Insurance question
Discussion
My current insurance certificate states that I am insured to drive other vehicles with 3rd party cover. The one for the renewal doesn't. This is with the same company, for TPF&T.
I have just got off the phone to them to query this and they are saying that I am not currently covered, despite what my certificate says.
What would happen if I were to have a crash whilst driving another car, or get a producer? Would they be obligated to honour the certificate, or can they make a change like this mid term?
I'll have to check the schedule when I get home, but I think that it is mentioned there as well.
I have just got off the phone to them to query this and they are saying that I am not currently covered, despite what my certificate says.
What would happen if I were to have a crash whilst driving another car, or get a producer? Would they be obligated to honour the certificate, or can they make a change like this mid term?
I'll have to check the schedule when I get home, but I think that it is mentioned there as well.
Quiet likely they have changed the cover, and obviusly you will not see this until renewal. You will have the current cover that your current certificate/schedule says, unless they have sent a knew one to replace it during the policy year.
You more than likely got a numpty on the phone when you called the call centre, call back and you could get a different answer. These call centres are not renowed for the skills of their workers, I have worked in one, and the numptiness, usually of the people in charge is astounding, hence I got out, because I am a non numpty - honest.
You more than likely got a numpty on the phone when you called the call centre, call back and you could get a different answer. These call centres are not renowed for the skills of their workers, I have worked in one, and the numptiness, usually of the people in charge is astounding, hence I got out, because I am a non numpty - honest.
Tank Slapper said:
My current insurance certificate states that I am insured to drive other vehicles with 3rd party cover. The one for the renewal doesn't. This is with the same company, for TPF&T.
I was under the impression you neeeded fully comp insurance in order to drive other cars third party - I guess it was a mistake if they put that on the schedule information previously.
Sounds very LV-esque.
They do nice things like change policy on modded cars so they no longer cover them and only tell customers when they call up to add a new modification...and cancel their cover on the spot.
I took great pleasure in telling them to shove their renewal this year, and saved £230 into the bargain
They do nice things like change policy on modded cars so they no longer cover them and only tell customers when they call up to add a new modification...and cancel their cover on the spot.
I took great pleasure in telling them to shove their renewal this year, and saved £230 into the bargain
I dealt with a very serious RTC about 4 years ago where the at fault driver was driving someone else's motor. He was not covered by the owner's policy, but produced a 6 month old certificate stating he was the owner of a citroen and was insured to drive the other car on this insurance. He said he had sold the citroen 3 months earlier 
.
I contacted the insurance company to find that the chap had asked for insurance for the citroen, but had never paid for it (cheque bounced). Due to some admin cock up he had been given this certificate. He had been mailed numerous times by the insurance company telling him that his insurance had been voided since inception, and would he please return the certificate.
The at fault driver pleaded guilty at court to no insurance and due care.
The civil claim for damages because of injuries sustained was a 7 figure sum.
The insurance company, having issued the certificate are being pursued for the claim, and the belief among the legal eagles involved is that they will have to cough up.
So they do tend to be liable for their mistakes, if they can be evidenced.
. I contacted the insurance company to find that the chap had asked for insurance for the citroen, but had never paid for it (cheque bounced). Due to some admin cock up he had been given this certificate. He had been mailed numerous times by the insurance company telling him that his insurance had been voided since inception, and would he please return the certificate.
The at fault driver pleaded guilty at court to no insurance and due care.
The civil claim for damages because of injuries sustained was a 7 figure sum.
The insurance company, having issued the certificate are being pursued for the claim, and the belief among the legal eagles involved is that they will have to cough up.
So they do tend to be liable for their mistakes, if they can be evidenced.
If the initial POLICY of Insurance was issued containing the clause allowing the driving of another vehicle, unless the Insurance Company have taken steps to void that part of the Policy, then he can drive another vehicle.
A POLICY overrides a CERTIFICATE where there are inconsistencies between the two - Biddle v Johnson [1965] The CERTIFICATE is not a POLICY ,Roberts v Warne [1973].
dvd
A POLICY overrides a CERTIFICATE where there are inconsistencies between the two - Biddle v Johnson [1965] The CERTIFICATE is not a POLICY ,Roberts v Warne [1973].
dvd
OK Thanks DVD.
