Insurance : "Driving other cars"
Discussion
Mrs SB's policy with QuoteMeHappy allows her to drive other cars 3rd party. However, their website FAQ says cars over 13 years old are excluded, which seems both arbitrary and inexplicable...
https://help.quotemehappy.com/car-insurance/my-cov...
There's no mention of this restriction in the actual policy docs, so I assume it's safe to ignore it..?
https://help.quotemehappy.com/car-insurance/my-cov...
There's no mention of this restriction in the actual policy docs, so I assume it's safe to ignore it..?
CanAm said:
What peculiar restrictions for TP only cover. Do you have in mind any particular vehicles over 13 years old as I'd be more concerned about restrictions in the wording on the Certificate of Insurance?
The policy doc and certificate are all sane. Basically all usual restrictions apart from the last clause about cars worth over £70K, over 13 years old or significantly modified - which is simply not mentioned.CaptainMorgan said:
How ambiguous can you get, whats a significant modification? A sticker? A remap? An engine conversion?
Indeed, in my mind a 'significant' modification would be one that has required recertification via IVA testing. At least that basis has some legal grounding in the definition of 'significant'. As TWIG says it's the policy documents and Certificate that matter. The FAQ were probably put together by the Marketing Dept.
You'll find similar twaddle about "Acts of God" on the website of Confused.com; the article was written by someone whose job title was SEO Manager (Search Engine Optimisation) and appeared not to have had an insurance background.
You'll find similar twaddle about "Acts of God" on the website of Confused.com; the article was written by someone whose job title was SEO Manager (Search Engine Optimisation) and appeared not to have had an insurance background.
OddCat said:
Regarding DOC cover, and slightly off tangent, the thing people seem to forget is that the 'other' car must itelf be covered by a live insurance policy. DOC cover does not cover you to drive an uninsured vehicle...
With some insurers this is true. With many it is not true.OddCat said:
Regarding DOC cover, and slightly off tangent, the thing people seem to forget is that the 'other' car must itelf be covered by a live insurance policy. DOC cover does not cover you to drive an uninsured vehicle...
Mine does. If they don't want to cover you to drive another vehicle that isn't itself insured, then they have to actually say so. desolate said:
OddCat said:
Regarding DOC cover, and slightly off tangent, the thing people seem to forget is that the 'other' car must itelf be covered by a live insurance policy. DOC cover does not cover you to drive an uninsured vehicle...
With some insurers this is true. With many it is not true.The problem is where you drive. If you drive an uninsured vehicle using DOC from private land to private land without stopping it's not a problem. If you drive from private land, stop say for fuel, pop into the shops or meet friends, then at the point you leave that vehicle that you were using with DOC cover, then that vehicle becomes uninsured.
silentbrown said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Mine does. If they don't want to cover you to drive another vehicle that isn't itself insured, then they have to actually say so.
Yes. However RK of the vehicle is still in breach of continuous insurance rules....TwigtheWonderkid said:
What I was driving someone else's uninsured car to a pre booked MOT on my DOC? What laws are being broken?
Hmm, interesting point.You can take a car to a prebooked MOT without it having a current MOT. Same for it not having tax.
You can (assuming your policy says so) drive a car which belongs to someone else, without it needing to be insured already for your insurer to provid the (presumably third party only) cover.
So you are not committing an offence, you're driving with insurance, and you're driving a car without MOT or tax in a scenario that is permissible.
But is the car's registered keeper committing an offence by the car being on the road without an insurance policy for that car being in place?
I would assume that as long as the person with the DOC cover is in the car, it's technically ok, but it might be a bit interesting should they get out the car at any point en route? The old "stopped for a paper on the way to the test" one? Or does the DOC cover cover you for being "in charge" of the car?
Certainly could be one that'd be interesting to see something definitive about, or if there's a precedent for it.
vikingaero said:
Agreed. Not a requirement with some Insurers.
The problem is where you drive. If you drive an uninsured vehicle using DOC from private land to private land without stopping it's not a problem. If you drive from private land, stop say for fuel, pop into the shops or meet friends, then at the point you leave that vehicle that you were using with DOC cover, then that vehicle becomes uninsured.
I'm pretty sure there was a case in court where they ruled this wasn't the case, although the person driving the car wasn't actually with the car, it was still classed as being under their 'care' and their insurance. I'd not wanna put it to the test though. The problem is where you drive. If you drive an uninsured vehicle using DOC from private land to private land without stopping it's not a problem. If you drive from private land, stop say for fuel, pop into the shops or meet friends, then at the point you leave that vehicle that you were using with DOC cover, then that vehicle becomes uninsured.
silentbrown said:
Yes. However RK of the vehicle is still in breach of continuous insurance rules....
Not if it' SORN.Then it's the driver that is being a bit naughty, unless he is driving to a pre booked MOT as pointed out.
If the car was temporarily parked in a course of a journey then the DOC third party cover would still apply.
CaptainMorgan said:
I'm pretty sure there was a case in court where they ruled this wasn't the case, although the person driving the car wasn't actually with the car, it was still classed as being under their 'care' and their insurance. I'd not wanna put it to the test though.
The case you're thinking about was someone who stopped at shops to buy cigarettes whilst on the way to an MOT station and was prosecuted for driving with no mot.On appeal it was held that whilst stopping at the shops it was still part of an overall journey to the MOT station and he was found not guilty.
I would expect the appeal courts would reach a similar decision with regards to driving an otherwise uninsured car under DOC and stopping at a shop or a petrol station but it would depend on the exact circumstances. It's also worth noting that a magistrates court may rule differently and then it would be up to you and the size of your wallet whether you could afford to appeal it
desolate said:
silentbrown said:
Yes. However RK of the vehicle is still in breach of continuous insurance rules....
Not if it' SORN.Then it's the driver that is being a bit naughty, unless he is driving to a pre booked MOT as pointed out.
If the car was temporarily parked in a course of a journey then the DOC third party cover would still apply.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff