DOC Insurance for an 'extended' period?

[anonymous-user]

Apologies if this has been covered before....

My son has borrowed our 'spare' car whilst his own is being repaired following an engine mishap. He's been driving it under the 3rd party DOC cover on his own policy - for the last two weeks or so.

I've been reading that this cover is only really intended for 'dire emergencies', so am getting a bit concerned that he's courting potential trouble by using this cover in this way.

Looking at my own poilicy docs, nowhere under the DOC cover description does it state: "can only be used in emergencies" (or words to that effect) - so is there any problem with using it for an extended period? I have no idea how long it will take to sort out his engine problems, but I can see it going on for a few mor weeks.

The borrowed car is low-value, so 3rd party cover is adequate. Both vehicles are fully insured in their own right, and we're the owners / registered keepers of our respective cars.

Should I be worried?

[BertBert]

You should probably read what his policy says and that will tell you the answer. There's a lot of fud around DOC cover. But it's unlikely to say emergencies only.

[croyde]

I always took DOC as being insured third party only if driving another car that you don't own, with the owners permission.

So I'd say your son is ok but if he crashes it and you have fully comp cover, it won't cover him.

He's only covered if he damages another car, property or person.

That's always been my take. I hope I'm not wrong.

[Jules Sunley]

Personally I think this sounds fine, but to be fully safe I'd get him to ring his insurer and say 'my cars being fixed and I don't know how long it will take, is there are restriction on how long I can drive my parent's car on a third party basis'. With most phone calls to insurers recorded if he were ever to have an accident you can then tell them the date of that conversation.

If they say there is a limit then add his as a named driver on your policy as it's not worth taking the risk of being uninsured if something we're to happen and if the car is low value hopefully that wouldn't cost that much anyway.

[98elise]

If it goes on too long then he will be the main driver of the spare car. How much would it cost to add him to the cars policy?

[LosingGrip]

Give the insurance company a ring and check.

My old policy didn’t allow me to driving other cars that were registered to the same address as me.

[BertBert]

I'd take care phoning up. The stories of the call center staff not knowing their asses from their elbows are legendary!

[anonymous-user]

Thanks chaps.

Good point about who's the 'main driver' - I'll check further about adding him as a named driver, and get him to check with his own insurers (or maybe not, after seeing BB's comment!)

Just to add that he lives at his own address.

[carreauchompeur]

There won’t be a time limit as such, but do check the Ts and Cs, presumably the car is insured already, which is one of the main ones.

It’s a complete minefield and I wouldn’t use it for extended periods.

[BertBert]

carreauchompeur said:

It’s a complete minefield and I wouldn’t use it for extended periods.

In what way?

[carreauchompeur]

It is intended as an emergency thing, not a regular thing.

I have stopped numerous people who have assumed they were covered DOC automatically but were not at all. In addition some who hadn’t realised that the car itself needed to be insured, or driving a car registered to them under another of their car policies.

You’re covered whilst actually driving the car, but then when it’s parked up, does the fully comp cover it, or are you still ‘in charge’ of it.

Basically it creates grey areas, and also involves two insurance policies which may or may not intersect.

[BertBert]

That's not my definition of a complete minefield.

If you are not covered because you assumed something that's wrong , that's just being stupid.

The boundaries between the doc cover and the main cover don't create much of an issue.

And who says it's for emergency use? What does that mean? If it is why doesn't the policy say so?

Fud in all its glory.

[carreauchompeur]

Ok then.

[Durzel]

Pragmatically, assuming an accident and subsequent claim is made, how is the insurance company going to know whether this occurred the first time he’d driven the car, or the 100th time?

In terms of fronting - i.e. where a named driver is the main driver of the vehicle - I imagine they have a pretty good idea of when it’s happening, a “sniff test” if you will.

If the terms of the policy don’t say “emergency use only”, which I’m sure they don’t (what defines an emergency?) then this usage will be fine. The “3rd party cover only” limitation is intended to disincentivise people from abusing this on a long term basis.

