pewe
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 03:15 PM |
|
|
The "insured to drive other vehicles" trap....
My insurance has always included this provision (albeit third party only) so I've assumed that covers me to drive any vehicle providing it has a
current tax disc and MOT - wrong.
On PCA the other night matey was done for driving without insurance in a vehicle on which there was no current insurance policy despite him having his
own policy with said provision.
You live and learn!
Cheers, Pewe 
|
|
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 03:16 PM |
|
|
I don't understand - how is that possible?
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
Danozeman
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 03:17 PM |
|
|
My cert says the vehicle must have insurance on it aswell.
Dan
Built the purple peril!! Let the modifications begin!!
http://www.eastangliankitcars.co.uk
|
|
|
londonsean69
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 03:19 PM |
|
|
Mine says something along the lines of "Any other insured vehicle"
Sean
[Edited on 10/11/09 by londonsean69]
|
|
|
pewe
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 03:20 PM |
|
|
Yea seemed odd to me and I don't really know but suspect that the tax is only valid when there's a current insurance policy in effect
specifically relating to the car.
Must have broken the law a few times then!
Cheers, Pewe
PS I'm sure the wording's there somewhere on my policies but haven't come across it in all the years I've driven.
[Edited on 10/11/09 by pewe]
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 03:22 PM |
|
|
The 'other vehicle' must also be insured. Usually this means the VRM will be on the MID database (check on ASKMID.com) but fleet cars
often don't get on the database but have the insurance details in the car.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
dan__wright
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 03:26 PM |
|
|
yep its normally only covers other vehicles if they have an existing insurance policy
[Edited on 10/11/09 by dan__wright]
FREE THE ROADSTER ONE…!!
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 03:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by owelly
but have the insurance details in the car.
Not always. Ive worked for firms that hold the certificate centrally, which is available on request.
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 03:43 PM |
|
|
It's something I had occasion to check quite recently.
This clause almost caught me out so I had to ask the registered keeper to keep their policy going on the car for an additional month to ensure I was
covered in turn.
It's swiftcover I'm with.
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 03:43 PM |
|
|
on a similar topic, let's say you drive your mate's car or a car you wanna buy (call it car A) and prang it, say by driving into another
car (call it car B) 
your third party cover will pay for damage to which car(s)?
if the owner of car A was only 3rd party cover, who will pay for the damage to his/her car?
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 03:52 PM |
|
|
The 'other' acr you drive must be insured also. Otherwise we would all be having two cars!
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 04:01 PM |
|
|
normal clause is that it must be insured and not owned by you.
The reason for it being insured so far as I am aware is so that the vehicle itself complies with the road traffic act.
In the case you describe, your third part cover would cover car B only, no one will pay for the car you were driving. My mates and I work on the
theory of you bend it, you mend it and I wont let people test drive cars on third party.
My Build Thread
|
|
|
Findlay234
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 04:05 PM |
|
|
You can drive another persons "insured" car under your insurance with their permission and only on TPF&T. You cannot put it onto your
insurance because you cannot insure a car twice. Now if its a car youve just bought and you plan to drive it home then you must put the car onto your
insurance (even if its just for the day) and not drive it under the assumption that its insured by the 'other car' part of your own
insurance.
To answer 02GF74, if you are driving a car under the 'other car' part of your insurance and its TPF&T then the car you are driving is
not insured. Only the car you prang into. The owners insurance doesnt matter, you would have been driving under a third party part of your insurance
and therefore only the car you went into would be repaired under it. You would then have to buy your mate a car or hope he was really really
understanding.
I was going to borrow a mates car because it had a tow bar and went through all of this and decided it wasnt really worth it. If i had an accident id
end up owing him the cost of repairs or cost of the car.
I think this ruling is in place so you think twice about driving your mates super fast super expensive car on your banger's insurance.
|
|
|
adithorp
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 04:14 PM |
|
|
Finlay, I think it's "third party only" cover you get. In the case of a fire or theft, that'd be covered by the owneres
insurance.
02GF74, Your mates car (A) would be paid for by you or he wouldn't be your mate any longer.
Fleet insurance covered cars should be registered on the MID list within 14days of being aquired by the fleet. Fleet managers have an access account
to list them and there's fines if you don't.
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire
http://jpsc.org.uk/forum/
|
|
|
stevebubs
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 04:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
Finlay, I think it's "third party only" cover you get. In the case of a fire or theft, that'd be covered by the owneres
insurance.
Hmmm...I've heard rumours of firms refusing to pay out on theft because the last person to drive the car wasn't named on the
insurance...don't know how much is myth, though
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 06:28 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by stevebubs
quote:
Originally posted by adithorp
Finlay, I think it's "third party only" cover you get. In the case of a fire or theft, that'd be covered by the owneres
insurance.
