That should be fine, unless he wants to park the car at anytime on a public road without being behind the wheel, as as far as I'm aware a car if parked on the public road has to have insurance. I'm sure DVD or another may be able to confirm this.
You shouldn't have a problem getting insurance for a car that's not yours, I've had to do it a few times without a problem.
Paul
|
LP - You highlight an apparent problem as having parked the vehicle friend walks off. Not his car so is he 'using' on a road.
Back to the actual owner.
Plus he can have a great time re parking illegally and stuffing you with the Tickets as registered keeper if he wanted to do so.
DVD
|
I am sure that this issue has come up several tomes before! try a search.
Does he have to be 'user' or 'in charge of'? From memory people have been deemed to be 'in charge' from having keys in their pockets, (whilst lying face down in gutter, blind drunk!)
pmh (was peter)
|
You might have trouble getting the best rates from the on-line insurance brokers, most of whom give "owner and registered keeper" as one of the requirements for giving an on-line quote.
There shouldn't be any problems getting a quote from real people you speak to.
|
|
|
|
|
This is correct to a point. Your friend is only covered in these circumstances if you have a policy on your car.
|
No. We've been here before.
A vehicle is NEVER INSURED.
A person is insured in respect of his losses or liabilities on a vehicle.
It is therefore best to get a written agreement if lending it out.
A friend, stopped by the Police need only produce insurance cover in respect of his driving. Irrelevant whether owner also has insurance.
A parked vehicle, causing loss or damage would incur it to the owner, unless that person can show he's lent it out to the friend.
The only problem I see is taxing it. The car needs insurance in the name of the registered keeper in order to obtain the disc.
|
The only problem I see is taxing it. The car needs insurance in the name of the registered keeper in order to obtain the disc.
I believe an exception to this is if the vehicle is registered in your spouses name, you are the insurance policy holder and your spouse is named on the certificate of insurance .
I hope so anyway. I have already asked about this at the post office, but I'll find out for sure when I try to tax my car, registered in my name with my wife's insurance policy with me as a named driver.
|
registered in my name with my wife\'s insurance policy with me as a named driver.
HHM:
Do you know what happens in a situation where:
your car is parked somewhere (public or private)
and a 3rd party is injured or their property damaged
arising from the position of your car.
As neither you nor your wife is \"driving\" it at the time, is it not the owner who would liable?
Would you would not need your own insurance as the owner, rather than as a named driver, in that case?
|
I thought I had made this clear above.
Loss or damage to a 3rd party is covered by whoever parked it in the situation that caused the loss or damage.
In the absence of proof or admission to the contrary, that would normally be against the registered keeper of the vehicle.
If the keeper can show he's lent it to a mate, who parked thus, it's down to the mate.
An alternative source of payment for an injured 3rd party is from the contents section of the house insurance policy.
This covers public liability losses where no other insurance is in force.
|
|
|
"As neither you nor your wife is "driving" it at the time, is it not the owner who would liable?"
Hmmm, would it not be the legal owner, who is not necessarily the registered keeper? I imagine that in this scenario, the legal owner is either myself or my wife depending on what we agree at any moment in time. i.e I can 'give' the car to my wife at any time without the need to change the registered owner.
[stands back and waits to be corrected]
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are wrong sean. Your insurance policy is based on a number of factors including the value of the vehicle, it's repair cost, the postcode you the registered keeper live in, whether it is garaged or kept out in the road, the particular models theft history, the performance of the vehicle etc. Most policies do indeed only cover a third party driving on their insurance only if a policy is in force on the vehicle. I know this, because i have several cars some not insured and my wife cannot drive them on her policy.
|
There seems to be a difference between the liability arising from parking an uninsured car in the street and somebody suffering damage from it, and another person actually being permitted to drive it.
You can presumably leave any obstruction in the street if you choose to take the risk of its injuring someone - you are not compelled to take out third party insurance on a caravan, dinghy on a trailer, pile of bricks, wheelie bin, etc.
