm annoyed because it's a legitimate thing to think about. You may or you may not have you insurance invalidated, sure but isn't it worth time to process and make sure you could answer that question should you be stopped by police or prang into another car or object?

I'm annoyed because it's dismissed as scaremongering as if anything that questions leaving the house is just hysteria. I'm not saying don't drive your car, I'm saying here is something to think about. But the need to feel superior over someone else just seems to be too hard to resist for some people.

It is scaremongering. The following would need to be in place for it to be true:

1. The law would need to be amended to define precisely and unequivocally exactly what constitutes an 'essential' journey
2. This law would have to be specified to take effect at a future date.
3. Prior to that date, every insurer would have to notify every current policyholder of the changes that would be coming in and when they would take effect from.

When that date was reached, the new law would take effect.

No comment on the lawyer referenced in that article.

How can they enforce it? Surely you just say you were on your way to the supermarket to get food. What am I missing here?

@Namechangervaver I'd guess something like, If you say you were grocery shopping but were further away than several local supermarkets or on a motorway without good reason. What's fact is the police can fine you for "Leaving the place where you live 'without reasonable excuse'."

You would be able to contest insurance companies I imagine, but that's time, hassle and money.

All I'm saying is I would give it some thought if you did have to leave the house. Blindly dismissing it as scaremongering is more risk than pausing to think and having an answer ready.