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

UsernameAlreadyExists

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Insurance was being paid, yes, but not the right insurance to cover you for that journey according to the rules.

Indeed. "the rules". who's rules?

If one insurer refuses to pay out, then it'll come out of the "pot". The pot is funded by insurance premiums, which I am paying handsomely into. So ... given that I had "paid" insurance (for my car, and twice again for the bikes), and so had the seller ... I am not "shafting" everyone else. But noone can see this point and refer to the "rules" and claim I am making them pay more and some kind of pond scum. Brainwashing success!

In this example ... that extra "£20" would be even more subsidy! (read "profit" for insurance companies). I currently have 4 policies on the go, and yet I can only drive one vehicle at a time. I am, in fact, subsidising more people than alot of others.

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

But I don't see that anyone benefits when people don't play by the rules.

And on the flip side ... the people that do benifit when people play by the rules ... are the insurance companies.

JimmyTheWig

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

You're missing the point. I had paid for insurance. The seller had paid for insurance. So the "share" for the accident (that never happened) has been paid, twice over. My insurance was on a faster, newer, more expensive car with a much higher insurance group that could have caused a whole lot more damage, yet I was driving a significantly inferior car that was cheaper all round. So did I actually increase or decrease the risk? Also, I had paid for 2 motorbike policies that were in force as well but they were tucked safely away in the garage - "not crashing". So how am I "shafting" everyone else?

Ok, I see your point.
Insurance companies assess you for risk. You then pay depending on that risk (plus extra to cover admin, profit, etc).
Some people they judge the risk too high. Other people they judge the risk too low. I would imagine (given they stay in business) then in general they get it about right.

It sounds like in your case they are judging you as a higher risk than you are. For example, you can't drive two motorbikes at once, but I bet you pay more for two motorbike policies than you would for a single one?
But sometimes these things happen. Maybe there is scope for an insurance company to enter the market with a more realistic measure of risk, I don't know. But for now, the current insurers are what we have.

They think it is more risky for you to have been driving that car after you had bought it than before you had bought it. So you needed extra insurance.

It is fair to be charged according to risk. And it wouldn't work to only charge the risk to people who claim.

dacouch

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

So, im my case, given that there was insurance on the car ... be it, with mine under DOC, or still under the seller ... there were 2 insurance policies that had been paid for. So ... where's the problem?

So if you had an accident on the way home after agreeing with the seller that you had not actually bought the car yet. What would happen is his Insurers would be obliged to handle the claim due to the Road Traffic Act.

Do you believe that a person irrespective of whether they a policeman when they realise that there Insurer will come after them for the money and they will lose their no claims bonus etc will continue with the story that they had at that time not sold the car.

If they change their story and say they had sold the car, you would be relying on your DOC which will not cover it due to being your car. The sellers Insurers will then come after you for the money.

I've seen the above happen a few times, unless it's a very small claim where they buyer can afford to pay them off they always end up telling the truth. Insurers are experts at getting their money back as it's fairly easy with normal joe public especially if they own their home

adouglasmhor

I get one of my mates to drive it to mine on his insurance, I or one of our other mates do the same for him if it's needed. No need for these convoluted schemes.

UsernameAlreadyExists

dacouch wrote: »

... Insurers are experts at getting their money back as it's fairly easy with normal joe public especially if they own their home

Whose money?
And what do you mean "get it back"? back from what? Why was the money there in the first place? Oh, that's right ... to cover accidents.
And this is why motor insurance is such a legalised scam.

redux

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I get one of my mates to drive it to mine on his insurance, I or one of our other mates do the same for him if it's needed. No need for these convoluted schemes.

Driving other cars clauses do not give comprehensive cover and are intended mainly for unforeseen contingency, and claims will be thoroughly investigated by the insurers.

That is what a broker told me years ago.

Chopper_Read

redux wrote: »

Driving other cars clauses do not give comprehensive cover and are intended mainly for unforeseen contingency, and claims will be thoroughly investigated by the insurers.

That is what a broker told me years ago.

And?

In those circumstances he's legally covered.

redux

Chopper_Read wrote: »

And?

In those circumstances he's legally covered.

Only for damage to other party vehicles, so friendship could be strained if there is several thousand damage to the new car and it's the friend's fault.

And if the insurers investigate and load or decline future insurance, saving that few quid isn't going to look clever.

Changing the policy in advance needs very little effort. The old version was visit the broker and get a cover note. Nowadays some insurers allow printing the new documents direct from on online account.

Chopper_Read

redux wrote: »

Only for damage to other party vehicles, so friendship could be strained if there is several thousand damage to the new car and it's the friend's fault.

And if the insurers investigate and load or decline future insurance, saving that few quid isn't going to look clever.

Changing the policy in advance needs very little effort. The old version was visit the broker and get a cover note. Nowadays some insurers allow printing the new documents direct from on online account.

And legally you only need third party cover so what are you telling us we don't already know?

dacouch

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

Whose money?
And what do you mean "get it back"? back from what? Why was the money there in the first place? Oh, that's right ... to cover accidents.
And this is why motor insurance is such a legalised scam.

I'll explain, the Road Traffic Act which in effect governs insurance basically means if a car has a certificate of insurance covering that vehicle. Then irrespective of whether the driver eg you having the accident is named / covered by the policy the Insurer by law (RTA) to pay fault claims, this even applies to car thieves providing they're "identified".

As the claim was not covered by the policy but had to be paid, the Insurer (In your case the sellers) will then start the recovery of their outlay from their policyholder. At this stage the seller normally tells the Insurer what actually happened to get themselves off the hook.

The Insurer then armed with the information that you own the car so it's you who is liable, will then come after you to repay the money they paid out for the claim.

That's how the system works when an Insurer pays out under these circumstances. It's not that rare for an Insurer to have to pay out under the RTA and like any other claim they pay, if someone else is liable they will try and recover their money