Too many named drivers on policy

Spicy_McHaggis

Aretnap wrote: »

I wouldn't have called to check. It's not exactly difficult to read the policy terms for yourself. They're usually pretty simple. If your policy says that you can drive any car not owned by you, it means that you can drive any car not owned by you. If it actually means any car not owned by you or a by a family member, it will say that instead. If it means that the other car has to be insured in its own right, it will say that. If it means that the owner of the car has to have a certain type of licence, it will say that. If it means that the car has to be the same colour as your main vehicle, it will say that. And so on and so forth.

There are a lot of urban myths around DOC cover and many people seem determined to believe that it's a lot more complicated than it actually is. But in fact it's not exactly rocket science, and if the policy doesn't say anything about the car owner's licence status there's no need to ask, any more than you'd phone up to ask if you're allowed to use it to drive blue cars just because the policy documents don't explicitly say which colours of car it covers. If you do ring up then at best you'll be told something which you could easily have found out for yourself, and at worst you'll get through to a junior member of staff who doesn't know the answer so gives you some misinformation he read on the internet.

It is for some.

Spicy_McHaggis

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

There can be many causes as to why the supervisor would not be insured.


as like I mentioned, my DOC would not cover me to drive a car that had provisional license holder as a main policy holder when I called my insurer to check, my insurer was admiral at the time back in 2012 their rules may have changed since then but that is what I was told back then when I called to check.


Like with any person learning the first lesson is key, I usually drive them to a quiet spot on the industrial estate to get to know the basics, if my DOC didn't cover me then I could not drive the car unless I was insured.


If the learner got themselves into bother, then I could not drive it or take control of the vehicle unless I was insured.


this was my experience, but I would always recommend that anyone who supervises a learner to check with their insurers that DOC covers them for it if your using their vehicle.


You should always check the learner is insured (I would perform a free Askmid check prior to going out on the reg number) direct debits or friends finances maybe stretched for a while and the direct debits bounced and the policy may have been cancelled, I would always check they were insured and not just by having the certificate present, I always did a askmid free check.


like you said there is no law regarding a supervisor being insured on the policy, and certain realms of the RTA applies such as not touching the mobile phone whilst supervision or had a drink, drugs etc, But to cover your backside it always worth checking with your insurers your covered or be insured as a named on the learners car for security. last thing you need is a friend falling ill or mishap happen out on the road and you need to drive the vehicle and your insurers say no when pulled by police.

Did that tell you who was insured to drive then?

biglugs

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

This is another example of you failing to read things.

In the case of the OP who has a full licence and is the main driver is not a provisional licence holder. Her offspring (17 year old child to you) would be learning to drive so her husband would be covered on his DOC.

Bear in mind that in both cases the husband and wife would only be allowed to use a DOC extension to drive each other's cars if each car was clearly OWNED by themselves. If (as is often common) both vehicles are registered in one name (e.g. the husbands) then you will find it very hard to show to the insurance company that the wife owned it.

Also, if the cars were purchased with funds taken from a joint bank account, or under a joint finance agreement, then it will be hard to prove individual ownership.

The DOC extension in most policies exists mainly to allow you to take over another vehicle in an emergency, and for a short period of time. Cover will be restricted to third party only, so if either car has any value you are taking a risk in relying on a DOC extension - if you crash the car then you have absolutely no cover for your own repairs.

The only solution I can think of is to buy another car for your husband to use to teach them to drive in.

Spicy_McHaggis

biglugs wrote: »

Bear in mind that in both cases the husband and wife would only be allowed to use a DOC extension to drive each other's cars if each car was clearly OWNED by themselves. If (as is often common) both vehicles are registered in one name (e.g. the husbands) then you will find it very hard to show to the insurance company that the wife owned it.

Also, if the cars were purchased with funds taken from a joint bank account, or under a joint finance agreement, then it will be hard to prove individual ownership.

The DOC extension in most policies exists mainly to allow you to take over another vehicle in an emergency, and for a short period of time. Cover will be restricted to third party only, so if either car has any value you are taking a risk in relying on a DOC extension - if you crash the car then you have absolutely no cover for your own repairs.

The only solution I can think of is to buy another car for your husband to use to teach them to drive in.

I think most would accept husband and wife one car each and insured by each would equate to one car owned by each.

picapicacasa

It seems to me that this is an argument about insurance, rather than motoring, and perhaps should be on that board.

However, as far as the original post is concerned, it is possible to get "bolt on" insurance for learners that insures them (whilst they are learning).

It is a standalone policy (running 1 to 3 months) for each learner so I don't see why there should not be a limit on the number of policies and thus no limit on the number of learners.

Failing that, driving instructors must buy cover for multiple drivers somewhere.

Spicy_McHaggis

picapicacasa wrote: »

It seems to me that this is an argument about insurance, rather than motoring, and perhaps should be on that board.

However, as far as the original post is concerned, it is possible to get "bolt on" insurance for learners that insures them (whilst they are learning).

It is a standalone policy (running 1 to 3 months) for each learner so I don't see why there should not be a limit on the number of policies and thus no limit on the number of learners.

Failing that, driving instructors must buy cover for multiple drivers somewhere.

Maybe their policy is for any driver.

Car_54

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Maybe their policy is for any driver.

It is. The alternative would be unworkable.