Going court need help

JQ.

My policy wording is pretty similar and is available at http://www.directline.com/motor/policy.htm. However, it only applies to certain customers - I think you have to be over 25, but I'm not sure. The exact wording is on page 12 - Section A 1b.

poor_student1234

http:// www .pistonheads .com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=932866&mid=0&i=40&nmt=Third-party%20insurance%20on%20uninsured%20car?&mid=0

Yeah ive tried phoning MIB before but the guy who is incharge of my case doesnt seem that bothered.

Another 2 things for tomorrow

1. Phone MIB asking for help to make Quinn take on the claim.

2. Phone the ombudsmen to help make Quinn take on the claim.

Looks like a very busy day for me tomorrow. My accident was in March 2009 and even 1 1/2 year later Quinn are still using the same terms and conditons. They need to be taught a lesson

esmerobbo

There you go.

http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AMC001%200610%20Policy%20Booklet.pdf

Hammyman

poor_student1234 wrote: »

Hi,
Could you tell me what insurance company your with, is there any chance you could also scan a copy so i could use as evidence that other insurers state car must be insured in their terms.

I'm insured with Swiftcover. On my certificate it states:

5. Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive:

Hammyman (main driver) Mrs Hammyman.

The policyholder may also drive with the owner's permission a car not owned by the policyholder and not hired to the policyholder under a hire purchase or annual leasing agreement and is not used in connection with the motor trade. This is provided the owner of the car has valid insurance in force on that car but which does not cover the policyholder of this Policy to drive that car.

esmerobbo wrote:

There you go.

http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AM...%20Booklet.pdf

Section 3, Page 13 in the Admiral link.

JimmyTheWig

OP, I think you seriously need to consider what JQ has been saying.

I personally think that he has been too harsh on you. I certainly think that you believed that what you were doing was fine.
But it does seem slightly odd that you have a car of your own but you regularly drive your dad's car. Plus the fact that your dad never drives his own car.

There could be many legitimate reasons for this (e.g. your dad has become unable to drive since you took out your insurance policy and so you drive his car for him to keep the engine ticking over).
But there could also be dubious reasons for this (e.g. this was a cheaper way for you to be insured on the car that you wanted to drive).

It doesn't really matter what you tell us. It doesn't really matter what we think.

I know that when it comes to court, common sense doesn't always come into it. But lets assume that it will in this case. We should also assume that all the relevant facts will come out during the case.
Now if you were to tell a reasonable person everything there is to know about these cars and their insurance policies, do you think that they would believe you that the car you were driving was your dad's car? Or do you think they would believe that your family had that car so that you could drive it (i.e. it was, in practice, your car)?
If it's the latter then I think you need to do some quick-smart damage limitation. If this is the case then I do feel really, really gutted for you as I do believe you thought you were fine.

JQ.

I must admit I was quite harsh and my view has tempered significantly following the comments of Dacouch. However, I still have very little sympathy for the OP, as I don't think this method of insuring a car is anything a rational person would do and ultimately if you play games with Insurance companies you have to accept the consequences - and it sounds like this is what Quinn rely on. From what Dacouch has said I think the OP will be ok, does not mean I agree with it. After all a contract is a contract.

I could do the same as the OP - let say we have 2 cars in our household, mine and my wifes. Lets say I have a Ferrari, and she has a Skoda.
I could register my wifes car to me and my car to my son, a very generous birthday present! (I know this is not essential)
I could insure her car to me with her as a named driver through Quinn
I would then not insure my car
She could then drive her Skoda as a named driver on my policy, which i could also drive more than her to ensure I am the main driver
I would then drive my son's Ferrari under the Third Party cover I have from my policy on her car.
So we get to drive a Ferrari and a Skoda for the price of one Skoda insurance policy, bargain.

Would I ever do that? No never in a million years. Will I ever own a Ferrari, never in a million years (unless my numbers come up).

JimmyTheWig

Aside from the legality, JQ, your plan would mean (1) only having third party cover on the Ferrari and (2) not being able to tax the Ferrari.

(1) isn't an issue in the OP's case, but in terms of (2) I would be interested to know (as might the court) how the OP's dad taxed the Peugeot. This will all help to identify whether it was a legitimate arrangement or not.

Until we know the real situation we can't judge. Was the OP (a) trying to defraud the insurance company by lying about whose car it is, (b) knowingly using a loophole to keep his costs down or (c) legitimately driving his dad's car under his own policy.
You, JQ, with your latest post sound like you're guessing somewhere between (a) and (b). I'm wondering if it's closer to (c) with a touch of (b).

JQ.

To get tax surely you could just take out an insurance policy, take the cover note to the Post Office and then cancel the policy within the 14 days cooling off period?

JimmyTheWig

JQ. wrote: »

To get tax surely you could just take out an insurance policy, take the cover note to the Post Office and then cancel the policy within the 14 days cooling off period?

I don't know.
But I think that if the OP's dad did this then they are on very shakey ground indeed.

Lum

JQ. wrote: »

I could do the same as the OP - let say we have 2 cars in our household, mine and my wifes. Lets say I have a Ferrari, and she has a Skoda.

But this is a Peugeot 206, not a Ferrari. Frankly I think I'd rather drive the Skoda.