No Insurance?!

vaio

mrmichaelf wrote: »

It is true. My insurers are very clear about it in their police booklet.

I find it strange that any insurer would use such an ambiguous term in a policy.

Out of interest could you give the exact wording? What does the certificate say?

rev_henry

vaio wrote: »

I find it strange that any insurer would use such an ambiguous term in a policy.

Out of interest could you give the exact wording? What does the certificate say?

I'm fairly sure he's right about emergency cover, in that ALL policies include it, just not all extend that 3rd party cover to any other non emergency situation. I think it'd have to be pretty exceptional though, and decided on a case by case basis, by a court if necessary.

mrmichaelf

I'm with Direct Line. I dont have the policy booklet to hand, but having worked for them I know for a fact that it is cover for emergency situations only, and in the event of a claim or being stopped by the police, it is down to the insurer to determine wether the circumstances in which the vehicle is being driven warrants an emergency situation.

I would never use the driving other cars part of the policy. I would make sure I am added to the persons insurance policy, especially if it is a vehicle I am going to be using regularly.

imstuckinarut

bramble1 wrote: »

Thanks everyone, well we produced the insurance documents so i guess now we just wait to see what happens next.

How long will they take to let us know if he has no insurance?

The police have up to 6 months to lodge the case with the courts, BUT NOT 1 DAY MORE.

after the police have lodged it, there is no fixed time line for the court to take action, but ive never known it to take too long.

my input on this one aswell, i had a VERY similar experience to this. only difference was, i was told over the phone that i could drive any car. Got stopped and showed that i didnt have this cover, as it wasnt on my insurance cert. HOWEVER under my schedule of insurance, and terms of exlusions, one of the exclusions was E146 Not permitted to drive other vehicles, which was NOT applied to my policy, therefore as far as police were concerned, meant i could drive others.

rev_henry

imstuckinarut wrote: »

The police have up to 6 months to lodge the case with the courts, BUT NOT 1 DAY MORE.

after the police have lodged it, there is no fixed time line for the court to take action, but ive never known it to take too long.

Do you mean the CPS? The Police stopped prosecuting people themselves about 20 years ago.

lazer

If you OH was under 25 when you took out the policy - chances are eh doesn't have 3rd part cover.

I phoned my insurance company on my 25th birthday to see if i had 3rd party cover - but I was told no - not until the next policy is issued

imstuckinarut

rev_henry wrote: »

Do you mean the CPS? The Police stopped prosecuting people themselves about 20 years ago.

might be, im just quoting what the police have told me. they said we have 6 months to have the case lodged if we choose to pursue it, and the courts dont have a set timescale. but as a general rule, if you havnt heard anything in 3 months, chances are it has been dropped

DaveMacD

Quote from my Insurance (Co-Op)

The policyholder may also drive a motor car or motor cycle not belonging to him and not hired to him under a HP agreement. This does not include securing the release of a motor vehicle which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority. (As long as my licence covers me to drive such a vehicle).

And that was included as part of my policy, not added specially. I've also got extra cover to use my vehicle for First Response duties, as long as I don't fit blue lights or carry members of the public. I had to ask to add that, but it attracts no extra premium.

dacouch

mrmichaelf wrote: »

I'm with Direct Line. I dont have the policy booklet to hand, but having worked for them I know for a fact that it is cover for emergency situations only, and in the event of a claim or being stopped by the police, it is down to the insurer to determine wether the circumstances in which the vehicle is being driven warrants an emergency situation.

I would never use the driving other cars part of the policy. I would make sure I am added to the persons insurance policy, especially if it is a vehicle I am going to be using regularly.

I wish people would be a bit more accurate with their information, the Direct Line Policy makes no mention of it having to be in an emergency. Even if it were how would the Insurer or the Police define what is and what is not an emergency?

For your info here is the relevant wording from the DL policy.

1b Driving other cars
If your certificate of motor insurance says so, this policy
provides the same cover as above in 1a when you are driving any other
motor car as long as you do not own it and it is not hired to you under
a hire-purchase or leasing agreement. This cover only applies if:
• there is no other insurance in force which covers the same liability;
• you have the owner’s permission to drive the car;
• the car is registered in and being driven in Great Britain, Northern
Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel
Islands; and • you still have your car and it has not been damaged beyond
cost-effective repair.
Note – There is no cover under clause 1b for damage, fire or theft to
the car you are driving.

http://www.directline.com/motor/car_policy_document_m6b.pdf (Page 16)

imfedup

iamana1ias wrote: »

That's what happens when you assume. :rolleyes:

Shouldn't be a problem in the future though. There's not that many companies will cover someone with a conviction for no insurance and those that do charge thousands.

What a load of tosh - sorry, but it is. I was convicted for no insurance just under 4 years ago. My Insurance didnt go up and I was with one of the big Insurance companies, alright it didnt go down either but it certainly didnt cost me thousands, in fact I am currently insured fully comp with protected NCB for under £400 a year.

I am not saying that you should drive with no insurance, sometimes it happens as has happened with the OP and myself. In fact I would go so much as to say that if insurers did charge "thousands" for no insurance more people would think twice about getting into a car knowing that they were not insured. But it is clear here that the OP thought that her OH was insured under TP cover for her vehicle. AND it has probably made a lot of readers of this thread check their certificate or ring their insurance company for clarification.