|
Re Fire and theft. Read the policy, but generally the 'driving other cars' clause on grants Third Party Only cover.
|
|
May well be insured when being driven, park it up on the roadway and it won't be. The driver and owner then may become liable.
|
You could look at it that way-but I wouldn't worry about it, I mean, what's going to happen? A lot of things to do with car insurance is subject to unsaid assumptions and 'good will' etc. I.e. when you take out car insurance you must declare anything that is of 'material value' to the policy, even if you aren't directly asked the question, similarly if you don't declare something your insurance could be void. Or another example; if you are a named driver and aren't considered the main user, but you are-you can't measure who uses the car the most down to the last minute, but if the insurance thinks you are the main user when you aren't listed as that on the policy they can refuse to pay out....
So my point is this-surely if when you use the car for the purposes of your third party cover, if you leave the car parked and something happens your insurance will cover you and the owner as even though the person driving under the 'drive any cars' clause isn't in the car they are legally considered the driver at that point and so the insurance still applies...surely this is how it works?
|
|
|
|
Not convinced.
An MOT tester is unlikely to have a standard domestic policy. Motor trade policies are VERY different to standard.
|
> Not convinced.
An MOT tester is unlikely to have a standard domestic policy. Motor trade policies are VERY different to standard.
Not convinced about what? The motor trade policy probably is hella different, but the fact remains that it clearly can be legal to drive a car that you don't own that isn't insured by it's owner, provided your policy allows. MOT testers and trade insurance policy holders don't have any special rights in English Law that I know of-that is why I said check the policy-but in my experience private car policys that have the 'drive other cars' clause allow you to, regardless of any other insurances that are or aren't on the car. That is why the small print expressly states you CAN'T be the owner of the car you are driving or that it is hired to you etc.
|
|
I understand that to drive another car (or bike for that matter) under the drive other vehicle terms on most policies the other car has to be insured in its own right.
|
Cheddar you're right.
The main discussion here is about whether the insurance company would pay out in the event of a claim. Remember that this could become a criminal matter very easily at amny point.
My gruntle would be really dissed if some plank using this way to insure his car crashed into mine and I think he would find the full force of the law civil and criminal come crashing down on him. By the time i'd finished with him he would uninsurable in this country
for the rest of his natural.
I'm pleased to see that most insurance companies are moving from this allowance.
Where's Mark and his verbal missiles when you want him ?
|
|
|
|
if car is not insured by the person that is lending it to you then you are NOT insured.
The policeman on the programme you were referring to was also wrong as the mot tester had not advised the abi that he was travelling in that car at the time which is why it got flagged on apnr,he should have had mot applicable trade plates on the vehicle.
OP tell friend to ring insurer and ask them to cover the car 3rd party while he needs to use it and get him to confirm the car he is having repaired is insured while in the care of the 3rd party repairer
clear?
|
if car is not insured by the person that is lending it to you then you are NOT insured. The policeman on the programme you were referring to was also wrong as the mot tester had not advised the abi that he was travelling in that car at the time which is why it got flagged on apnr,he should have had mot applicable trade plates on the vehicle. OP tell friend to ring insurer and ask them to cover the car 3rd party while he needs to use it and get him to confirm the car he is having repaired is insured while in the care of the 3rd party repairer clear?
Oldchap - clear, but clearly wrong!
if car is not insured by the person that is lendingit to you then you are NOT insured.
No, that is just not so.
The policeman on the programme you were referring to was alsowrong as the mot tester had not advised the abi that he was travelling in that car at the time which is why it got flagged on apnr,he should have had mot applicable trade plates on the vehicle.
MOT tester doesn't need to advise ABI... he's not using the vehicle for more than a fortnight.. and trade plates... whaddya mean 'mot applicable'? They're nowt to do with MOT - they allow limited trade use of an untaxed vehicle - this was taxed, so doesn't arise! Policeman was correct, if what you say was the case.
The valid point here - and it's a moot one - is whether the car is insured when its parked on a public road (rather than being driven, when as long as 'driving other cars' extension applies, it clearly is - third party only).
Arguably, the car is still being 'used' by the person who parked it there intil it's moved by someone else - for example, if that person's insurance was valid when it was parked, but then expired, they'd continue to be liable for it in the absence of anyone else taking charge. So - the converse also applies - still liable and therefore still insured while its parked, if parked by them. Plod might take some persuading on that, but I'd be happy to do so.
This forum always amazes me, in the sense that while there's a lot of experience and expertise, (and I include Oldman in this within his own field), the complete lack of either doesn't seem ever to restrain people from offering fallacy as absolute cast iron fact - even though wrong advice is worse than none at all!?
I read here often, but in most instances I haven't any idea of the right answer. When I do, its worrying to see the degree of discussion - particularly of legal issues - from people who shouldn't necessarily know BETTER but should at least know when not to post!
Doh!
Neil
|
autumnboy i would be very interested to hear where you got a 14 day grace of not informing the abi database that you were testing or driving a vehicle.
The reason i mentioned trade plates even though the vehicle was taxed is exactly because the trade plates are registered at your insurance company and therefore if you put them in the window of the car you are driving then you are also insured for that vehicle on your traders policy.If you are an mot tester and feel that you want to test drive customers cars you get the plates and then you do not have to ring the database to inform them you are going on the road,this is in case that the vehicle that has been presented for mot has not been insured by the presenter of this car(as the policeman found out the car on the television was not insured by the owner which is why he pulled it)
To reiterate on the programme the policeman was wrong he could have gone for no insurance on the mot tester ok it might have got thrown out of court but until a precedence is set then i would not be the first to try the system.
ok???????
|
that should say neil not autumboy sorry.......oh for an amend button
going to take a car for a test drive now with my plates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ooo I love this question. Provided the insurance policy he has on his own car specifies 'driving other cars' then yes he most likely can, although he might want to read his small print/check with his insurer. Seriously-ususally when you have the 'driving other cars is allowed' clause the only requirements are that the car you want to drive is road legal (ie taxed and MOT'd) and that you don't own the car and that you have the owners permission. Also the car can't be hired to you etc.
