I suspect that in a case like this once a claim is made the various insurers would then fight it out amongst themselves to see who if any of them was liable. Those who think they can rely on RTA cover should look at the case of
Mr Holden where the use of a vehicle is discussed.
What is YOUR interpretation of this matter?
I have been told in the past that things like a tractor while stationary driving a sawbench on the belt have frequently made it necessary to decide whether it is RTA or PLI and as in the case of Mr Holden it is often down to the courts to decide.
PLI is only applicable to EMPLOYERS, in 'our' case it has no relevence.
Incidentally you may be interested to note that due to the fact we have not had a government since 2016 ......Errrr....?
the changes required to UK law in the light of Vnuk have never been made. In a recent judgement Lord Justice Flaux stated: “The fact that the UK government has failed to legislate for compulsory insurance in respect of the use of motor vehicles on private land and then specifically to delegate to the MIB the residual liability where the relevant vehicle is uninsured, can legitimately be described as a breakdown in the system put in place by the government.”
The provisions of the RTA have applied to off road situations for about 20 years, a rally field is NOT private land.
Whether the present incumbents will be any different who knows....