MY mate's aquired a s/h car for his daughter. Car is currently off the road, no tax or MOT. Can he drive it from current owner's proprerty to MOT station for pre-booked MOT using the 3rd party provision in his own insurance policy, or does the car also have to be insured by current owner?
TIA
jonbenj
|
|
I am fairly sure that he will be OK to drive it to the MOT station.
|
|
|
as i understand it the car in question also has to be insured for the 3rd party cover of another policy to be useable on it.
this was what i was told when i enquired about this on my policy when i enquired last summer.
also irrespective of the insurance i would have thought that the lack of mot and tax make the car illegal to drive.
|
Bob,
It is quite correct that you can drive to a properly pre-booked MOT without tax or MOT.
It is also mostly understood that you can drive a car not owned by you in the circumstances described. But I too have this nagging doubt that the car in question should have a current insurance policy in force for the actual owner.
There are two quite different needs for this insurance, to convince the police if stopped and to cover a claim if you were unlucky enough to be involved in an accident.
I guess the police would be quite happy if you produced your "able to drive any car not owned by you..." certificate and proof the V5 was in your daughters name. But have an accident and make a claim, then see how the insurance company would twist and turn to minimise their liability.
I'm sorry to say in such cases calling the insurer is only likely to give you an opinion of the adviser concerned. I would like to hear it from someone more senior involved with insurance, there must be someone here.
David
|
|
|
|
jonbenj wrote:
>
> MY mate's aquired a s/h car for his daughter. Car is
> currently off the road, no tax or MOT. Can he drive it from
> current owner's proprerty to MOT station for pre-booked MOT
> using the 3rd party provision in his own insurance policy, or
> does the car also have to be insured by current owner?
Yes he will be uninsured! HE SHOULD NOT DRIVE IT.
Unless he has an genuine 'any car' policy the car must be insured by someone before he can legally drive it on the standard clause of his own insurance that allows him to drive any car with basic legal cover.
I imagine the rozzers *will* want to see the policy on the car itself.
Driving without MOT to a pre-booked MOT is not a problem.
|
Yep my feeling was right then Dave. Are you 100% sure of your source so I can now take this as gospel?
David
|
David Woollard wrote:
>
> Yep my feeling was right then Dave. Are you 100% sure of your
> source so I can now take this as gospel?
100 per cent. It's clearly written on all my policy docs. (Red Star, AXA and RAC Direct).
I use this cover frequently so I've looked into the rules a lot. Of course JonBenj might have a *real* any car policy...
...but I doubt it.
|
>
> I use this cover frequently so I've looked into the rules a
> lot. Of course JonBenj might have a *real* any car policy...
>
> ...but I doubt it.
You're right, I haven't, but I'd be curious to know what the ball-park premium would be?
|
|
|
|
|
This has reminded me of an insurance question I had from several years ago...I was a learner driver in my own car which was insured fully comp in my name only, and I tried to find out whether the person accompanying me also needed to be insured to drive my car...I ended up phoning the local police to ask and they admitted they didn't have a clue. I wonder if the rules are any clearer these days?
|
Good point Rebecca. We touched on that last night as well, and weren't sure if my pal's daughter can insure the car in her name whilst learning on a provisional licence, or whether the car has to be insured in, for example, her dad's name, with her as a named driver?
Thanks for the other responses. I suppose my mate could just phone up his insurers, but as already mentioned, he may just be given an opinion and not chapter and verse. Does anybody know if there is a UK insurance governing body who may be able to give authoratative replys to these sort of queries?
|
jonbenj wrote:
>
> Thanks for the other responses. I suppose my mate could just
> phone up his insurers,
It will be clearly written on his shedule and or certificate.
|
My girlfriend recently passed her test. She was insured as the only driver on her own policy for her car. You can be insured on a car, and not have a full DL. The instructor does not need to be insured on the car, as they are not driving. The only requirement (as far as I know) is that they must have held a full license for 3 years.
Jonathan
|
|
|
> It will be clearly written on his shedule and or certificate.
Having studied the small print last night, it's NOT clear.
|
|
|
|
Jonbenj
Try the GISC (General Insurance Standards Council) or BIBA (British Insurance Brokers Association)
as ever
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
I do remember that at the time I was insured as the sole driver on a provisional licence. This was in the late 80's before car insurance really rocketed for young drivers and before the rules changed on who could accompany a learner. The cost could well be prohibitive these days.
Sorry I can't help on the governing body question, but an insurance company (and even an advisor) may know this one.
|
|
|
Thinking about it, a car would have to have insurance in its own right, as well as being covered by the driver's insurance.
Otherwise, you would be covered to 'drive' a car, but if you parked and got out, the car would become ininsured the instant you shut the door.
Cliff Pope
|
Cliff Pope wrote:
>
> Thinking about it, a car would have to have insurance in its
> own right, as well as being covered by the driver's insurance.
> Otherwise, you would be covered to 'drive' a car, but if you
> parked and got out, the car would become ininsured the
> instant you shut the door.
Which wouldn't be a problem so long as the vehicle was never parked
on the public highway. (or in an area deemed to be accessible to the public
e.g. a private car park).
/John
|
|
The easy test is to try and tax the vehicle using its current MOT and an insurance policy that is not in the registered holders name and does not detail that particular car. To drive the car on your own 3rd party cover, taking advantage of the clause entitling you to 'drive another vehicle not owned or registered to you' is only applicable if the vehicle is insured by the registered owner as well.
|
Don't forget the substantial difference between your insurance certificate and your insurance policy.
