Insurance issue - PLEASE HELP!

[RDMcG]

Pretty eye opening, this..I live in Canada and the rules are wildly different. Basically the norm is that any licensed driver can drive my car ( assuming full and current license, no suspension), and as long as they have permission they are insured. This includes recognized foreign licenses. The driver does not have to have any other insurance. Handy if someone want to borrow a car fir instance.

[saaby93]

raybentos said:

Ha, Im not crying like a little girl.....

Your the one getting all upset like a child! Why hijack a thread with such profanity?

I havent blamed anyone else even once, I only explained the 'story' in the OP to set the scene...

Dont worry about Noger

Since Insurers stopped including third party any vehicly cover, the systems become a mess with lots of people picking up 6 points due to no insurance which they thought they had.
As Noger said there is effectively cover that will pick up the tab worse case so its not as if a TP would be left high and dry, but the law hasn't caught up with there being insurance in place.

[Deva Link]

raybentos said:

My insurer is Admiral and yes Im over 25....

Well, I'm confused now - as I mentioned earlier, I'm not aware of an insurer who offers DOC as an extra cost option.

Admiral list DOC as included, subject to eligibility. As far as I know the only eligibility is that you're over 25. Where you 25 when you started this years' policy?

My daughter is insured by Bell (an Admiral company) and they mentioned DOC cover applied now as she was over 25 when she renewed this year - there was no suggestion it was optional.

[ZOLLAR]

raybentos said:

My insurer is Admiral and yes Im over 25....

Im guessing that Im going to end up with 6 points of course, I just hope that everything taken into consideration I can persuade the court not to ban me.... Time to get a good motoring law solicitor on board

You can't add DOC to an admiral policy (unless you turn 25 during the policy term in which you have to call, if not it's automatic at next renewal).
So if you were 25 when you took out the policy and arn't connected to the motor trade and aren't a taxi driver etc you should have DOC cover.

[Disco You]

Unless your boss told you that you were insured on his policy then you are screwed.

It's curious as to why Admiral didn't give you DOC though.

[anonymous-user]

This is getting interesting. Hopefully it's an error on admirals part and you are covered as the two posters above say

[saaby93]

MSTRBKR said:

This is getting interesting. Hopefully it's an error on admirals part and you are covered as the two posters above say

Even if it is an error they could stick to their guns on refusing to backdate.

[Flintstone]

saaby93 said:

ow does it prevent abuse? Instead leaves loads of people with no cover
Is it in any of our interest to have more uninsured drivers on the road?
& isnt risk what insurance is all about
Surely the TP risk of the OP driving his boss's car to take him home is low enough it ought be included as it used to be?

You're looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope and offering up some rather simplistic questions if I may say so. Note I didn't say trolling

Firstly, as we all know, the onus is on the driver to ensure that he/she is covered. That's it in a nutshell, in black and white or as some of the PH lower-level PH pond swimmers are fond of saying...at the end of the day. It's no good blaming Insurers when drivers enter into a contract without reading the terms and conditions.

The answer to your first question is, of course not. It's in none of our interest and nobody has suggested that it is.

Secondly, risk is of course one of the basics of insurance but why should Insurers bear the risk for free? If someone wants the additional cover why shouldn't they pay for it? Extrapolating your proposition would have some asking why they should have an excess or ultimately pay any premium at all.

I'm sure the OP is a fine, upstanding citizen and model driver on the road who would represent an absolute minimum of increased risk to his boss's insurers but he's not the only one out there, is he? I suspect that the removal of this clause is to deter those who would not use it once in a while but as a way of driving a number of vehicles without specific cover and I for one have no quarrel with that even if on the rare occasion I need to drive someone else's vehicle I need to make a phone call and/ spend a few pounds.

[saaby93]

Flintstone said:

You're looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope and offering up some rather simplistic questions if I may say so. Note I didn't say trolling

As far as the telescopes concerned we could discuss which one of us is looking at the wrong end bearing in mind the OP ( and others) predicament

Flintstone said:

Firstly, as we all know, the onus is on the driver to ensure that he/she is covered. That's it in a nutshell, in black and white or as some of the PH lower-level PH pond swimmers are fond of saying...at the end of the day. It's no good blaming Insurers when drivers enter into a contract without reading the terms and conditions.

It is if the insurance doesnt cover what most people expect

Flintstone said:

I'm sure the OP is a fine, upstanding citizen and model driver on the road who would represent an absolute minimum of increased risk to his boss's insurers but he's not the only one out there, is he?

I think that's my point too
There may be a few people that abuse the system ( but they'll probably abuse it anyway) but the increased risk of including basic TP cover for the OP (or any of us) is as you've said minimal.

By trying to allow for the worst case few, we've lost cover for the best casers who keep posting about picking up 6 points.

