Two Insurance Policies on One Car
Discussion
I'm in the middle of a dispute over an uninsured car with the DVLA (there's a thread on it somewhere).
They want £100 off me for failing to insure a car (which I'd sold months previously and returned all the paperwork which they managed to lose for several months).
The car in question was immediately put onto the buyers Motor Trade Insurance policy at the time of the sale in March, so the date in July when the DVLA claim it wasn't insured it actually was and had been for months.
In my next reply to them I want to point out that I couldn't have insured the car if I'd wanted to as it already had a policy on it. Can anyone here confirm if insurance companies would cross-reference a vehicle to see if it has an existing policy on it? Also I'm assuming it's illegal for 2 parties to try and insure the same vehicle independently?
I want to point out to the cretins at the DVLA that had I sought to insure the car i would have been breaking the law due to it already being covered.
Am I right in my thinking? Thanks.
They want £100 off me for failing to insure a car (which I'd sold months previously and returned all the paperwork which they managed to lose for several months).
The car in question was immediately put onto the buyers Motor Trade Insurance policy at the time of the sale in March, so the date in July when the DVLA claim it wasn't insured it actually was and had been for months.
In my next reply to them I want to point out that I couldn't have insured the car if I'd wanted to as it already had a policy on it. Can anyone here confirm if insurance companies would cross-reference a vehicle to see if it has an existing policy on it? Also I'm assuming it's illegal for 2 parties to try and insure the same vehicle independently?
I want to point out to the cretins at the DVLA that had I sought to insure the car i would have been breaking the law due to it already being covered.
Am I right in my thinking? Thanks.
I'm fairly certain you can have two policies on the same vehicle.
However, in the event of a claim you can only claim on one policy.
Simple case - husband and wife, one car.
Both take out their own policy to drive the car.
This might not be the most cost effective way to do it but certainly not against the rules.
However, in the event of a claim you can only claim on one policy.
Simple case - husband and wife, one car.
Both take out their own policy to drive the car.
This might not be the most cost effective way to do it but certainly not against the rules.
Phil303 said:
I'm in the middle of a dispute over an uninsured car with the DVLA (there's a thread on it somewhere).
They want £100 off me for failing to insure a car (which I'd sold months previously and returned all the paperwork which they managed to lose for several months).
The car in question was immediately put onto the buyers Motor Trade Insurance policy at the time of the sale in March, so the date in July when the DVLA claim it wasn't insured it actually was and had been for months.
In my next reply to them I want to point out that I couldn't have insured the car if I'd wanted to as it already had a policy on it. Can anyone here confirm if insurance companies would cross-reference a vehicle to see if it has an existing policy on it? Also I'm assuming it's illegal for 2 parties to try and insure the same vehicle independently?
I want to point out to the cretins at the DVLA that had I sought to insure the car i would have been breaking the law due to it already being covered.
Am I right in my thinking? Thanks.
But you say it was insured so why the need for all this? (considering whether you could have done something you didn't attempt and wouldn't have attempted since you had sold the car)They want £100 off me for failing to insure a car (which I'd sold months previously and returned all the paperwork which they managed to lose for several months).
The car in question was immediately put onto the buyers Motor Trade Insurance policy at the time of the sale in March, so the date in July when the DVLA claim it wasn't insured it actually was and had been for months.
In my next reply to them I want to point out that I couldn't have insured the car if I'd wanted to as it already had a policy on it. Can anyone here confirm if insurance companies would cross-reference a vehicle to see if it has an existing policy on it? Also I'm assuming it's illegal for 2 parties to try and insure the same vehicle independently?
I want to point out to the cretins at the DVLA that had I sought to insure the car i would have been breaking the law due to it already being covered.
Am I right in my thinking? Thanks.
pork911 said:
But you say it was insured so why the need for all this? (considering whether you could have done something you didn't attempt and wouldn't have attempted since you had sold the car
Precisely, there is no need for all this but the DVLA can't let hard material facts get in the way of their pursuit. To avoid repetition here's a link to the original thread:http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Defcon5 said:
I tried to insure my dad's car for a week last month and admiral wouldn't let me due to him already insuring it
That's because it can be a pain in the ass to deal with Dual covered claims so the insurer just declines to cover it if you could just get yourself added as an additional driver elsewhere.ging84 said:
No just no
Delete this thread before loon sees it, or you will be responsible for his next ban
Now that's funny, I'm genuinely laughing out loud here. Delete this thread before loon sees it, or you will be responsible for his next ban
As others have said, it's not illegal to have two policies running, it gets very dodgy if you try to claim on both.
I think I remember your other thread and I have to say that my Spidey sense is tingling. I think you forgot to send it off / agreed not to stick another owner on it for your mate. Because he bunged it on his trade policy it's been flagged as uninsured, although that's annoying because he should've updated MID. In addition, what happened to the the three letters that hey send you? Or did they get lost in your house move? Haven't you set up an auto redirect with the Post Office.
