|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,069 posts
19 months
|
Ash From Flux said: Whilst you may well be covered under the road traffic act for damage that you cause to a third party, Err...yes, third party only, which is all I'm expecting under my DOC. Just answer the question, is my DOC cover valid or not. Do I get tpo or don't I. Forget about cars being impounded, other illegalities, being prosecuted for other offences. When the police have lined up all the charges against me, will they charge me with driving without insurance? I say not, because I was covered by my DOC (unless is states that the other car must have its own insurance, which mine doesn't).
|
|
|
BertBert
7,068 posts
80 months
|
looks like you are ok to me.
Looks like Ash didn't even bother to do any research even after the stick he got on here. He is a complete twerp. Is he the offical AF twerp or moonlighting?
|
|
|
TPS
1,567 posts
82 months
|
Ash From Flux said: Hello This is not specific to your case as such http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicl...but it pretty much comes down to the fact that unless a vehicle is SORN then it must be insured. Obviously if the vehicle is SORN it cannot be used on the road. So unfortunately, as the person in customer service mentioned, your insurance alone would not be enough to cover the vehicle. It may not state this on the documents as you have said in the same way it doesn't state that the vehicle needs tax and MOT etc. Insurance companies assume that you are complying to UK law and therefore may not include every eventuality in their small print. It's more of a DVLA/law thing rather than Flux specific but if you have any further questions then I'll do my best to answer. Ash Ash From Flux said: Under the continuous insurance regulations if the vehicle is not insured in its own right it must be declared SORN, in which case it can’t be driven on the road. The question of whether you would be covered under the driving of other cars benefits is somewhat of a mute point because the vehicle should not be driven on the road at all if it has been SORN’d or if it is not SORN and insured in its own right. Whilst you may well be covered under the road traffic act for damage that you cause to a third party, if you were stopped by the police driving a car that is not insured in its own right and using the driving of other cars benefits you would run the risk of having the car impounded as a PNC check would reveal the vehicle not to be insured. It is far better not to put yourself in the position of running this risk and having a debate with an officer at the roadside who may have a slightly different interpretation of the law and regulations than you. It would be advisable to arrange for cover for a temporary additional vehicle to avoid any such issues, which we can normally arrange for a small extra cost which will provide a higher level of cover than mere RTA. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicl...Cheers Ash you have not done much to help here or make Adrian Flux look good have you?
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,934 posts
114 months
|
Noger said: Devil2575 said: So no law states that you cannot drive a SORNed car on the road?
Please tell me then why I have just payed for a new tax disc? Because you want to drive further than the nearest MOT station  You need TAX, not "no SORN". OK, so they intersect a lot. But not always. I'm not sure it's ever been clarified if SORNing a car cancels the tax. So you could SORN a car when the insurance ran out but still have some time to go on the tax which you may not bother surrendering. If someone else then drove the car using their DOC cover (which usually does not demand that the car has its own isnurance) is any offence being committed?
|
|
|
LordFlathead
7,935 posts
127 months
|
Why does PH even allowing a spokesman from an insurance company to post ill advice other than on the basis of receiving remuneration?
If it were anyone else they would have their adverts revoked and be struck from here. One of the reasons I come here is because although it's a mixed bag of posts, there is always an industry professional on hand to give accurate advice about that chosen topic.
If insurance is not deemed to be mission critical enough to a motoring forum, then I don't know what is. Although Ash is clearly trying to help his business, he is actually doing more damage than good.
Someone from Flux/PH needs to step in and set some ground rules IMO because with all these grey areas someone is going to come unstuck (read uninsured and think the worse).
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
S10 GTA
2,517 posts
36 months
|
I was always under the impression that you can drive another car under your policy, 3rd party, as long as the other car is insured.
What's difficult to understand?
|
|
|
Deva Link
26,934 posts
114 months
|
S10 GTA said: I was always under the impression that you can drive another car under your policy, 3rd party, as long as the other car is insured.
What's difficult to understand? It's not hard to understand, but your impression is wrong. And people saying the wrong thing over and over isn't helpful.
|
|
|
S10 GTA
2,517 posts
36 months
|
Deva Link said: S10 GTA said: I was always under the impression that you can drive another car under your policy, 3rd party, as long as the other car is insured.
What's difficult to understand? It's not hard to understand, but your impression is wrong. And people saying the wrong thing over and over isn't helpful. Let me reword it then. I am with Adrian Flux. Common sense told me that the car I am borrowing needs to be insured so that my insurance will cover me.
|
|
|
Steffan
6,190 posts
97 months
|
An interesting topic.
As others have suggested Ash from Flux is clearly out of his depth, given the transparent nonsense in his posts.
I avoid Adrian Flux, om every occasion, because I dislike the call centre/high pressure sales approach.
Plus in 50 years of insuring Kit cars, Classic Specials, everyday drivers, Classic cars, and virtually every other form of car, they have never got near to a decent premium.
I believe, were this to come to court, that the decision would be clearly made in favour of the driver and insured person. IME the judiciary intensely dislike, deliberately misleading insurance policies.
They would regard the suggestion that the insurer can escape liability for misleading statements upon which a reasonable driver was relying IN THE POLICY as clearly unlawful and therefore ineffective. The insured party would be exonerated.
I suspect Ash has realised the nonsense that his posts make, and the obvious obfuscation. Hence the absence of further posts on the subject.
However I do wonder why, on seeing a disgraceful nonsense such as this, anyone would feel able to rely upon any statement from Ash.
|
|
|
CYMR0
1,986 posts
69 months
|
S10 GTA said: Let me reword it then.
I am with Adrian Flux. Common sense told me that the car I am borrowing needs to be insured so that my insurance will cover me. Maybe your policy/certificate told you that, but common sense did no such thing. Again. It's really not hard.
|
|
|
Mandat
1,027 posts
107 months
|
S10 GTA said: Let me reword it then.
I am with Adrian Flux. Common sense told me that the car I am borrowing needs to be insured so that my insurance will cover me. What do you think this adds to your liability in the event of a third party claim being made against your own policy? As per my previous post, is the actual car insured in it's own right (excluding risk of fire or theft) or rather the driver is insured to drive the particular car?
|
|
|
snowdude2910
584 posts
33 months
|
The way I always look at it is if your certificate and policy document (or booklet) both say you can drive other cars, you can, there can't be implied terms in a written contract if it says they'll cover you that's what they have to do weather they are planning on it or not. There is a case on this which I think is the one posted earlier in the thread. Another question though to save starting another topic, I know a lad who bought an evo when he was 21 or so, registered it to his dad who insured it for a few hundred quid and then he would drive it on the DOC clause of his daily's policy. When I asked him about the 18k he'd be out of pocket in a crash he said that in the event of a crash the other party would be covered by his insurance and the car by his dads insurance. Ignoring the fact that a hpi check would bust him for owning the car so he would be in the s  t on that front does the exhisting policy on the car really cover it even when being driven by other people on their DOC clause?
|
|
|
tvrgit
7,944 posts
121 months
|
I had a bad experience while insured through Adrian Flux in 1979, involving conflicting advice (which even then, in my more tender and impressionable years, I knew to be money -snatching tripe) and I resolved never to use them against, at any price.
I see that little has changed in the intervening 30 years...
|
|
|
Noger
6,779 posts
118 months
|
Deva Link said: Noger said: Devil2575 said: So no law states that you cannot drive a SORNed car on the road?
Please tell me then why I have just payed for a new tax disc? Because you want to drive further than the nearest MOT station You need TAX, not "no SORN". OK, so they intersect a lot. But not always. I'm not sure it's ever been clarified if SORNing a car cancels the tax. So you could SORN a car when the insurance ran out but still have some time to go on the tax which you may not bother surrendering. If someone else then drove the car using their DOC cover (which usually does not demand that the car has its own isnurance) is any offence being committed? Quite...but I didn'twant to invoke ... *him* ... by discussing "un*S0Rn" (shhhh). Actually, where is *he* ?
|
|
|
Noger
6,779 posts
118 months
|
Mandat said: S10 GTA said: Let me reword it then.