Hmmm...I've heard rumours of firms refusing to pay out on theft because the last person to drive the car wasn't named on the
insurance...don't know how much is myth, though
Not a myth they tried to pull it on my cousins bother in law a few years, the insurance backed down in the end because the person who was driving the
car had picked it up from "a place of repair" which gave the lawyer something to work with.
Insurance companies are closing down every condition that cost them money, the penalty we pay for the money we save in the highly competitive the
market -- I know we only pay about 36% of what our insurance cost a few years back and the risk hasn't change much.
|
|
|
eznfrank
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 06:42 PM |
|
|
it didn't always used to be the case that the car you are driving had to be independently insured to allow your driving other cars cover to take
effect, but in recent years it has been changed so that if a car is impounded by the police say for driving with no insurance then it can only be
collected once it has been insured. Too many scrotes were getting their mates to pick cars up for them using their doc cover.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 07:41 PM |
|
|
I was watching one of those traffic cop type TV programs the other morning ( I can't remember which) and found myself getting quite angry the
law is if you drive without insurance you get your car impounded and possibly crushed --- right and proper BUT what got me going was one traffic
cop actually very obviously much enjoyed doing it.
The other thing that is worrying is the subcontractors who remove the vehicles from the road are obviously making a lot of money out of it.
[Edited on 10/11/09 by britishtrident]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
madteg
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
the other does not need to be insured as i had a accident in my frends car and my insurance paid out for third party. It states on my insurance. The
policy holder is also able to drive other peoples car not belonging to him or herself or hired to him or her on a hire perchase agreement.
|
|
|
Theshed
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 09:10 PM |
|
|
Most of the posts above are wrong. Cars are never "insured" drivers and policy holders are. The law requires a driver to have insurance.
The terms of an insurance policy might have a clause restricting insurance to vehicles covered by some other policy or it might not. I have had
insurance for 30 years and have always been insured to drive any car not owned or hired by me. In other words.....read the policy/certificate. If you
are covered by a certificate then there the matter ends.
If we all stop watching the crappy "reality" police shows then...in time...they will all go away and thank god for that!!!!
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 10:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by owelly
The 'other vehicle' must also be insured.
It's purely down to the requirements of your policy. Some require it, some don't.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 10/11/09 at 10:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by owelly
The 'other vehicle' must also be insured.
It's purely down to the requirements of your policy. Some require it, some don't.
all that ive seen require it. Usually in the small print, not on the certificate.
|
|
|
Theshed
|
| posted on 11/11/09 at 09:33 AM |
|
|
I think a few posters have completely misunderstood their insurance policies. S143 of the RTA 1988 requires a DRIVER to have a minimum level of
insurance to cover third parties. Comprehensive, fire and theft cover is not require. In other words the car does not need to be insured the driver
does.
A certificate of insurance usually refers to a particular car but does not have to. Motor traders often hold such policies so do large companies.
Every insurance policy I have ever taken out permits me to drive any other vehicle provided I do not own it or have not hired it. That restriction is
clearly to avoid me insuring a mini and driving a lamboughini. What has never been required is that the other vehicle is insured. I have just read 3
old policies and none of them have this requirement. Whilst I accept that such a requirement is a theoretical possibility I have never seen it.
I suspect that people are confused by the fact that most policies say that they will not pay out if there is another policy in force. In other words
if any other insurance company is on the hook you cannot look to them to pay. That would not fail to satisfy section 143 because the driver would be
insured. (I hope that makes sense).
Whilst I accept that it is a theoretical possibility that a policy of insurance would say you will be covered against claims by third parties only if
the car you are driving is the subject of a policy of insurance (of some description) it seems to me highly unlikely that an insurer would say we will
cover you on the condition that you are covered by another policy (and therefore we would at worst only have to meet half of a claim).
It may be that my own policies are favourable because I am an old git. Insisting that the other vehicle was insured by the actual owner would stop you
asking your mate to put the Lambo in his name for you to "borrow" I suppose.
There is no substitute for reading the policy BUT the production of a certificate is sufficient to see off any policeman.
The simple answer if you are unsure is to call your insurance company.
|
|
|
greggors84
|
| posted on 11/11/09 at 01:43 PM |
|
|
So what I should do it get my mate to drive my Lamborghini and ill drive his. As we have both insured our minis we'll save ourselves a fourtune!
Ok it will only be 3rd party but those italian supercars are cheap to repair right?...
[Edited on 11/11/2009 by greggors84]
Chris
The Magnificent 7!
|
|
|