Sorry for being cynical, but I don't believe we get anywhere near the full story on these sort of threads. A classic example is the Audi S3 one started recently.
LoonR1
I promise you the story is EXACTLY as I detailed in the other thread. There is nothing omitted.
In response to your queries:
• Letters arrived okay (I do have redirect on)
• He is NOT a trader, he services cars, and the car is for his personal use, not to sell on. There was never any question of needing to leave the new owner blank.
• A quick check on the MID online shows the car is insured.
Car was sold in March, we both signed paperwork and I popped it in the post on my way home. It goes onto his insurance that week - he has the paperwork to prove it. I cancel it on mine at the same time.
Late July, DVLA contact me saying I had an uninsured car in June. I check with friend and he hasn't received the docs back in his name. I respond to the DVLA telling them the docs were returned in March and I no longer owned the car at the time they are claiming it was uninsured.
DVLA reply back saying retrospectively telling them you no longer own the car is no excuse - fine still stands.
Mid-August: Acknowledgement arrives from DVLA stating the change of ownership. Hooray, they've found the V5.
I reply back telling them that now they have the paperwork they'll see the dates are from early March. In any event, the car was insured and if they contact the new owner (I gave them his full details inc. email and telephone number) he would be happy to prove the car was insured.
New owner receives V5 with his details on.
I await their response....
Believe me, if it wasn't so straight forward and I was guilty of omitting some serious facts I wouldn't have wasted my time giving half the story on a forum.
I promise you the story is EXACTLY as I detailed in the other thread. There is nothing omitted.
In response to your queries:
• Letters arrived okay (I do have redirect on)
• He is NOT a trader, he services cars, and the car is for his personal use, not to sell on. There was never any question of needing to leave the new owner blank.
• A quick check on the MID online shows the car is insured.
Car was sold in March, we both signed paperwork and I popped it in the post on my way home. It goes onto his insurance that week - he has the paperwork to prove it. I cancel it on mine at the same time.
Late July, DVLA contact me saying I had an uninsured car in June. I check with friend and he hasn't received the docs back in his name. I respond to the DVLA telling them the docs were returned in March and I no longer owned the car at the time they are claiming it was uninsured.
DVLA reply back saying retrospectively telling them you no longer own the car is no excuse - fine still stands.
Mid-August: Acknowledgement arrives from DVLA stating the change of ownership. Hooray, they've found the V5.
I reply back telling them that now they have the paperwork they'll see the dates are from early March. In any event, the car was insured and if they contact the new owner (I gave them his full details inc. email and telephone number) he would be happy to prove the car was insured.
New owner receives V5 with his details on.
I await their response....
Believe me, if it wasn't so straight forward and I was guilty of omitting some serious facts I wouldn't have wasted my time giving half the story on a forum.
Edited by Phil303 on Thursday 28th August 19:50
Phil303 said:
LoonR1
I promise you the story is EXACTLY as I detailed in the other thread. There is nothing omitted.
In response to your queries:
• Letters arrived okay (I do have redirect on)
• He is NOT a trader, he services cars, and the car is for his personal use, not to sell on. There was never any question of needing to leave the new owner blank.
• A quick check on the MID online shows the car is insured.
Car was sold in March, we both signed paperwork and I popped it in the post on my way home. It goes onto his insurance that week - he has the paperwork to prove it. I cancel it on mine at the same time.
Late July, DVLA contact me saying I had an uninsured car in June. I check with friend and he hasn't received the docs back in his name. I respond to the DVLA telling them the docs were returned in March and I no longer owned the car at the time they are claiming it was uninsured.
DVLA reply back saying retrospectively telling them you no longer own the car is no excuse - fine still stands.
Mid-August: Acknowledgement arrives from DVLA stating the change of ownership. Hooray, they've found the V5.
I reply back telling them that now they have the paperwork they'll see the dates are from early March. In any event, the car was insured and if they contact the new owner (I gave them his full details inc. email and telephone number) he would be happy to prove the car was insured.
New owner receives V5 with his details on.
I await their response....
Believe me, if it wasn't so straight forward and I was guilty of omitting some serious facts I wouldn't have wasted my time giving half the story on a forum.
But here's the problem, if it's insured on his trade policy in March then it won't show up as uninsured and so none of this would happen. As long as a car is insured by someone then it physically can't show up as uninsured. I promise you the story is EXACTLY as I detailed in the other thread. There is nothing omitted.
In response to your queries:
• Letters arrived okay (I do have redirect on)
• He is NOT a trader, he services cars, and the car is for his personal use, not to sell on. There was never any question of needing to leave the new owner blank.
• A quick check on the MID online shows the car is insured.
