Driving another car with owners permission

EdGasket

Thanks for the replies. I will check carefully if there is anything in the policy about the 'other' car having to have it's own insurance. It would be useful to be able to drive it from say home driveway to private car park at work; not so useful not to be able to park anywhere en route. Also funny that although the concensus is that I can drive the car, when the tax runs out I cannot, and neither can I obtain tax using my insurance certificate. Strange world.

lisyloo

Fully comp doesn't include the provision of hire cars - (unless you have an extension for this).

It's not guaranteed I agree (unless you pay for an optional "guaranteed car hire" option) but it is very commonly provided in connection with a fully comp claim where repairs are being carried out.
There are certainly scenarios where you would not get it e.g. you car is a write off, but the most likely scenario would be to get a courtesy car from the garage doing the repairs,

and you can either get it and pay for it yourself or make use of a claim handler who would arrange it for you.

I woudl say most common scenario is to get a courtesy car from the garage doing the repairs in connection with a fully comp claim.
I agree that would not be 100% of the time and it's not guaranteed.

If you are involved with uninsured/untraceable drivers you can still have a no win no fee claim handler deal with your case, and get hire cars etc.

And sign documents to accept some liability.

But the pros and cons of having third party cover aren't what this thread is about!

I think it's an extremely pertinent and appropriate warning by Dan.
If you trash someone else's car and they face a huge amount of upheaval and inconvenience as a result then can have a huge impact on your relationship.
It might not be what the OP asked but it's an appropriate comment and point to consider in my opinion.
It's different taking risks with your own property to someone elses.

If you don't think it's approprate then let's agree to drop it as the OP has probably now received sufficient warnign and discussion of the pros and cons.

Quentin

lisyloo wrote: »

I woudl say most common scenario is to get a courtesy car from the garage doing the repairs in connection with a fully comp claim.

You make an argument to us that if we have fully comp. insurance we will get a hire car if needed after an incident.

I point out that fully comp. doesn't normally provide hire cars.

You reply by now telling us you mean getting a courtesy car whilst your car is being repaired is the norm with comp insurance!

Hardly answering the point at all!

And these are subject to what many see as unacceptable conditions (eg only available if you go to the insurers repairer, only a micra type even if you need a people carrier).

lisyloo

You reply by now telling us you mean getting a courtesy car whilst your car is being repaired is the norm with comp insurance!

I am not quite clear on the point you are trying to make.
Are you picking up on the terminology of "courtesy car" and "hire car".
If so then I apologise for inadvertant incortrect use of the name.
I meant courtesy car and I fully accept there are caveats to that (subject to availability etc.)

The main point for most people is being back on the road.
The point I was making is that you get a car supplied and what it's called is not important.

And these are subject to what many see as unacceptable conditions

Yes, this may be an additional "con".
With a choice of being off the road completely for months though or having a less desireable car for a few days most people would plump for the latter.
Of course if it's REALLY important not to be off the road (like you are disabled) then you need to get a guranteed hire car option.
If the conditions are not acceptable then get a different policy, change the options or go third party if you want.
I am not against people going third party if they like, I've done it myself.
The important thing is to be aware of the risks/pros/cons you are taking.
If you take a policy which has unacceptable conditions to you then that's a risk as well !!

Quentin

lisyloo wrote: »

I am not quite clear on the point you are trying to make.
Are you picking up on the terminology of "courtesy car" and "hire car".

No, I'm not picking you up on anything.

You are now saying you weren't arguing about hire cars being supplied with comp. cover and not with third party, but that was the thrust of your argument, where you pointed out hire cars with credit hire had some liability. You even argued you get a hire car straightaway even if your car doesn't go into a garage till next week:

lisyloo wrote:

will the MIB put your car in a garage the next week and give you a hire car straightaway like with fully comp........

You are absolutely not entitled to repairs and hire car free of charge and free of any liability up front without full comp.

