DOC insurance question.

[NGee]

I think I'm right in saying that if a car is taxed it has to be insured, continuous insurance or something. (please correct me if I'm wrong!)
This means anyone driving a road legal car on the DOC part of their insurance will always be driving a car that has it's own insurance.

I'm also aware that a car that is SORNed cannot be used or kept on the public highway.

This can lead to a strange anomaly. You can drive a SORNed car to a pre booked MOT although the car will not have it's own insurance.

So the question is; can you drive a SORNed car to a pre-booked MOT on the DOC part of the drivers insurance or does the un-MOTed and untaxed car have to have it's own insurance (e.g. temp 1 day cover or something similar)??

[JeffreyD]

It depends entirely what the DOC extension of your policy says.

It will be written on your Insurance certificate. Nothing else matters.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

JeffreyD said:

It depends entirely what the DOC extension of your policy says.

It will be written on your Insurance certificate. Nothing else matters.

^^THIS. If your DOC says the other car needs it's own insurance, you can't. If it doesn't have that stipulation, then you can.

[RazerSauber]

As above. Every DOC I've seen requires the vehicle to be road legal in its own right to be driven though.

[Aretnap]

RazerSauber said:

As above. Every DOC I've seen requires the vehicle to be road legal in its own right to be driven though.

I've never seen an insurance policy of any sort that required a car to be "road legal", whatever that means. A car with a broken numberplate bulb is not "road legal" - so would you expect your insurance policy not to cover a car with a broken numberplate bulb? I've also never seen an insurance policy that required a vehicle to be taxed, to give another example.

If you're referring specifically to a car having its own insurance policy, there are insurers that do not require it - Direct Line, for example, Page 10. There are also those that do require it - Admiral for example Page 7. It's pointless trying to generalise. Each insurer has its own policy.

[Sheepshanks]

NGee said:

This can lead to a strange anomaly. You can drive a SORNed car to a pre booked MOT although the car will not have it's own insurance.

You might know this, but that reads like you think a SORN'd car can't be insured. It can - some people might keep the insurance running for fire & theft purposes.

[NGee]

Sheepshanks said:

NGee said:

This can lead to a strange anomaly. You can drive a SORNed car to a pre booked MOT although the car will not have it's own insurance.

You might know this, but that reads like you think a SORN'd car can't be insured. It can - some people might keep the insurance running for fire & theft purposes.

Yes, I know a SORNed car can be insured. My question was - does it have to be (to drive it to an MOT).

I wondered if there was a specific meaning for DOC in this case. It would appear not as this has now been answered and it seems, like most insurance questions, it varies between different ins cos and depends what it says on the certificate.

That seems like a fair answer so thanks to all those who took the time to reply to my query.

[SS2.]

NGee said:

I wondered if there was a specific meaning for DOC in this case. It would appear not as this has now been answered and it seems, like most insurance questions, it varies between different ins cos and depends what it says on the certificate.

Exactly this.

One of my policies requires the vehicle to be insured in its own right to be driven on a DOC extension (be it to a test or general use), another doesn't.

[vikingaero]

My take on DOC is this:

Some Insurers specify that the car must be insured and I can understand why. Let's say you drive an unisured car using the DOC of your own policy. You stop somewhere for lunch, pick something up, stop at a public toilet etc. When you leave the car parked, it is effectively uninsured unless you park it off road.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

vikingaero said:

My take on DOC is this:

Some Insurers specify that the car must be insured and I can understand why. Let's say you drive an unisured car using the DOC of your own policy. You stop somewhere for lunch, pick something up, stop at a public toilet etc. When you leave the car parked, it is effectively uninsured unless you park it off road.

Nope. Courts have ruled DOC covers you whilst the other car is in your care, custody or control.

[Sheepshanks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Nope. Courts have ruled DOC covers you whilst the other car is in your care, custody or control.

That's true, but the precedent cases go back a long way now. For the owner/RK, CIE renders the point moot, really.

[vikingaero]

Sheepshanks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Nope. Courts have ruled DOC covers you whilst the other car is in your care, custody or control.

