Insuring Car X but then actually driving Car Y insured with your policy?

Jakg

It looked as if you thought I was going down the named driver / main driver route...

I will be the main driver of the banger - as no-one will ever drive it!

Not so sure about the owner of the car - but surely that'd only be an issue if he crashed it?

dacouch

The thing that amuses me with this arguement is he is insured with Quinn...need I say more

AndrewSmith

Yes it may seem like a good idea but consider the following:

The 'dream' car has to be insured by the owner to allow him / her to get tax on it. You can only get tax by producing a valid insurance certificate for the vehicle you are taxing (along wihe the other usual documents)

If the car is stolen while you are in posession or out in it then you get nothing back. 3rd party extension is exactly that. It only covers 3rd party damage not fire or theft. As you would be the one driving the car (with the owner's consent of course) then the owner's insurance company would decline any theft claim as you were in charge of the vehicle thus you are responsible (unless you are a named driver on the owner's policy then the whole thing as academic anyway)

If you crash the car and it is your fault you cannot claim anything for your car. As above, the owner's insurer would decline any comprehensive cover claim unless the owner was driving the car.

If you did crash the car yoour future premiums woud be so exorbatent that you would find it highly unlikely to be able to afford insurance, assuming any insurer would touch you after smashing up such a car whilst driving it on 3rd party extension.

May seem like a good idea, however you would have to drive the car round wrapped in bubble wrap to make it completely financially viable.

dacouch

The other issue is that it will not show as being insured on the Motor Insurance Database so he will constantly be pulled over by the police who even if you show them them the certificate with driving other cars are likely to impound the car.

It is arguable that if the car was parked up at the side of the road the police could also remove it as in their eyes it is un insured.

and he will have to get any claims past the delightful Quinn loss adjusters

Rolandtheroadie

Checking my policy today for another discussion, I noticed my insurer wont provide 3rd party cover unless you are over 25 and even then there is certain criteria that must be met.

Quote

AndrewSmith wrote: »

Yes it may seem like a good idea but consider the following:

The 'dream' car has to be insured by the owner to allow him / her to get tax on it. You can only get tax by producing a valid insurance certificate for the vehicle you are taxing (along wihe the other usual documents)

If the car is stolen while you are in posession or out in it then you get nothing back. 3rd party extension is exactly that. It only covers 3rd party damage not fire or theft. As you would be the one driving the car (with the owner's consent of course) then the owner's insurance company would decline any theft claim as you were in charge of the vehicle thus you are responsible (unless you are a named driver on the owner's policy then the whole thing as academic anyway)

If you crash the car and it is your fault you cannot claim anything for your car. As above, the owner's insurer would decline any comprehensive cover claim unless the owner was driving the car.

If you did crash the car yoour future premiums woud be so exorbatent that you would find it highly unlikely to be able to afford insurance, assuming any insurer would touch you after smashing up such a car whilst driving it on 3rd party extension.

May seem like a good idea, however you would have to drive the car round wrapped in bubble wrap to make it completely financially viable.

Some sense at last.

See: all my posts on this thread.

Jakg

I understand i'm 3rd party - i'm TPF&T ATM but even with a £1,500 car it will cost more in "lost" NCB to claim, so theres no point in being anything for third party.

Quentin

dacouch wrote: »

The other issue is that it will not show as being insured on the Motor Insurance Database so he will constantly be pulled over by the police who even if you show them them the certificate with driving other cars are likely to impound the car.

It is arguable that if the car was parked up at the side of the road the police could also remove it as in their eyes it is un insured.

Why will it not show as being insured? (Re-read the cunning plan - the car is to be insured by his Dad). So there is no question of it being impounded. Just more scaremongering.

Lots of "experts" here seem keen to put their imaginary holes in what is already a moneysaving loophole!

dacouch

Quentin wrote: »

Why will it not show as being insured? (Re-read the cunning plan - the car is to be insured by his Dad). So there is no question of it being impounded. Just more scaremongering.

Lots of "experts" here seem keen to put their imaginary holes in what is already a moneysaving loophole!

Sorry that was a typo I should have said "Not insured" I meant if the other car has no insurance on it then it will not be on the MID if his father insurers it then it will show as being insured so won't be a problem with police although if they do pull him in while using the DOC some police will still impound the car as they will be sceptical of the driving other cars part and some of them work on the basis if your not shown as a named driver on the vehicle that is listed on the MID they impound the car and then let you go through the process of proving insurance and then getting the car back

Quentin

Where is the evidence that the police impound cars of drivers who can show their id and documents?

Sounds like more scaremongering, as under the plan, the car will be insured as will the driver!