Arguabbly, this car is hired. If it is being supplied by the repairer, then although there may not be a specific charge for the car, it is being supplied as part of a contract and would not be supplied if that contract did not exist. That looks to me like a form of hiring.
If it is being lent by a friend, then that's a different matter, but eve so I wouldn't drive a car in those circumstances without first checking very carefully with my insurer.
|
|
My last post was directed at component part not you cheddar.
|
I asked this same question to my insurer (Lloyds TSB) a few weeks ago and was told NO I would not be insured unless the car was already insured by the owner or registered kepper (one or the other, can't remember)
Lee
|
|
As long as the car was insured, doesn't matter by whom.
|
see previous thread:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=34314&...f
Insurance - Cover Driving another car - Cardew Tue 30 Aug 05 14:37
|
As others have pointed out, the time limit on registering a car on the Motor Insurers Database (MID) is 14 days. If you have a car in your possession with blanket car insurance coverage and plan to drive it under its own plates (as opposed to trade plates) then you should, via your own insurers, add it onto the MID.
If an MOT tester is driving the car for a short time they do not have to register it on the MID and as long as it is taxed do not need to use trade plates.
A trade policy will usually be worded something to the effect of "any vehicle the possession of or in the control of the insured" and not mention a specific car or number plate.
If they do not drive a car on the public road under its own number plates a trader does not need to add it onto the MID even if they have it for 14 days. Any trade plates they use, however, should be on the MID.
|
|
|
|
> I asked this same question to my insurer (Lloyds TSB) a few weeks > ago and was told NO I would not be insured unless the car was
> already insured by the owner or registered kepper (one or the
> other, can't remember)
> Lee
That's interesting; because when I had the 'driving other cars' clause on my insurance I scanned the large print, scanned the small print and also rang the insurance company (Budget-although the policies they issue are underwritten by whoever) and all avenues of enquiry gave me the same answer. That answer was the EXACT opposite of what you have just said. I reckon whoever you spoke to doesn't know what they're talking about (not in all matters or as in stupid, just this issue). If you really want to resolve this issue for me and also for the information of others then if you have the time please post the exact wording of your small print or at least give it a thorough read and see what it suggests.
Think about it...PLEASE...why would a car need to be 'insured in it's own right' for your insurance company to give YOU the legal minimum required 'Third Party' cover when you are driving it, as long as the vehicle is otherwise road worthy and you have permission to use it etc? What in God's name does any other insurance policy that may be in effect on that vehicle have to do with YOUR insurance cover....It doesn't make any sense using common sense.
Read what Neil has said-he backs up what I have said through his own comments.
Regards to the 'MID' etc, what does it matter? If a car is not on the MID e.g. it's registered keeper's insurance lapsed whilst the car is still MOT'd and taxed and is otherwise road legal then if the cops run it's plate it will be flagged up as an uninsured vehicle and the driver will likely be pulled over. But that doesn't matter-as long as you are insured, such as driving via the 'drive other cars' clause on your insurance and you have the owners permission to drive that car etc then the cops will be happy and you will be free to go. What happens to it's real owner on another day whilst parked up and uninsured, or being driven by them uninsured is another matter entirely.
Check your policy-if it says you can only drive other cars only on days where the weather is wet and windy, or only on the second Thursday of any given month, then that is the way it is. If it expressly says that you can only drive another car if it is 'insured in it's own right' then I won't argue with that, that's the way it is. But read your entire policy. I would love to read an example of some policy text that specifies in some way shape or form that the car must be 'insured in it's own right' for your 'driving other cars' Third Party Only cover to be valid-the only conditions on my policy were that the car wasn't owned by me or hired to me and that I had the owners permission to drive. To be honest the car might not even need to be taxed or MOT'd-after all these are summary offences and don't always affect your insurance status but at least if the car is taxed and MOT'd you can consider yourself pretty safe.
|
I would like to add that my above opinions/conclusions are based on experience and logical reasoning. Although I am confident in my beliefs I accept that I may be wrong and if someone can prove otherwise then I will happily accept the truth, I like to think things through and present a logical and balanced point of view.
:-)
|
Don't see why this is so complicated
1. My wife's policy, and also my daughter's, allow them to drive another vehicle with the owners permission and they do not have to inform anyone before they do. The cover is only third party so damage to the car they drive IS NOT covered. This is the provision that saved the MOT tester as he was driving with the owner's permission and had his own policy which allowed him to drive other cars.
2. My sons policy states that he is not isured to drive other vehicles (was 17 when taken out).
The point to remember is that the cover is only third party so only damage to others, and not the car you are driving, is covered.
|
|
|
For the first time ever I disagree with PU. The other car can be uninsured.
It will all depend on what is in the Policy as CP states. I do understand that Insurance Companies are moving away from that open clause because people are abusing the 'emergency use' aspect that it provides. Thankfully my Insurance allows me to drive any insured vehicle. My Policy states so.
It always amazes me that on such a question that can only be resolved with certainty by the Insurance Company themselves that they are not approached at the outset. Bit like asking a bloke in a pib permission to park on a yellow?
dvd
|
The car must be taxed and tested and have a minimum of third party insurance.
If you were to take Neils point of veiw whats stopping me registering 10 cars in my sisters name, taxing and MOTing them and driving them all on my policy? Are the insurance companies really that dumb?
Even for a car to be parked on the street it has to be insured a minimum of third party.
|
@Dox
> If you were to take Neils point of veiw whats stopping me registering 10 cars in my sisters name, taxing and MOTing them and driving them all on my policy? Are the insurance companies really that dumb?
Erm no they aren't that dumb-in that instance you would be the true owner of the vehicle and therefore you would be foul of the condition that states that you can't own the vehicle. It would also be a material fact-what you have suggested above is like when you insure yourself on a car through someone else and put yourself as a named driver and not the main user, when in fact you are. It is a material fact that could mean your insurance won't pay out in the event of a claim. Nowt to stop you from doing it but it wouldn't work.
