driving girlfriends insured car-add my name to policy or not?

Quentin

Norman_Castle wrote: »

You haven't corrected my advice. There is nothing "dangerous" in what I have said. If you want to help the OP, try explaining your thinking.

OK.

Norm is dangerously incorrect here:

Norman_Castle wrote:

Depending on the policies driving other cars on your insurance is normally third party only and I think named drivers have equal cover to the policyholder.

Named drivers don't normally get the same cover as the policyholder regarding driving other cars. So named drivers who drive other cars than the one they are named to drive will be driving uninsured.

To spell out how "dangerous" this is, apart from getting points and a conviction if caught, any damage/injury done to a third party would result in the insurer or MIB involved chasing the uninsured driver to reimburse them.

In the case of injury this could run to millions.

(Dangerous enough for you Norman?)

vaio

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Whilst for high street policies this is true, for HNW policies like Chubb not only is the DOC cover comprehensive but it also is for all people covered by the policy.

yep, and things between companies as well as changing over time.

When I started at age 17 my *economy* LNW policy included DOV cover which covered cars, bikes, vans and presumably lorries & tractors too. Mind you, back in those days you could also get true "any driver" cover at sensible prices

As always the advice has to be read the policy rather than rely on memory or non specific advice from the web

stugib

Quentin wrote: »

Named drivers don't normally get the same cover as the policyholder regarding driving other cars. So named drivers who drive other cars than the one they are named to drive will be driving uninsured.

I read Norman's post differently.

The OP asked whether DOC meant he didn't have to add each other as a named driver.

Norman's reply I took as: DOC is TPO, named driver is same as full policy cover. Therefore if don't just want DOC, need to add as named drivers.

Quentin

stugib wrote: »

I read Norman's post differently.

Yes, his post was (at best) ambiguous, as has already been stated!

InsideInsurance

vaio wrote: »

When I started at age 17 my *economy* LNW policy included DOV cover which covered cars, bikes, vans and presumably lorries & tractors too. Mind you, back in those days you could also get true "any driver" cover at sensible prices

Was that back in the days when the policy was carved into stone tablets? :A

thenudeone

ShootForTheMoon wrote: »

As for carrying a certificate everywhere, whilst it's handy to have one, it doesn't hold much weight when the Police stop you as all information is on the Police National Computer directly from the Motor Insurance Buerau

More scaremongering.

The MIB database is not 100% accurate and the lack of an entry is not sufficient on its own to justify seizure. The legislation covering seizure doesn't even mention the database.

If you have been issued with a certificate and haven't been informed of a policy's cancellation then a court will almost always rule that the policy is still in force, since the process for cancellation wasn't complied with.

This may be 2013 but the certificate of insurance is still an extremely important document.
- If you haven't been issued with one, your policy is not valid as far as the criminal law is concerned, and you can still be prosecuted http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/147
- And as long as you produce to police a certificate which is valid, then any seizure would automatically be unlawful (regardless of whether the police think it's valid or not, or even if the insurer tells the police it isn't valid - as in http://cases.iclr.co.uk/nxt/gateway.dll/WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2011-214?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&vid=PoC:Sum)

ShootForTheMoon

The stated case above is slightly different in that the driver had written permission, AND his insurance policy covered him sufficiently to drive a friend's car - of course, in this case, the seizure was unlawful.

As for the MIB, where the insurance company is not contactable to confirm the validity and details if the policy, the reality is that the MIB database would be what most Police officers (and the authorising Inspector) would work off (say in the early hours of the morning) to initially seize a vehicle. Should that then turn out to be not actually the case, the force would pay the costs of the vehicle seizure - but still a massive inconvenience to the driver at best!

Either way, the most important point being double check your documents and you won't go far wrong!

spacey2012

In the real world, the police do not give two monkeys, if they even mildly suspect you have no insurance, they will lift the car.
If your car is not on MID, they will ask you which company and call them, that is about all you get.
If you are driving someone else's car on third party and do not have your certificate, they will lift the car.
Is this legal ?
They do not care, you can argue it in court, it is not their money.

vaio

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Was that back in the days when the policy was carved into stone tablets? :A

Not quite...was back in '75 when the Physics Dept at Cardiff University had *one* computer and the lower order students were allowed to use a HP RNP calculator that was chained to the bench.

Been a lot of [STRIKE]progress[/STRIKE] changes since then

Norman_Castle

Quentin wrote: »

OK.

Norm is dangerously incorrect here:



Named drivers don't normally get the same cover as the policyholder regarding driving other cars. So named drivers who drive other cars than the one they are named to drive will be driving uninsured.

To spell out how "dangerous" this is, apart from getting points and a conviction if caught, any damage/injury done to a third party would result in the insurer or MIB involved chasing the uninsured driver to reimburse them.

In the case of injury this could run to millions.

(Dangerous enough for you Norman?)

There is nothing dangerous about being incorrectly insured. Insurance policies cover losses. They do not protect from danger.