Those who for whatever reason choose to drive with third party cover are aware they would have more cover with fully comp, but some of us have to make do with what we can afford, and look in awe at the other side of the tracks where you seemingly live!

(BTW, did your poor cleaner end up doing you some free ironing for you to make up for losing your key?)

lisyloo

You are now saying you weren't arguing about hire cars being supplied with comp. cover and not with third party, but that was the thrust of your argument, where you pointed out hire cars with credit hire had some liability. You even argued you get a hire car straightaway even if your car doesn't go into a garage till next week:

I am getting a bit confused, so let me straighten it out.

The thrust of what I am saying is not that you won't get paid out if you are not fully comp, but that either
1) it will take a long time if you wait for 3rd party insurer or MIB to pay out.
OR
2) you have to pay up front yourself
OR
3) You have to get some sort of credit hire/management team involved and there are cons in that case in terms of the liabiilty you have to accept.

The pros of fully comp are
1) Getting you car back on the road ASAP
2) Getting yourself back on the road with a courtesy car whilst your car is being repaired.
This is in addition to any rights you would have anyway to hire cars and uninsured losses.

I fully accept there are some caveats/cons to fully comp
1) you lose you NCB even if only temporarily
2) You won't get a courtesy car if no repairs e.g. write off
3) You might not get an ideal car. For example if might not have a roof rack or tow bar or have as many door or seats.

You can of course in addition pay extra for legal cover (uninsured loss recover) and guranteed courtesy car.

Those who for whatever reason choose to drive with third party cover are aware they would have more cover with fully comp, but some of us have to make do with what we can afford, and look in awe at the other side of the tracks where you seemingly live!

Ah right now we start getting personal.
Last year I scrapped a H reg 19 year old car that had done 130K miles, so I'm not sure what you mean by look "in awe".
I have certainly had third party cover for it (and I'vve also lent it out too being fully aware of the risks).

I am not making an judgement on what cover people take.
It's a CHOICE.
The important thing is that people are aware of the risks and get something suitable for them and their cirucmstances
For most people there is very much a distinction between taking risks with your own property and that of other people.
There is an emotional and relationship risk if you damage someone else's property particularly if they rely on it for their livelihood and this is a fair point originally made by Dan.

BTW, did your poor cleaner end up doing you some free ironing for you to make up for losing your key?

I am not sure what you mean by "poor cleaner".
She left the keys to my house in her glove compartment. We are the victims of her risk taking and she understands she is not to do that. She took a risks with OUR property which is exactly what we are discusing here.
No she didn't do free ironing.
We paid for the locks and my husband changed it DIY, so it was our money and our time.
What does that unfortunately incident where someone else made an error of judgement have to do with anything???

kev.s

Quentin wrote: »

You can drive it, but can't leave it parked on a road/public place.

you cannot drive it, the other car needs to be insured also, common sense would tell you this, or a call to the insurance company

Quentin

kev.s wrote: »

you cannot drive it, the other car needs to be insured also, common sense would tell you this...

Dunno what you mean?

Unless you are trolling by suggesting I have none?

Quentin

Dan_Smith wrote: »

They never actually said they were given permission by the son to drive his car under the op DOC, that is what I meant. If the son had fully comp he may not be happy for his father driving it only third party.

Are you now trying to say the OP is a twocer?

Course he isn't - and even if he were, what's his son gonna do - shop him? Come off it!

lisyloo

and even if he were, what's his son gonna do

It could start a family feud.
That's the point about the potential relationship damage.

It's a bit different being cross with your cleaner than having a serious grievance with a close family member.

Personally I'd take the bus/get a taxi.
I know from personal experience that borrowing other people's stuff can go badly wrong if you don't treat it as THEY expect.
The point is that the insurance should be done on THEIR terms and not yours (whatever that happens to be).

But why don't we just all agree that Quentin is 100% correct and I'm a really wicked person for firstly having a cleaner in the first place but also outrageously bad for expecting her to offer to cover the cost of her mistake.

Settled? :-)