Your logic is flawed and you are drawing incorrect conclusions.
|
whats stopping me registering 10 cars in my sisters name, taxing and MOTing them and driving them all on my policy?
You can't tax them with your insurance DOC policy.
|
|
The problem is finding someone in an insurance company who is able to give a definitive answer.
You have introduced the concept of 'emergency use' into the thread. What does this mean? Life or death transport or taking a car out of the driveway because you are blocked in?
I remember trying to resolve the term 'principle user' with an insurer (they introduced the term themselves). I even ended talking directly to an 'underwriter' at a major company who could not understand that principle user was dependent upon the period of time over which you made the judgement. Is it measured on miles driven, time taken, no of trips etc. I was attempting to resolve the position of a named driver, 20yr old daughter, on my policy (she had her own car and cover at the time), but wished to use my car for reliability reasons to collect things from Uni at the end of a term. IIRC they seemed to take the view that an overnight stay would make her the principle user, despite the fact that she probably only covered less than 5% of the cars abnnual mileage. I pointed out that if they reduced the time period sufficiently the driver at a given point in time then becomes the principle user.
The person in question started to see the light and resorted to saying read the policy.
--
pmh (was peter)
|
Where is the requirement to have third party insurance to park on the street (apart from needing it to get the road tax which is needed)?
After all the car cannot do any harm unless it is being movedand then it is not parked.
|
|
If someone falls drunk against your car they can claim off your insurance, it has to be insured to be on the public roads even if parked (a friend of mine received 10 points on his licence for this.
|
|
For the first time ever I disagree with PU. The other car can be uninsured.
This needs clarification.
I understand that a trader can be insured to drive otherwise uninsured vehicles that dont belong to him however private policies that allow other vehicles to be driven do so on the basis that the other vehicle is insured by it's owner/keeper. I assume the reason is to avoid fraud, otherwise as been said I could have two cars, if one was in my wife's, mate's or parent's name I could drive both on one policy.
|
|
I worked fo a major motor manufacturer and was once stopped and asked to show an insurance certificate-I produced it later at my local station and the station sergeant(shows you how long ago it was)was amazed.The certicate had one line on it-THE DRIVER IS INSURED-no supplementary clauses,conditions,no comments on rallying or racing.
|
|
More and more companies are taking out the cover for driving other vehicles at the request of the police because it is being abused.
|
Many years ago I used to work with my father selling mopeds and small Japanese motorcycles.
On one occasion, when I was "Out for the firm" I was stopped by the police and asked to produce my insurance certificate. I clearly didn't have this with me, so had to return to work and ask the boss for the firms insurance certificate.
When I went to produce it at the local police station I was amazed at it's wording. From memory, it was a long time ago, it covered any driver to drive any vehicle, provided, of course, that they were in the employment of and working for the company.
This was readily accepted by the police. No reason whatsoever why it shouldn't have been as neither my employer nor myself had been doing anything wrong.
|
|
|
|
> I asked this same question to my insurer (Lloyds TSB) a few weeks > ago and was told NO I would not be insured unless the car was > already insured by the owner or registered kepper (one or the > other, can't remember) > Lee
That answer was the EXACT opposite ofwhat you have just said. I reckon whoever you spoke to doesn't know what they're talking about (not in all matters or as in stupid, just this issue). If you really want to resolve this issue for me and also for the information of others then if you have the time please post the exact wording of your small print or at least give it a thorough read and see what it suggests. Think about it...PLEASE...why would a car need to be 'insured in it's own right' for your insurance company to give YOU the legal minimum required 'Third Party' cover when you are driving it, as long as the vehicle is otherwise road worthy and you have permission to use it etc? What in God's name does any other insurance policy that may be in effect on that vehicle have to do with YOUR insurance cover....It doesn't make any sense using common sense. Read what Neil has said-he backs up what I have said through his own comments.
Component,
At some point I will actually take the time to read my small print when I find the little booklet that came with my policy and see whats what, but the fact remains, when I called my insurance about this matter I was told "NO" I was not insured unless the car was already insured etc etc, if the car was already insured then I would be covered 3rd Party under my comp. insurance, the chap on the phone didn't have to go and check this and semmed pretty sure of himself (maybe it's something they get asked frequently?).... that was good enough for me. I wasn't going to take the risk after being told "no" by my insurance company, however stupid it may seem. End of....
Lee
|
Fair dues-if you can't go by what your insurance company tell you then what can you go by?
Can we establish some facts on this thread:
1) There is no legal requirement for a car to be 'insured in it's own right' for your insurance company to be able to provide you with the legal minimum Third Party Only cover under the 'driving other cars' clause on your policy, and
2) Whether the car does need to 'insured in it's own right' or not is down to your individual insurer.
|
The question regarding whether a car has to be insured in it's own right so that one can drive it legally on one's own insurance policy under the DOC section is certainly a very valid one.
Isn't it time that car insurance companies were made to make this aspect crystal clear by including the full story in their policies?
A similar thing used to happen in connection with the DOC regarding the fact that this cover is only ever third party even if your own car is comprehensively insured. I believe that, these days, insurers do now explain this in their policies but they didn't used to say anything about it at all.
|
The confusion is for a very good reason but precedense is not so complicated - there is no legal requirement for anyone to have driving license to own a car. And without driving license one can't obtain insurance. But what, you may ask, if you buy a car, just for fun, to sit inside on cloudy afternoons or just so it looks pretty next to your lawn, and then you accidentaly release a handbreak, causing it to roll and destroy multiple cars, run over someone's bonzai garden, through the wall and stop in the middle of living room? Well, that has nothing to do with driving insurance, since no driving was involved. It's personal liability, just like cutting tree in a garden and knocking down someone's bungalow in the process...
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
It's not quite the same thing, because there is no legal requirement to have a licence or insurance to sit in a car off road, or to cut down a tree.
But to drive, the law requires not only a licence but also adequate insurance. So it is not just a civil matter between you, a third party, and the insurance company, but a criminal one too. If your insurance company refuses to pay up for a third party damage, then by definition you were not insured. And if you were not insured, you were breaking the criminal law.
|
> It's not quite the same thing, because there is no legal requirement to have a licence
> or insurance to sit in a car off road, or to cut down a tree.
