Had an accident.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

!!!!!! wrote: »

Are you sure that you also have Fire & Theft on top of Third Party?

Quite, if you think about it, theft and fire are not relevant to the driver and would always represent a double insurance.

System

Well Saga site states 'Driving other cars (Third Party only)'

As you say, Fire & Theft aren't relevant to the driver so DOC only gives Third Party only cover to the driver. They provide absolutely no cover for the non-owned vehicle that you are driving

spacey2012

On allowing to be driven without insurance.
The test for prosecution is "due diligence"
Sight of an insurance certificate that later turned out to be cancelled or falsified is due diligence .
"They said they had insurance is not"

Last time I raised this, a flame war erupted, if they care to check back they will see that they got prosecuted exactly as I said they would do.

Taking somebody else's "word" for it they have insurance is not a valid defence, along with I thought they did.

I would also be very careful about trying to bribe the other driver off not to reveal the facts.
If it goes wrong, you will both be getting porridge for breakfast.

ricky_v

Strider590 wrote: »

Not many people seem to know this, but fully comp insurance no longer gives you TPFT on other vehicles.

It is also possible to have TPO cover on other vehicles with a TPFT/TPO policy. A few people seem to be taken back and insist I must have fully comp cover for the clause to apply when I tell them I've got a riding other bikes clause with a TPFT policy

System

I am not denying that though I think Iolanthe07 was under the impression that he/she had TPF&T cover on DOC which will not be the case.

Fully comp was being discussed because that was the level of cover that the OP was talking about

iolanthe07

!!!!!! wrote: »

Are you sure that you also have Fire & Theft on top of Third Party?

Yes - you're right. Third Party only, but it does mean I can drive other cars in an emergency and take a chance with the fire and theft bit. I would be driving legally, which is the point.

dacouch

spacey2012 wrote: »

On allowing to be driven without insurance.
The test for prosecution is "due diligence"
Sight of an insurance certificate that later turned out to be cancelled or falsified is due diligence .
"They said they had insurance is not"

Last time I raised this, a flame war erupted, if they care to check back they will see that they got prosecuted exactly as I said they would do.

Taking somebody else's "word" for it they have insurance is not a valid defence, along with I thought they did.

I would also be very careful about trying to bribe the other driver off not to reveal the facts.
If it goes wrong, you will both be getting porridge for breakfast.

Which case was it that was prosecuted as there are certain circumstances where case law dictates you have not aided and abeted?

lesalanos

iolanthe07 wrote: »

Yes - you're right. Third Party only, but it does mean I can drive other cars in an emergency and take a chance with the fire and theft bit. I would be driving legally, which is the point.

You don't need fire and theft cover on somebody elses car, thats the point being made

Aretnap

Does your own insurance certificate say (something to the effect of) "the policyholder may also drive, with the permission of the owner, a private motor car not owned by the policyholder and not leased to him under a hire purchase agreement"? If it does, your own insurance policy covers you to drive your dad's car. If it doesn't, it doesn't, and unless you were named on your day's policy you weren't insured.

If you weren't covered by your own policy or your dad's, your dad's insurers can be forced to pay for the third party's damage under section 151 of the Road Traffic Act, but if they do they can subsequently insist that you, or your dad, reimburse them for the money they have to pay out. A potentially expensive mistake - I hope the damage wasn't too serious, and that the third party doesn't add to the bill by developing whiplash.

AdrianC

spacey2012 wrote: »

On allowing to be driven without insurance.
The test for prosecution is "due diligence"
Sight of an insurance certificate that later turned out to be cancelled or falsified is due diligence .
"They said they had insurance is not"

...Taking somebody else's "word" for it they have insurance is not a valid defence, along with I thought they did.

I doubt there's any blanket rule, and in reality the "due diligence" would vary according to the relationship between the parties. A parent taking the word of their child is a very different story to somebody selling a car taking the word of a random test-driver they've never met before.