We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Am I covered to drive another car?

12346»

Comments

  • Hi, quick update. I have now been able to swap my insurance to the other car so can get it back now. I have pointed out to the police that although I am the registered keeper I do not legally own the car as I have not paid my family member any money for it as yet as I had agreed to pay him after selling my current car. This as confirmed by my insurance company means that the insurance company will confirm that provided I was not the legal owner of the vehicle due to not having paid for it they class me as being covered on third party cover to drive the car as I was not the owner. The insurance company have requested I get the policeman to call them so they can explain in more detail the situation as although you can be the registered keeper you still may not own the vehicle out right you are just keeping it at that time. Thoughts please??
  • raskazz
    raskazz Posts: 2,877 Forumite
    I think that the insurer is being very generous if they do confirm that cover was inforce. I certainly wouldn't if I were in their position. There is nothing in law to prevent someone from being the owner of property for which they have not yet paid for, and I think in this case that everything points to you being the owner of the vehicle at the time of the stop - for me your last post backs this up even more:
    daven1978 wrote: »
    I had agreed to pay him after selling my current car.

    So effectively he gave you credit on payment. This doesn't mean that he is the owner until you paid him.
  • raskazz wrote: »
    I think that the insurer is being very generous if they do confirm that cover was inforce. I certainly wouldn't if I were in their position. There is nothing in law to prevent someone from being the owner of property for which they have not yet paid for, and I think in this case that everything points to you being the owner of the vehicle at the time of the stop - for me your last post backs this up even more:



    So effectively he gave you credit on payment. This doesn't mean that he is the owner until you paid him.


    Having not even paid him 1 pence this apparently means he is the owner and I am the registered keeper. The agreement is the car will be taken back if payment is not made within 1 month. So this again backs up that I do not own the car I am just the current keeper of the car. Had I have paid for the car using my credit card this again would mean I did not own the car as it was not fully paid for so ownership could be taken back if payment is not made in full.
  • raskazz
    raskazz Posts: 2,877 Forumite
    edited 26 October 2009 at 11:44PM
    daven1978 wrote: »
    Having not even paid him 1 pence this apparently means he is the owner and I am the registered keeper.

    Not in law it doesn't. For example, say you buy a TV on 1 year interest-free credit. Clearly at any point after purchase but before 1 year after purchase, no monies have changed hands. But it is clear who the owner of the TV is in law - you. You own it, the method of payment is interest-free credit.
    daven1978 wrote: »
    The agreement is the car will be taken back if payment is not made within 1 month. So this again backs up that I do not own the car I am just the current keeper of the car.

    So again it is merely an (informal) credit agreement, albeit with the credit (informally) secured on the car.
    daven1978 wrote: »
    Had I have paid for the car using my credit card this again would mean I did not own the car

    Nonsense.
  • instaunt
    instaunt Posts: 112 Forumite
    Aye, this is a really confusing area:

    1. your insurance will say you can drive other cars third party.
    2. other people's insurance will say that other people can drive their car as long as they are over 21 or something (just the excess will increase).
    3. both will say that the car can not be covered by more than one insurer.
    I've been making animations for my daughter. Tell me what you think? Search for "Where are you Pickles?" and "Pickles and the Bully" on YouTube.

    picklesadventures.com/animations/
  • Kazipoo
    Kazipoo Posts: 806 Forumite
    In response to the OP. I am a named driver on our policy, however, I am also named as the main driver of the vehicle, our policy states third party rules in relation the the main driver and not the policy holder. My husband has full and protected no claims bonus, but he now rides a motorbike, so in order to keep his no claims bonus, we take out insurance in his name, make use of the discounts because of his 9 years no claims, and my name is stated as the main driver.
    Starting weight 17st 4lb - weight now 15st 2lbs

    30lb lost of 30lb by June 2012 :j:j:j (80lb overall goal)

This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.