Caught with no insurance

Woody._2

RichGold wrote: »

That is 2 totally different things. Test drives at garages are covered by the garages own trade policy. Why would they not be?

I referred earlier to wanting to drive another private car that is not specifically covered by another policy. For example, you cant have a fully comp policy on your car, borrow one from a friend who has a traders policy and expect to be covered.

After looking around I concede I may have been mislead by the traffic bobby. What I posted has always been true of policies I've held to my knowledge.

Yes you can.

jase1

Woody. wrote: »

Yes you can.

I am prepared to accept that not all insurance policies will be the same. However you are at least as wrong as RichGold, since my insurance certificate (SwiftCover) states the following:

"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."

So, if the car is not insured, my fully comprehensive insurance will not cover it.

It'd be interesting to see which companies do and do not have this stipulation.

RichGold

I was with swift cover last year, and that was partly what I based some of what I said against. Like I said ;

"You cant expect to be covered"

Quentin

jase1 wrote: »

It'd be interesting to see which companies do and do not have this stipulation....

You are the one who authoritatively told us all:

ase1 wrote:

It is standard practice on all insurance policies I have seen that the "driving other vehicles" clause demands that the other car being driven is insured.

Maybe you could tell us all these companies whose "demands" you are referring to?

Swiftcover is hardly a standard insurer! (eg Check out how they deal with NCD if you make a claim for glass breakage!)

jase1

> It is standard practice on all insurance policies I have seen

See that bit in bold?

For reference; the insurers I have seen making this stipulation are, to the best of my recollection: AA, Budget, SwiftCover, RSA echoice, DirectLine and Asda, with none stating otherwise. If I incorrectly extrapolated then I apologise.

Woody._2

jase1 wrote: »

I am prepared to accept that not all insurance policies will be the same. However you are at least as wrong as RichGold, since my insurance certificate (SwiftCover) states the following:

"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."

So, if the car is not insured, my fully comprehensive insurance will not cover it.

It'd be interesting to see which companies do and do not have this stipulation.

I've never had one with that so in the case of my policy I am covered and therefore right.:D

photome

As usual with most posts on the motoring forum it descends in to "I am right".... "no I am right" posts which have pretty much nothing to do with the OPs post

Why?

Have just read my policy (Aviva) and I am entitled to drive any other car with the owners permission and no mention of it having to already be insured.

So I am right

OP your insurance company should have given you notice of cancellation....Did they?

Quentin

photome wrote: »

As usual with most posts on the motoring forum it descends in to "I am right".... "no I am right" posts which have pretty much nothing to do with the OPs post

Why?

I suppose when folk post incorrect info in an authoritative manner it is better to correct them than allow their myths to be perpetuated.