How can you drive home when buying a car from private seller?

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

No, you keep up!

You claimed that the car only needs it's own insurance if 'the doc says so' which is not the case. The car must have it's 'own' insurance to comply with the continuous tax/insurance regs which is the RK's responsibility.

Of course in addition to that, the driver of said car needs adequate cover as well (if it isn't the RK of the car).

Continuous cover has nothing to do with the use of a vehicle under the rta.

Jog on if you can't keep up boy.

Tilt

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Continuous cover has nothing to do with the use of a vehicle under the rta.

I never said it did. But you made a definitive claim that the car does not need it's own cover. I was pointing out that you were incorrect on that point.

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Jog on if you can't keep up boy.

I suggest it's you that needs the running shoes!

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

I never said it did. But you made a definitive claim that the car does not need it's own cover. I was pointing out that you were incorrect on that point.



I suggest it's you that needs the running shoes!

The car doesn't need its own insurance for what is being discussed here. Continuous insurance is not an issue for a test drive or for someone other than the owner is it?

Quentin

Tilt wrote: »

....You claimed that the car only needs it's own insurance if 'the doc says so' which is not the case. The car must have it's 'own' insurance to comply with the continuous tax/insurance regs which is the RK's responsibility.....

A vehicle being driven under DOC doesn't need its own separate insurance to be RTA third party legal. (Unless that endorsement is shown on the dreiver's certificate)

Continuous insurance cover is as you say the RK's responsibility alone!

Chopper_Read

Quentin wrote: »

A vehicle being driven under DOC doesn't need its own separate insurance to be RTA third party legal. (Unless that endorsement is shown on the dreiver's certificate)

Continuous insurance cover is as you say the RK's responsibility alone!

Thank you.

Shame he's just after an argument.

Tilt

Chopper_Read wrote: »

The car doesn't need its own insurance for what is being discussed here. Continuous insurance is not an issue for a test drive or for someone other than the owner is it?

Well if that's the way you want to put it instead of simply agreeing with me and admitting that technically you were incorrect, then that's ok.

I left the thread god knows how many posts ago with a sensible answer to the OP's question based on my own experiences. Since then the 'discussion' (as you put it) has turned into another silly 'contest' between posters.

The simple answer is DOC policies will cover the policy holder for TP cover to drive other vehicles that are not owned or hired by him.

There is clearly a grey area when it comes to test drives but myself, I don't believe in having 'grey areas' when it comes down to insurance as we all know how pedantic the insurance co's can be when it comes to a claim. So, I personally if I wanted to test drive a car, I would not do so unless the seller could come with me. Under those circumstances, I do not see there would be a problem. But the minute you hand over money, it could be construed as you then have become the owner of the car. I simply would not do that whether it's technically correct or not as I wouldn't want to find out the hard way.

Now, I have other things to waste my time on so 'discussion' closed as far as i'm concerned.:cool:

Tilt

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Thank you.

Shame he's just after an argument.

Pot kettle...:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

Well if that's the way you want to put it instead of simply agreeing with me and admitting that technically you were incorrect, then that's ok.

I left the thread god knows how many posts ago with a sensible answer to the OP's question based on my own experiences. Since then the 'discussion' (as you put it) has turned into another silly 'contest' between posters.

The simple answer is DOC policies will cover the policy holder for TP cover to drive other vehicles that are not owned or hired by him.

There is clearly a grey area when it comes to test drives but myself, I don't believe in having 'grey areas' when it comes down to insurance as we all know how pedantic the insurance co's can be when it comes to a claim. So, I personally if I wanted to test drive a car, I would not do so unless the seller could come with me. Under those circumstances, I do not see there would be a problem. But the minute you hand over money, it could be construed as you then have become the owner of the car. I simply would not do that whether it's technically correct or not as I wouldn't want to find out the hard way.

Now, I have other things to waste my time on so 'discussion' closed as far as i'm concerned.:cool:

You knew fine well what I meant when I posted. It was in response to someone saying doc there must be cover on the car. As I said and agreed by others there doesn't. But you for some reason want to argue about continuous cover.

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

Pot kettle...:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Didn't someone once point out you had an extra letter in your name?


Now I know why.

Tilt

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Didn't someone once point out you had an extra letter in your name?


Now I know why.

Yeah, and he didn't like it when I proved him wrong either which is why he resorted to childish insults.