Driving friends car on my own car insurance

System

My policy wording makes absolutely no mention of emergency

Driving other cars
If your certificate of motor insurance says so, we’ll insure you to drive a private car/van
in the UK, that you don’t own, is not registered to you and not hired to you under a hire
purchase or rental/leasing agreement, as long as:
n you have the owner’s permission to drive the car/van;
n the car/van is registered and normally kept in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle
of Man or the Channel Islands;
n it’s not a van which has been adapted to carry passengers;
n the car/van doesn’t exceed 3.5 tonnes GVW (Gross Vehicle Weight);
n the car/van hasn’t been seized or confiscated by or on behalf of any government or
public authority;
n you’re not covered by any other insurance to drive it; and
n you still have your car, it hasn’t been stolen and it hasn’t been damaged to an extent
that it’s a total loss.
The cover is for third party only, so loss or damage to the vehicle you’re driving isn’t
covered.

dacouch

Redux could you explain in terms that would satisfy a court of law if you were being prosecuted for no insurance or being sued in a civil court for a fault accident as to what an emergency is?

Could you also point us to a policy wording that defines "Emergency"

Any chance you could also find a policy wording that states driving other cars is for emergency use

Dr._Shoe

bill_on_line wrote: »

The car has a valid MOT and has road TAX (so no SORN)
But the owner no longer has it insured in his name, as hedoes not drive this car and parked/stored on private property.

Actually no he doesn't. It is not taxed if it is not insured, just because he had paid for a year's RFL on it (or whatever) does not mena it's taxed. He should either SORN it or insure it.

thenudeone wrote: »

So everything the OP legally has to comply with is covered.

The fact that the car's keeper is supposed to have continuous insurance cover is a separate issue (for the keeper ONLY) and applies regardless of whether the OP takes the car on the road or not, so isn't relevant to the question asked.

Actually no. It won't be taxed because tax is the Keeper's liabilty, not the driver so it isn't irrelevant at all, it's very relevant in fact. This is a reason (as of 1-10-14) why you can no longer sell a car with tax on it anymore.

http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/abolition-of-the-vehicle-tax-disc

!!!!!! wrote: »

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.

But not taxed, the driver (if not the registered keeper) cannot tax a vehicle, only the registered keeper can.

Take my situation: I drive a car which is owned by a friend but I insure it as if it were my own vehicle. However, when it comes to tax time, my friend has to pay for it and I give him the money accordingly. I cannot tax it myself and I know this because it's been tried.

In practical terms I do actually do all the mechanics of taxing it myself such as going online and ordering the payment etc. but my friend still has to use a card that matches the details on the log book.

I can drive his car even though it is insured in his name and he can drive the car I use even though it is insured in my name because both vehicles are adequately insured (and therefore taxed) to begin with.

In summary, the keeper cannot tax the car unless it's insured and the car cannot be driven on the highway unless it's taxed. Either one of two solutions present themselves: either the keeper gets it insured or the OP insures it. But to answer the question it cannot be driven on the OP's insurance as it is.

Quentin

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

Actually no he doesn't. It is not taxed if it is not insured....,.

No.


Once the tax has been paid for it of course remains taxed until the tax runs out (or it is SORN or sold). Being no longer insured does not mean it is no longer taxed.

redux

dacouch wrote: »

Redux could you explain in terms that would satisfy a court of law if you were being prosecuted for no insurance or being sued in a civil court for a fault accident as to what an emergency is?

Could you also point us to a policy wording that defines "Emergency"

Any chance you could also find a policy wording that states driving other cars is for emergency use

Why?

I didn't definitively say this was an absolute issue.

I said the advice from a broker said ... don't rely on it, it's third party only, regard it as unforeseen use not planned, there is fraud in this area, and hence such claims are carefully investigated ...

I was accused of either lying myself or being naively mislead by a broker.

In response I eventually quoted 4 current examples of fairly similar advice from comparison brokers or insurers. Including that some insurers have completely stepped away from such cover due to their experience of fraud.

There is still the legal issue of the continuous insurance enforcement though, if the other car is not itself insured. And some insurers specifically state the other car must have its own policy, so any clear advice to check this is valid.

