points on licence for brother, insurance help please

angeltreats

1more? wrote: »

the cheapest way is obviously for me to insure the car in my name but dh needs to be fully comp as he sometimes drives other cars is there anyway i can get around the extra £200

It doesn't necessarily have to be fully comp, I only have TPFT cover but I do have the DOC extension on my policy, which is with Ecar. But like Vikingaero says, the DOC cover is usually only for the policy holder. Before we had a car each, I was a named driver on my husband's policy which was also with Ecar and the DOC cover did not extend to me.

Mankysteve

Take your dear husband off the insurance and make him walk every where.

jaydeeuk1

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

No the insurer cancelled the cover. That is how it works.

Also 6 points for non disclosure? I am not aware of such an offence. Do you mean he lied to his insurer, had the cover revoked and was done for no insurance.

Boss and 4 or her brothers are insured on her car, and all drive it regularly.

She, as keeper, received a NIP. i don't think she responded to it so went to court. Claimed didn't know who was driving, court handed out 6 points and massive fine for refusal to say who was driving. If she had responded in first place, she would have been ok...

Weirdlittleman

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Boss and 4 or her brothers are insured on her car, and all drive it regularly.

She, as keeper, received a NIP. i don't think she responded to it so went to court. Claimed didn't know who was driving, court handed out 6 points and massive fine for refusal to say who was driving. If she had responded in first place, she would have been ok...

That is entirely different to not disclosing to the insurance company or deliberatly lying.

It is an offence for a registered keeper not to give full assistance to the police re a NIP and that is why she was hammered.

If she had responded and it wasnt her driving then yes.

jaydeeuk1

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

That is entirely different to not disclosing to the insurance company or deliberatly lying.

It is an offence for a registered keeper not to give full assistance to the police re a NIP and that is why she was hammered.

If she had responded and it wasnt her driving then yes.

Never said about non disclosure to insurance, hence confusion with our posts

1more?

thanks for all your replies

original insurance company reinstated the policy, i spoke to my sis in law who agreed with me her husband is a t**t and she is paying me the extra £220 as she thinks like me it shouldnt cost dh & i any money for saving bro in laws bacon
so we are ok for now lets just wait until next years renewal

mankysteve my husband is minus a set of balls since saturday :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Weirdlittleman

1more? wrote: »

thanks for all your replies

original insurance company reinstated the policy, i spoke to my sis in law who agreed with me her husband is a t**t and she is paying me the extra £220 as she thinks like me it shouldnt cost dh & i any money for saving bro in laws bacon
so we are ok for now lets just wait until next years renewal

mankysteve my husband is minus a set of balls since saturday :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

and you and her are now part of the conspiracy. Congratulations.

vikingaero

1more? wrote: »

thanks for all your replies

original insurance company reinstated the policy, i spoke to my sis in law who agreed with me her husband is a t**t and she is paying me the extra £220 as she thinks like me it shouldnt cost dh & i any money for saving bro in laws bacon
so we are ok for now lets just wait until next years renewal

mankysteve my husband is minus a set of balls since saturday :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

That's good news 1more. Just a quick question: Is the policy in your name or OH's name? I really want you to say your OH's name especially if he plans on using the DOC extension rather than risk more points and fines. And maybe even check the policy documents to see if DOC extension still exists!

d123

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

and you and her are now part of the conspiracy. Congratulations.

not really, he didn't "take the points" as in the OP's first post, he was convicted for failing to ID the driver according to another post by the OP and was probably convicted under Sec 172 RTA 1988.

1more? wrote: »

thanks terry
my hubby didnt send off the form so his points are not for speeding they are for failing to id driver

That doesn't equate to perverting the course of justice, so no conspiracy.