Your certificate only grants the minimum cover required by law under any circumstances. (Used to be Third Party Injury only, although I seem to recall that they changed it to include Third Party damage also, you'd have to check the RTA to know for sure. It was after I stopped being involved in this stuff). It is your insurance policy which grants and details the appropriate cover beyond that.
You should always read them together and carefully. There are circumstances under which your certificate will grant you cover but which the policy will allow the insurance company to recover damages or losses directly from you.
You'll find extensive clauses about the DOC extension and its applicability in there.
The same is true of certificates which show something along the lines of ;
Insured Vehicle: Any motor vehicle owned by the policy holder or hired to him under a hire purchase agreement blah blah blah.
It doesn't mean it. If you look in the policy intself you will find that this is much more restricted than you might think. i.e. you can easily be in a position where you are legally insured but where the Ins. Co. can either avoid any claim or recover its losses from you.
M.
|
|
|
|
|
the insurance is fine to drive on but dont get out of the car on a public highway or your daughter as the registered keeper becomes liable to prosecution and yes she can get insured as a learner driver. as to the question of taxing the vehicle fraid not you have to have an insurance policy covering the vehicle full time with the registered keepers name on it .i discovered this problem just this week with my motor trade policy and wifes car tax despite the fact she is actually a named driver on a drive anything policy the problem was due to the insurance being owned by a limited company to get the post office to tax it i had to register her personal car in the company name raising further problems with company car taxes
|
|
|
The other twist that I have discovered is that a vehicle cannot legally be insured by more than one person.
This came about because I wanted one of the scooters to be available for either myself or occasionally my wife to drive to or from work. They would only cover the policyholder and not the named driver for that, so I said, "OK, we'll insure it in her name, 3rd party only, as well".
"Not legal" they said. "Best move is for her to use it when necessary, but if stopped say she is going to town to go shopping, not to work".
I can't for the life of me see why it is illegal. Surely the more cover the better!
|
Brian wrote:
> I can't for the life of me see why it is illegal. Surely the
> more cover the better!
Me either. It would be different if you were both going for Accidental Damage cover, since both of you couldn't have a separate financial interest in the scooter.
The only other issue could be that the company was worried about duplicate claims, but with TP cover the most direct insurance would take precedence anyway, and contribution would be unlikely to apply.
The only thing I can think of is that they translated "we don't want you to do it and the insurance company will refuse" to it being illegal.
You can insure anything you want, against anything you want, whether you own it or not. You don't break the law until/unless you claim. (well, more or less)
|
|
|
Brian wrote:
>
> The other twist that I have discovered is that a vehicle
> cannot legally be insured by more than one person.
> This came about because I wanted one of the scooters to be
> available for either myself or occasionally my wife to drive
> to or from work. They would only cover the policyholder and
> not the named driver for that, so I said, "OK, we'll insure
> it in her name, 3rd party only, as well".
> "Not legal" they said. "Best move is for her to use it when
> necessary, but if stopped say she is going to town to go
> shopping, not to work".
Sounds like the person you spoke to doesn't have a clue.
A Policyholder driving from Brighton to a permanent place of work on the Victoria Industrial Estate in Burgess Hill, is no different from the same person driving from Brighton to Tesco's in Burgess Hill.
Same distance (give or take a few hundred yards) - and all personal mileage.
/john
|
> Sounds like the person you spoke to doesn't have a clue.
>
> A Policyholder driving from Brighton to a permanent place of
> work on the Victoria Industrial Estate in Burgess Hill, is no
> different from the same person driving from Brighton to
> Tesco's in Burgess Hill.
>
> Same distance (give or take a few hundred yards) - and all
> personal mileage.
>
Sorry, actually not.
The definition of Social, Domestic and Pleasure does not, by default, include going to and from work.
The definition is normally along the lines of "S,D&P including driving to and from one permanent place of work. However, this is not a definition which has much relevance on a certificate of insurance unless the vehicle is being used in a restricted profession - taxi for example.
Where it does matter is within the policy itself. The definition of SD&P excludes to & from work, or for business, and it must specifically mention that it is including this usage as permitted. Virtually all large composites would include this as standard, however many syndicates do not.
Another example of where you can be legally insured but in breach of the conditions to the point where the company can avoid or reclaim expenses.
> /john
|
and I don't know why I left John at the bottom of the note, it was definitely written by me. Where's the delete button ?
Doh !
|
Mark,
I tend to agree about the need to find out exactly what is covered in these borerline situations.
I have a motor trade policy with a major company which is good in all its trade parts, and cheap. However it also covers my wife for our business use plus both of us for normal social, domestic and pleasure. At the outset we ensured this covered her to use the car for travelling to her work.....OK there.
Recently she needed to use her car for travelling to an alternative work location, not that unusual in these times of greater flexibility. We were given cover while this was checked out but they have now clarified that her normal place of work is.....well.....her normal place of work. Even if the alternative was a one day course in a nearer town than her normal workplace she isn't covered.
Now she just requests a company car for these extra trips so there is no problem. But as I said to the insurance company this seems like nit picking and how many would bother to ask in detail?
David
|
She should always ask for a company car for anything like this, or take a taxi. Although if it is a Govt. organisation, they used to always pay the additional premium required to give you this cover on your car insurance.
The worst is if she drove from one company office to another in normal working hours - Full Business Use, something like a 30% load.
|
|
|
|
|
