car insurance - driving other cars?

Yolina

OP: just check the definition *your* insurer use in your policy booklet or on their website. Things can and do vary.

For example mine (LV) defines "partner" as "your husband, wife, civil partner or partner you are permanently living with" however in my "driving other cars" section it doesn't exclude cars owned by a partner, and only stipulates that I don't own that car and that it's not registered to me.

Though if I were to regularly drive someone else's car / let them use mine, I'd just make sure we are added to each other's policies as named drivers

thenudeone

Tilt wrote: »

DOC will normally allow you to drive another person's car on a third party basis providing it has a policy of it's own and is not owned by you.

The bit in bold is not necessarily correct. It depends on what your policy states. The rest is usually correct, although "owned by you" is usually followed by words to exclude cars registered, hired, or leased to you.

My policy with LV DOES NOT require the vehicle to have it's own specific policy http://www.lv.com/upload/lv-rebrand-2009/pdfs/insurance/car/21121973_lv-motor-doi.pdf but many people state that their policy DOES have that as a requirement.

Many people get very confused but it's quite simple. There are two separate laws which apply to separate classes of people in different circumstances. You can't mix'n'match the offences.
1) the driver or user (for example an employer) must be covered by insurance when using or driving (this law has been around for decades) RTA s143 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143
2) the KEEPER must have a policy specifically covering the vehicle unless it's declared off the road (law passed in 2006) RTA s144A http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/144A

If you have DOC cover which covers you and doesn't require the car to have its own policy, the fact that the keeper may not have a specific policy is entirely their problem. Only the keeper can be convicted of that offence.

Tilt

thenudeone wrote: »

The bit in bold is not necessarily correct. It depends on what your policy states. The rest is usually correct, although "owned by you" is usually followed by words to exclude cars registered, hired, or leased to you.

But it would be correct if the OP's policy stipulates it which is why I used the word 'normally'.

thenudeone wrote: »

My policy with LV DOES NOT require the vehicle to have it's own specific policy http://www.lv.com/upload/lv-rebrand-2009/pdfs/insurance/car/21121973_lv-motor-doi.pdf but many people state that their policy DOES have that as a requirement.

Quite so there was little point making the comment as it simply complicates matters to an already confused OP who has already pointed out that both she and her 'partner' both have their respected policies.

thenudeone wrote: »

Many people get very confused but it's quite simple. There are two separate laws which apply to separate classes of people in different circumstances. You can't mix'n'match the offences.
1) the driver or user (for example an employer) must be covered by insurance when using or driving (this law has been around for decades) RTA s143 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143
2) the KEEPER must have a policy specifically covering the vehicle unless it's declared off the road (law passed in 2006) RTA s144A http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/144A

Again all very interesting and quite correct but not relevant here.

thenudeone wrote: »

If you have DOC cover which covers you and doesn't require the car to have its own policy, the fact that the keeper may not have a specific policy is entirely their problem. Only the keeper can be convicted of that offence.

Again, the OP has already stated that both she and her 'partner' have respective policies which means both cars will be insured under them in their own right so you point is not relevant and will only confuse the OP further.

The 'nuts and bolts' of the OPs issue is; is there any definition in her (or his) policy to what is regarded as being a 'partner' which would not provide TP cover when driving each other's cars. I reckon that as they do not co-habitate, they will more than likely not be regarded to be partners as far as insurance purposes are concerned.

Buellguy

Tilt wrote: »

But it would be correct if the OP's policy stipulates it which is why I used the word 'normally'.



Quite so there was little point making the comment as it simply complicates matters to an already confused OP who has already pointed out that both she and her 'partner' both have their respected policies.



Again all very interesting and quite correct but not relevant here.



Again, the OP has already stated that both she and her 'partner' have respective policies which means both cars will be insured under them in their own right so you point is not relevant and will only confuse the OP further.

The 'nuts and bolts' of the OPs issue is; is there any definition in her (or his) policy to what is regarded as being a 'partner' which would not provide TP cover when driving each other's cars. I reckon that as they do not co-habitate, they will more than likely not be regarded to be partners as far as insurance purposes are concerned.

Which is why she needs to phone them to clarify

Stoffy

Hi,

Sorry for threadjacking, just after a bit of Car insurance advice.

I'm a new driver about to buy a car and have been quoted £1400 approx for my 1st years insurance (fully comp). This is adding my partner onto the insurance as a 2nd driver who has been driving for 6 years with 5 years no claims.

I have checked how much the insurance is if she were to buy the car and fully register it in her name and adds me as a 2nd driver - £800 approx.

I just wondered if this is legal as I will be driving the car mostly however, she will also drive it a lot of the time.

I'm new to all this so not sure if it is ok to do this or not. Any advice would be appreciated. Seems like if its ok to do we can save £600.

Cheers

Sgt_Pepper_2

Stoffy wrote: »

Hi,

Sorry for threadjacking, just after a bit of Car insurance advice.

I'm a new driver about to buy a car and have been quoted £1400 approx for my 1st years insurance (fully comp). This is adding my partner onto the insurance as a 2nd driver who has been driving for 6 years with 5 years no claims.

I have checked how much the insurance is if she were to buy the car and fully register it in her name and adds me as a 2nd driver - £800 approx.

I just wondered if this is legal as I will be driving the car mostly however, she will also drive it a lot of the time.

I'm new to all this so not sure if it is ok to do this or not. Any advice would be appreciated. Seems like if its ok to do we can save £600.

Cheers

1. You would have been better starting your own thread.
2. If she takes out the policy you need to declare yourself as the main driver.

heartbreak_star

Stoffy wrote: »

Hi,

Sorry for threadjacking, just after a bit of Car insurance advice.

I'm a new driver about to buy a car and have been quoted £1400 approx for my 1st years insurance (fully comp). This is adding my partner onto the insurance as a 2nd driver who has been driving for 6 years with 5 years no claims.

I have checked how much the insurance is if she were to buy the car and fully register it in her name and adds me as a 2nd driver - £800 approx.

I just wondered if this is legal as I will be driving the car mostly however, she will also drive it a lot of the time.

I'm new to all this so not sure if it is ok to do this or not. Any advice would be appreciated. Seems like if its ok to do we can save £600.

Cheers

This is called "fronting" and it's illegal. Mainly used by parents and young drivers.

HBS x

ali-t

Problem solved. For the princely sum of £20 I can add him as a named driver and they said they would put him down as partner even though we don't live together, have no formal committment etc.

redux

ali-t wrote: »

Problem solved. For the princely sum of £20 I can add him as a named driver and they said they would put him down as partner even though we don't live together, have no formal committment etc.

Good. I was getting ready to suggest that and could not understand why nobody else had. Much better than chancing only third party cover.

Tilt

redux wrote: »

Good. I was getting ready to suggest that and could not understand why nobody else had. Much better than chancing only third party cover.

Funny I was just about to as well... :A