By all means test this if you wish. But there are risks of having pain in the neck discussions with the police, ending up in dispute with the friend about the car value in case of accident, and so on, as well as warding off the tedious possibilities you mention there.

If there is a dispute with the other party, sometimes it helps to have good cover, possibly including legal fees protection, and that is why insurers and brokers recommend to consider better cover than the minimum third party only of driving other cars.

I really don't think I'm being naive on this subject by setting out some of the potential issues.

The argument is about having sensible insurance versus taking a chance. Relying on driving other cars cover is taking a chance. At least the person who wants to do it needs to look at it carefully.

dacouch

redux wrote: »

Why?

I didn't definitively say this was an absolute issue.

I said the advice from a broker said ... don't rely on it, it's third party only, regard it as unforeseen use not planned, there is fraud in this area, and hence such claims are carefully investigated ...

There is nothing stopping you from driving a friend's or a family member's Ferrari every single day of the year providing you comply with all of the conditions of your Driving Other Cars.

Fraud on DOC is no where near as prevalent as you think, the reason DOC claims are investigated are to ensure you comply with the DOC terms as it has more get outs for the Insurer under the RTA than the car specified on your Certificate, in addition a main cause of investigate is to check whether you would be more specifically covered under another policy eg as a named driver on a policy specifying that vehicle. Potential fraud is often looked into but not in all cases of DOC

I was accused of either lying myself or being naively mislead by a broker.

In response I eventually quoted 4 current examples of fairly similar advice from comparison brokers or insurers. Including that some insurers have completely stepped away from such cover due to their experience of fraud.

Your Go Compare link is a cross between SEO and an FAQ, it has not been written by someone who specialises in Insurance but a freelance journalist who I assume researched by using google. Perpetuating the myth that it's for emergencies and does not cover you to drive a car under DOC on a regular basis.

It's worth noting Go Compare are neither broker or Insurer

The other links are from Insurers and makes no mention of fraud but does advise it's intended for emergency use which is basically due to it being basic cover. It's also in the Insurers interest for their customers to use DOC less as it minimises their exposure to a claim.

There is still the legal issue of the continuous insurance enforcement though, if the other car is not itself insured. And some insurers specifically state the other car must have its own policy, so any clear advice to check this is valid.

By all means test this if you wish. But there are risks of having pain in the neck discussions with the police, ending up in dispute with the friend about the car value in case of accident, and so on, as well as warding off the tedious possibilities you mention there.

I can assure you that if I did decide to use a car under driving other cars extension and it was either not insured itself or not showing on MID the police are very unlikely to impound the car and if they did they would be footing a fairly large bill

If there is a dispute with the other party, sometimes it helps to have good cover, possibly including legal fees protection, and that is why insurers and brokers recommend to consider better cover than the minimum third party only of driving other cars.

I really don't think I'm being naive on this subject by setting out some of the potential issues.

The argument is about having sensible insurance versus taking a chance. Relying on driving other cars cover is taking a chance. At least the person who wants to do it needs to look at it carefully.

The reason people have been correcting you is you're over generalising about driving other cars when other posters have given more accurate answers as to what it covers.

Certainly anyone using it should be aware they only have third party only cover and to read their policy conditions, this is good advice.

Are you aware that it's possible to take out cover with certain Insurers which includes driving other cars cover providing comprehensive cover on the other car you're driving and extending this cover to your named family?

rs65

I would view DOC as emergency cover (only because it is TPO) but I don’t know a single insurer who mentions this. Personally I would never use DOC because I want comp cover. I would also never let anyone drive my car under their DOC for the same reason.


An insurer would never recommend a particular cover. A broker might not recommend using DOC but only because it leaves AD and theft uninsured. A broker will make a recommendation based on demands and needs, and perhaps give options beyond that.

I don’t see DOC claims being investigated more thoroughly – there is very little to investigate. I’m also not sure about the fraud aspect. What fraud? I can see it having been overused, perhaps even abused, but insurers still provide it so it can’t be that much of an issue.


There is no doubt that potential issues exist when using DOC – mainly the uninsured aspects – but ‘emergency’ and ‘fraud’ are red herrings I think.