Driving friends car on my own car insurance

System

sheramber wrote: »

But if the police checked and found that the car was not insured while the OP was driving it, the car could be wheel-clamped, impounded or destroyed and the OP would have a long walk home.

No they couldn't because while the OP is driving it, it is insured. All that needs to be done is to produce their insurance certificate as proof.Police may well ring the insurer to double check though. That is why I suggested the OP contact his insurer to get it from the horse's mouth. I now carry an email from my insurer that states categorically that the vehicle does not need separate insurance.

Continuous insurance offences are dealt with by DVLA not the police. Police are only interested in the fact that at that particular time there is insurance covering the vehicle on a public road. And before somebody mentions it, the police will not ask you to step out of the vehicle and then claim that it is now uninsured for use on the public road because you are not in it.

thenudeone

sheramber wrote: »

But if the police checked and found that the car was not insured while the OP was driving it, the car could be wheel-clamped, impounded or destroyed and the OP would have a long walk home.

You really need to read up on the relevant law before posting scare stories here.

The only law a driver needs to comply with is this:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143
which is covered as long as the OP's own policy covers them to drive.

and the only time police can legally seize a vehicle is in these circumstances:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A
which would not apply provided a valid certificate was produced by the OP at the roadside, regardless of whether the police officer thought it was covered or not.

The seizure laws have been tested in the courts, and if vehicles are seized outside the conditions set out in law, (even with the best of intentions on the side of the Police) the courts WILL find against the Police.
See Pryor v Greater Manchester Police (2011)
http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=263

bill_on_line

Hi Everyone so I as a third party driving on my insurance would not be in trouble with this situation.


But my friend as the keeper of the car faces a possible fine from the DVLA as the car is not SORN and he does not have insurance for the car.


So car insurance (the keepers) is basically for a car first and foremost and then covers particular drivers as listed in the schedule rather than the other way round.


I remember an acquaintance 2005 claiming "his car was taken without permission by a relative/friend and then involved in an accident". The insurance company CIS paid out on the claim (as they said they had a duty under the road traffic act I believe) even though the acquaintance bitterly claimed he was not driving it at the time (the driver without permission was not covered on the acquaintance's policy) he gave the name of the person he "claimed" was driving without permission". He did not bother to report the car as stolen at the time it was taken by the friend/relative.

redux

This driving other cars endorsement or clause needs close attention.

Mostly these state that the other car must have its own valid insurance, though some people do insist there are a few policies that also add uninsured cars.

And it's third party only.

I asked my broker years ago about one possible trip, and he advised against it, saying it's intended mostly for unforeseen rather than planned use, and any incidents under such cover are looked at more closely.

If for example your friend wants to move the car from one place to another, there may be questions why you offered to do it rather than the owner add temporary cover.

Quentin

redux wrote: »

I asked my broker years ago about one possible trip, and he advised against it, saying it's intended mostly for unforeseen rather than planned use, and any incidents under such cover are looked at more closely.

Your broker mislead you.

(Were he correct all that he told you would be set out on your certificate and in your policy)

If you have DOC on your policy then you are covered (subject to any written conditions). End of story.

adouglasmhor

bill_on_line wrote: »

Hi Everyone so I as a third party driving on my insurance would not be in trouble with this situation.


But my friend as the keeper of the car faces a possible fine from the DVLA as the car is not SORN and he does not have insurance for the car.


So car insurance (the keepers) is basically for a car first and foremost and then covers particular drivers as listed in the schedule rather than the other way round.


I remember an acquaintance 2005 claiming "his car was taken without permission by a relative/friend and then involved in an accident". The insurance company CIS paid out on the claim (as they said they had a duty under the road traffic act I believe) even though the acquaintance bitterly claimed he was not driving it at the time (the driver without permission was not covered on the acquaintance's policy) he gave the name of the person he "claimed" was driving without permission". He did not bother to report the car as stolen at the time it was taken by the friend/relative.

Even if it had been reported to the police at the time the insurance company will still often pay out in a case like that, your acquaintance was still responsible for safeguarding the car and keys. We had a stolen car crash into the outside clock at work doing thousands of pounds of damage. The car owner’s lodger had stolen the keys off her mantelpiece, and even after a court case she refused to give her insurer's details as she still said she was not responsible. Her insurers eventual paid the damage but she got lumbered with the legal fees.

redux

Quentin wrote: »

Your broker mislead you.

(Were he correct all that he told you would be set out on your certificate and in your policy)

If you have DOC on your policy then you are covered (subject to any written conditions). End of story.

I didn't give all the details in my previous post.

I trust what the broker said for the circumstances at the time, rather than someone speculating without the whole picture.

The car was owned by a friend and uninsured, just like the OP. More specifically, I was considering buying it, and the question was could I move it as his car on my driving other cars cover then deem the transfer of ownership to be afterwards. The broker didn't like it, not only pointing out the other was not insured, but also saying there are people more or less fraudulently driving 3 or 4 family cars around on a single policy (this was a few years ago) and thus any claim in driving other cars cases will be thoroughly investigated. In the end I got another friend who was going to do some repair work on it to collect it on his motor trade policy. Nowadays it would be simpler to temporarily add a car.

Even if the clause does not specifically state that the other car must have its own insurance, it's worth reiterating the comments above that the current system requires that if the car is not insured it must be declared SORN, and conversely it must be continuously insured while taxed.

Figuring whether or not there is a loophole that driving other cars cover can be stretched to count there may be risky, as the other car is not identified on any policy and is not continuously insured. Some writers of policy terms might not see any gap and thus deem the condition about other cars to be insured as implicit and superfluous to actually say so. I'm not a lawyer, but why test this rather than buy temporary cover.

Quentin

Assuming you have now given us the "whole picture", then the situation remains the same.


You don't have to show you used your DOC cover on an "unplanned" journey (whatever that means), nor is it for "unforeseen" journeys, which was the "advice" you say your broker gave you.


If you have DOC cover then it will say on your certificate what the restrictions are (and using it to drive a family members car is not usually forbidden)!


Generally you cannot use it on a car you own - (though your broker's advice was about a car you didn't own),


DOC cover is something you pay for, using it isn't a "loophole"!

System

redux wrote: »

though some people do insist there are a few policies that also add uninsured cars

I'm not insisting, I'm stating a fact. My insurers have stated this after I questioned the lack of detail in the policy/certificate. They confirmed that my insurance was sufficient.

For info it is LV=

redux

Quentin wrote: »

DOC cover is something you pay for, using it isn't a "loophole"!

I didn't say it is.

The specific issue I suggested as possibly being a loophole or not is the question of to what degree someone driving an otherwise uninsured car on their driving other cars extension is satisfying the rules on continuous insurance enforcement for that car.