Driving another car with owners permission

Quentin

Dan_Smith wrote: »

As I've said and lisyloo has agreed with me......

I have no issue with DOC and it should really be used on a temp basis.....

Well.......

1) Glad you are in unison with Lisyloo - maybe you should consider booking a room together!

2) The OP clearly understands about "permission". (See the thread title).

3) Why should you only use DOC on a temp basis? Who says that, and what do you mean by "temp"?

Dan_Smith

Quentin wrote: »

Well.......

1) Glad you are in unison with Lisyloo - maybe you should consider booking a room together!

2) The OP clearly understands about "permission". (See the thread title).

3) Why should you only use DOC on a temp basis? Who says that, and what do you mean by "temp"?

1) Childish.

2) The op didn't actually say they got permission from the son to drive his car under the fathers DOC, or did the father even explain to the son it's only third party? I've come across people with the attitude of "I've got fully comp insurance it covers me to drive other/any cars fully comp..." (when it's usually only third party or even no cover at all sometimes).

3) Temp = Temporary. Using DOC (if only third party) on a temp basis was just my opinion, financially it may not be worth on a regular basis.

Quentin

Dan_Smith wrote: »

1) Childish.

2) The op didn't actually say they got permission from the son to drive his car under the fathers DOC, or did the father even explain to the son it's only third party? I've come across people with the attitude of "I've got fully comp insurance it covers me to drive other/any cars fully comp..." (when it's usually only third party or even no cover at all sometimes).

3) Temp = Temporary. Using DOC (if only third party) on a temp basis was just my opinion, financially it may not be worth on a regular basis.

1) What do you expect when you use Lisyloo agreeing with you in your post, !!!!!! difference does it make who agrees with who?

2) The OP didn't have to tell us his arrangements with his son to ask his question. But as he put "with permission" in the thread title, and referred to it in his opening sentence only a pedant would keep arguing "he never actually said it"

3) So what difference does it make "financially" how regularly you use DOC extension? You pay for it for the year when you take out your policy. You don't pay each time you use it! The more you use it the better it is financially as you are getting more value out of your policy.

Quentin

Now we are in a complete circle.

Anyone using third party insurance does so in the knowledge that if they damage their own vehicle they have to pay for the repairs or scrap the car! Using DOC third party cover is no different in this to any paid for third party policy.

It's all some people want/need!

Let them make their choice! (This all started with you pasing your opinion that driving third party isn't something you would do, then expanding to tell us (again in your opinion) we should only drive third party on a "temp" basis.

And then advising the OP to take out temp fully comp policy! Money saving is the name of the game in case you didn't realise.

All he wanted to know was could he continue to drive the car now its own insurance has expired!

Dan_Smith

Quentin wrote: »

Let them make their choice! (This all started with you pasing your opinion that driving third party isn't something you would do, then expanding to tell us (again in your opinion) we should only drive third party on a "temp" basis.

Not true, actually I said:

Dan_Smith wrote: »

I wouldn't risk driving someone else's car with third party cover with all the winter weather that's on the way.

I don't think I could've been any clearer, DOC is fine but personally I wouldn't in winter weather (maybe move a car that is blocking me that's about it). The amount of accidents do increase in winter weather.

Yes I agree people should make their choices, I was only advising on the side of caution.

wrote:

And then advising the OP to take out temp fully comp policy! Money saving is the name of the game in case you didn't realise.

Money saving is one thing, but it isn't very money saving if you have to repay the registered keeper thousands of the car you've written off (worst if you can't afford it). Also we don't know if the op could afford to repay for the sons car if he did write it off, family feuds aren't worth it in my opinion over saving a bit of money if the worst was to happen.

Quentin let's just agree to disagree.

lisyloo

Anyone using third party insurance does so in the knowledge that if they damage their own vehicle they have to pay for the repairs or scrap the car!

You've been around here long enough Quentin to know this is not always the case.
We do have people on this board with TPO who are suprised they aren't covered. I KNOW I can pull up threads on this (and you do too).
There are plenty of threads all over these boards where people have NOT understood the risks they are taking both generally and also specifically TPO cover.

Why do you have such an issue with people pointing out risks which may not be readily apparent to everyone?
That's surely one of the posistive aspects of these boards.

I'm sure all the points are readily apparent to someone like yourself, but that certainly isn't the case with the average poster/lurker.

vikingaero

If you have a high net worth policy with Hiscox or Chubb then you can have a DOC extension that covers you fully comp on other vehicles. (I suspect there will be an exclusion on supercars or classic cars)

ILW

lisyloo wrote: »

You've been around here long enough Quentin to know this is not always the case.
We do have people on this board with TPO who are suprised they aren't covered. I KNOW I can pull up threads on this (and you do too).
There are plenty of threads all over these boards where people have NOT understood the risks they are taking both generally and also specifically TPO cover.

Why do you have such an issue with people pointing out risks which may not be readily apparent to everyone?
That's surely one of the posistive aspects of these boards.

I'm sure all the points are readily apparent to someone like yourself, but that certainly isn't the case with the average poster/lurker.

Surely anybody that stupid should not be let loose on public roads.

lisyloo

Surely anybody that stupid should not be let loose on public roads.

I'm afraid they are and if you search you'll find examples on these forums.
There is nothing enforced in this respect.
You only have to have third party cover by law, there is no exam that you have any understanding of it.
This board is almost exclusively full of problems where people have DIYed their insurance (most of them admittedly at the more subtle end of the spectrum).

System

lisyloo wrote: »

You only have to have third party cover by law

Wrong, the minimum cover required by law is Road Traffic Act insurance.