do you need insurance for a pre booked mot

Anihilator

People tend to read the info on the certificates but not refer back to the original terms. I believe some also ban cars were there is a family link to the car's owner to prevent fraud.

I.e your son buys car then you drive it all the time

rev_henry

Anihilator wrote: »

People tend to read the info on the certificates but not refer back to the original terms. I believe some also ban cars were there is a family link to the car's owner to prevent fraud.

I.e your son buys car then you drive it all the time

That sounds about right.

iamana1ias

Driving on third party cover is all well and good but the vehicle will need it's own insurance to be parked anywhere public

rev_henry

iamana1ias wrote: »

Driving on third party cover is all well and good but the vehicle will need it's own insurance to be parked anywhere public

Yes, so the second you park a car your driving under this on the public road the police could come and seize it.

dacouch

rev_henry wrote: »

Interesting things you say about swiftcover, seems a bit cheap and nasty to me. My mother is insured comp with Zurich, and has the other cars extension thing (no mention of other car having its own insurance). But when we rang up and asked they said yes, the other car must have its own policy. :S

This is often quoted by poorly trained customer service staff, if it does not say it in the policy wording or the Certificate of Insurance then it is not a requirement. They cannot make things up as it is a contract between you and them which has to also abide by the RTA.

Them saying that has the same relevance as them saying you cannot drive white cars under that section and it not being in the policy wording or on the certificate.

Try ringing Zurich up again and I would not be surprised if you got a different answer, if they do give you the same answer advise them that it does not say so in the policy wording and thus they cannot insist on it and then ask for their explanation. They will umm and err and then put you on hold while they speak to their superviser who will also umm and err and will then ring their superviser

jonathon

im with morethan fully comp. and it does state to drive another car it must be insured in its own right.

dacouch

jonathon wrote: »

im with morethan fully comp. and it does state to drive another car it must be insured in its own right.

No it does not say that in the policy.

B YOUR COVER WHILE DRIVING ANY OTHER CAR
This policy covers you for the cost of any claims if you are legally responsible for:
• causing injury to or the death of anyone; or
• the damage you cause to another person’s property (we will pay up to £20,000,000, including legal costs,
for any claim or claims arising from one incident).
You are covered while driving any other car only if all the following apply:
• You are 25 years of age or older
• You are driving with the owner’s permission
• You are not entitled to make a claim for the damage under any other policy of insurance
• The car is not owned by (or hired under a hire purchase agreement by or leased to) you or your partner
• The car is being driven in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man or the
Channel Islands

http://www.morethan.com/Process/Documents/motorpoli.pdf (Page 7)

Wig

computershack wrote: »

Well I must be unlucky and chosen every single insurer over the last several years which required the car to be insured in its own right. Latest insurer is Swiftcover.

I'd expect it to be a condition of Swiftcover! That's the reason I avoid them, they also have admin fees if you cancel a policy within 14days most other (That I have used or looked at) don't. And most insurers don't require other car to be insured. However OP should read his policy, there may be a clause that the other car should not belong to you (and maybe something about or your family living at the same address) which might make it not legal.

If I were you OP, I would first look into the driving other cars clause for you or a friend to do. If not then I'd buy a new policy for the car and cancel it within 14 days for a full refund. First of all checking that there was to be no admin fees for doing so, like Swiftcover charges.

Wig

rev_henry wrote: »

Yes, so the second you park a car your driving under this on the public road the police could come and seize it.

No they couldn't, because it was being driven with insurance, and when it became parked it is parked without insurance. The law on seizing only applies to cars being driven or cars that have failed to stop within the previous 24hrs.

rev_henry

dacouch wrote: »

This is often quoted by poorly trained customer service staff, if it does not say it in the policy wording or the Certificate of Insurance then it is not a requirement. They cannot make things up as it is a contract between you and them which has to also abide by the RTA.

Them saying that has the same relevance as them saying you cannot drive white cars under that section and it not being in the policy wording or on the certificate.

Try ringing Zurich up again and I would not be surprised if you got a different answer, if they do give you the same answer advise them that it does not say so in the policy wording and thus they cannot insist on it and then ask for their explanation. They will umm and err and then put you on hold while they speak to their superviser who will also umm and err and will then ring their superviser

Sounds about right, I'll be aware of that in future. It was India I spoke to so...
Although interesting how their sales line is UK and much more competent.
Doesn't matter now as new policy starts tomorrow.