Driving other vehicles.

mollycat

Altarf wrote: »

Wrong. Provided the DOC clause does not stipulate the other car needs to be insured in its own right, you are insured and any prosecution will fail.

However unless you have a copy of your insurance certificate on you with the DOC clause, then the police will seize the car.

But in the vast majority of cases that car WILL need to be insured in it's own right.

Post #6 highlights an exclusion to this, but to the OP i would say, dont drive, it is very, very, likely you are not insured!!

Altarf

mollycat wrote: »

But in the vast majority of cases that car WILL need to be insured in it's own right.

But as I said before there is no 'normal' and it is irrelevant what the majority or minority of policies say (whichever is the more prevelant), it is what YOUR policy says.

mollycat wrote: »

but to the OP i would say, dont drive, it is very, very, likely you are not insured!!

What I would say to the OP is read your policy and decide on the facts what to do.

creased-leach

It does vary twixt insurers. The other half has called Churchill, who we insure with, twice about the issue and they confirmed it both times.

hartcjhart

Why not make sure and get some temp cover for the 2 days

cyclonebri1

Altarf wrote: »

There is no 'normal'.

Historically the vast majority of policies had the DOC clause and made no requirement that the other car be insured, because the insurance companies had never thought that it would be abused like it is.

We are now in a transition phase with some companies not having the DOC clause, some limiting it to drivers over a certain age (because young men seem to be the biggest problem), and some including the requirement that the car be insured in its own right.

But there is, for yonks you have not been able to drive a non idependantly insured car on yours. The insurance sector twigged this 40 years ago:mad:

dacouch

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But there is, for yonks you have not been able to drive a non idependantly insured car on yours. The insurance sector twigged this 40 years ago:mad:

This is a myth, there are very very few Insurers that actually specify the other vehicle must have it's own insurance.

The vast vast majority of Insurers do not specify the other vehicle must be insured.

redux

dacouch wrote: »

The vast vast majority of Insurers do not specify the other vehicle must be insured.

However, the vast majority of insurers also do not wish to provide free insurance to people who are avoiding paying for cover.

Such clauses are intended to be for unforeseen or emergency use only, such as moving a car off the road when the driver is taken ill, are restricted to third party or Road Traffic Act defined minimum cover only, and every single claim in such circumstances will be investigated by underwriters as a matter of course.

I'm not making this up; the insurance broker told me.

Thus if the car is involved in an accident while being deliberately driven like that, first of all you owe the owner to repair the borrowed car, then your insurers are trying to determine if this was fraud, then the third party involved might be suing you for the damage to their car, which isn't covered by the policy you thought you were using. That's surely too many disputes to cope with

For the OP - as someone suggests above, take out a separate temporary policy, or at least make the effort to ask your own current insurers the facts, instead of relying on half-baked guesswork on here

dacouch

Redux I'm also an Insurance broker so happen to know about this and the relevant laws.

The driving other cars extension is "Intended" for emergencies however there is no definition of \n emergency in the Car Insurance Policy and the vast majority of Insurers do not state the use of the driving other cars benefit is for emergencies and even if they do how would you define what is and isn't and emergency.

It is best to check the policy wording of your own Insurer to see if they have any restrictions on the driving other cars. (It's quite simple to find, you simply look under the "Liability to Others" section and the driving other cars cover and any relevant exclusions are detailed under there). If it does not state the other car must be insured then the Insurers have to deal with the claim (Providing everything elses is ok). As they are bound by the Road Traffic Act.

As I said I only know of 4 (Out of dozens) companies that stipulate the other car must have it's on insurance.

Insurers do not throughly investigate all claims under the driving other cars benefit, they have certain things that will flag up further investigation. Due to the Road Traffic Act your own Insurer would have to pay the claim if you have driving other cars on your certificate and are not breaching any of the exclusions on the CERTIFICATE. They may at a later date try to recover their outlay from you if they can demonstrate you breached the policy conditions eg the policy specifically said it was excluded

Wig

Altarf wrote: »

However unless you have a copy of your insurance certificate on you with the DOC clause, then the police will seize the car.

I would say that the police are reasonably expected to check the person has insurance before seizing the vehicle, this can be carrying your insurance cert & policy book with you to show them or if you don't have those, They can check the database that you do have an insurance policy on a car (you give them registration) if that is comprehensive cover they can then reasonably assume you will have DOC cover. If they want more detailed information they would have to phone your current insurer to check your DOC cover details, if insurance lines are open & they get this confirmed they can't seize.

Wig

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But there is, for yonks you have not been able to drive a non idependantly insured car on yours. The insurance sector twigged this 40 years ago:mad:

Every policy I have ever had, (and I change provider regularly every year) has not stipulated other car needs to be insured. These include:
Nationwide
Prudential
Admiral
CoOp
Tesco
frizzel
Direct Line
cornhill