**Warning - Admiral/Elephant Insured Lease/PCH Car Owners**
Discussion
Sir_Dave said:
Sheepshanks said:
The likelihood is that the OP is wrong, so that shows it isn't a very simple concept.
You asked for the exact wording, i posted it, what else do you want, a tin of custard next to my insurance certificate?Named drivers are always excluded from DOC so the wording could be regarded as a clarification of that.
Sheepshanks said:
You only posted a small part of it. If that's the only part that's relevant then it's very confusing as you're not a named driver, you're the policyholder.
Named drivers are always excluded from DOC so the wording could be regarded as a clarification of that.
Fair enough, no Birds though im afraid (im at work), however:Named drivers are always excluded from DOC so the wording could be regarded as a clarification of that.
Old policy with Elephant (March 14-Jan 15)
.
New policy with Admiral (Jan 15 onwards)
.
Both policies are based on exactly the same info, car is a PCH through Leaseplan.
Edited by Sir_Dave on Tuesday 27th January 08:21
Slightly off topic. If someone passed me the keys to their car and said "take it for a spin", I know I would be third party through my insurance and I am confident in my driving abilities. However, there is always the risk that an accident could be my fault. Would I like to be responsible for paying out to fix their car? I don't think so. This is also vice versa with my car, I never let anyone drive it unless they are a named driver. Does anyone else feel the same way?
Why do you think the change of terms (dropping the "driving other cars" bit) has anything to do with the funding method used for the car? And how would Admiral KNOW how you chose to pay for the car?
Insurers are busy trying to reduce their exposure to risk and I would expect this same change will also be found on renewal by someone who owns the car outright, or has a bank loan, or a HP agreement.
More interestingly, you are a braver man than me to rely on the third party cover when driving a borrowed car as that vehicle and its owner are NOT indemnified as third parties, just the other parties that you cause injury or damage to.
I am not aware of ANY leasing or finance company that will allow their asset (the car) to be insured on a third-party only basis so why would they allow someone who isn't even a party to their agreement to borrow the car with that level of cover? If there was to be a big incident I'd expect the finance company to be onto their customer to make good the loss VERY quickly and I don't think that it would be a good career move for the employee who had handed their company car keys to their mate!
Insurers are busy trying to reduce their exposure to risk and I would expect this same change will also be found on renewal by someone who owns the car outright, or has a bank loan, or a HP agreement.
More interestingly, you are a braver man than me to rely on the third party cover when driving a borrowed car as that vehicle and its owner are NOT indemnified as third parties, just the other parties that you cause injury or damage to.
I am not aware of ANY leasing or finance company that will allow their asset (the car) to be insured on a third-party only basis so why would they allow someone who isn't even a party to their agreement to borrow the car with that level of cover? If there was to be a big incident I'd expect the finance company to be onto their customer to make good the loss VERY quickly and I don't think that it would be a good career move for the employee who had handed their company car keys to their mate!
va1o said:
Does it really matter that much? I read the thread title and thought this was about something serious i.e. they are refusing to insure lease cars full stop. Not been able to drive other people's cars 3rd party is hardly the end of the world!
It does indeedHad he not have checked his docs, as very few people actually do he would have believed that with his fully comprehensive insurance he was covered to drive other cars, which is something fairly reasonable to assume, on a fully comprehensive policy, it has long been a standard part of the cover for most people.
Had he had been stopped or worse had an accident, he would not have been covered
I think it takes the piss how insurers can call a police comprehensive when it doesn't include something which has been a long standing part of standard cover, especially the way they make it so cryptic about finding out if you have it included. It is very common when looking through an entire policy book, and you final quote page, for it to still be unclear if you would or would not get drive other cars included in your policy.
They should have to make it very clear, who gets it in the policy documents, and very clear to anyone taking out a comprehensive insurance, that their cover is restricted, due to their age, their occupation, their history or apparently now how they finance their vehicle.
Sheepshanks said:
Fair enough, thanks.
Wonder what their reasoning is for doing this? I bet half the people with lease cars don't even think to mention that they're not the owner/RK.
Exactly, seems that a few in this thread dont know the difference either lol.Wonder what their reasoning is for doing this? I bet half the people with lease cars don't even think to mention that they're not the owner/RK.
If the car is on a personal contract hire/lease, the leasing company is the registered keeper on the V5, hence why all parking tickets/speeding fines go to them first. If it is a PCP/HP/Cash etc, you are on the V5 as registered keeper, hence you get the fines instead.
