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

loofer

tattoed_bum wrote: »

when you work it all out would it not work out cheaper to insure the car on your own.
the purchase of car £1500
purchase of the older car£300 as i doubt you will get one taxed and mot for less
tax , mot ,insurance of the older car
insurance of the new car by your father

As a side not, does the car have to be in troadworthy condition to insure it, if it was just sitting on your private driveway waiting to be repaired?
Ofcourse insurance may be invalidated if it was driven on public highway.

So you could buy a cheap banger that doesn't even move and plonk it on the drive and SORN it... but to take it a step further (and play the devil's advocate) what' stopping somebody buying a policy on a phantom car... a car you don't own or one you haven't even seen. You just provide details. Look for the details of a car with cheapest insurance group like an old micra etc.

The only snag is, the insurance co. will want to know who is the owner/keeper of the car...;)

Quentin

No. A car has to be roadworthy to be driven, not to insure it.

iceburn

I assume what Silvercar posted is from Quinn policy.

"Driving other cars
If your certificate of insurance says so, we will also cover you, the
policyholder, for your liability to other people while you are driving
any other private motor car which you do not own or have not
hired or leased, as long as:
1 the vehicle is not owned by your employer or hired to them
under a hire-purchase or lease agreement;
2 you currently hold a full European Union (EU) licence;
3 the use of the vehicle is covered in the certificate of
insurance;
4 cover is not provided by any other insurance;
5 you have the owner’s permission to drive the vehicle;
6 the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition; and
7 you still have your vehicle and it has not been damaged
beyond cost-effective repair."

See on that, point 7, I think that rule out buying a right old banger that does not work. Since it will be uneconomical to repair.

But if you are asking in general, does the car have to be roadworthy condition to insure it, the answer is no it can be a complete right wreak with no shell, no engine, and no wheels and can still insure it. Would you want to is something else. In fact they are planning on making a law soon that will require you to either have your car insure at all time, even if its on private road, or SORN it if do not want to insure it.

LadyIndecisive

Quentin wrote: »

By mention of interrogating databases and litigation you are wrongly suggesting something illegal is being discussed here.

That is not so - something moneysaving is being explored, nothing more!

No, by mention of interrogating databases I am correctly suggesting that Quinn will do all necessary checks to ensure that they are liable for any third party claim. It is likely they will check that a policy exists for the car OP driving. They will then confirm whose policy this is, and that the OP is not named as a driver on that other policy.

Litigation refers to civil action not criminal action and does not determine whether something is illegal or not.

Quote

iceburn wrote: »

But anyway I cant see the main problem it seem Quote can see in him doing this way?

The main problem is the worst case scenario.

All insurance policies are absolutely fine if you don't claim, so I'm imagining a situation where a claim occurs.

The "father's" car is written off by the OP. Straight away that will mean two insurance policies have been paid for. One car will have been written off without any cover for it and another car might be needed to replace it. Any accrued NCD on the OP's policy will be lost.

It really is a non-starter.

Rolandtheroadie

Quote wrote: »

It really is a non-starter.

What wont start? What have i missed.

Anyways, it's been entertaining, I suspect the op's father is against the whole idea anyways (hence the wanting it all in writing).

Good luck anyway although I have to question the choice of car. If your going to all this trouble, why not get something nice?

iceburn

Quote wrote: »

The main problem is the worst case scenario.

All insurance policies are absolutely fine if you don't claim, so I'm imagining a situation where a claim occurs.

The "father's" car is written off by the OP. Straight away that will mean two insurance policies have been paid for. One car will have been written off without any cover for it and another car might be needed to replace it. Any accrued NCD on the OP's policy will be lost.

It really is a non-starter.

make sure I am seeing this correct. OP drive father car and crash it into a car on the motorway.
Since it is his fault, father car is a write off and nothing is paid out for it. OP insurer QUiNN pay the third party. OP lose NCD and start again with a loaded premium.

Other scene, OP drive father car and crash it into a car on the cross-road. Since the car came out of the cross-road when he was crossing the main road, it was the third party fault.
Father car is a write off, third party insurance pay for it. OP keep his NCD since non-fault but declare the accident as a non-fault accident for next year renewal.

Well if you add it up, if he take out third party cover on that car directly it will cost more, and taken fully comp would cost even more, I think so much more that it will work out cheaper to do what he is thinking and maybe take a small risk that car will be a lost if it is his fault

To the original poster, for your dad check out Norwich Union, fully comp, sometimes with the max excess it is cheaper than Third party coverage they offer.

medders2604

Just a quick one to throw into the pot but don't they ask "are you the registered keeper and owner of the vehicle?" when you take out car insurance?

If so this wouldn't work.

LadyIndecisive

Can anyone define 'legal owner' and comment on whether the OP becomes the owner of the vehicle if he/she pays his/her Dad for it (irrespective of name on purchase invoice/receipt and vehicle registration document)? OP has advised he/she intends to pay Dad back for the car.

Quote

iceburn wrote: »

make sure I am seeing this correct.

You aren't.