Car Insurance unfair rip off - IN10 conviction

BBF1967

Yes i have the same problem..Having my last insurance costing £560 & now having an IN10 on my liscence has now left me with Quotes of between £2500 & £9000 at the extreme end..How my driving risk has risen so much is a baffler as i still drive exactly the same as before this IN10 was scribbled in pen onto my liscense & the quotes would mean i am trying to be insured wich would technically mean as i would be insured how could my driving & risk possibly justify such an increase...Insurance companies have us all by the BALLS m8ys as theres now alternative ide say... ..

ChopperST

Happened in a very similar way to one of the young lads in our rugby team.

He passed his test and to help fund his shiny new Corsa he took a job delivering Chinese takeaways. Being 17 he didn't realise he needed business class insurance. Obviously the inevitable happened, he got stopped by the police and they informed him of the bad news. 6 points and a conviction. This resulted in him losing his very new licence and obviously the conviction on his record for years to come.

I think the problem here stems in the demise of your typical insurance broker who will assess your needs and advise you on an appropriate policy based on those needs. The driver nowadays is to find the cheapest quote online, which unfortunately means you may unwittingly take out a policy not fit for purpose.

However in reply to the OP I would always check if I was covered to drive another car prior to driving off. The other thing is if you do have an accident then you are only covered third party and may end up fronting a large repair bill for your "friends" car.

When I last added a temporary vehicle to my policy it cost an extra £6.99 for 28 days and that was for a £50k Range Rover.

Harsh lesson learned I'm afraid.

molerat

dacouch wrote: »

To be fair, the small minority of Insurers that stipulate that the car being driven under DOC tend to have the requirement in the policy wording.

The current Sheilas Wheels policy does stipulate it, your RSA policy has no information about DOC in the policy so would be subject to the wording on the Certficate.

Agree here. My Axa cert does not mention other car insurance but the policy document does.

dacouch

molerat wrote: »

Agree here. My Axa cert does not mention other car insurance but the policy document does.

Which due to the Road Traffic Act would mean they have to pay claims against you even if the car was not insured and then try and recover the money from you (Assuming the other car was not insured).

If the requirement for the other car is shown on the certificate, they possibly would not have to pay the claim against you.

kingstreet

Thanks, dacouch.

It is mentioned in the SW Policy Booklet, not on the certificate or the schedule.

So, 1 out of 2 requires the vehicle to be insured. Just shows the importance of checking your own documentation thoroughly - certificate, schedule and policy booklet.

dacouch

The wording is normally contained for the majority of Insurers under the "Liability Section"

Policies issued after 28/01/2013

1b. Driving other cars
If your Schedule says so, your policy provides the same cover as section 1a (above) when you are driving any
other car as long as it is not a car either owned by you or your partner or hired or leased to you or your partner
under a hire purchase or leasing agreement or hired or rented to you or your partner under a car hire or rental
agreement. This cover only applies if:
• the car has been manufactured for the carriage of up to eight people which is designed solely for private
use and has not been designed, constructed or modified to carry goods.
• there is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim
• you have the owner’s permission to drive the car
• the car is insured by the owner
• the car is being driven in the UK
• you still have your car and it has not been sold, written off or damaged beyond cost-effective repair.
We do not cover loss of, or damage to, any other car you drive.
The driving other cars extension cannot be used to secure the release of a motor vehicle which has been seized
by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority.

http://www.sheilaswheels.com/wcm/groups/public/documents/webcontent/sw_motor_policy_booklet.pdf Page 12

Same wording in 8th September 2012 to 27th January 2013

I their website won't let me open the earlier editions they publish.

I knew when you said Sheilas Wheels they would have the wording them being at the cheap and cheerful end of the market. They even have the unenforceable requirement of having an MOT

kingstreet

I deleted a post when I realised I was looking at a 2006 pdf. I then got the up to date version and found it.

Like you, I couldn't open the June 2012 version when we last renewed.

vaio

dacouch wrote: »

Which due to the Road Traffic Act would mean they have to pay claims against you even if the car was not insured and then try and recover the money from you (Assuming the other car was not insured).

If the requirement for the other car is shown on the certificate, they possibly would not have to pay the claim against you.

Doesn't that mean (from an IN10 point of view) that if the certificate says you are insured then no offence even if the policy small print says you aren't?

I'd have thought the whole point of a certificate is to prove you have min RTA cover and if your certificate says you do then you do & any third party claims would be paid.

The "small print" in the policy might mean the insurers could recover their costs from you but that would be a civil rather than criminal matter

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

Doesn't that mean (from an IN10 point of view) that if the certificate says you are insured then no offence even if the policy small print says you aren't?

I'd have thought the whole point of a certificate is to prove you have min RTA cover and if your certificate says you do then you do & any third party claims would be paid.

The "small print" in the policy might mean the insurers could recover their costs from you but that would be a civil rather than criminal matter

Yes the clue is in it being a Road Traffic Act Certificate of Insurance. Whatever the legal document (Certificate) confirming to authorities what is covered for Third Party Cover is what they have to pay out on.

Same principle as this post in that the certificate does not state it must have an MOT. I think I've seen a few posts (Might be on peppipo) stating the police should only be asking the MID office of the Insurers about the information on the certificate.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4374613

Obviously we know the MOT requirement is unenforceable.

barney2005

vaio wrote: »

Welcome to MSE but fail on your first post....

Some (but by no means all) insurers require the other car to be insured in its own right for your DOC cover to be valid.

Very very few (none?) insurers will cover another car you have bought under DOC as invariable the cover is "for car not owned or hired to you"

All will be revealed in the small print of your policy

All three policies in our house have this requirement (three different companies) and it is printed on the certificates. My point was more about the fact that this never used to be a requirement. It has been added in recent years and was not widely reported. I was told about it quite recently and, on checking, found that my policy also requires it.

I accept your point about a newly purchased car - my mistake. It's lucky I have not bought a car recently! However, it used to be useful when test driving a potential purchase as well.