> But to drive, the law requires not only a licence but also adequate insurance.
That's what I tried to point. As long as de facto driver is covered, either directly or via DOC clause, there is no legal requirement for the owner to be insured on its own. And against what some posters believe, there is no legal requirement for the car parked on public road to be insured either.
In fact DOC extensions to policies and existance of open company/trade/Drive-All-Cars policies render the whole insurance database useless. Especially that DVLA itself, which some of you might not know, will accept and issue road tax to cars registered in UK but insured abroad. None of the above cases will ever be in ABI or any other database...
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
Further to this I myself had a car which I owned as was taxed and MOT'd (MOT irrelavent as I wasn't driving it) but wasn't insured as I wasn't driving it-it just sat in a public parking bay. I didn't feel like I was breaking any laws-decalring it SORN was not an option as I have no off road parking. In fact it shows how honest I am that I would bother to tax a car purely for the sake of legality so I can keep it on the public highway.
What V0n is saying makes sense-why can't people grasp this concept?
|
And against what some posters believe, there is no legalrequirement for the car parked on public road to be insured either.
Can we have authoritative chapter and verse on that? It sounds very unlikely. Are you saying that when the police spot an "uninsured" car parked on the road, they have to wait and actually catch someone driving it before any offence has been committed?
It would seem to make meaningless the often-heard suggestion that insurance disks should be displayed in the windscreen as in some other countries. The disk displayed would have to be changed to reflect the person driving at the time, and when parked it would be correct for the driver to remove his disk because he was no longer driving.
|
> Are you saying that when the police spot an "uninsured" car parked on the road,
> they have to wait and actually catch someone driving it before any offence has been committed?
Since we are not insuring cars in this country, but drivers for cars, there is technically no such thing as "uninsured car". There might be suspition of someone driving it without insurance, although, as I pointed out previously - because of whole galore of policies that allow driving all cars/any cars/occasional or even one off, daily use of a car, regardless of its ownership - the only way to prove it is indeed to "actually catch someone driving it before any offence has been committed", as you suggested. I know Traffic Police these days would love to sit in warm office and chuff in their chairs all day long while cameras and APRNs do all the hard work, but unfortunately there is no crime until crime is commited and I'm pretty sure a stationary car, without insurance, doesn't perpetrate any offence. :)
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
I've thoroughly checked my policy and all subsequent endorsements, and my certificate of insurance, and there is not even the slightest hint that I would not have third party cover when driving a car that doesn't belong to me or is not hired to me under a hire purchase agreement unless it is also insured by the owner. Thinking logically, there would be no benefit to me if the car was also insured by the owner. As the driver of someone else's car all I want is to be indemnified against claims from a third party and my policy gives me this indemnification.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
L'escargot, exactly the point I was making, I agree with that.
|
|
No you are not covered. The Insurenace company expect the car to be insured by the other party but Policy permitting allow you to drive it TPFT on your policy without notification. If theis was not the case we would all own one car and the wire owwns the others and I could drive any of them purely on my policy. Add to this the when you step out of the cear it is no longer insurd. If it should role away and smack another car your policy is not going to pay out. All raod leagal vehicles require a stand alone insurance policy ( Non Commercial ). Regards Peter
|
> If theis was not the case we would all own one car and the wire owwns the others and I could drive any of them purely on my policy.
This really should be "what you know", not "what you think" thread. I've spent a lot of time clearing up DOC terms and conditions with CIS, another small brokerage using AXA as their backbone and Norwich Union, while they were still doing DOC extensions and in every single case there was never requirement for the cars to be insured by owners.
Of course it's open to abuse, of course you will have people with DOC on 20 year old Panda driving japanese import Evo registered to their wife. In fact some insurers dropped DOC because of abuse -
( www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car-insurance/arti...5 )
But in many cases DOC is still exactly what it says on the tin - drive other cars. Full stop. Some policies don't even bother to add "with permission of rightful owner"....
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
a few posts have asked for "chapter and verse".
well, you can read it all here:
exisitng law:
www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_7....m
www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2....0
meaning of road, public place, etc:
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_a.html#09
"Definitions of "road or other public place"
The term `road' is defined at section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as any length of highway or other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines `road' as a line of communication for use of foot passengers and vehicles; while in Oxford -v- Austin [1981] RTR 416 it was said to be a definable right of way between two points.
The expression 'on a road or other public place' is employed frequently in Road Traffic legislation, for example, in the drafting of moving traffic offences at sections 1-6 RTA. A public place is a place to which the public, or part thereof, have access.
See (Wilkinson's 21st edition pp 1.123 - 1.159) for further details.
See also DPP -v- Vivier [1991] CLR 637, DPP -v- Neville [1996] 160 JP and Cutter -v- Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd, Clarke -v- Kato and Others [1998] 4 All ER 417.
Insurance cover is required for the use of a vehicle on a road or a public place.
See (Wilkinson's 21st edition p A 25.211).
i haven't the time to find the reference to definition of "use", but believe me, a car parked on the road or public place is being "used" in law.
proposed new law:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills...f
(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 144 there is inserted?
?144A Duty of registered owner to display motor vehicle insurance disc
(1) The registered owner of a motor vehicle must not use a motor vehicle
on a road or other public place unless there is displayed on the vehicle
in a manner prescribed by regulations under section 148A(2) a valid
motor vehicle insurance disc of the required kind (?a vehicle disc?).
what the rac currently says about its insurance:
www.rac.co.uk/web/insurance/car/frequently_asked_q...s
Can I drive other people's cars under my own insurance?
No. The Driving Other Cars extension has historically allowed policyholders only to drive cars that do not belong to them and are not hired to them under a hire purchase agreement, subject to the owner's permission. The cover provided is Third Party only cover which does not cover damage to the car they are driving, but does cover liability for damage and injury to third parties. This cover operates only whilst the Policyholder is driving and was designed to be used in emergency situations only.