I've checked the schedule, and the clause is included in that as well as on the certificate so hopefully should be OK.
It's a bit of a moot point as the policy expires in a couple of weeks and I'm not likely to need to drive another car in the meantime. I have however found another quote with a different insurer for comprehensive cover, for the same price as the original TPF&T quote. I'm sure they make it up as they go along.
I've checked the schedule, and the clause is included in that as well as on the certificate so hopefully should be OK.
It's a bit of a moot point as the policy expires in a couple of weeks and I'm not likely to need to drive another car in the meantime. I have however found another quote with a different insurer for comprehensive cover, for the same price as the original TPF&T quote.
I'm sure they make it up as they go along.The different quotes obtained for same driver, vehicle, address, use are often caused by the "experience" of that insurer - their risk book.
As to the disparity between your first quote and the renewal, a number of companies follow this line of logic:
1. To get you to move insurance to them they need to quote very competetively - drivers don't really understand what they are buying and hence many base purchasing decisions on price. Therefore "new" quotes are often very low.
2. At renewal, time pressure, hassel factor, etc means that about 33% will simply pay the renewal. A further 10% will try to look for a more competetive deal but fail in the time remaining. Hence almost half of your current population will renew, and they are not price sensitive. If you charge even a reasoable price there will be another firm offering a first-year policy under (1) above and hence you are very likely to loose the same number of clients regardless of charge. Therefore the best option is to charge you a profitable (for them) amount.
I have always used brokers for car and motorcylce insurance (no time or inclination to do it myself). Almost every year I end up with a different insurance company for each car (5) and bike (2).
As to the disparity between your first quote and the renewal, a number of companies follow this line of logic:
1. To get you to move insurance to them they need to quote very competetively - drivers don't really understand what they are buying and hence many base purchasing decisions on price. Therefore "new" quotes are often very low.
2. At renewal, time pressure, hassel factor, etc means that about 33% will simply pay the renewal. A further 10% will try to look for a more competetive deal but fail in the time remaining. Hence almost half of your current population will renew, and they are not price sensitive. If you charge even a reasoable price there will be another firm offering a first-year policy under (1) above and hence you are very likely to loose the same number of clients regardless of charge. Therefore the best option is to charge you a profitable (for them) amount.
I have always used brokers for car and motorcylce insurance (no time or inclination to do it myself). Almost every year I end up with a different insurance company for each car (5) and bike (2).
_dobbo_ said:
My current insurance certificate states that I am insured to drive other vehicles with 3rd party cover. The one for the renewal doesn't. This is with the same company, for TPF&T.
I was under the impression you neeeded fully comp insurance in order to drive other cars third party - I guess it was a mistake if they put that on the schedule information previously.
A common misconception - a lot of insurers include it even if your own cover is third party only - even more common is the misconception that EVERY comp policy allows driving other cars TPO; this is most certainly not the case...
We have had this discussion in the office recently. Came up because a colleague had sold his car, but kept the insurance on it. This is cecause the insurance company told him to do this as it was cheaper to keep it and transfer it to the new car when bought in a couple of weeks, than cancelling, getting a refund of part, and then new cover on the care.
He understood that his insurance cover allowed him to drive his girlfriends car third party. A couple of us in the office disagreed, mainly on the basis that he had no car, therefore policy was void.
So he called his insurance companmy. They said he was not covered to drive another car third party unless it was an emergency situation.
He understood that his insurance cover allowed him to drive his girlfriends car third party. A couple of us in the office disagreed, mainly on the basis that he had no car, therefore policy was void.
So he called his insurance companmy. They said he was not covered to drive another car third party unless it was an emergency situation.
chrisgr31 said:
So he called his insurance companmy. They said he was not covered to drive another car third party unless it was an emergency situation.
It sounds to me like there are many idiots working at insurance companies.
What constitutes an emergency? Either he's covered or he isn't.
