Insured to drive any car but...

dacouch

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Does your insurance say "without its own insurance"

As stated before the majority of Insurers do not include the tag that the other car must have it's own insurance. The amount of companies I have seen including this requirement is about 5

darich

dacouch wrote: »

As stated before the majority of Insurers do not include the tag that the other car must have it's own insurance. The amount of companies I have seen including this requirement is about 5

that's 5 more than me!!

I've never seen it in any of my policies over the years.

vaio

darich wrote: »

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.

I’m not suggesting that you can leave an uninsured car parked whilst using it under the DOC cover, more idly musing that you could (or even should) be able to.

You’re right, the key word is “drive” (or maybe “use”) but the key word is the same in the MOT & tax laws and in those cases appeal court judges (so therefore precedent) have decided that a stop on the way to the test where the car is left parked & unattended still counts as “driving” so no offence is committed. I just can’t see any logical reason why that decision wouldn’t also apply to “driving” under DOC cover.

What do you think about the automatic conviction & seizure if a DOC driver gets out of an otherwise uninsured car during a roadside stop by the police? Why would a fuel or fag stop be any different?

vaio

darich wrote: »

that's 5 more than me!!

I've never seen it in any of my policies over the years.

Nor me, but Dacouch does this for a living so presumably has wider experience than the rest of us

Norman_Castle

As stated before the majority of Insurers do not include the tag that the other car must have it's own insurance. The amount of companies I have seen including this requirement is about 5

Insurers may not include the tag that the car must have its own insurance,but does your insurance say "without its own insurance"

dacouch

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Insurers may not include the tag that the car must have its own insurance,but does your insurance say "without its own insurance"

It does not have to, if the line is not included then the other car does not have to have it's own insurance, if it does include the line then it does.

I think (Raskaz will hopefully correct me if I'm wrong) that under the Road Traffic Act, the Insurer would still have to pay a third party claim out if you were driving another car under a policy that had the line about the other car having to be insured if it was not written on the certificate but was contained in the policy. They would then have the right to recover their losses.

As an example here is the relevant wording from a direct line policy (They do not require the other car to be insured) see page 16 1b http://www.directline.com/motor/M6B_0410_web_pdf.pdf

and here is the relevant wording from a company that do stipulate the other car has to be insured http://www.swiftcover.com/carinsurance/policy/liability/

The few companies that do stipulate it tend to be the cheap and not cheerful companies such as Swift and Chaucer

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

What do you think about the automatic conviction & seizure if a DOC driver gets out of an otherwise uninsured car during a roadside stop by the police?

Entrapment!

They wouldn't get away with it.

darich

vaio wrote: »

I’m not suggesting that you can leave an uninsured car parked whilst using it under the DOC cover, more idly musing that you could (or even should) be able to.

You’re right, the key word is “drive” (or maybe “use”) but the key word is the same in the MOT & tax laws and in those cases appeal court judges (so therefore precedent) have decided that a stop on the way to the test where the car is left parked & unattended still counts as “driving” so no offence is committed. I just can’t see any logical reason why that decision wouldn’t also apply to “driving” under DOC cover.

What do you think about the automatic conviction & seizure if a DOC driver gets out of an otherwise uninsured car during a roadside stop by the police? Why would a fuel or fag stop be any different?

I think that technically, if asked to leave the vehicle then you the owner of the car could be charged but I think it would be a conviction that would be appealed and probably won. I think the cop would be in a weak position.
In real life, I'd explain the situation and I'd expect the cop to either let me stay in the car, or ask me to get out and accept that the car is then uninsured.

I still think the big difference between MOT and insurance is that, by law, you must have insurance. That's not the case with MOT.
The other key thing is that while using DOC you have third party cover ie every other driver/pedestrian is covered in the event of an accident. Having no MOT does not affect other road users so the case law is different.

I can see your point.....but don't agree:D:beer:

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"

So,does your insurance say "without its own insurance"

I"ve become Jeremy Paxman

dacouch

Norman_Castle wrote: »

So,does your insurance say "without its own insurance"

I"ve become Jeremy Paxman

No because it does not have too. An Insurance policy which is in effect a contract has to make any exclusions or requirements very clear. So to make it a requirement that the other car has it's own insurance they would have to state this. Failing to state it would mean it is not a requirement of the policy.

You will find a policy does not state the other car you are driving under the DOC section must not be blue etc etc. As it is not stated it cannot apply

You just happen to be with one of the small minority of Insurers who do stipulate that the other car has to be insured.

You can check for yourself which companies do stipulate it, you just need to look at their policy under the "Liability" or "Liability to others" sections and then view the section on driving other cars. You will find very very few companies actually insist the other car has it's own insurance.