driving other cars
Discussion
Can anyone confirm this.
I understand that if I drive another car, I'm only covered 3rd party (on my own fully comp insurance).
I've "been" told that I can only drive a car upto my existing car insurance group..
say my own car is a group 19, I could drive anycar up to a 19, if say I had a mini (group 3) I cant drive another car say a 19 ?
the example is I have an Astra (grp 7) and want to drive my g/friends car occasionally, Merc. can I drive it ? My insurance company have said yes (verbally anyway)
I am looking into being a named driver on her car... as well.
cheers
I understand that if I drive another car, I'm only covered 3rd party (on my own fully comp insurance).
I've "been" told that I can only drive a car upto my existing car insurance group..
say my own car is a group 19, I could drive anycar up to a 19, if say I had a mini (group 3) I cant drive another car say a 19 ?
the example is I have an Astra (grp 7) and want to drive my g/friends car occasionally, Merc. can I drive it ? My insurance company have said yes (verbally anyway)
I am looking into being a named driver on her car... as well.
cheers
but why not add you as a named driver to her policy so you're covered FC on her car...AFAIK you are insured 3rd party (on your insurance) on that car provided that car is already insured by someone else. There is no system for groups.
Some new FC policies are omitting this facet.
Only time you are FC on another car you don't own is if you give them the details if your car is being fixed, eg. courtesy car and the policy temporarily switches.
Some new FC policies are omitting this facet.
Only time you are FC on another car you don't own is if you give them the details if your car is being fixed, eg. courtesy car and the policy temporarily switches.
hi thankxs all,
I got her to do a named driver on her car.
£48
weird thing is, if somone can answer this...
IN her docs, there is a bit about having unnamed drivers, over 25 etc.
hiwever when she rang them, she was told that they dont do it and it must be named, is this because of the "Type" of car do you think ?
cheers all
>> Edited by bite-me on Thursday 23 February 16:58
I got her to do a named driver on her car.
£48
weird thing is, if somone can answer this...
IN her docs, there is a bit about having unnamed drivers, over 25 etc.
hiwever when she rang them, she was told that they dont do it and it must be named, is this because of the "Type" of car do you think ?
cheers all
>> Edited by bite-me on Thursday 23 February 16:58
On renewing my insurance recently I was told that insurance companies are removing the driving other cars part due to the government drive to insure that all cars that are roadworthy are insured and no-one drives a car without being a named driver.
Saying that I got my documents through for TPF&T and the insurance certificate has the other cars part listed, although I know I can't.
Quite were this leaves you in the situation where a driver becomes incapable of driving and there is no-one else on the insurance to drive I don't know!!?? ring the AA and tell them the driver has broken down and needs towing home?? mmmm McDonalds advert springs to mind
Saying that I got my documents through for TPF&T and the insurance certificate has the other cars part listed, although I know I can't.
Quite were this leaves you in the situation where a driver becomes incapable of driving and there is no-one else on the insurance to drive I don't know!!?? ring the AA and tell them the driver has broken down and needs towing home?? mmmm McDonalds advert springs to mind
When I was young my insurance documents had a section for "Exclusions" which, when you referred to the relevant section in the policy booklet, covered driving other vehicles. In recent years all my policy documents (fully comprehensive or third party, fire and theft) have specifically allowed the driving of other vehicles.
My latest Cert of insurance has arrived from Admiral.
Section 5:
The policy hilder may also drive with teh consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a hire purchase agreement.
Provided that the person holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified for holding or obtaing such a licence.
Now to me that says I can drive whatever I like whenever I like as long as I have their permission and a licence for the vehcile. It mentions nothing about the vehicle being insured elsewhere.
That'll save me a few quid again.
Check your policy wording and limitations.
Section 5:
The policy hilder may also drive with teh consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a hire purchase agreement.
Provided that the person holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified for holding or obtaing such a licence.
Now to me that says I can drive whatever I like whenever I like as long as I have their permission and a licence for the vehcile. It mentions nothing about the vehicle being insured elsewhere.
That'll save me a few quid again.
Check your policy wording and limitations.
ridds said:
Now to me that says I can drive whatever I like whenever I like as long as I have their permission and a licence for the vehcile. It mentions nothing about the vehicle being insured elsewhere.
I'm 99.5% certain that the car "must" be insured elsewhere. A motroing lawyer can confirm that.
A car doesn't need to be insured in its own right to be lawfully used - if you drive a car which is otherwise uninsured, under this clause you are not committing an offence, and the owner of the car isn't committing any offence either.
That ignores two things:
1. The law is changing soon (not sure when) so it will be an offence to have an uninsured car (complete nonsense, but hey it's what the government want <shrug>
; and
2. To tax the car it needs to be insured, so maybe it won't have tax.
That ignores two things:
1. The law is changing soon (not sure when) so it will be an offence to have an uninsured car (complete nonsense, but hey it's what the government want <shrug>
; and 2. To tax the car it needs to be insured, so maybe it won't have tax.
bite-me said:
Now to me that says I can drive whatever I like whenever I like as long as I have their permission and a licence for the vehcile. It mentions nothing about the vehicle being insured elsewhere.
