Can you drive an uninsured car if you have own insurnance?

[tr7v8]

saaby93 said:

tr7v8 said:

jimxms said:

Pretty sure the answer was no to this?

I thought the car had to be fully insured, even if you are allowed to drive other cars TPFT on your cover?

Don't keep regurgitating this crap as it becomes the accepted word. It depends on the DOC cover, some specify that the vehicle must have its own insurance, others don't.
However bear in mind that once the DOC driver leaves the vehicle it is then uninsured & if left in a public place could get done!

Although its right about check your own policy to see if it needs the car to be insured separately, there may be a SORN issue.
If the car isn't SORN what's it doing not insured?

Quite true, on the way to an MOT seems a possibility.

[DS240]

I believe the vehicle intended to be driven, must have it's own basic insurance. And that insurance must state whether others can use the vehicle.

Owner 1 has a rotting vauxhall nova 1.2. Just about runs. He is fully comp on this car, paying £200 a year.

He happens to know owner 2, who has a bugatti veyron supersport. But owner 2 doesn't have any insurance.

Is owner 1 really going to be covered on 3rd party to use the bugatti.

[Magic919]

Yes, provided he has a suitable policy.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

DS240 said:

I believe the vehicle intended to be driven, must have it's own basic insurance. And that insurance must state whether others can use the vehicle.

Congratulations. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that so much bad advice could be squeezed into so few words. Well done.

[GC8]

jimxms said:

tr7v8 said:

Don't keep regurgitating this crap as it becomes the accepted word.

Return your knickers to their previously untwisted position!

It is bks though Jim, and people do keep repeating it, making others believe that it is so too.

[littleredrooster]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Congratulations. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that so much bad advice could be squeezed into so few words. Well done.

Yes - once again the thread is full of the usual 'wild guess' answers from those who know nowt.

[9mm]

DS240 said:

I believe the vehicle intended to be driven, must have it's own basic insurance. And that insurance must state whether others can use the vehicle.

Owner 1 has a rotting vauxhall nova 1.2. Just about runs. He is fully comp on this car, paying £200 a year.

He happens to know owner 2, who has a bugatti veyron supersport. But owner 2 doesn't have any insurance.

Is owner 1 really going to be covered on 3rd party to use the bugatti.

It all depends on the terms of his policy but probably not. The most common situation will be that driver 1 can drive another car, but will be covered TPO only, and that the other vehicle must be currently insured by someone else at the same time (which will usually be driver 2). There may also be other specific exclusions/conditions.

Funnily enough, this is the situation regarding my ability to drive other vehicles and I know this because a very nice lady read it out to when I changed insurance companies yesterday.

[GC8]

Its not the most common, in fact its still quite rare, but I doubt that the number of insurers adding this caveat will be decreasing.

[Furry Exocet]

9mm said:

It all depends on the terms of his policy but probably not. The most common situation will be that driver 1 can drive another car, but will be covered TPO only, and that the other vehicle must be currently insured by someone else at the same time (which will usually be driver 2). There may also be other specific exclusions/conditions.

Funnily enough, this is the situation regarding my ability to drive other vehicles and I know this because a very nice lady read it out to when I changed insurance companies yesterday.

Again people spouting the same tripe!
I've had DOC cover on my policy for the last 10 years and its never been a stipulation that the other car has to have its own policy.

You are only being covered for any third party claims, so it wouldn't make any difference which car you were in, as the policy wouldn't pay out for your repairs if you were at fault

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Furry Exocet said:

9mm said:

It all depends on the terms of his policy but probably not. The most common situation will be that driver 1 can drive another car, but will be covered TPO only, and that the other vehicle must be currently insured by someone else at the same time (which will usually be driver 2). There may also be other specific exclusions/conditions.

Funnily enough, this is the situation regarding my ability to drive other vehicles and I know this because a very nice lady read it out to when I changed insurance companies yesterday.

Again people spouting the same tripe!
I've had DOC cover on my policy for the last 10 years and its never been a stipulation that the other car has to have its own policy.

You are only being covered for any third party claims, so it wouldn't make any difference which car you were in, as the policy wouldn't pay out for your repairs if you were at fault

^^^^THIS.

I've had continuous insurance for 32 yrs, with various insurers, and never once has my DOC extension had the stipulation that the other car I am driving must be covered on its own policy. There is no law to say it must(other than recent continuous insurance regs on taxed cars), it's purely a matter of the terms of your insurance contract.

[9mm]

Furry Exocet said:

Again people spouting the same tripe!
I've had DOC cover on my policy for the last 10 years and its never been a stipulation that the other car has to have its own policy.

You are only being covered for any third party claims, so it wouldn't make any difference which car you were in, as the policy wouldn't pay out for your repairs if you were at fault

It's what I was told when I confirmed I wanted to buy the insurance, so somehow I doubt it was tripe. I don't regard repeating what I was told as spouting tripe either. Should I assume you mean that the insurer was incorrect, I am incorrect, or we both are?