Tank Slapper said:
So he called his insurance companmy. They said he was not covered to drive another car third party unless it was an emergency situation.
It sounds to me like there are many idiots working at insurance companies.
Either he's covered or he isn't.
Indeed. The fact is he is covered to drive another vehicle with the owners permission on a third party only basis. The idea behind TPO DOC (driving other cars) is to allow a person to use another persons vehicle in an emergency should the driver be taken ill blah de blah. It isn't really a good idea to abuse the privilege for obvious reasons.
It's normally only available to over 21's.
anniesdad said:
Indeed. The fact is he is covered to drive another vehicle with the owners permission on a third party only basis.
No he isn't. For a policy to be in force the policyholder must gave an 'insurable interest' i.e. he must stand to lose something in the event of an insured incident. Since he no longer stands to lose out (he's sold the car) NO part of the policy is in force including DOC.
Tank Slapper said:
chrisgr31 said:
So he called his insurance companmy. They said he was not covered to drive another car third party unless it was an emergency situation.
It sounds to me like there are many idiots working at insurance companies.
Either he's covered or he isn't.
I was told exactly the same thing by LV.
They also told me my daughter couldn't use the car for college despite being named on the policy, but there wouldn't be any mention of this exclusion in the policy or on the certificate! I explained that's a possible issue if her car was off the road for any reason - they then said as she owns her own car she would be covered!
A broker once explained to me that DOC was meant to be used for, say, moving another car out of the way if it was blocking yours in (eg if you're at a party and the other driver has had too much to drink). It was never intended to be used as a substitute for 'proper' insurance cover, but it does appear to be widely abused. I wonder how/why the insurance company's allowed DOC cover to ever come into existence?
>> Edited by deva link on Saturday 24th September 16:58
anniesdad said:
Indeed. The fact is he is covered to drive another vehicle with the owners permission on a third party only basis. The idea behind TPO DOC (driving other cars) is to allow a person to use another persons vehicle in an emergency should the driver be taken ill blah de blah. It isn't really a good idea to abuse the privilege for obvious reasons.
It's normally only available to over 21's.
Sorry to drag this thread up again but I've only just seen it. The FC policy for my car has the "other vehicles, not belonging, not hired, etc" clause on it. My daughter has insurance on her car for herself only to keep the cost down (which takes some doing as she's only 17), as does my partner on her car. I regularly drive both of their cars, covered third party only by my own policy. It is accepted that if I bend either of them, it's going to be up to me to replace or repair them. I'm fully legal as far as any third party damage I may cause. Equally, my partners insurance has the same clause and she drives my car (admittedly only occasionally) covered by her policy.
Are you saying we shouldn't do this, but should increase the insurance companies profits even further?
You might be surprised here - but having your spouse on the policy can make it cheaper. Dont ask me why maybe someone can explain ? I recently decided to do exactly what you have done - but in both cases (mine and wifes car) insurance premium went up if we were the sole named drivers of our own cars. Add each other on as named driver and one policy went down £50 the other £75.
bigdods said:
You might be surprised here - but having your spouse on the policy can make it cheaper. Dont ask me why maybe someone can explain ? I recently decided to do exactly what you have done - but in both cases (mine and wifes car) insurance premium went up if we were the sole named drivers of our own cars. Add each other on as named driver and one policy went down £50 the other £75.
Also I believe that the "driving other cars" clause does not apply between couples as the cars are deemed to be owned by both of them.
bigdods said:
You might be surprised here - but having your spouse on the policy can make it cheaper. Dont ask me why maybe someone can explain ?
AFAIK the thinking goes that if you have your spouse / GF on the policy you're somehow going to be magically more careful and thus a lower risk etc.
In reality, they probably have a huge database of facts & figures somewhere and somebody's run the stats and discovered a slightly lower %age of claims from people with a spouse added to the policy...
Been there. It may well be cheaper to have insured and spouse as sole drivers. However, as we've never actually got married, she isn't classed as a spouse (merely a lodger I assume?) and it would be more expensive. In fact, with one of my previous insurers, it was actually cheaper to have the car covered for any driver than for a single named driver.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff