Q for the legal bods on here
Discussion
Could be a word of warning, and something to CHECK on insurance certs.
First-I don't want any legal bods to put their names on post, so any advice would be ,well ,just that advice .
Recent renewal with on line broker, showed that I was insured to drive other cars (known as DOC) .So ,like any other PH, I needed to know more. Let's say ,daughter felt unwell and asked dad to take over. OR perhaps daughter took dad along to drive her newest car home. In both cases I have DOC .In case one, after scrutiny of the broker's other T & C I discovered that I was covered. BUT in case two- I was not, and it took a lot of work to get to the bottom of that, with reference to other documents and small print. Case one- great, case two- big no . BUT the cert of insurance stated I was covered "AS LONG AS I HAD THE OWNERS PERMISSION TO DRIVE THE CAR". No mention of requirement of owner to insure vehicle .
First-I don't want any legal bods to put their names on post, so any advice would be ,well ,just that advice .
Recent renewal with on line broker, showed that I was insured to drive other cars (known as DOC) .So ,like any other PH, I needed to know more. Let's say ,daughter felt unwell and asked dad to take over. OR perhaps daughter took dad along to drive her newest car home. In both cases I have DOC .In case one, after scrutiny of the broker's other T & C I discovered that I was covered. BUT in case two- I was not, and it took a lot of work to get to the bottom of that, with reference to other documents and small print. Case one- great, case two- big no . BUT the cert of insurance stated I was covered "AS LONG AS I HAD THE OWNERS PERMISSION TO DRIVE THE CAR". No mention of requirement of owner to insure vehicle .
Who me said:
Recent renewal with on line broker, showed that I was insured to drive other cars (known as DOC) .So ,like any other PH, I needed to know more. Let's say ,daughter felt unwell and asked dad to take over. OR perhaps daughter took dad along to drive her newest car home. In both cases I have DOC .In case one, after scrutiny of the broker's other T & C I discovered that I was covered. BUT in case two- I was not, and it took a lot of work to get to the bottom of that, with reference to other documents and small print. Case one- great, case two- big no . BUT the cert of insurance stated I was covered "AS LONG AS I HAD THE OWNERS PERMISSION TO DRIVE THE CAR". No mention of requirement of owner to insure vehicle .
Why wouldn't you be covered in case two?Case 1 - owner asks you to drive car home.
Case 2 - owner asks you to drive car home.
You say the "other T&C" say no - but what EXACTLY did they say?
I think.....case 1, Daughter insured on her own car, you drive using DOC. All fine and dandy.
Case 2, collecting new car, needs insurance to be driven on the road. If not insured in it's own right then you can't do it using DOC.
The thing about permission is a bit of a red herring, a car used on the public highway needs to be insured as per Road Traffic act. The permission bit is to stop someone nicking a car and then saying "It's ok, it's insured"
Course I'm just a keyboard warrior so could be totally wrong
Case 2, collecting new car, needs insurance to be driven on the road. If not insured in it's own right then you can't do it using DOC.
The thing about permission is a bit of a red herring, a car used on the public highway needs to be insured as per Road Traffic act. The permission bit is to stop someone nicking a car and then saying "It's ok, it's insured"
Course I'm just a keyboard warrior so could be totally wrong
Amused2death said:
I think.....case 1, Daughter insured on her own car, you drive using DOC. All fine and dandy.
Case 2, collecting new car, needs insurance to be driven on the road. If not insured in it's own right then you can't do it using DOC.
The thing about permission is a bit of a red herring, a car used on the public highway needs to be insured as per Road Traffic act. The permission bit is to stop someone nicking a car and then saying "It's ok, it's insured"
Course I'm just a keyboard warrior so could be totally wrong
I think you're absolutely right.Case 2, collecting new car, needs insurance to be driven on the road. If not insured in it's own right then you can't do it using DOC.
The thing about permission is a bit of a red herring, a car used on the public highway needs to be insured as per Road Traffic act. The permission bit is to stop someone nicking a car and then saying "It's ok, it's insured"
Course I'm just a keyboard warrior so could be totally wrong
Sheepshanks said:
There isn't a question.
Insurance companies, and, much less, brokers, can't bury random T's & C's in "other documents" and expect them to apply.
OP: Watch for policies that don't allow DOC for family members or cars in the same household.
Yes you are quite right.Insurance companies, and, much less, brokers, can't bury random T's & C's in "other documents" and expect them to apply.
OP: Watch for policies that don't allow DOC for family members or cars in the same household.
Only Certificate, Schedule and Policy count.
Who me said:
Could be a word of warning, and something to CHECK on insurance certs.
First-I don't want any legal bods to put their names on post, so any advice would be ,well ,just that advice .
Recent renewal with on line broker, showed that I was insured to drive other cars (known as DOC) .So ,like any other PH, I needed to know more. Let's say ,daughter felt unwell and asked dad to take over. OR perhaps daughter took dad along to drive her newest car home. In both cases I have DOC .In case one, after scrutiny of the broker's other T & C I discovered that I was covered. BUT in case two- I was not, and it took a lot of work to get to the bottom of that, with reference to other documents and small print. Case one- great, case two- big no . BUT the cert of insurance stated I was covered "AS LONG AS I HAD THE OWNERS PERMISSION TO DRIVE THE CAR". No mention of requirement of owner to insure vehicle .