Car was sold in March, we both signed paperwork and I popped it in the post on my way home. It goes onto his insurance that week - he has the paperwork to prove it. I cancel it on mine at the same time.
Late July, DVLA contact me saying I had an uninsured car in June. I check with friend and he hasn't received the docs back in his name. I respond to the DVLA telling them the docs were returned in March and I no longer owned the car at the time they are claiming it was uninsured.
DVLA reply back saying retrospectively telling them you no longer own the car is no excuse - fine still stands.
Mid-August: Acknowledgement arrives from DVLA stating the change of ownership. Hooray, they've found the V5.
I reply back telling them that now they have the paperwork they'll see the dates are from early March. In any event, the car was insured and if they contact the new owner (I gave them his full details inc. email and telephone number) he would be happy to prove the car was insured.
New owner receives V5 with his details on.
I await their response....
Believe me, if it wasn't so straight forward and I was guilty of omitting some serious facts I wouldn't have wasted my time giving half the story on a forum.
Edited by Phil303 on Thursday 28th August 19:50
There is a secondary element that his trade policy is highly unlikely cover his own personal vehicles. That's a pretty standard exclusion.
The car is insured; it shows up on the MID as insured; all vehicles owned by him (3 cars for personal/business, a works van and 2 loan cars) are covered and it HAS happened.
I don't know what you stand to gain by claiming otherwise. The DVLA haven't got a flawless reputation for common sense or efficiency and this incident highlights their failings yet again.
I don't know what you stand to gain by claiming otherwise. The DVLA haven't got a flawless reputation for common sense or efficiency and this incident highlights their failings yet again.
LoonR1 said:
Right whatever. The fact it's administered by The MIB is clearly irrelevant.
Clearly LoonR1 knows a great deal about insurance. However I have known of several occasions when kit cars I have insured correctly have not shown up on the MIB database for some days. It would seem some insurers are better at notifying than others. Perhaps this could explain the position.. It certainly has caused me concerns in the past. On checking by the police the cars were found to actually be insured. Not saying this is common but it does happen. Just a thought.over_the_hill said:
I'm fairly certain you can have two policies on the same vehicle.
However, in the event of a claim you can only claim on one policy.
Simple case - husband and wife, one car.
Both take out their own policy to drive the car.
This might not be the most cost effective way to do it but certainly not against the rules.
happens more often with 'learner insurance' when the current insurer takes the michael when wanting to add a learner However, in the event of a claim you can only claim on one policy.
Simple case - husband and wife, one car.
Both take out their own policy to drive the car.
This might not be the most cost effective way to do it but certainly not against the rules.
also somoe the take away delivery stuff is done by people using their own car but as it;s a none standard risk and highly loaded by most normal insurers the delivery chains organise cover to cover the vehicle and driver when delivering ...
Ok I'll be very explicit.
If a car is insured, then it's insured. It doesn't matter who owns it, the database checks whether it's insured. So the friend didn't insure it on his policy. He may have decided to drive around using the policy, it he has to update MID. On a small scale policy like this then it would be via his broker. However, the problem is that the broker would probably advise him the his Motor Trade policy is not for personal vehicles being used for SD&P and is only for vehicles being used in connection with his business.
So his friend may well have chosen not to advise his broker and just operate on the basis that waving a trade policy at plod if pulled would suffice. It rarely does nowadays btw.
The issue here is just that the OP didn't relinquish RK status. How and why are open to conjecture, but he admits to getting the insurance chaser letters and not doing anything then. That would prompt most people to do something, such as check that DVLA had correctly updated their ownership records.
I don't care if I come across as a cynic on threads like this. The OP had many chances to correct this and chose to ignore them.
If a car is insured, then it's insured. It doesn't matter who owns it, the database checks whether it's insured. So the friend didn't insure it on his policy. He may have decided to drive around using the policy, it he has to update MID. On a small scale policy like this then it would be via his broker. However, the problem is that the broker would probably advise him the his Motor Trade policy is not for personal vehicles being used for SD&P and is only for vehicles being used in connection with his business.
So his friend may well have chosen not to advise his broker and just operate on the basis that waving a trade policy at plod if pulled would suffice. It rarely does nowadays btw.
The issue here is just that the OP didn't relinquish RK status. How and why are open to conjecture, but he admits to getting the insurance chaser letters and not doing anything then. That would prompt most people to do something, such as check that DVLA had correctly updated their ownership records.
I don't care if I come across as a cynic on threads like this. The OP had many chances to correct this and chose to ignore them.
LoonR1 said:
ging84 said:
No just no
Delete this thread before loon sees it, or you will be responsible for his next ban
Now that's funny, I'm genuinely laughing out loud here. Delete this thread before loon sees it, or you will be responsible for his next ban
As others have said, it's not illegal to have two policies running, it gets very dodgy if you try to claim on both.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff