Insured to drive any car but...

emmell

Quentin wrote: »

The police were talking nonsense. The driving other cars extension gives the driver third party cover only.

Thus should the car be stolen/damaged/set on fire etc, then no insurer was liable (irrespective of whether she was in it or not)! And if it was left on the road whilst she went shopping, then the car would be uninsured, and liable to be towed away!

She knew it only covered third party and not fire or theft, the police often do talk rubbish, but it was a retail car park not a public road she left the car on. The police had followed her for some considerable time and followed her into the retail park.
ML.

vaio

Duncombe wrote: »

Just to let you know, this is incorrect. Most companies stipulate that the car you are driving on 3rd party basis must be insured in its own right. Check your individual paperwork for clarification.

My friend recently fell prey to this. Driving his wifes car on 3rd party basis - he was stopped by the police after they spotted the car was uninsured. Although it was a genuine mistake, he still got 6 points on his licence and a £60 fine.

I've can't ever remember (in 30+ years) having DOC cover that specified the car had to be insured in its own right but, as you say, read what the certificate says.

Very common is a clause that says the DOC cover doesn't apply to cars owned by wives & husbands or even other members of your household which explains why your friend came unstuck.

The whole business of insurance for test drives was pretty fully covered in a recent thread, I'm pretty sure the conclusion was to tell the prospective buyer that they can test drive it as long as they hold or arrange third party cover but not to get involved in checking their insurance.

vaio

Quentin wrote: »

.....And if it was left on the road whilst she went shopping, then the car would be uninsured, and liable to be towed away!

A thought on this..... A car can be driven without an MOT to a pre-booked test. There is case law that says you are allowed to break such a journey without MOT for a visit to a shop and the unattended car is still regarded as being on the journey.

I can't see any reason why a similar argument couldn't apply to a car being driven under the DOC cover

darich

I've never known a car to require an insurance policy of its own for the "driving other cars" extension to be valid.
both direct Line and RAC have covered me in recent years, both providing DOC but neither stipulating the third party's car must have its own insurance.
Any company who insists on this is very much in the minority.

What I would suggest firstly, is confirming with your insurance company.
Sceondly, if you do drive another car on the DOC extension and you know it doesn't have valid insurance while you're driving it, carry your own insurance documents. The car will pop up on the ANPR systems as uninsured and you'll be pulled over. If you cannot prove you have valid insurance on the spot, then you'll be walking the rest of the way and probably facing a charge for recovering the vehicle. You may or may not be able to argue this, however, you won't argue against the walk home.

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

I can't see any reason why a similar argument couldn't apply to a car being driven under the DOC cover

There is no possible argument.

If the car had no other insurance in place, then it would be uninsured on the road. End of.

(What would happen if the shop was on a hill, and was left with the handbrake off to roll off and cause a multiple disaster??)

vaio

Quentin wrote: »

There is no possible argument.

If the car had no other insurance in place, then it would be uninsured on the road. End of……

And I’m sure some would have said exactly the same about a car parked outside a shop without tax & MOT prior to the test case (and the fact there was a test case means the police/CPS did say just that)

The MOT laws say something along the lines of “you can legally drive a car without an MOT to a pre booked MOT test.”

The tax laws say “you can legally drive a car without tax to a pre booked MOT test.”

The courts have decided that “you can legally drive a car” includes the driver making a trip to the shops and leaving the car unattended.

My insurance says “you can legally drive a car without its own insurance providing that it is not owned or hired to you”

It’s not a great leap of logic to give “you can legally drive a car” the same meaning when applied to DOC cover.

Examples….

I take a mates car (sans MOT, tax & insurance) for an MOT using my DOC cover, I stop for petrol on the way and the police turn up while I’m paying for the petrol. It seems silly that there would be an insurance offence committed but no MOT or tax offences.

In fact, if your logic was right, then any car stopped by the police whilst being driven under my DOC cover would produce an automatic conviction (and seizure of the car) as soon as I got out of the car to talk to the police.

Quentin wrote: »

…….What would happen if the shop was on a hill, and was left with the handbrake off to roll off and cause a multiple disaster??

If my logic is right then my DOC cover would pay

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

If my logic is right then my DOC cover would pay

There is no logic in using the situation for leaving a vehicle with no MOT as a defence for leaving an unisured car on a highway!

(Of course, the law is illogical anyway!)

Although the rules regarding DOC seem beleaguered with some driving myths, there are no defences for getting caught leaving an uninsured vehicle parked on a public highway!

vaio

Yep, but until the test case there was no defence to leaving a unMOT'd or untaxed vehicle on the highway either.

The law evolves and maybe it just hasn't got there (yet?) with the DOC cover.

Any thoughts on the examples I gave? particularly getting out of a car when stopped by police?

darich

Vaio

The big difference between no MOT and no insurance (leaving car unattended when using DOC) is that it is not against the law to have no MOT (new cars don't have one, and you can drive to test centre with no MOT). It's against the law to have no insurance - you can't drive to your local broker to arrange insurance if you don't have any.

You're assuming that the law regarding the MOT would applied identically to insurance. That's a big assumption. If the cops did pull into the petrol station and ask a few questions, you may well be right in that the insurer would say that they were covering the vehicle. That's fine but there is no incident.
But on the other hand if the unattended vehicle rolls down the hill and wipes out a queue of people at a bus stop or ends up in a living room, do you genuinely believe the insurer would cover that? I think they'd (quite reasonably) point to the clause that states the policyholder is entitled to drive another car not owned by him, but that clause doesn't go on to say that cover is also valid while the vehicle is unattended.
My RAC insurance states "The cover for Liability to Third Parties section of this policy is extended to the Regular Driver when driving
other cars not owned by the Regular Driver only if this extension is shown on the current Certificate of Motor Insurance."

Major keyword - "drive"

I've used my own insurance as an example and realise other companies may have different conditions but I suspect most if not all will use the word "drive". Even "use" but when you leave the car you're not using it so it still doesn't cover you.

I've said already that if anyone intends driving a car under their DOC extension and they know that car to have no insurance of its own, then it is strongly advisable to carry your own insurance docs. If the cops pull you, then unless you can prove you have insurance you'll have no choice but to continue your journey on foot, and possibly pay a release charge to get the car back. You may argue the refund of the release charge but you'll not argue the cops at the side of the road without evidence of insurance.

I think that unless it is known for certain that DOC cover includes an unattended car, it is best not to assume it does - you could end up with points, a fine, higher insurance premiums and a load of hassle if your assumption is incorrect.

Norman_Castle

My insurance says “you can legally drive a car without its own insurance providing that it is not owned or hired to you”

Does your insurance say "without its own insurance"