[drdel]

How would the insurer know how long he had been using it under the DOC . Each trip 'could be a one-off .

[Fastdruid]

carreauchompeur said:

It is intended as an emergency thing, not a regular thing.

I have stopped numerous people who have assumed they were covered DOC automatically but were not at all. In addition some who hadn’t realised that the car itself needed to be insured,

That is one where it is absolutely a minefield as some insurers insist on the car being driven to *also* be insured, others don't. However of course in the days of continuous insurance enforcement and VED you can't have a taxed car that isn't insured. Which then *effectively* means you can't drive a car that doesn't have insurance on (except of course if driving someone a car to get an MOT).

carreauchompeur said:

or driving a car registered to them under another of their car policies.

Again this will totally depend on the insurer. I'd say most will explicitly say you can't do that but some may allow it...but it'll come down to the same VED issue. If it doesn't have it's own policy you can't tax it which then means you can't drive it on the road.

[98elise]

drdel said:

How would the insurer know how long he had been using it under the DOC . Each trip 'could be a one-off .

They could ask in the case of an accident.

If we're assuming he's happy to lie to the insurance company then it's a different question.

[BertBert]

98elise said:

drdel said:

How would the insurer know how long he had been using it under the DOC . Each trip 'could be a one-off .

They could ask in the case of an accident.

If we're assuming he's happy to lie to the insurance company then it's a different question.

It's curious that we get here every time DOC is discussed. There's no need to lie, it's not part of the question or even the circumstances. If you follow what the policy providing the DOC cover says, the same as in every other insurance policy, it's all very simple.

We don't know what this specific policy says, but I think we'll find that it doesn't say "emergency use only" or have any other similar inexact qualifier to the use.

Bert

[Cat]

Fastdruid said:

However of course in the days of continuous insurance enforcement and VED you can't have a taxed car that isn't insured. Which then *effectively* means you can't drive a car that doesn't have insurance on (except of course if driving someone a car to get an MOT).

Fastdruid said:

If it doesn't have it's own policy you can't tax it which then means you can't drive it on the road.

It is perfectly possible to tax an uninsured vehicle. The only check carried out when taxing a car is that it has a valid MOT if required.

The driver of a vehicle covered by DoC commits no offence if they are driving a vehicle which doesn't have its own policy.

The registered keeper of a vehicle commits an offence if it is taxed but not listed on a policy of insurance.

Cat

[TwigtheWonderkid]

carreauchompeur said:

It is intended as an emergency thing, not a regular thing.

It doesn't matter two hoots what it's intended for. All that matters is what it says about your DOC cover in your policy. That's the basis of the contract. And no contract will allude to emergency cover because it means nothing. One person's emergency is another persons "I'll sort that out next week"

carreauchompeur said:

I have stopped numerous people who have assumed they were covered DOC automatically but were not at all. In addition some who hadn’t realised that the car itself needed to be insured, or driving a car registered to them under another of their car policies.

Not all DOC extensions have this restriction. Many do not require the car to have it's own cover. In that case, you can drive another car owned by someone else that doesn't have it's own cover. Of course, you may be committing an offence re the car being untaxed, but that's a far lesser offence than driving without insurance. Not even sure "no tax" is an endorsable offence. Think it's just a fine.

carreauchompeur said:

You’re covered whilst actually driving the car, but then when it’s parked up, does the fully comp cover it, or are you still ‘in charge’ of it.

This has been answered in court and applies by precedent. You are still in charge, and your DOC cover still applies.

carreauchompeur said:

Basically it creates grey areas, and also involves two insurance policies which may or may not intersect.

There will be no grey areas if you read your policy properly and abide by the terms. Don't phone your insurer, because call centre button monkeys won't have a clue and will feed you all kinds of crap. That's how the "emergencies only" myth came about in the first place. I've never seen an emergencies only wording.