What does this mean? It's complete gibberish. First-I don't want any legal bods to put their names on post, so any advice would be ,well ,just that advice .
Recent renewal with on line broker, showed that I was insured to drive other cars (known as DOC) .So ,like any other PH, I needed to know more. Let's say ,daughter felt unwell and asked dad to take over. OR perhaps daughter took dad along to drive her newest car home. In both cases I have DOC .In case one, after scrutiny of the broker's other T & C I discovered that I was covered. BUT in case two- I was not, and it took a lot of work to get to the bottom of that, with reference to other documents and small print. Case one- great, case two- big no . BUT the cert of insurance stated I was covered "AS LONG AS I HAD THE OWNERS PERMISSION TO DRIVE THE CAR". No mention of requirement of owner to insure vehicle .
LoonR1 said:
How many times can this come up amd still be wrong
When using DOC some insurers insist on the other car being insured, some don't.
If the vehicle needs to be either Insured by its owner / keeper to be on the road at all or declared SORN to be parked off road the only exception I could see would be someone other than the owner / keeper driving the vehicle for MOT whilst SORN - I'm quite happy to be told I'm wrong as I thought that was effectively plugged ?
cologne2792 said:
That always used to be the case but when Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) was introduced in June 2011 did this not become a moot point ?
If the vehicle needs to be either Insured by its owner / keeper to be on the road at all or declared SORN to be parked off road the only exception I could see would be someone other than the owner / keeper driving the vehicle for MOT whilst SORN - I'm quite happy to be told I'm wrong as I thought that was effectively plugged ?
Using a SORNed car is a much less serious offence than driving an uninsured one.If the vehicle needs to be either Insured by its owner / keeper to be on the road at all or declared SORN to be parked off road the only exception I could see would be someone other than the owner / keeper driving the vehicle for MOT whilst SORN - I'm quite happy to be told I'm wrong as I thought that was effectively plugged ?
I wasn't aware that there had been any change ,as DOC is not something I'm the habit of using. The only reason I was aware of some companies insisting that there should be cover on the other vehicle was from one of the TV programs. The other document was a policy booklet ,but why should not a certificate of insurance, spell this out ,without having to red through reams of small print in the policy T & C .
No matter what your documents say, the other car must be insured in itself just to be used on the road.
Let's say you borrow a car that doesn't have it's own insurance, and you drive it under your "driving other cars" insurance. You then park it in a town and go shopping. While you're away, the handbrake fails and the car rolls into another car. Who pays? You weren't driving the car at the time...
Let's say you borrow a car that doesn't have it's own insurance, and you drive it under your "driving other cars" insurance. You then park it in a town and go shopping. While you're away, the handbrake fails and the car rolls into another car. Who pays? You weren't driving the car at the time...
calibrax said:
No matter what your documents say, the other car must be insured in itself just to be used on the road.
Let's say you borrow a car that doesn't have it's own insurance, and you drive it under your "driving other cars" insurance. You then park it in a town and go shopping. While you're away, the handbrake fails and the car rolls into another car. Who pays? You weren't driving the car at the time...
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrongLet's say you borrow a car that doesn't have it's own insurance, and you drive it under your "driving other cars" insurance. You then park it in a town and go shopping. While you're away, the handbrake fails and the car rolls into another car. Who pays? You weren't driving the car at the time...
Absolutely f
king incredible how people still post crap like this. TooMany2cvs said:
cologne2792 said:
That always used to be the case but when Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) was introduced in June 2011 did this not become a moot point ?
If the vehicle needs to be either Insured by its owner / keeper to be on the road at all or declared SORN to be parked off road the only exception I could see would be someone other than the owner / keeper driving the vehicle for MOT whilst SORN - I'm quite happy to be told I'm wrong as I thought that was effectively plugged ?
Using a SORNed car is a much less serious offence than driving an uninsured one.If the vehicle needs to be either Insured by its owner / keeper to be on the road at all or declared SORN to be parked off road the only exception I could see would be someone other than the owner / keeper driving the vehicle for MOT whilst SORN - I'm quite happy to be told I'm wrong as I thought that was effectively plugged ?
Two different offences, two very different penalties. One is a likely £100 slap on the wrists without points, the other is much more serious.
[quote=Who me ?]I wasn't aware that there had been any change ,as DOC is not something I'm the habit of using. The only reason I was aware of some companies insisting that there should be cover on the other vehicle was from one of the TV programs. The other document was a policy booklet ,but why should not a certificate of insurance, spell this out ,without having to red through reams of small print in the policy T & C .
[/quote]
1. It's not small print
2. You want that detail adding to your policy document. It's on there to an extent. What about the people who don't want it adding, but want something else adding on? You'll end up with an insurance schedule exact'y the same size as your current policy booklet
3. Nothing's changed recently and nothing has changed around insurers requiring the other car to have cover. Some require it, some don't.
Other than the above your thread was well worthwhile
[/quote]
1. It's not small print
2. You want that detail adding to your policy document. It's on there to an extent. What about the people who don't want it adding, but want something else adding on? You'll end up with an insurance schedule exact'y the same size as your current policy booklet
3. Nothing's changed recently and nothing has changed around insurers requiring the other car to have cover. Some require it, some don't.
Other than the above your thread was well worthwhile
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff