It's my football and I'm going home...

dacouch

The quality of advice on consumer action group can be a bit iffy at the best of times. I pop over there sometimes and generally end up correcting bad advice about insurance.

This thread amused me, the moderator swore blind the other vehicle being driven under driving other cars must have it's own insurance with all Insurers.

When losing the argument rather than accept it they simply close the thread.

Judging from what I've heard they'll probably close my account down with them as they can be a bit touchy.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?437820-Am-i-insured-to-Chauffeur-mate-around-in-his-van-on-his-business-insurance

forgotmyname

Last year my insurer added that clause. The vehicle must be insured in its own right.

But this years insurer dont have that wording.

I guess the next issue is the tax and continuous insurance...

rs65

dacouch wrote: »

The quality of advice on consumer action group can be a bit iffy at the best of times. I pop over there sometimes and generally end up correcting bad advice about insurance.

This thread amused me, the moderator swore blind the other vehicle being driven under driving other cars must have it's own insurance with all Insurers.

When losing the argument rather than accept it they simply close the thread.

Judging from what I've heard they'll probably close my account down with them as they can be a bit touchy.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?437820-Am-i-insured-to-Chauffeur-mate-around-in-his-van-on-his-business-insurance

Staggering.

DL actually told him what he didn't want to hear, but he still doesn't understand:-

Dean: In that case, a comprehensive policy with Direct Line would cover you to drive other cars - this would apply to you as the policyholder only, it gives third party only cover, you must have the owner's permission and it can't be used on a car that's owned or leased by yourself.
You: Thanks for your help, that is all I wanted to hear.

Very sad for the users there who may read his posts and assume he's correct.

dacouch

rs65 wrote: »

Staggering.

DL actually told him what he didn't wanted to hear, but he still doesn't understand:-

Dean: In that case, a comprehensive policy with Direct Line would cover you to drive other cars - this would apply to you as the policyholder only, it gives third party only cover, you must have the owner's permission and it can't be used on a car that's owned or leased by yourself.
You: Thanks for your help, that is all I wanted to hear.

Very sad for the users there who may read his posts and assume he's correct.

I think the DL employee told him what he wanted to hear eg that the car needed it's own insurance. They tried the same with me as you can see from my transcript until they asked someone in underwriting.

The reason I did the IM chat with them as someone on a forum had done the same thing with me before by ringing DL and the customer services operative told them it needed it's own Insurance which is the answer the vast majority of insurance staff have always given out even when their company did not require the car to be covered.

If you ever read any of the CAG forums on other consumer matters, the moderators are very strict on contracts. eg if it doesn't state it in the contract then the company cannot suddenly invent a term. So it's surprising they perpetuate the myth that all insurers require the other car to be covered even when the policy (and cert) do not state it needs it.

I have a feeling my last post with the transcript which disproves them will be deleted by the moderator so it just leaves their transcript stating the car needs it's own insurance

rs65

dacouch wrote: »

I think the DL employee told him what he wanted to hear eg that the car needed it's own insurance.

But in the bit I quoted, Dean doesn't say it needs its own insurance.

dacouch

rs65 wrote: »

But in the bit I quoted, Dean doesn't say it needs its own insurance.

He says it needs it's own insurance for it to be covered and then asks him what his occupation is to validate whether he would qualify for DOC. Once he ascertains he qualifies for DOC he describes what DOC covers.

rs65

dacouch wrote: »

he says it needs it's own insurance for it to be covered and then asks him what his occupation is to validate whether he would qualify for doc. Once he ascertains he qualifies for doc he describes what doc covers and he doesn't mention it needing its own insurance.

............ .

dacouch

Check out the same guy's advice in post two, he is one of their site team as well.

Apart from being morally wrong it's not good advice if the police become involved.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?438820-Clipped-another-car(5-Viewing)-nbsp

Yellabowley

While what you are saying is correct I'd be very careful with this. While you're driving the vehicle you would be covered as you have said but driving is defined as being in control of the direction of travel and propulsion of the vehicle. Whilst parked and locked up you're definitely not driving.

If the Police were to find the vehicle parked up and could confirm that there is not a valid policy in place there's a good chance it would be seized. Of course it would be the owner that is liable for this offence but it often happens that when faced with this scenario the owner claims he didn't know it was gone, reporting it as stolen to get away with it (it's him or you). Then you're looking at Theft of a Motor Vehicle and Driving without insurance anyway as consent is gone.

I know what you're saying is the theory and is correct (and the bloke on CAG is wrong) but in practice it is definitely not worth the risk. Wouldn't want anyone reading this and thinking it's a potential loophole.

forgotmyname

Drive off and don't report it.... OMG.... what a scumbag.

dacouch

Yellabowley wrote: »

While what you are saying is correct I'd be very careful with this. While you're driving the vehicle you would be covered as you have said but driving is defined as being in control of the direction of travel and propulsion of the vehicle. Whilst parked and locked up you're definitely not driving.

If the Police were to find the vehicle parked up and could confirm that there is not a valid policy in place there's a good chance it would be seized. Of course it would be the owner that is liable for this offence but it often happens that when faced with this scenario the owner claims he didn't know it was gone, reporting it as stolen to get away with it (it's him or you). Then you're looking at Theft of a Motor Vehicle and Driving without insurance anyway as consent is gone.

I know what you're saying is the theory and is correct (and the bloke on CAG is wrong) but in practice it is definitely not worth the risk. Wouldn't want anyone reading this and thinking it's a potential loophole.

I'm not saying it's a loop hole to exploit.

It annoys me when people state outright that all Insurers require the other car to be covered as it's not true with all Insurers.

People who need information when they have a problem and there's a good chance they'll stumble on this when in effect it's not applicable in their situation and they mistakenly receive a no insurance conviction.

You could have borrowed your friend's car in an emergency and used due diligence to check their own certificate covers them to drive other cars and their friend tells them his car is insured. If they're later stopped by the police or have a fault accident and it transpires that the friends insurance had been cancelled that day with or without the friend being aware.

In that situation someone whose own Insurers policy on driving other cars does not stipulate the other car needs it's own cover. Could find the Police officers ring the drivers Insurers to ask does he have DOC to be told yes but the other car needs cover. This person could receive an IN10 when they're actually covered.

If instead it was a fault claim the drivers own Insurers could tell him he was not covered due to other car not being insured.

It's not uncommon at all for Insurance staff in these situations to incorrectly decline indemnity due to mistakenly thinking their own policy requires the other car to be covered.

If that person then tries googling their predicament they come up with lots of incorrect answers telling them the other car needs it's own cover. When in fact they were in fact insured so the IN10 could be appealed and the accident settled at the Insurers cost rather than the driver's cost.

Incidently the police tend not to tow uninsured parked cars from the side of roads, they're more interested in moving traffic offences.

Your example of the owner grassing up the driver is a bit far fetched and would be extremely unusual. Especially as the Police don't really enforce the continuous insurance laws, it tends to be administered by the DVLA.

The issue of parking up and that being the end of your responsibility is not always as clear as that. If you've just parked the car up at a petrol station and pop into the shop to pay for the petrol, does the car become uninsured while you're in the shop?

The law has decided in some road traffic offences that if you park your car up while popping in a shop whilst on an overall journey that the driver is still the driver in the eyes of the law for that vehicle while temporarily parked. As still being the driver responsible for that vehicle in the eyes of the law until the overall journey has finished. So you cannot say for certain whether in every case of the car being parked that they are not insured.