Vehicle question

Bluefalls

Sorry OP didn't want to start an argument between people trying to help you out. :eek:

Feeling that I'm defending myself here because I get that impression that another member is trying to say that I'm breaking the law or pulling a fast one in some way.

My Parents own the car, My father is the Registered Keeper and Owner and is legally responsible for the car.
I have an insurance policy (complete with documents) with Direct Line in MY name which states I have fully comp insurance and that I'm not the legal owner or registered keeper of the car.
We pay the upkeep on the car (pointing out here according to DVLA it is my fathers legal responsibility as the registered keeper to ensure it is all taken care of (TAX, MOT etc ).

I checked with DVLA when we came to the agreement who said the registered keeper doesn't have to be the main driver (it should be noted we live at the same address which may make things simpler).

I called Direct Line to organise insurance who had no problems with it.

I have checked with DVLA and My insurance company and this is perfectly legal and above board.

I'm not going to argue about it with people who "know better" but both DVLA and the Insurance company were consulted and informed of the situation and if there was a problem I believe one of them would have flagged an issue and not ok'd it and in the case of the Insurance company issued the printed documents.

Sorry if this comes across wrong but i'm feeling a little attacked here when all i'm trying to do is help.

So basically OR it is possible to insure a car you don't own but your situation will clearly be different to ours (business use for one) and insurance companies change terms and conditions regularly so who knows what the rules will be when/if you find a solution.

alastairq

I think the 'argument' stemmed from a poster's correct assertion regarding 'fronting'...ie, a person taking out a policy, the proposal for which[ and premium] would be calculated on the information that person discloses.

Then adding a second driver to the policy [who, it is assumed, if they had made the proposal themselves, the outcome would have been a much higher premium?}..


In that instance, the policyholder should be, the 'main user'....

Nothing to do with RK, or ownership of the property.


Worth noting, however..to confirm if the car is showing up on the MID as insured?

chunx

Bluefalls wrote: »

Feeling that I'm defending myself here because I get that impression that another member is trying to say that I'm breaking the law or pulling a fast one in some way.

Sorry if this comes across wrong but i'm feeling a little attacked here when all i'm trying to do is help..

I am not at all inferring anything of the sort nor did I infer anyone was breaking the law. All information that was posted was to try and help readers of this thread check all facts with an insurance company before taking out any policy as the time you really use that policy is when someone has to claim.

If the insurance company have been made aware, they cannot repudiate your claim when one is made in the future.

It is a grey area about "descriptions" or "term" the individual insurers use. If you speak to an insurer and give them all the facts, make a note of their name, time and date called and details of what was discussed. This will add credence to any future claim if they dispute that material acts were undisclosed.

Always check the terms and conditions, the assumptions before any quote and all documents including policy booklet. The policy booklet will often have definition of terms such as "policy holder" or "registered keeper".

I hope that the starter of the thread is able to sort their predicament out. It's not easy being BR and we all have experience of that. Most people posting on here (inc myself) will aim to provide information based on personal or professional experiences. Its how you use the information for your circumstances that matter.

chunx

alastairq wrote: »

I think the 'argument' stemmed from a poster's correct assertion regarding 'fronting'...ie, a person taking out a policy, the proposal for which[ and premium] would be calculated on the information that person discloses.

Then adding a second driver to the policy [who, it is assumed, if they had made the proposal themselves, the outcome would have been a much higher premium?}..


In that instance, the policyholder should be, the 'main user'....

Nothing to do with RK, or ownership of the property.

Worth noting, however..to confirm if the car is showing up on the MID as insured?

Thanks alastairq - summed up perfectly!

Bluefalls

alastairq wrote: »

Worth noting, however..to confirm if the car is showing up on the MID as insured?

Hi,

The Tax was renewed online last month does the online system check the MID database? I thought it might as when I've taxed at the post office in the past I needed to take in insurance etc. but someone else might know more.

Bluefalls

chunx wrote: »

You cannot insure a car which you are not the registered keeper of.

Just to clear something up the "argument" started when the above was posted and two people informed the poster they were wrong. One stated a real life example and the poster then went on to make comments about fronting and illegal activity etc.

That is where i will leave the thread. Good luck OP.

art_for_arts_sake

Teen_the_Drama_Queen wrote: »

art for arts sake.... I don't think anyone could say a car is a luxury nowadays, its a necessity. If you work/have children/elderly parents etc etc there are not enough hours in a day to walk every where or rely on public transport. A car is not necessarily wanted as a status symbol, its just what you need to have to continue to work and live.

After you factor in the total cost of owning a car it soon becomes apparent just how much of a luxury cars really are. Many people are blind to just how much a car costs to run, (I've known people work just to keep a car on the road) but as well as taking a significant part of your income another cost is to your health. I must confess to owning a car, but I cycle more miles on my bike than in my car. I used to drive to work, but my wife, a non-driver, made me realise just how unfit my reliance on my car was making me. Unless I absolutely need to use my car now it doesn't get used. I've seen a financial and health benefit, and so would anyone else prepared to give it a try.

By using his own car for business use, the OP is subsidising his employer's business and invalidating his own insurance.

sniggings

cars are expensive but bus prices are getting crazy, not only do you have to wait for a bus but walk to the nearest bus stop, then pay £2.50 for a 10-15 min ride. a 10 min car journey takes maybe an hour on the bus, by the time you walk to the stop and wait etc so it may be luxury for some but still needed by many just to get on with day today living.

alastairq

I have access to public transport!

One bus a day, each way.

Using the bus, I can barely get to work on time.

On leaving work, the journey takes 3/4 hour longer!

There is a 1/2 hour walk from bus stop to workplace,and back again.

Fares are approximately £10 return.

And there are two buses to catch....[assuming, in the morning, one will wait for the other!]

Distance by bus, approx. 18 miles each way.

Time away from home, over 12 hours for a normal, 8 hour working day.

As against my car......journey time 20 minutes each way...with an average fuel consumption of 48 mpg's [15 1/2 mile distance each way]....running costs down to bare minimum [do my own servicing/repairs]....

Plus universal availability of transport.

No contest, the car wins hand's down!

To use a bicycle would be ridiculous and probably dangerous....especially wintertime [ 15 miles of rural routes]....


The argument of 'moving house closer to work' is a valid one.......however, offsetting the reduced costs of travel are the increased levels of rent....where I live, distance from general work areas means lower rents on average.....therefore, higher rent averages offset reduced travel costs.

Also, one's rent doesn't reduce because it's a weekend or one is on holiday from work...or sick.


This day and age, a car [or equivalent] is as essential to normal living as a fridge.

Society as a whole in this country is organised around access to a car.

[where do you shop these days....and what surrounds that shop?]

So it isn't a luxury, but a necessity, for a large minority. [if you happen to be lucky/unlucky enough to live within a large urban conurbation, with all facilities close to hand, and a comprehensive public transport system, then the opposite might apply, I agree.....but I don't, and I suspect an awful lot of other contributors to this forum don't.]

neverdespairgirl

It depends a lot on where you live. Where I live, in central London, driving is a very bad idea - traffic, nightmare expensive parking, congestion zone, etc.

We do have a car, but it's a luxury we choose to pay for. Not much of one, being worth almost nothing and ancient, but still a choice, rather than necessity. We don't, for example, use the car for supermarket shopping, school runs, or commuting.

We get around by walking, cycling, buses (cheap, £1.20 for any distance within London), trains, tubes, etc.