But if you want to drive the uninsured car, let alone tax it, then you will need a bit of paper to show Mr Plod if you are stopped.
Saying a VEHICLE is never insured doesn't really resolve this point.
|
Sean,
you posted a note and I'm afraid I messed it up. I hit my edit button rather than the reply button.
Sorry for that, perhaps you can post it again ?
Mark.
|
The chances are that he will not get comprehensive insurance in his own name with the car owned by you. Its difficult to prove an insurable interest that they will accept.
Third Party insurance can be done, but it will fall outside the standard risks that many of the commodity shops will take, which might mean you aren't going to be able to get the cheapest insurance around.
However, absolutely the easiest is to insure in your name with him as a driver, and have him pay the premium. Provided it is additional insurance it won't affect the bonus on any existing vehicle in the event of a claim, although if he does have a significant claim then you will have to declare it in the future for your own insurance; however it is unlikely to make any difference to your premiums provided you are not again asking for him as a driver. I would also suggest that you declare him as the main user to ensure it is totally above board and safe.
Sean is essentially correct that insurance is held by a person rather than the vehicle, in this country at least, but its not always true and its not always relevant. The most direct form on insurance always takes precedence.
e.g. if you have the car insured in its own right, then your house insurance liability cover is not going to pay out as it is not the most direct insurance of the risk. Where two insurances have equal relevance it is typically pro-rata'd according to premium, but the situation rarely arises.
I am sure that there are examples, but I struggle to think of one where the difference mentioned by Sean would become relevant.
|
My wife's Direct Line comprehensive insurance policy schedule states:
"POLICYHOLDER - Mrs 'IanT' who is neither the legal owner nor the registered keeper of the car".
On the face of it, this seems to show there's no problem with a non-owner insuring a car. It might be relevant that it's the spouse (me) who is the legal owner and registered keeper, but I'm not mentioned anywhere in the policy schedule or certificate except as a named driver.
She also has no problems taxing the car when sending in her (non-owner) certificate of insurance. Though the DVLA reminders do come to me.
Ian
|
|
|
Providedit is additional insurance it won't affect the bonus on any existing vehicle in the event of a claim, although if he does have a significant claim then you will have to declare it in the future for your own insurance; however it is unlikely to make any difference to your premiums provided you are not again asking for him as a driver. I would also suggest that you declare him as the main user to ensure it is totally above board and safe.
Mark
I had a small prang in my Classic car (Morris Oxford).
Although this involved a different policy, I was peanalised for this by potential new insueres when I shopped around. Apparently, as I had come up to the max claims in 3 years they would not protect my NCD.
Is this because I was the main driver for both cars?
H
|
I cannot understand why you were penalised.
Firstly, the example we had previously been discussing was about an additional driver having an accident and not subsequently on the policy, hence the reason there should be no difference.
In your example I need a bit of clarification; It sounds like you are saying you had Policy1 & Car1 and Policy2 & Car2; that the accidents were on P1/C1 but you were also penalised on P2/C2 - that cannot possibly be correct - or at least, you cannot be penalised insofar as your bonus is concerned, you may well get a policy loading.
Can you clarify the situation ?
|
Mark
Your asumption is correct.
My Morris Oxford was insured via a classic car policy. The claim arose when a brake cylinder failed and the car hit my garage wall (no dual circuit in those days). The total cost to the insureres was less than £300.
As it was a classic car policy, costing about £70 p/a fully comp and NCD was not acrueable, I don't think this claim made any difference to the premium for the Morris (judging by the renewal premium).
When I shopped around for quotes for renewing my insurance for my main car (Pug 309 SRi) I was asked about claims or accidents in the last 3 years. I gave the details of this one and it was included as a fault accident arising in a claim. Hence vitually no one would offer me NCD protection. Infact Direct Line (then current insurers) were the only ones to continue the NCD protection.
I couldn't believe it either.
Does that explain it better?
H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
