But it is quite correct/acceptable, although emergency is not perhaps the right word, occasional or necessary use would be more appropriate.
When you take out car insurance you are doing so to cover one vehicle - TP use of another vehicle is a bonus.
If you have two cars, you cannot insure them both on one policy, you have to take out two policies; otherwise the system could/would be seriously abused.
It's the same with parents who put their children's name or names on their own insurance cover and then let the offspring have permanent or regular use of the vehicle. They are therefore not the main user(s) but this is conveniently ignored by quite a few.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
The very thing we intended to do for me before we found out that it was a big no no. We were in fact told that for me to drive the car more than twice a week (none of which could be to a place of work or education) would effectively result in the cancellation of the policy.
Still, it meant I got on the No Claims ladder.
--
Adam
|
If you have two cars, you cannot insure them both on one policy, you have to take out two policies
Pardon? I used to have two cars on the same policy with Footman James.
Also look at the advert to the left from Primo.
|
>>I used to have two cars on the same policy with Footman James.
>>
Until the offspring left home we always had at least two cars. No insurance company would include two vehicles on one policy no matter how many I asked.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
You can have as many cars on a policy and you and your insurer care for. Each will have to be identified unless you have a motor trader's policy, for which you must be a trader.
Cover for other vehicles is TPO (used to be TP injury only) it doesn't include fire or theft risks for other vehicles.
>>My policy doesn't say that.
Not relevant and a common mistake. You have a duty to disclose matters material to the risk or the assessment of the risk, whether you are specifically asked or not.
|
An insurance broker actually recommended that approach for me. Hence I'm a named driver on my mum's policy. Still have to pay nearly £900 a year though. We did explain to the broker I'd be driving the car permanently, and he said it was fine.
Better that kids are on some sort of policy rather than driving around uninsured.
|
You can have fully comp on any motor vehicle if you have a motor traders policy of course. Other than that, cover is restricted to third party only (and usually just private cars as said above). Insurers are now realising that this is being abused and are starting to amend the wording to show that it is for emergency use only. This is to stop you insuring a Mini and driving your friends Porsche around all weekend.
The other thing to remember is that if you drive another car on your extension then it should be owned by someone else and insured by them. Again this is to stop you insuring the Mini and buying a Porshe, registering it in your wifes name and then driving it on your insurance.
However, the wording is very often insufficient in this area and it's easy to fool the police by using the extension to drive a car you have just bought back from the auction. Technically, you are not insured but the police won't always pick up on that.
No problem getting insurance on your mum or dads policy as long as you are happy that the insurer knows how much use you have of the car. If you are down as an occasional driver but, in fact, drive it every day the policy is void.
Finally, I would add that multiple vehicles on one policy is the exception rather than the rule as modern computer systems are normally set up on a one car one policy basis. This dates back to when policies were prepared manually and it was cheaper for the insurer to issue one policy with all vehicles on instead of one policy per vehicle. Now, with everything computerised the saving in admin is negligible.
|
Up until about 1990 my policy with Scottish General (?IIRC) was fully comp and the certificate was fully open - 'any car owned by' the only requirement was that the insurer was notified in a reasonable period time about any newly aquired vehicle. It was designed as a single vehicle policy with risk ( and premium) assessed on the declared vehicle. Very convenient for overlap and changing vehicles as they would also allow a month overlap at no charge. It also reduced the admin overheads and offered a very convenient policy. When they stopped issuing open certificates I could find nobody else who would offer the same level of cover at a reasonable price.
--
pmh (was peter)
|
Very true. Scottish General were part of General Accident (now Norwich Union) and we had people specifically asking to buy GA policies because of the open certificates. As you say, it was easier on admin and designed to only cover the vehicle declared to them but they didn't have to print new certs if you changed your car. Obviously this was going to be abused and, again, you could buy 2 cars and drive them on the one policy when only one of them as actually insured. The police would be none the wiser and many people were stopped and just flashed the open certificate and were sent on their way.
If you had an accident you just told the insurer that you had just bought it the night before. It was this ambiguity that stopped open certificates and now all are specified vehicles.
|
Believe open certs "any vehicle owned by or let under HP to the policyholder" were fairly common up to the mid nineties. The declared vehicle was specified in the policy schedule and no doubt very searching questions would be asked when a Porsche was written of in place of the declared Mini 850.
HMG killed it by requiring the vehicle to be specified on the cert produced for re taxing (unless the policyholder ccould explain how else the cert covered the car - other vehicle extensions not sufficient for this purpose).
|
|
No you could tax a car with the open certificate and you didn't need to show a schedule as the certificate was the only 'proof' of current insurance. As long as the name tied up and the certificate was current it was valid.
|
We seem to be mixing up four different kinds of policy here;
1) Fully open, any unspecified car, any owner
2) Fully open, but TPO, and intended for very occasional use
3) Fully open, but only for your owned cars, and intended only for short term use when you change your car
4) Several specified owned cars on one policy
1) seems to be traders only
2) is general, but the small print is often misread
3) is rare now, but formerly quite common
4) is theoretically available, but may be uncommon. Sometimes available under classic policies for an unlimited number of cars at one premium, with an overall total mileage limit.
|
|
My post was not meant to imply there was ever a need to produce the schedule, just to make the point that HMG killed off the open certificate.
|
|
|
>>You can have as many cars on a policy and you and your insurer care for. Each will have to be identified unless you have a motor trader's policy, for which you must be a trader.>>
This seems to be a fairly recent introduction as it was something that I was never able to achieve, even though I have friends who either work in the insurance industry or, in the case of one particular person, operate their own insurance brokership.
I always had to include the offspring as a Named driver on my policy or buy them a car, insure it in my name and nominate them as the Named main driver.
Eventually, when they commenced employment and could afford to run a car, they took out their own insurance to build up their own NCB.
I've just been on the Tesco website, which does state that up to two cars can be accepted on one policy; however, there's very little on the subject elsewhere despite some extensive probing via Google and Teoma.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>>This seems to be a fairly recent introduction...
Quite the reverse actually. The old composite insurers (SAL, GRE, GAFLAC, etc.) all used to offer a discount for the second and subsequent vehicles.
Its kind of fallen by the wayside as young drivers have become more and more common and people have used the old standby of insuring a vehicle in the parents name.
It always used to make me laugh; Father - company car, Mother - nice car - suddenly adding knackered old escort and 17 year old offspring, but Father was the main user, honest- yeah right.
For the record, insuring it in the parent's name is fine, if they own the car. But do be careful about who you identify as the main user. I know its cheaper if you say the parent is, but if its not true, you're asking for trouble.
|
>>For the record, insuring it in the parent's name is fine, if they own the car. But do be careful about who you identify as the main user. I know its cheaper if you say the parent is, but if its not true, you're asking for trouble.>>
As I explained, that is exactly what I did...:-)
What's more, GRE used to be one of my insurers. In fact it was based about five miles from me as the crow flies across the Ribble Estuary at Lytham St Annes.
It's still based there but is now under the AEGON UK umbrella.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