....
what the insurance industry say colectively:
www.abi.org.uk/Display/File/364/submission_to_the_...f
12. Ineligible vehicles being driven under Driving Other Cars (DOC) ?
typically, DOC cover is only valid for the policyholder to drive a similar type
of vehicle belonging to someone else, for third party cover only. An
example of this type of offence is when a car is driven home from a
showroom after purchase, where the owner believes that their existing
DOC cover is sufficient.
|
So far it only confirms that
a) Insurance cover is required to use the car
b) Dalglish thinks parked car is in use
c) Parliament would like insurance disks
d) DOC clause to RAC insurance has clearly worded limitation (emergency use only)
e) You can not drive new car you purchased on DOC extension of insurance policy to your previous car.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
@Peter
"No you are not covered. The Insurenace company expect the car to be insured by the other party but Policy permitting allow you to drive it TPFT on your policy without notification. If theis was not the case we would all own one car and the wire owwns the others and I could drive any of them purely on my policy. Add to this the when you step out of the cear it is no longer insurd. If it should role away and smack another car your policy is not going to pay out. All raod leagal vehicles require a stand alone insurance policy ( Non Commercial ). Regards Peter"
Nothing in that statement is correct, except maybe your name. Sorry bud. Have a read of V0n's post, he seems to know what he is talking about.
|
My insurer doesn't give a monkey's (and rightly so) whether the owner has insured a car I drive but don't own. All my insurer promises is to indemnify me against claims from a third party whilst I'm driving said car. They're not in the slightest bit interested in any damage done to the car I'm driving; it's up to the owner what he does about that risk.
--
L\'escargot.
|
b) Dalglish thinks parked car is in use
>>
v0n may (smugly?) think i am the only one, but i am sorry to tell him that i have found the time to dig this up:
www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/pumb.htm
Parked car requires MOT and insurance certificate.
Pumbien v Vines
(1995) The Times June 14 Queen's Bench Divisional Court
A motor car parked on a road was being used on the road for the purposes of sections 47 and 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 even if it was totally immobilised and could only be moved by being dragged away, and, therefore, required both a valid MOT certificate and an insurance policy.
now is there anything else i can clear up for you?
bring it on.
|
|
As I said if you drive someone elses car it has to be insured by the other party. Thanks for that Dalglish. Regards Peter
|
Peter D
I have seen nothing in this thread that can substantiate your conclusion, other than your own (or other peoples) statements.
(Provided that it is not a condition of DOC cover on the holders policy).
--
pmh (was peter)
|
> As I said if you drive someone elses car it has to be insured by the other party.
No, technically it doesn't. All we know now for certain that a car, parked on public road and not driven is considered in use and requires a insurance cover.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
All *I* can safely surmise from this thread so far is that:
(a) a car parked on the road is in use
(b) to use a car on the road you need insurance
(c) many insurers provide third party only cover for driving cars not owned by/hired to them
(d) no one (so far) has a policy that actually says in order for the DOC cover to be valid the car *must* be covered by another policy
(e) many people believe that to use the DOC cover another policy covering the car must exist
I would therefore *appear* to be insured to drive any car not owned/hired by me (since my insurance provides this and does not limit it to cars already covered), but that I should start and end my journey one private land ;-)
Whether the owner of the car has insured it against other risk, whilst a valid point, would appear to me to be a separate matter all together, and unrelated to my cover. My insurer provides cover in the event I have an accident while the car is in use by me, but only for 3rd party risk. They'll be the ones to pay out if I cause damage to a third party after all.
It would appear that the owner of the car can make whatever arrangements he likes to cover his own risk/liability or risk to the vehicle, subject to the legal requirement to insure a car if it is being used.
All in my completely inexpert opinion :-)
Peter
|
Meant to also add, the wording of my policy explicitly says "The Policy holder may also drive with the consent of the owner... Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle..."
If they feel the need to state the obvious wrt to a driving licence, surely they'd add a clause making the cover subject to the car being covered by another policy if it was a requirement?
Perhaps I'll call them later, but am not confident the call centre staff would grasp the question correctly ;-)
Peter
|
> now is there anything else i can clear up for you?
Fantastic find. Effectively a motor car parked on the road was being used for "standing with tyres deflated, handbrake on and the rear brakes seized developing leakage of oil from gearbox" and therefore "used" by definition, full stop.
Is there any case example of liability in such circumstances - as in - if the car was driven and parked by a driver, is it up to the owner or last driver's insurance policy to cover possible third party damage caused by such car "standing and developing leaks" as per example?
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
Just to confirm what Dalglish mentions:
A vehicle is IN USE on a road when it is stationary and unattended and IT MUST BE INSURED. High Court decision in Elliott v Grey [1959]- 3 All ER 733 that have access to Law reports.
Adams v Evans [1971] vehicle had no rear axle or wheels and was parked in a cul-de -sac required Insurance.
Elliott v Grey points out that while DOC may permit driving another's uninsured vehicle a problem could arise if it is parked up between start and end of journey when 'driving'would have to be considered to cover use.
Adams v Evans would appear to be that the owner of the 'wreck' had not abandoned the vehicle as a motor vehicle and intended to return it to a state fit for the road.
dvd
|
|
I happened to phone my m/c ins broker this PM, saved £80 on the renewal though that is another story, in going through the policy details thaey said that I am insured to ride another bike TP as long as it it not owned by me, I asked if this other bike had to be insured by it's owner, they categorically said that it does and that I am not insured to ride another bike that is otherwise uninsured. IIRC it is the same with my NU car policy.
|
|
I've kept my size 12 boots out of this so far. Whilst not disagreeing with the insurance company I still don't see why the other vehicle needs insuring.
|
|
NU also declare the same for cars and added the vehicle must be compliant under the road traffic and have a Road Fund License, Current MOT and be Insured by the lending party. As I said you can not drive someone elses car if that vehicle is not insured. This is going to be a long thread. Regards Peter
|
NU also declare the same for cars and added the vehicle must be compliant under the road traffic and have a Road Fund License, Current MOT and be Insured by the lending party. As I said you can not drive someone elses car if that vehicle is not insured. This is going to be a long thread. Regards Peter
Well... lets see. As someone else summed up above, if an insurer requires this, as part of the contract - and makes it clear that it is - then if the car isn't otherwise insured, the DOC extension would not apply - although note that if there's any reference to DOC on the certificate, it wouldn't prevent a third party claiming on the insurance and then the insurer suing their policyholder...However, unless they do make this a term of the contract (and although a callcentre wallah saying so would technically be included in the contract if it was while the terms were being agreed, I suspect that isn't what insurers actually intend!) it is NOT a requirement in law. So - maybe a requirement IF THE CONTRACT SAYS SO - otherwise not. A bit like, if they say it is so while they're negotiating with you to take out a contract of comprehensive insurance, they could (and Tesco just have) insert a clause that only their authorised repairer may be used for own damage claims. If they don't say so, they can't insist. Same principle here - unless they make it a term of the insurance, it is not a requirement that the vehicle be otherwise insured.