I am with Adrian Flux. Common sense told me that the car I am borrowing needs to be insured so that my insurance will cover me. What do you think this adds to your liability in the event of a third party claim being made against your own policy? As per my previous post, is the actual car insured in it's own right (excluding risk of fire or theft) or rather the driver is insured to drive the particular car? Moral hazard. I "get" it, that you would want the vehicle in as "legal" a state as possible...but it isn't LAW that it should be so.
|
|
|
Red Devil
4,249 posts
77 months
|
AF are an intermediary not an insurer. It entirely depends on the specific wording of the policy and insurance certificate whether a car being driven under DOC needs to be insured in its own right. AF don't only deal with one insurer so it is simply not possible to give a 'one size fits all' answer.
CIE is a completely separate issue. An offence under RTA 1988 Section 144A is committed by the RK not the driver so DOC cover where there is no restrictive clause means the latter is off the hook.
What is certain is that ANPR will flag up 'no insurance' so expect a tug and a discussion in the back of a police vehicle.
|
|
|
Pvapour
6,250 posts
122 months
|
TPS said: Ash From Flux said: Hello This is not specific to your case as such http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicl...but it pretty much comes down to the fact that unless a vehicle is SORN then it must be insured. Obviously if the vehicle is SORN it cannot be used on the road. So unfortunately, as the person in customer service mentioned, your insurance alone would not be enough to cover the vehicle. It may not state this on the documents as you have said in the same way it doesn't state that the vehicle needs tax and MOT etc. Insurance companies assume that you are complying to UK law and therefore may not include every eventuality in their small print. It's more of a DVLA/law thing rather than Flux specific but if you have any further questions then I'll do my best to answer. Ash Ash From Flux said: Under the continuous insurance regulations if the vehicle is not insured in its own right it must be declared SORN, in which case it can’t be driven on the road. The question of whether you would be covered under the driving of other cars benefits is somewhat of a mute point because the vehicle should not be driven on the road at all if it has been SORN’d or if it is not SORN and insured in its own right. Whilst you may well be covered under the road traffic act for damage that you cause to a third party, if you were stopped by the police driving a car that is not insured in its own right and using the driving of other cars benefits you would run the risk of having the car impounded as a PNC check would reveal the vehicle not to be insured. It is far better not to put yourself in the position of running this risk and having a debate with an officer at the roadside who may have a slightly different interpretation of the law and regulations than you. It would be advisable to arrange for cover for a temporary additional vehicle to avoid any such issues, which we can normally arrange for a small extra cost which will provide a higher level of cover than mere RTA. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicl...Cheers Ash you have not done much to help here or make Adrian Flux look good have you? they dont have a good reputation on here, quite rightly so if you read through AF threads, many many people have fallen foul of their unprofessional behavior, this chap regularly turns up to amuse 
|
|
|
julian64
9,840 posts
123 months
|
They do have a good reputation on here, at least with me they do.
On the ops subject, any episode of police stop on TV will give you the same problem.
Guy gets stopped driving his friends car because its not on the ANPR database. He says he has a insurance covering him to drive other cars third party, he STILL GETS DONE.
Almost every episode. I don't think this is a problem with Flux, its common to all those thrid part indemnity clauses. Its the same reason you can't tax a car with this sort of insurance cover either.
When you think about it, its very simple. Allow this and no one would ever bother with a multicar policy, no one would ever own their own car and teenagers would all get £100 snotters and then drive mums jag everywhere.
If you try to insure your own car third party only you'll notice that the cost of that insurance isn't much different to comprehensive. Thats because the cost of third party IS THE MOST expensive bit of insurance with whiplash willy round every corner.
It just doesn't make sense you think you could have that liability for a couple of quid on another cars insurance.
|
|
|
Noger
6,779 posts
118 months
|
Red Devil said: so expect a tug and a discussion in the back of a police vehicle.  ,
|
|
|
TwigtheWonderkid
6,069 posts
19 months
|
julian64 said: On the ops subject, any episode of police stop on TV will give you the same problem.
Guy gets stopped driving his friends car because its not on the ANPR database. He says he has a insurance covering him to drive other cars third party, he STILL GETS DONE.
But if he does have insurance covering him to drive the car he is stopped in, how is he done for no insurance? I think if you're taking your understanding of the law of a reality tv programme, I would suggest that it's is not necessarily the best source!
|
|