That's true, but the precedent cases go back a long way now. For the owner/RK, CIE renders the point moot, really.

That's all well and true, but there's a different matter in convincing a Police Officer who may be hovering by your "uninsured" vehicle when you return to it... "No Officer, Courts have ruled DOC covers you whilst the other car is in your care, custody or control".

[catso]

RazerSauber said:

As above. Every DOC I've seen requires the vehicle to be road legal in its own right to be driven though.

I've always assumed this to be the case but I've just looked at my policy documents and nowhere does it specify that other vehicles need to be insured. The only condition mentioned is that cover for the other car is third party only.

[JeffreyD]

catso said:

I've always assumed this to be the case but I've just looked at my policy documents and nowhere does it specify that other vehicles need to be insured. The only condition mentioned is that cover for the other car is third party only.

It will state the terms categorically on the certificate of insurance. That's what determines the cover for RTA purposes.

[catso]

JeffreyD said:

catso said:

I've always assumed this to be the case but I've just looked at my policy documents and nowhere does it specify that other vehicles need to be insured. The only condition mentioned is that cover for the other car is third party only.

It will state the terms categorically on the certificate of insurance. That's what determines the cover for RTA purposes.

The certificate only states that it must be with the consent of the owner and not owned or hired by myself or my Wife, the DOC also applies to both myself and my Wife as a named driver which, as an aside, is the first time I've seen both named drivers having DOC on a policy.

[JeffreyD]

catso said:

The certificate only states that it must be with the consent of the owner and not owned or hired by myself or my Wife, the DOC also applies to both myself and my Wife as a named driver which, as an aside, is the first time I've seen both named drivers having DOC on a policy.

so for the purposes of the road traffic act, that is all that matters.

It's possible to get Comprehensive DOC and cover for hired in vehicles as well. And in all cases for the purposes of legal cover the certificate is king.

[Sheepshanks]

catso said:

The certificate only states that it must be with the consent of the owner and not owned or hired by myself or my Wife, the DOC also applies to both myself and my Wife as a named driver which, as an aside, is the first time I've seen both named drivers having DOC on a policy.

That's interesting - which insurer is it?

We're down to one car at the moment - sold mine, but I own and am RK of wife's car. They were both insured in my name but I put her as policyholder some years ago to get DOC as she nearly got caught out by her over-bearing Dad insisting she could drive his car because "it's fully comprehensive."

I asked our insurer (LV=) and they'll switch DOC around, even with my wife as policyholder, as I own the car. But they wouldn't allow both of us and a complication was NCB switches too as they said DOC is linked to the NCB holder - so it'd get messy when I get another car.

I thought it all sounded a bit odd, or even wrong, but they emailed a quote and it was exactly as stated.

I do feel somewhat exposed not having the legal safety-net of DOC cover.

[catso]

Sheepshanks said:

That's interesting - which insurer is it?

It's (cough) Saga - yes I'm an old git but one of the few benefits of being slightly advanced in years is cheaper insurance.

I never asked for DOC for both of us, it just appeared on the policy for both named drivers and although my Wife has never driven my car, it's been useful as she did need to use my Son's car a couple of times and her car insurance doesn't give her DOC.

[JeffreyD]

catso said:

It's (cough) Saga - yes I'm an old git but one of the few benefits of being slightly advanced in years is cheaper insurance.

I never asked for DOC for both of us, it just appeared on the policy for both named drivers and although my Wife has never driven my car, it's been useful as she did need to use my Son's car a couple of times and her car insurance doesn't give her DOC.

Saga also do an emergency "any driver" cover as well, which can come in handy.

[Sheepshanks]

catso said:

It's (cough) Saga - yes I'm an old git but one of the few benefits of being slightly advanced in years is cheaper insurance.

Ah thanks. Actually, I remember now that FIL was with SAGA and he did think anyone could drive his car - he rang them to check and he got one of those vague 'probably OK in an emergency' kind of answers.

ETA - didn't see above post!