However, perhaps someone else might like to give their own interpretation, based on.... well, their interpretation?
|
NU also declare the same for cars and added the vehicle must be compliant under the road traffic and have a Road Fund License, Current MOT and be Insured by the lending party. As I said you can not drive someone elses car if that vehicle is not insured. This is going to be a long thread. Regards Peter
Well... lets see. As someone else summed up above, if an insurer requires this, as part of the contract - and makes it clear that it is - then if the car isn't otherwise insured, the DOC extension would not apply - (although note that if there's any reference to DOC on the certificate, it wouldn't prevent a third party claiming on the insurance and then the insurer suing their policyholder...)
However, unless they DO make this a term of the contract (and although a callcentre wallah saying so would technically be included in the contract -if it was while the terms were being agreed I suspect that isn't what the insurers underwriters actually intend!) It is NOT a requirement in law. So - may be a requirement IF THE CONTRACT SAYS SO - otherwise not. A bit like, if they say it is so while they're negotiating with you to take out a contract of comprehensive insurance, they could (and Tesco just have) insert a clause that only their authorised repairer may be used for own damage claims. If they don't say so, they can't insist. Same principle here - unless they make it a term of the insurance, it is not a requirement that the vehicle be otherwise insured.
However, perhaps someone else might like to give their own interpretation, based on.... well, their interpretation?
|
Wow
I'd never thought this post would be such a topical question.
Thanks all. I will suggest to my friend to contact his insurance company and pop in and ask PC Blod the same question to be sure.
Thanks again for your comments
|
This is what Merlin Helps Students (tinyurl.co.uk/rf2c ) says on the subject.
"Driving other cars
If your certificate says so, this policy provides the same cover as the clause above when you are driving any other car as long as it is not a car owned by you or hired to you under a hire purchase agreement. This cover only applies if:
there is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim;
you have the owner's permission to drive the car;
the car is being driven in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands; and
you still have the insured car and it has not been damaged beyond cost-effective repair."
My interpretation of the highlighted part is that for your "driving any other car" cover to be effective it is necessary for other insurance not to be in force. This is exactly the opposite of saying that the car must also be insured by the owner.
I intend to ring my insurer (CIS) today to see what they have to say about my policy.
--
L'escargot.
|
|
In your example it doesn't say the car must otherwise be uninsured, it says there must be no other insurance that would cover the same claim. The insurer is saying it will not provide cover where that cover is already provided by someone else - fair enough.
|
The whole confusing issue arises IMO because there is apparently no clearly stated principle laid down as to whether the fundamental insurance requirement in the UK is for the CAR or for the DRIVER to be covered.
So a parked non-working car apparently requires someone to be insured to drive it, even though to do so would contravene the terms of that very insurance - car not roadworthy, etc.
It is possible to own a car and insure it without being a driver - for years my father did that, presumably on the grounds that he had bought the car even though my mother was the main driver.
If someone keeps his car in the road but is then disqualified, he is not covered by his insurance. But the car itself presumably still is as long as he pays the premium, even though he might be the only permitted driver.
They really need to sort out this confusion if they want to stop people exploiting DOC clauses.
Surely insurance cover ought to be in two parts:
1) for the car, to allow it to be on the road, and give third party cover for things such as fire, handbrake failing, etc.
2) for the drivers. These to be named, or restricted, as appropriate. Cover to drive other cars to be clearly stated, also that it is only to drive, not to cover (1).
|
In your example it doesn't say the car must otherwise be uninsured, it says there must be no other insurance that would cover the same claim. The insurer is saying it will not provide cover where that cover is already provided by someone else - fair enough.
I guess such as if you were a named driver on the other vehicles insurance or if it was insured for any driver.
|
As I understand insurance law you cannot claim twice for the same loss under two policies - in some cases two policies covering the same loss can each invalidate the other (intent to defraud)!
If my wife (I have a company car so I do not have a policy) can only drive another car under her third party cover if it is otherwise insured then she doesn't need the TP cover provided on her policy to drive it! In fact if the other car is insured only for named drivers (and she is not a named driver hence using her TP cover) then as soon as she gets in to drive it it ceases to be covered under the owners policy and is then not insured so she would be in breach of the requirement for the car to have other insurance!
Surely whether the owner is insured to drive it is irrelevant. As an example when my grandfather died his policy automatically lapsed so car not insured - ownership transfered to my grandmother who had no license. My father, a serving police inspector at the time, drove it to a garage on his TP cover where it was sold.
Will have to read the small print tonight and make sure we are complying with the "utmost good faith" requirements!
|
This thread reminds me of two things:
1. the man who intorduced red lines on the red routes did it because their survey indicated that less than 5% of drivers understood what the single and double yellow lines meant (lets not start that one)
2. The Who Wants to be a Millionaire show where no-one got the starter question on traffic light colour sequence right!
Must go and read the small print and not assume the idiot in the call centre knows the answer - after all the small print will be written by their solicitor.
|
Tesco small print is on line
Policy wording is
"Indemnity to the Policyholder
We will indemnify You against legal liability for damages, claimants costs and expenses in the event of an accident
Involving:
Your Car.