Perhaps you could copy and paste the section from your policy documents that deals with cover regarding driving other vehicles? It would be interesting to see the wording. I'll do the same thing when my policy documents arrive if anyone's interested.

I don't think insurers use the word only very much when considering the risk of third party claims. They can be pretty staggering, whatever is being driven.

[SS2.]

9mm said:

It's what I was told when I confirmed I wanted to buy the insurance, so somehow I doubt it was tripe.

Policy wordings differ from insurer to insurer.

Some stipulate that a vehicle being driven on a DOC extension requires valid insurance in its own right; others are silent on the matter.

Accordingly, general statements which assert that vehicles must have their own insurance in place to be eligible to be driven on DOC extensions are not true.

[BertBert]

9mm said:

Furry Exocet said:

Again people spouting the same tripe!
I've had DOC cover on my policy for the last 10 years and its never been a stipulation that the other car has to have its own policy.

You are only being covered for any third party claims, so it wouldn't make any difference which car you were in, as the policy wouldn't pay out for your repairs if you were at fault

It's what I was told when I confirmed I wanted to buy the insurance, so somehow I doubt it was tripe. I don't regard repeating what I was told as spouting tripe either. Should I assume you mean that the insurer was incorrect, I am incorrect, or we both are?

Perhaps you could copy and paste the section from your policy documents that deals with cover regarding driving other vehicles? It would be interesting to see the wording. I'll do the same thing when my policy documents arrive if anyone's interested.

I don't think insurers use the word only very much when considering the risk of third party claims. They can be pretty staggering, whatever is being driven.

Trust me on this one. We HAVE done it to death. I have even done a poll to see how many policies stipulated the "other" car had to be insured on its own and how many had no such stipulation. The latter group won, but it wasn't a walkover. So post away the wording on yours but really we have done it before.

BTW mine needs the other car to be insured.

Bert

[DS240]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

DS240 said:

I believe the vehicle intended to be driven, must have it's own basic insurance. And that insurance must state whether others can use the vehicle.

Congratulations. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that so much bad advice could be squeezed into so few words. Well done.

It's not that bad. Just checked my policy document. I can drive another vehicle not belonging etc etc..... 'as long as the vehicle driven is also covered by its own insurance'.

[kaf]

Can't see why there is an argument, all insurance is quite clear..................Read the damn policy!

Nobody can say 'it is always this or always that' insurance is NOT standard.....as has been said many times, depends on what YOUR policy says!

[littleredrooster]

Right. For the last effing time. The correct answer is (and always has been) :

READ THE EFFING SMALL PRINT IN YOUR OWN POLICY BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU'LL EVER KNOW. THERE IS NO OVERRIDING RULE IN LAW OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

Now - please - will somebody kindly lock this thread against further eejits.

Eyethanqueue.

[stuarthat]

as above ,my situation last week called my insurance not covered and would not cover me ,so googeled short term insurance and got cover very reasonable .

[GC8]

DS240 said:

It's not that bad. Just checked my policy document. I can drive another vehicle not belonging etc etc..... 'as long as the vehicle driven is also covered by its own insurance'.

Yes, but surely youre able to distinguish between your own personal agreement with your insurers, and 'the law'?

Just because that condition has been written into your policy doesnt mean that everyone else is fettered in a similar manner.

[DS240]

GC8 said:

Yes, but surely youre able to distinguish between your own personal agreement with your insurers, and 'the law'?

Just because that condition has been written into your policy doesnt mean that everyone else is fettered in a similar manner.

I must apologise for passing an opinion on a public forum. This thread has been heavily monitored by the forum police.

I've re read my posts but I'm sure someone will be along to correct me soon, but I have not worded anything along the lines of 'the law states' and rather I have said 'I believe'. How dare I give this opinion.

Thanks for pointing out though that insurance policies differ. A real insight provided there, that I'm sure no one else realised.

However, am I not right in thinking that every vehicle must now be covered by insurance by law? Unless declared off the road? And if declared off road it won't be taxed or should not be driven on the road?
(forum police - I don't live in mainland uk, so not 100% with your specific rules, so I just want to clarify this is not a statement of fact and not a quote from a law book, but a mere question/opinion).

[thecremeegg]

Aviva say this:

We will insure the main driver (vehicle policyholder) providing:

The vehicle does not belong to that person or is not hired to that person under a hire purchase agreement.
The main driver (vehicle policyholder) is driving the vehicle with the owner's express consent.
The main driver (vehicle policyholder) still has your vehicle and it has not been damaged beyond cost effective repair.
The main driver (vehicle policyholder) is aged 25 or above at inception or renewal of this policy.
The Certificate of Motor Insurance indicates that the other main driver can drive such a vehicle.
Driving other vehicles cover is not available for named drivers, firms or main policyholders (principal policyholders) where they are not also named as a main user of your vehicle (eg Another policyholder).

So given that it's not given as an exclusion then you're good to go