[Deva Link]

saaby93 said:

It is if the insurance doesnt cover what most people expect

Where do you draw the line though - I mentioned earlier I've met several people who swear the fact that they're a named driver on their Mum's policy means they can drive any car?

And *lots* of people don't realise DOC is 3rd party only.

[saaby93]

Deva Link said:

Where do you draw the line though - I mentioned earlier I've met several people who swear the fact that they're a named driver on their Mum's policy means they can drive any car?

And *lots* of people don't realise DOC is 3rd party only.

I think I come around to Noger's point.
As the OP wasnt covered, it's the Owners insurance that would pick up the tab if necessary.
As the Owner gave the OP permission the owner ought to lose NCD too.
As the Vehicle does have some insurance the OP shouldn't pick up 6 points for using it.

In your case of driving any car on Mum's policy again Ive moved to the position that its not mums policy (as she probably knows nothing about it) but the policy of the car owner that should pay as the owner has given permission.

Would giving reponsibility to the car owner to decide who's driving their car be any mroe expenesive?

[hornetrider]

raybentos said:

Ha, Im not crying like a little girl.....

Your the one getting all upset like a child! Why hijack a thread with such profanity?

I havent blamed anyone else even once, I only explained the 'story' in the OP to set the scene...

Quite right, don't be disheartened by the idiots, if you sort through the chaff this can be a great forum

[Sticks.]

I renewed my comp policy this week. As far as I knew, comp cover included 3rd party cover on other vehicles as a norm. I've had comp cover 30 years and this has always been the case. Prompted by OP I checked te cert, schedule, booklet. No mention.

If this is now the norm, I'm surprised not to have heard of it before - at renewal would have been good - and could easily have fallen foul of it like OP.

Thanks for raising it OP.

[Noger]

Yes, ignore saaby and you will be fine, he will have you joined up to his unholy crew before you know it

OP - your statement about discovering you had no DOC in "the fine print" is hard to fathom. Your policy booklet will state that it is dependant on there being a section on your certificate. Yes, DOC can be invalidated by clauses in there booklet (such as not owning the car etc) but having it in the first place is down to the certificate not the policy booklet. You cert is YOURS, the policy booklet is standard.

The first question would be why Admiral didn't give you DOC in the first place. Although it may not be standard for several reasons.

However, even if it was their error, then you are still technically uninsured and will remain so regardless, it is an absolute offence - your were either insured or not. The aforementioned knuckleheads will suggest this isn't true, but they don't know much at all.

IMHO Your best course of action will be to present as much mitigating evidence as possible, plead guilty and hope for an absolute discharge. But don't listen to me, or anyone else here. Go get a lawyer.

Lots of similar stuff here...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Including my *chums* going on and on about rectifying errors and other nonsense. Given we have "done" this inSP&L half a dozen times with the same people saying the same (proven incorrect) things, you may understand my (and others, but he is probably out riding his bike!) frustration with them.

An alternative would be to try to suggest you were following an "order" by your boss, and assumed you were insured on the company policy as this was company business. But as that isn't true, it could be risky to both your career and freedom.

So wipe those tears (sorry !) away and get some proper advice.

[Deva Link]

Noger said:

The first question would be why Admiral didn't give you DOC in the first place.

I'm baffled by this too, and it seems so is Zollar.

The most straighforward reason is the OP wasn't 25 when his policy atarted, but he hasn't clarified that point yet.

[Noger]

Deva Link said:

Noger said:

The first question would be why Admiral didn't give you DOC in the first place.

I'm baffled by this too, and it seems so is Zollar.

The most straighforward reason is the OP wasn't 25 when his policy atarted, but he hasn't clarified that point yet.

Could be, although Admiral do say they *may* offer DOC, not that they do.

In terms of the Boss and causing/permitting....that would be harsh, however it is a possibility. "Oh I thought he was insured" and "He told me he was insured" don't work. He would have had to have made the use of the car explicitly contingent on the OP having insurance.

[darreni]

Here in Guernsey, driving with no insurance carries a 12 month ban.

If you allow someone to drive your car who turns out not to be insured, a 12 month ban for the owner too.

Harsh, but fair i'd say.

As others have explained, backdating cover or cover notes is a total no go.

[Soovy]

As others have said, unless your boss's insurance covered you, this will very likely be six points and a big fine.

Sorry. You're no idiot, and you know this already, but your duty to check your documents.

Ask your boss to check his policy. It may cover his car any driver with his permission. Just possibly.

[Ricky_M]

Sadly it is all too common people assuming they have DOC just because they are Fully Comp.

I am 22 with a Fully Comp policy, it actually states on my certificate that I can not drive other cars, due to my age.

But strangely, my first ever policy at the age of 17, Third Party Fire and Theft with Quinn Direct, I was covered to drive any insured car (not 4x4s or commercial vehicles) Third Party!

I've learnt to read insurance contracts very carefully after being stung by hefty cancellations fees on two policies!