The driving by You, with the owner's permission, of any motor car not belonging to You and not hired to You under a hire purchase agreement provided that:
You are entitled by Your effective Certificate of Motor Insurance to drive such a car.
You observe the licence conditions applicable.
There is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim.
The car is being driven in Great Britain , Northern Ireland , the Republic of Ireland , the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands .
In respect of:
Death of or bodily injury to any person.
Damage to property up to a maximum of twenty million pounds subject to General Exception 5.
Commentary
This Section shows the cover provided for claims made by other parties for bodily injury or damage to their property.
This part covers claims made against You.
Cover operates for accidents involving Your Car or (if You are permitted in the Certificate) while You are driving someone else's car.
THIS SECTION DOES NOT COVER ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE TO YOUR CAR OR THE CAR YOU ARE DRIVING. "
There is NO requirement for the other car to be otherwise insured - just a requirement that there is no other cover so her TP cover does not apply when she drives my company car where she has fully comp insurance on the company policy.
|
Hi IanJohnson.
This thread has been a long, hard road but we seem to be reaching the point where the majority of people can see what you are saying is correct-I just don't understand why anyone would believe that they need a car they want to drive under their DOC clause to be already insured by someone else for their insurance company to cover their 3rd party liability-unless your policy expressly states this is the case.
|
|
My post is the Tesco wording so applies to my wife and daughter - other policies may be different!
|
Whilst I here what you say L'escargot i.e. 'My interpretation of the highlighted part is that for your "driving any other car" cover to be effective it is necessary for other insurance not to be in force. This is exactly the opposite of saying that the car must also be insured by the owner.' This is to ensure that in the even of a claim should the vehicle be insured by the owner for 'Any Driver' your insurance company does not get hit with the cost to repair and it defaults to the vehicles owner insurance. I agree with you that insurance companies do not clarify in the T's and C's about DOC and other insurance but I have come across two cases where the DOC cover failed to pay because the 'borrowed car' was dot considered road legal prior to being borrowed. As you say quiz your CIS and see what they say. Regards Peter
|
Regardless of any insurance cover-if the car isn't road legal anyway then you're going to be in a world of hurt with regards to your insurance company.
So yeah, call your insurance company-but don't expect to get the correct answer from the sales rep on the other end of the phone, you would at least need to speak to the legal department or underwriting department (if such things exist).
|
This is what Merlin Helps Students (tinyurl.co.uk/rf2c) says on the subject. "Driving other cars If your certificate says so, this policy provides the same cover as the clause above when you are driving any other car as long as it is not a car owned by you or hired to you under a hire purchase agreement. This cover only applies if: there is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim; you have the owner's permission to drive the car; the car is being driven in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands; and you still have the insured car and it has not been damaged beyond cost-effective repair." My interpretation of the highlighted part is that for your "driving any other car" cover to be effective it is necessary for other insurance not to be in force. This is exactly the opposite of saying that the car must also be insured by the owner. I intend to ring my insurer (CIS) today to see what they have to say about my policy.
I rang my insurer (CIS) and what the spokesperson said was that under normal circumstances they would expect the car to be covered by the owner's insurance. However, in an emergency they would indemnify me against third party claims in the event that the car was not insured by the owner. I think what they were saying, in a roundabout way, was that under normal circumstances they would expect the owner's insurer to settle any third party claims, but in an emergency they would settle the claims themselves. And on reflection I suppose that this is what Merlin Helps Students said. All of which is probably fair enough. Either way I would not have to shoulder the burden of a third party claim myself.
The thing that is relevant to the original post is that CIS did not state that the "driving any other car" clause was valid only if the car was also insured by the owner.
In hindsight I should have asked what they classed as an emergency, and who would adjudicate as to whether the prevailing circumstances constituted an emergency.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Yes, but as I said before, there is a difference between the other car and its owner having ordinary cover (including, we are told, cover if it is a parked wreck)and that cover extending to include the particular circumstances of the car being lent to you.
My car is not insured for you to drive. If you did drive it, even with my permission, you/I would not be covered. But that isn't the same thing as saying therefore I haven't got any insurance, and moreover don't even need it because you are driving. Just because you may have DOC insurance that wouldn't make my car legal, it would merely let you off the hook.
No thanks!
|
We know now, after Dalglishes excerpts from court verdicts, that however unimaginable it might sound, according to law any car requires insurance when parked or stationary on public road as it is considered to be in use. The use is, in particular, "standing and leaking". In similar fashion I guess, a car could be left in disrepair, on bricks, and be used for "rusting and ceasing to function properly" thus requiring insurance, tax and valid MOT (in order to not render insurance invalid). But of course precedense in law has been established, and the law itself is now undisputable.
We also know most insurers do NOT require car owner to have insurance in order for any of us to drive it under DOC.
However.
What I think would be good idea to establish with insurers is the terms of "use" as they perceive it. For example - let's say it is an emergency and we take someone's car, with the owners consent, to drive it to some place. We jump in, start the engine, reach our destination, park the car on public road, close the door and walk away with intension of coming back shortly.
In terms of law the car must have insurance cover, I guess in case it decided to attack someone or something maliciously while "being used to stand by the kerb". But do insurers think we still use the car for driving, do DOC clauses still provide cover when we walk away from vehicle and "use the car for standing by the kerb" or is it literally, as per title, cover to drive other cars only?
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
So, where are we now?
1) an insurer can choose not to include DOC insurance in the policy docs to avoid past abuse of a system designed to cover emergency use only.
2) the insurer can also, if it chooses, include the stipulation that for DOC insurance, the car must already be insured. the insurance may of course be for a named driver and therefore DOC insurance is required for another to drive it. This is another means for avoiding abuse, slightly more subtle and user friendly than 1.
3) DOC cover only covers the act of driving. If the car is parked, it is not insured and whoever left it there, or possibly the owner, committed an offence.
4) for taxing the car, insurance docs must be shown and therefore long term use of DOC insurance is not really a practical way on reducing insurance costs taking into account 3.
5)in the case of a real emergency (life or death) no insurance would be required anyway. An example would be driving a petrol tanker away from a fire.
My thoughts only.