GoneAnon said:
Why do you think the change of terms (dropping the "driving other cars" bit) has anything to do with the funding method used for the car? And how would Admiral KNOW how you chose to pay for the car?
I bought the policy online for £379, they sent me the insurance certificate, i noticed that i was down as the "registered owner" not "leaseplan" as its their car. Called Admiral, they relieved me of an additional £105 as the car is owned by a leasing company and sent me a new certificate. I then noticed that this excluded the "driving other cars 3rd party" clause, so called back to be informed that as my car is leased, i cannot drive other vehicles.The thread was started to inform others about this, so they are not caught out uninsured when driving a friends cheap snotter down to the shops instead of their own car.
GoneAnon said:
I am not aware of ANY leasing or finance company that will allow their asset (the car) to be insured on a third-party only basis so why would they allow someone who isn't even a party to their agreement to borrow the car with that level of cover? If there was to be a big incident I'd expect the finance company to be onto their customer to make good the loss VERY quickly and I don't think that it would be a good career move for the employee who had handed their company car keys to their mate!
You've missed the point by so far that i was tempted to post a whoosh parrot.My car is fully insured, those who drive it will be fully insured as named drivers.
I cannot drive my friends snotter 3rd party anymore.
Edited by Sir_Dave on Monday 26th January 18:16
Swanny87 said:
Slightly off topic. If someone passed me the keys to their car and said "take it for a spin", I know I would be third party through my insurance and I am confident in my driving abilities. However, there is always the risk that an accident could be my fault. Would I like to be responsible for paying out to fix their car? I don't think so. This is also vice versa with my car, I never let anyone drive it unless they are a named driver. Does anyone else feel the same way?
I don't know if it's true or not but years ago a broker told me DOC was intended to allow people to do things like move someone else's car out of the way at a party etc. So in that situation you shouldn't be able to do a lot of damage. It was never intended for "open road" use.I moved my wife's car to her as policyholder specifically to get her DOC cover as she nearly drove her Dad's car when it turned out she wasn't covered. He's old school and had said "of course you're covered, it's fully comprehensive".
Sir_Dave said:
I bought the policy online for £379, they sent me the insurance certificate, i noticed that i was down as the "registered owner" not "leaseplan" as its their car. Called Admiral, they relieved me of an additional £105 as the car is owned by a leasing company
I'd have moved companies at that point as a matter of principle.If you'd have been looking at premiums in the £400 range that must have opened up some proper insurance companies as possibilities.
ging84 said:
It does indeed
Had he not have checked his docs, as very few people actually do he would have believed that with his fully comprehensive insurance he was covered to drive other cars, which is something fairly reasonable to assume, on a fully comprehensive policy, it has long been a standard part of the cover for most people.
Had he had been stopped or worse had an accident, he would not have been covered
I think it takes the piss how insurers can call a police comprehensive when it doesn't include something which has been a long standing part of standard cover, especially the way they make it so cryptic about finding out if you have it included. It is very common when looking through an entire policy book, and you final quote page, for it to still be unclear if you would or would not get drive other cars included in your policy.
They should have to make it very clear, who gets it in the policy documents, and very clear to anyone taking out a comprehensive insurance, that their cover is restricted, due to their age, their occupation, their history or apparently now how they finance their vehicle.
As above, there's nothing to suggest that is the case - the removal of DoC from cheap policies has been happening for years now, and mentioned on here many times.Had he not have checked his docs, as very few people actually do he would have believed that with his fully comprehensive insurance he was covered to drive other cars, which is something fairly reasonable to assume, on a fully comprehensive policy, it has long been a standard part of the cover for most people.
Had he had been stopped or worse had an accident, he would not have been covered
I think it takes the piss how insurers can call a police comprehensive when it doesn't include something which has been a long standing part of standard cover, especially the way they make it so cryptic about finding out if you have it included. It is very common when looking through an entire policy book, and you final quote page, for it to still be unclear if you would or would not get drive other cars included in your policy.
They should have to make it very clear, who gets it in the policy documents, and very clear to anyone taking out a comprehensive insurance, that their cover is restricted, due to their age, their occupation, their history or apparently now how they finance their vehicle.
Also, I'd say that on their single-page main cover document, including it in a list of 5 terms is pretty plain - reading one paragraph of key terms, plainly set out, is far from difficult or cryptic.
Sir_Dave said:
GoneAnon said:
Why do you think the change of terms (dropping the "driving other cars" bit) has anything to do with the funding method used for the car? And how would Admiral KNOW how you chose to pay for the car?
Sir_Dave said:
I bought the policy online for £379, they sent me the insurance certificate, i noticed that i was down as the "registered owner" not "leaseplan" as its their car. Called Admiral, they relieved me of an additional £105 as the car is owned by a leasing company and sent me a new certificate. I then noticed that this excluded the "driving other cars 3rd party" clause, so called back to be informed that as my car is leased, i cannot drive other vehicles.
The thread was started to inform others about this, so they are not caught out uninsured when driving a friends cheap snotter down to the shops instead of their own car.
My car is fully insured, those who drive it will be fully insured as named drivers.
I cannot drive my friends snotter 3rd party anymore.
I'm sorry if I missed the point you were trying to make. I guess this confused me:The thread was started to inform others about this, so they are not caught out uninsured when driving a friends cheap snotter down to the shops instead of their own car.
GoneAnon said:
I am not aware of ANY leasing or finance company that will allow their asset (the car) to be insured on a third-party only basis so why would they allow someone who isn't even a party to their agreement to borrow the car with that level of cover? If there was to be a big incident I'd expect the finance company to be onto their customer to make good the loss VERY quickly and I don't think that it would be a good career move for the employee who had handed their company car keys to their mate!
You've missed the point by so far that i was tempted to post a whoosh parrot.My car is fully insured, those who drive it will be fully insured as named drivers.
I cannot drive my friends snotter 3rd party anymore.
Sir_Dave said:
No, you've both missed the point. My car is from Leaseplan, i insure it, Admiral Group are now saying they wont allow people who have leasecar to drive any other car 3rd party, be it leased/owned whatever. So i cant drive my missus car on my policy etc.
And this:Sir_Dave said:
Re: just going on my gf's policy, im on there, but being added to my family (4 other cars), & friends policies prior to going home to Cornwall/track days/collecting new cars/for test driving new sheds is a right faff!!!
One final thought: Just because Admiral and Elephant are in the same group there is no obligation (or expectation?) that their terms will be identical. If they were, why have the expense of two brands?Direct Line and Privilege were/are in common ownership with different terms.
GoneAnon said:
I am not aware of ANY leasing or finance company that will allow their asset (the car) to be insured on a third-party only basis so why would they allow someone who isn't even a party to their agreement to borrow the car with that level of cover? If there was to be a big incident I'd expect the finance company to be onto their customer to make good the loss VERY quickly and I don't think that it would be a good career move for the employee who had handed their company car keys to their mate!
+1It is in all the wording that I have seen in an HP / PCP / PCH / Contract Lease agreement whether personal or business that the car must be insured fully comprehensive. This includes other people driving the vehicle so if someone is driving 3rd party on their own policy and the car is involved in an accident the titled vehicle owner will be in trouble.
Meoricin said:
As above, there's nothing to suggest that is the case - the removal of DoC from cheap policies has been happening for years now, and mentioned on here many times.
Also, I'd say that on their single-page main cover document, including it in a list of 5 terms is pretty plain - reading one paragraph of key terms, plainly set out, is far from difficult or cryptic.
Can you show me where on admiral's website, where i find out, that if i took out a fully comprehensive policy with them, would i get cover to drive other people's vehicles included?Also, I'd say that on their single-page main cover document, including it in a list of 5 terms is pretty plain - reading one paragraph of key terms, plainly set out, is far from difficult or cryptic.
Sir_Dave said:
Exact wording as per my certificates of insurance.
Previous wording from Admiral/Elephant/Bell/Diamond:
"The Policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement, within our territorial limits, providing there is a valid insurance policy in force on that car"
New wording from Admiral/Elephant/Bell/Diamond:
"The driving of other cars extension is not included for any driver named on this policy"
A lot of companies have removed this type of cover over the last few years.... especially for younger policy holders (<25 IIRC). Too many young lads insuring their 1.1 Fiesta and then "borrowing" their dad's M3 or whatever. Previous wording from Admiral/Elephant/Bell/Diamond:
"The Policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement, within our territorial limits, providing there is a valid insurance policy in force on that car"
New wording from Admiral/Elephant/Bell/Diamond:
"The driving of other cars extension is not included for any driver named on this policy"
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff