**Warning - Admiral/Elephant Insured Lease/PCH Car Owners**

[Mound Dawg]

Aviz said:

Chatting to a guy at work. He's got the same change in his admiral policy. Nothing to do with a lease car though. His is all paid for.

That's worth knowing with my renewal coming up. I only rarely drive other cars and even then I'm usually doing this as part of my job so I'm covered by the company trade policy but sometimes I'll jump in a mate's car.

At least I know to avoid Admiral and their associated companies now.

Ta for the heads up everyone.

[jamoor]

Yeah I've never been a fan of them, something about them just doesn't seem right.

[Sir_Dave]

Aviz said:

Chatting to a guy at work. He's got the same change in his admiral policy. Nothing to do with a lease car though. His is all paid for.

I can bring this discussion to a close now as well.

Having spoken to 3 separate people at Admiral last night, then 2 at Elephant, the change is with Admiral. My ins certificates were different between the car being owned/leased as well, so definitely worth checking!

The staff at Admiral all claimed that it was group wide policy when pushed (they didnt mention the 3rd party thing until i asked specifically). But having also spoken to someone a bit higher up the food chain at Elephant, it is an definitely a recent Admiral change of policy - Elephant still offer driving other cars 3rd party if the car is leased, so i've gone back to them instead.

No doubt ill be charged for both both policies now and have another argument with them

[thecremeegg]

swerni said:

Am I missing the point?
The clause the OP highlights relates to "named drivers" not the policy holder.
If he's the policy holder, it doesn't impact him.

Apologies if I'm being thick.

No it doesn't, it refers to "any driver named" which would be the policyholder as well.

[essayer]

thecremeegg said:

No it doesn't, it refers to "any driver named" which would be the policyholder as well.

I guess it's worded that way around to avoid any confusion with Named Drivers

My Admiral renewal has just come through and I still have DOC with the same terms as last year, but my car isn't leased.

[Sir_Dave]

essayer said:

My Admiral renewal has just come through and I still have DOC with the same terms as last year, but my car isn't leased.

Fantastic, thanks for confirming that it is specifically a lease issue, as i originally thought

[Rude-boy]

tr7v8 said:

Roo said:

Rude-boy said:

Of course all should also be very aware that it is only operative if there is also a valid policy in force on the car (ie the owner has it insured for their use)

Nope.

Roo you're wasting your time, people keep regurgitating this crap despite being told not to!

I was going to post this:-

Interesting, first time I have seen anyone say that this isn't the case, in deed I am sure that I have seen people post up on here that they have been stopped for no insurance when driving a car that does not belong to them, thinking that they are covered 3P under their own, but have been told by Bib that they are not as there is no policy in force for that car.

I'd be delighted to be educated though, especially with links to evidence of the correct situation. It is actually quite an interesting point for me to clarify as it is something I do frequently.

But after rereading this would be more appropriate:-

Dear tr7v8, rather than act like a and assume that everyone has read every thread on this site and therefore knows everything you know how about actually being helpful and correcting people politely with links to evidence to back up your assertion.

[trashbat]

Rude-boy said:

Interesting, first time I have seen anyone say that this isn't the case, in deed I am sure that I have seen people post up on here that they have been stopped for no insurance when driving a car that does not belong to them, thinking that they are covered 3P under their own, but have been told by Bib that they are not as there is no policy in force for that car.

As far as I know, the police are wrong. If your cover allows you to drive it without mandating other insurance in place, then you're insured. The registered keeper however commits an offence under Continuous Insurance Enforcement law, and of course the police are right to stop you, because this scenario is unlikely.

[tr7v8]

Rude-boy said:

tr7v8 said:

Roo said:

Rude-boy said:

Of course all should also be very aware that it is only operative if there is also a valid policy in force on the car (ie the owner has it insured for their use)

Nope.

Roo you're wasting your time, people keep regurgitating this crap despite being told not to!

I was going to post this:-

Interesting, first time I have seen anyone say that this isn't the case, in deed I am sure that I have seen people post up on here that they have been stopped for no insurance when driving a car that does not belong to them, thinking that they are covered 3P under their own, but have been told by Bib that they are not as there is no policy in force for that car.

I'd be delighted to be educated though, especially with links to evidence of the correct situation. It is actually quite an interesting point for me to clarify as it is something I do frequently.

But after rereading this would be more appropriate:-

Dear tr7v8, rather than act like a and assume that everyone has read every thread on this site and therefore knows everything you know how about actually being helpful and correcting people politely with links to evidence to back up your assertion.

People keep regularly regurgitating the "It has to be insured in its own right" crap despite being told, politely that it is bks. Quite a few insurance co's DO NOT REQUIRE IT TO BE INSURED for DOC to work. Mine is one, Sainsbury's.
The simple answer is if you don't know something for a fact then don't post it. And don't abuse me when in fact in the wrong, obviously where you get your stupid user name from.

[Sheepshanks]

Sir_Dave said:

essayer said:

My Admiral renewal has just come through and I still have DOC with the same terms as last year, but my car isn't leased.

Fantastic, thanks for confirming that it is specifically a lease issue, as i originally thought

Someone above says it's been removed from their policy on a car that they own.

I can't guess what's going on here, but I've generally found insurance company call centre staff pretty seem to make things up when asked a question. It could be something that's unique to your set of circumstances, with the car being leased only being part of the equation.

[Sheepshanks]

trashbat said:

Rude-boy said:

Interesting, first time I have seen anyone say that this isn't the case, in deed I am sure that I have seen people post up on here that they have been stopped for no insurance when driving a car that does not belong to them, thinking that they are covered 3P under their own, but have been told by Bib that they are not as there is no policy in force for that car.

As far as I know, the police are wrong. If your cover allows you to drive it without mandating other insurance in place, then you're insured. The registered keeper however commits an offence under Continuous Insurance Enforcement law, and of course the police are right to stop you, because this scenario is unlikely.

That's right - it'll ping ANPR as being uninsured and there certainly have been cases of cars being impounded and then you can't get it released from the compound without getting the car insured.

[Max M4X WW]

So I'm OK with elephant?

[Roo]

Sheepshanks said:

trashbat said:

Rude-boy said:

Interesting, first time I have seen anyone say that this isn't the case, in deed I am sure that I have seen people post up on here that they have been stopped for no insurance when driving a car that does not belong to them, thinking that they are covered 3P under their own, but have been told by Bib that they are not as there is no policy in force for that car.

As far as I know, the police are wrong. If your cover allows you to drive it without mandating other insurance in place, then you're insured. The registered keeper however commits an offence under Continuous Insurance Enforcement law, and of course the police are right to stop you, because this scenario is unlikely.

That's right - it'll ping ANPR as being uninsured and there certainly have been cases of cars being impounded and then you can't get it released from the compound without getting the car insured.

The DOC extension varies with each insurer.

One of my cars doesn't have DOC, but if it did it would require the other car to have it's own insurance.

One covers me for DOC but the other car is not allowed to be LHD. Despite the fact that the insured car is LHD.

Personally never needed to use DOC as it won't cover the car you're driving.

[Rude-boy]

tr7v8 said:

People keep regularly regurgitating the "It has to be insured in its own right" crap despite being told, politely that it is bks. Quite a few insurance co's DO NOT REQUIRE IT TO BE INSURED for DOC to work. Mine is one, Sainsbury's.
The simple answer is if you don't know something for a fact then don't post it. And don't abuse me when in fact in the wrong, obviously where you get your stupid user name from.

Right, so it is 'crap' in that you can with some policies, but not with others. So in other words what I posted and understood to be the case from various posts on here, including posts by Bib and insurance co. employees, is not entirely correct, just like your assertion that it is 'crap'.

I will happily admit I thought I did know it, and that it was fact - the first counter to this position I have seen on here was your little exchange earlier. As a rule when it comes to insurance I would rather be overly cautious than overly blasé about it, so whilst I am happy to say I might be wrong (and I only say 'might' as I have not had the opportunity to verify your assertion) I will continue only to drive other people's cars under my DOC cover when I know that they are also insured under their own policy.

As for 'abusing' you - perhaps if you had been a little more helpful and a little less inclined to accuse others of wasting people's time because they have not been as fortunate as you to read all the posts that you have, and have taken the advice of Bib and ins. co. employees, then you wouldn't have your delicate sensibilities ruffled when they kick back.

Anyway eace:

[Rude-boy]

trashbat said:

Rude-boy said:

Interesting, first time I have seen anyone say that this isn't the case, in deed I am sure that I have seen people post up on here that they have been stopped for no insurance when driving a car that does not belong to them, thinking that they are covered 3P under their own, but have been told by Bib that they are not as there is no policy in force for that car.

As far as I know, the police are wrong. If your cover allows you to drive it without mandating other insurance in place, then you're insured. The registered keeper however commits an offence under Continuous Insurance Enforcement law, and of course the police are right to stop you, because this scenario is unlikely.

Thank you for the clarification. Of course I should have realised that CIE would be a factor in this.

Interestingly I have been checking my own policies and without drilling into the T&C's fully it is not clear from the certificate what their requirements are, only that I have DOC with consent, so long as car is not leased to or hired by me and I have owner's consent. Amusingly it also states "...this policy does not cover use to secure the release of a motor vehicle, not otherwise specifically the subject of insurance by this policy, which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority."

[confused_buyer]

To sum up, if you intend to drive a car using this cover check your insurance certificate and then also check the detailed policy rules before driving it as rules vary between insurance companies and they are in the habit of chaging those rules every year.

Do not assume.

[jamoor]

Aviva don't require it to be insured elsewhere.

[aw51 121565]

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.

Wording is as follows: "The driving of other cars extension is not included for any driver named on this policy"

This is because the car i am insuring, is owned by Leaseplan.

Nice of them to charge 25% more than last year (new premiums for lease cars), then remove some of the cover

Edited by Sir_Dave on Monday 26th January 13:57

Edited by Sir_Dave on Monday 26th January 14:09

"DOC" cover often mentions that driving a car belonging to one's spouse or someone who one lives with as if they were one's spouse is excluded .

The detail is in the fine print (it certainly is in the fine print of my policies ) - you might not have been covered for driving the missus' car under DOC at all...