BIG
|
Lets put this into context, my wifes car:
Currently I am a named driver on her insurance so if I am driving her car and have a mishap I can claim on her policy, clearly my own insurer would not allow me to make a claim on my policy when I am driving on her insurance, as per the statement that has been repeated a couple of times in this thread:
"This cover only applies if there is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim".
If I was not a named driver on her insurance I could still drive her car quite legally because my own policy covers me TP on another car with the owners permission. In this case the above mentioned statement would not be applicable because there would not be another insurance in place that would cover any claim I might make.
However if we let her own policy lapse so her car was otherwise uninsured, could I still use it as and when I like until such time as the tax and/or MOT ran out, perhaps for up to a year? I really think not.
I stand to be corrected though I have always been lead to believe that 'drive another vehicle with the owners permission' does not apply to a vehicle that is otherwise uninsured.
|
However if we let her own policy lapse so her car was otherwise uninsured, could I still use it as and when I like until such time as the tax and/or MOT ran out, perhaps for up to a year? I really think not.
Check small print, the last two policies I've had included the exclusion to DOC of "now owned by self or spouse"
|
While I've been washing my car this afternoon I've been thinking about what my insurer (CIS) said, and I think I've finally managed to make sense of it. In layman's language .......
If I'm involved in an accident whilst driving a car that I don't own my insurer will not exactly fight to get to the head of the queue to pay a third party claim if the car is insured by the owner. If however the car is not insured, or if there is some other reason for them to do so, they will step into the breach to prevent me from being thrown to the wolves. Now why couldn't they say that? Nevertheless and notwithstanding, I think their approach is completely fair and I am happy with the spirit of my policy, if not the wording.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
Allow me to give you an actual case. My F-in-L died in March. His car insurance became invalid so I ring my insurance company ( NU ) and ask if I can drive the vehicle on my DOC to facilate the funeral arrangements and local transport to provide same and was told Only in the initial emergency to recover the car and not in continuance or ongoing cover. As a result I insured the car with NU ( no age weighting that Sage were charging ) and use the car 1 week in 4 at my M-in-L house. This was not from the call centre but a UK office Manager. Regards Peter
|
But that would appear to based on the definition of emergency, rather than the car not having any other cover, IMO. NU did not see ongoing use of the car, for whatever reason, as an emergency, whereas initial recovery was.
Just my thoughts...
Peter
|
An RTA Motor Insurance Certificate has to be unconditional and not subject to the policy terms and conditions. So legally you can use the DOC extension on your policy, assumng it exists, irrespective of whether or not their is other insurance on the vehicle - I wouldn't advise parking it and leaving it anywhere though. Also it is nto relevant what the other vehicle is, wheehr or not it is similar to your own etc. etc. etc. However, all that means is that you are legally insured and the insurer will compensate any third party for damage or injury you areliable for as a result of an incident while driving that car.
However, under certain circumstances and insurer may recover their outlay from you, with the law if needed. Those circumstances will usually involve a breach of the policy Ts&Cs.
e.g. the certificate says you have DOC - you are legally insured whatever.
The policy says it must be a car similar to your own, its actually a turbo charged ferraraghini compared to your normal mini. Your Ts&Cs say occasional use, you're actually using it every day. You plan to do knowingly do this and not tell your insurer, howver the contract says that all material facts must be disclosed. etc. etc. etc.. You are still legally insured, however the insurer can come afer you for a breach of policy conditions and recover their dosh from you.
Important NB:
Haven't read the whole thread, apologies if someone else answered.
Haven't read the RTA in a millions years, apologies if its changed.
You should read your own policy thoroughly.
You should ask for any doubts to be resolved by your insurer in writing.
You should not rely on anything I say.
IMO the DOC extension should be forever banished..
|
Driving an unisured car on your Ins.
>>
i think most points have now been answered in the posts by neil, peter s, no-fm2r and myself.
so to tie it all up:
IMO the DOC extension should be forever banished..
>>
see list of companies getting round to doing so at the end of the article on the second page at:
www.tiscali.co.uk/money/guardian/features/2005/08/...l
my opinion, and not supposed to be a statement of law:
l'escargot's question: the reference to other existing insurance simply means for example "any driver" or "named driver" giving you cover on the other person's car. if their insurance does not cover you, then your doc extension will apply to allow you to drive their car using 3rd party legal cover in an emergency on the odd occassion.
v0n's hypothetical question: if person x "uses" a car belonging to person y (ignore whether it is insured by person y or not), and assuming person x has "doc" cover, it will allow person x to "use" that car. so person x drives it to point p and leaves it there. in my opinion, the law means that person x is still "using" that car even though it may remain parked at point p for a few minutes, hours, days, months or many years .
at some point say another person z gets in the car and "uses" it. from that point onwards, person x is no longer legally responsible for the 3rd party insurance and it becomes the responsibilty of person z to make sure that they have the necessary "doc" or other cover to "use" the car from that time onwards.
to quote from www.cheapest-car-insurance-uk.co.uk/
In 1930 a new law was pased, every person who used a vehicle on the road was required to have some form of Motor Car insurance policy. At that time this had to be third party personal injury cover at least. This was the origin of motor insurance in the UK.
Since then the important word has been "user". The original laws in 1930 used the word "users" of vehicles to describe their subject. The Road Traffic Act has been updated since then, and the word "user" is contained within it seven times. This is a vital distinction, as the user of the vehicle doesn't have to be its driver. Your policy, according to Elliot vs Grey in 1960, indemnifies the 'user' rather than the 'driver'. Therefore you need to be insured by law in order to have the "use of a Motor Car vehicle" when you are on the road.
|
IMO the DOC extension should be forever banished..
why is this ?
it wont take any more illegal drivers off the road and if anything will cause more ,it would be simpler just to clarify the position
|
"Important NB:"
Isn?t that a tortology?
|
I think this is going on and on.
The short answer would be to contact your insurance company and check with the police.
Thanks all for who replied with their reponses.
Could the Admins now please close this thread. !!
{Locked at authors request. DD}
|
|
|
|
|
|