I'm 99.5% certain that the car "must" be insured elsewhere. A motroing lawyer can confirm that.
In my humble brokering experience, many years ago, we never advised our clients that the "other car" had to be insured elsewhere. I'm not aware this has changed in the last 10 years. Most probably the car was actually insured elsewhere, who knows.
DOC is will perhaps be abolished, following NU's lead (NU have always been the innovators in insurance underwriting) due to the so called abuse by people driving cars that they own but don't insure ie. insure the Mini and drive the Porsche under DOC. Quite how this works has escaped me though, as the DOC strictly limits the cover to vehicles not owned by the insured.
Obviously I would make a crap criminal!anniesdad said:
In my humble brokering experience, many years ago, we never advised our clients that the "other car" had to be insured elsewhere. I'm not aware this has changed in the last 10 years. Most probably the car was actually insured elsewhere, who knows.
DOC is will perhaps be abolished, following NU's lead (NU have always been the innovators in insurance underwriting) due to the so called abuse by people driving cars that they own but don't insure ie. insure the Mini and drive the Porsche under DOC. Quite how this works has escaped me though, as the DOC strictly limits the cover to vehicles not owned by the insured.
How do you determine who owns a car? I suppose you could argue that if your name isn't on the reg document it isn't your car - but the V5/V5C does state that the person named may not be the legal owner of the vehicle. And if you are a real criminal the registered address will be made up or the registration plates will be fake.
fourwheelsteer said:
In my humble brokering experience, many years ago, we never advised our clients that the "other car" had to be insured elsewhere. I'm not aware this has changed in the last 10 years. Most probably the car was actually insured elsewhere, who knows.
DOC is will perhaps be abolished, following NU's lead (NU have always been the innovators in insurance underwriting) due to the so called abuse by people driving cars that they own but don't insure ie. insure the Mini and drive the Porsche under DOC. Quite how this works has escaped me though, as the DOC strictly limits the cover to vehicles not owned by the insured.
How do you determine who owns a car? I suppose you could argue that if your name isn't on the reg document it isn't your car - but the V5/V5C does state that the person named may not be the legal owner of the vehicle. And if you are a real criminal the registered address will be made up or the registration plates will be fake.
If you're a 'real criminal' you probably won't give a flying feck whether you are insured or not.
fourwheelsteer said:
In my humble brokering experience, many years ago, we never advised our clients that the "other car" had to be insured elsewhere. I'm not aware this has changed in the last 10 years. Most probably the car was actually insured elsewhere, who knows.
DOC is will perhaps be abolished, following NU's lead (NU have always been the innovators in insurance underwriting) due to the so called abuse by people driving cars that they own but don't insure ie. insure the Mini and drive the Porsche under DOC. Quite how this works has escaped me though, as the DOC strictly limits the cover to vehicles not owned by the insured.
How do you determine who owns a car? I suppose you could argue that if your name isn't on the reg document it isn't your car - but the V5/V5C does state that the person named may not be the legal owner of the vehicle. And if you are a real criminal the registered address will be made up or the registration plates will be fake.
The owner, is the person/entity who paid the money for the car, unless it is given as a gift. The registered keeper can be a different person/entity.
If it's so hard to trace the owner, why do the insurers make such a big issue of it?
bite-me said:
weird thing is, if somone can answer this...
IN her docs, there is a bit about having unnamed drivers, over 25 etc.
hiwever when she rang them, she was told that they dont do it and it must be named, is this because of the "Type" of car do you think ?
The long and the short of it would be whatever is stated in her policy documents. They may have changed their policies since hers started, but that won't affect her one.
As an aside, I think it would be very unlikely that her policy would cover random, "un-named" drivers, as that kind of policy is usually very expensive.
Let us be precise here, when driving the other vehicle under the DOC you are insured Road Traffic Act only, ie 3rd party unless the terms of the policy are different. In this I take it that means 3rd party, personal injuries and vehicle, but limited to £250,000 damages iirc.
Then you park the car, and leave it. It runs away and causes injury, and just for sake of argument not because you failed to appy parking brake but some mechanical defect. Where is it covered then? Your policy as you were last user, or the owner?
Then you park the car, and leave it. It runs away and causes injury, and just for sake of argument not because you failed to appy parking brake but some mechanical defect. Where is it covered then? Your policy as you were last user, or the owner?
pdV6 said:
As an aside, I think it would be very unlikely that her policy would cover random, "un-named" drivers, as that kind of policy is usually very expensive.
I think you refer to an "any driver" policy, which is available as a premium load. Casting my mind back - maybe - 30% more for any driver over 25?
Flat in Fifth said:
Let us be precise here, when driving the other vehicle under the DOC you are insured Road Traffic Act only, ie 3rd party unless the terms of the policy are different. In this I take it that means 3rd party, personal injuries and vehicle, but limited to £250,000 damages iirc.
Then you park the car, and leave it. It runs away and causes injury, and just for sake of argument not because you failed to appy parking brake but some mechanical defect. Where is it covered then? Your policy as you were last user, or the owner?
on a DOC it's TPO cover whilst you are driving only.
AFAIK you as the last "user" of the vehicle would be responsible unless you could put the finger of blame on the manufacturer/repair garage that were negligent.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff