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

[Sir_Dave]

Just a quick heads up, as of last month, Admiral have removed the ability for you to drive other peoples cars 3rd party if the registered owner of the car is a leasing company. So that means all the crazy bargain 330d/M135i/Golf R's with Leaseplan/Network/Arval etc etc ...

There is NO WAY to add it onto the policy either, & they dont mention the change anywhere on their website/during quotation telephone calls. You only find out when your insurance certificate appears, then its a nice £25 to cancel the policy if you dont like it!!

This is no doubt going to cause quite a few people all types of issues when they dont check their insurance certificates properly, borrow their mates/gfs cars (or test drive a car via private sale) and get in trouble for driving with no insurance ...

Edit - this change appears to be Admiral only. Elephant are still offering 3rd party cover.

Edited by Sir_Dave on Tuesday 27th January 08:15

[Crusoe]

Most say you can drive third party car provided you have the owner’s permission. Guess that covers any car leased or rented unless you ask the company for permission.

[trashbat]

Are you sure? What's the wording?

Most policies in my experience say something like, 'cover to drive any car not owned by you or leased/rented to you'. That would be normal, so are you saying it says something else?

[Sir_Dave]

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

[Rude-boy]

Thanks for the heads up.

It is interesting that more and more insurers seem to be removing this these days so it is something I insist on when agreeing to take out policies.

It really is quite an important thing to check when taking out a policy, especially if you have access to a lot of cars which you might not be a named driver.

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) and that it is only Third Party cover. Obvious I know but when a mate chucks you the keys to their 964 RS to go for a drive it does focus the mind a touch...

[romeogolf]

Sir_Dave said:

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

Edited by Sir_Dave on Monday 26th January 13:57

Is that the exact wording? It doesn't seem very clear.


I would take it to mean named drivers on the policy are not covered 3rd party on other cars, but it would leave the main driver covered 3rd party as expected.

[trashbat]

I didn't realise that you were talking about YOUR car being leased - not the clearest.

Anyway that wording is not new; see for example: http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Sheepshanks]

romeogolf said:

Sir_Dave said:

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

Edited by Sir_Dave on Monday 26th January 13:57

Is that the exact wording? It doesn't seem very clear.


I would take it to mean named drivers on the policy are not covered 3rd party on other cars, but it would leave the main driver covered 3rd party as expected.

Exactly, and completely normal. Although replace "main driver" with "policyholder".

[Grandfondo]

Rude-boy said:

Thanks for the heads up.

It is interesting that more and more insurers seem to be removing this these days so it is something I insist on when agreeing to take out policies.

It really is quite an important thing to check when taking out a policy, especially if you have access to a lot of cars which you might not be a named driver.

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) and that it is only Third Party cover. Obvious I know but when a mate chucks you the keys to their 964 RS to go for a drive it does focus the mind a touch...

It would focus the sphincter as well if you wrote it off and were left with a £200k bill!

[Sir_Dave]

trashbat said:

Anyway that wording is not new; see for example: http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

I know the wording is not new, but THIS IS A POLICY CHANGE from Admiral Group, that they are not making people aware of. Last year, i had the same car, insured with the same company, & i was able to drive other cars 3rd party.

Now, i am not.

I have also called them re: named drivers on the policy (as there are 2 others), but it relates to all, including the policy holder. My car is leased, so i cannot drive other cars without being specifically added onto their own policies/or getting day cover.

[funkyrobot]

Add this to the fact that Admiral will not pay out if your car goes up in flames and the causes isn't a direct incident.

[Sheepshanks]

Sir_Dave said:

I have also called them re: named drivers on the policy (as there are 2 others), but it relates to all, including the policy holder. My car is leased, so i cannot drive other cars without being specifically added onto their own policies/or getting day cover.

I know you've been told that, but I've been told bks by call-centre staff from various insurance companies so I wouldn't put too much weight on that. I'd be interested to see the exact wording.

I'm not saying it ain't true, but a few years ago the Government tried to get insurance companies to get rid of DOC and there was a big push-back as they said a lot of their policyholders would be caught out. That's when it changed to over 25's only.

[confused_buyer]

Note that Admiral, and a few others, only extend 3rd party cover to "privately owned" cars so you most probably can't drive someone else's company car on it either.

[TomHamper]

Try getting a quote from the co-operative. Their policies are more flexible and allow third party vehicles the last time I looked.

[Sheepshanks]

confused_buyer said:

Note that Admiral, and a few others, only extend 3rd party cover to "privately owned" cars so you most probably can't drive someone else's company car on it either.

I've never seen "privately owned". However you do need the owners permission, which would usually be difficult with a company or leased car.

[trashbat]

Sheepshanks said:

I've never seen "privately owned". However you do need the owners permission, which would usually be difficult with a company or leased car.

Mine says:

'The Insured whilst driving any private motor car not their property or hired to them'

Curiously, it seems to give my named drivers the ability to drive any car, without necessarily having it on their own policies.

O/T but I've tried in the past to find out whether this allows me to drive trade-insured garage loaner cars (free, so no 'hire' element IMO) but getting this confirmation out of the insurer is like getting blood out of a stone.

[Sir_Dave]

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"

[trashbat]

Out of interest, how old are you OP?

Just wondering, if say under 25, whether their risk profile has changed and you've wound up outside it.

[moffat]

I don't think that this is anything new across motor insurance.

Easiest thing to do is get added to your partner's cover as you will get much better cover than 3rd party which is pretty 5h1t.

Tends to be at minimal cost anyway.

[confused_buyer]

Sheepshanks said:

I've never seen "privately owned". However you do need the owners permission, which would usually be difficult with a company or leased car.

Admiral says:

1b. Driving other cars
If you are 25 or over and qualify under this section, cover is for the policyholder only
and is third party only, while driving a private motor car within our territorial limits. Your
current Certificate of Motor Insurance will say if you have this cover.
You will be covered for everything listed in clause 1a when you are driving any other car
as long as:
■■ your current Certificate of Motor Insurance says so
■■ you hold a valid Driving Licence and are not disqualified
■■ the other car is not owned by you, a rental car, nor hired to you under a hire
purchase or leasing agreement
■■ you have the owner’s permission to drive the car
■■ there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car
■■ you are not covered by any other insurance to drive it
■■ you still have your car and it has not been damaged beyond repair, stolen nor sold

Their definition of a "private car" is:

A privately owned motor car manufactured to carry up to eight
passengers, which is designed solely for private use and has not
been constructed or adapted to carry goods or loads.

Clear as mud I'd agree, but I know it doesn't cover courtesy cars for example as I've had customers check and it doesn't.