Driving other cars extension.

Quentin

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

It hasn't been on my previous certificates.

In your OP you say you have changed companies.

Each company makes its own policy conditions. Your new one os different to your previous one in this respect.

If you aren't happy, and you are still within the cooling off period, then cancel and go elsewhere to one of the many companies who don't have this condition.

[Deleted User]

Quentin wrote: »

If you aren't happy

I didn't say I wasn't happy.

This thread isn't by way of a complaint, or asking for advice.

Quentin

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I didn't say I wasn't happy.

This thread isn't by way of a complaint, or asking for advice.

Is it a riddle then?

Herzlos

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

There has been quite a lot of debate over the years, about using a DOC extension, to drive another vehicle, in particular, whether it needs to be insured by the owner.

Well, I've just changed insurers, and the new certificate states:-



I realise this isn't definitive, WRT other companies, but it may be that insurance companies are tightening up on this area.

What's changed? That's always how I've understood it.

To drive another car under the DOC extension, that other car has always had to be owned by someone else and insured in a separate policy, in order to prevent fraud. It also means the car is insured when it's not being driven.

Gloomendoom

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Not the DOC statement (that was on the certificates), but the bit about the car being already insured.

Ah, I see.

It hasn't changed on my policies, or my wife's. None of them require the car to be already insured.

If they did, they would say so.

Herzlos wrote: »

What's changed? That's always how I've understood it.

To drive another car under the DOC extension, that other car has always had to be owned by someone else and insured in a separate policy, in order to prevent fraud. It also means the car is insured when it's not being driven.

No, the car hasn't always had to be insured in a separate policy, nor does it now unless a particular policy requires that to be the case. However, to drive a car without a separate policy has always been risky for the very reason you mention. In effect, as long as the car is on the public road, you can't get out of the driving seat or the owner would be committing an offence.

Mind you, these days, the owner is already committing an offence by not having the car insured in the first place.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Tobster86 wrote: »

Incidentally, why in Poland, with 5x the fatality rate and the same compensation culture as here, does it only cost about £150 a year to fully insure anything AND anyone can then drive it?

I would think it costs less to fix a Trabant or a Wartburg than many of the modern vehicles on the road in this country, and blacksmiths will probably do most of the repairs anyway. Plus I bet they don't have our insurance tax or the crooks all pretending to have whiplash

forgotmyname

One of the big grey area's which had never been proven either way.

But any car not insured now should be SORN'd And not allowed on the road until it has a policy with that vehicle listed.

Insurers are backing that up saying if its not insured by another person then you cannot drive it.

dacouch

forgotmyname wrote: »

One of the big grey area's which had never been proven either way.

It was never a grey area, an Insurance Policy is a contract, if the contract did not stipulate that (Assuming you had D.O.C) the other car had to be insured then it did not have to be insured.

A small handful of companies used to have a wording in the Policy Booklet that the other car had to be insured. Companies have only just started putting it on their RTA Certificates.

The chances are that the companies that just relied on the wording in their policy booklet would have had to pay third party claims as the certificate did not stipulate the other car had to be covered.