Cover for vehicles not owned by the insured

roddydogs

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Whilst people seem to like putting forward this notion that DOC only applies to cars which are insured in their own right, I don't accept that is the case.

Show me ONE insurer's wording which says "DOC is only applicable to cars which are insured in their own right". I have never seen one. The standard wording on certificates of insurance for DOC also does not mention this "requirement".

The idea of people buying a Fiat Panda and driving a Ferrari on DOC is ludicrous - the Ferrari would not be covered for theft or damage. Anyone who wants to take that sort of risk is a muppet.

Then their are a lot of "Muppets" out there 20% of drivers have no insurance whatsoever!, and a lot of young drivers cant Get or afford Fully comp anyway- why bother when its only a "fixed" penalty of £200!:rotfl:

mattymoo

Markymarkd - it may not be in the insurance contract but you try taxing a car using DOC as proof of insurance - it will not be accepted. No tax = car not legal for road use.

I didn't mention Ferrari in my post but I was suggesting people would use it for hot hatch / modified cars. A 10 yr old Golf GTI is worth little but still costs a fair wack to insure simply because of its performance.

A car covered by DOC cover only will also show up as being uninsured on the Motor Insurers Database. This database is accessed by police traps using Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras so there is a very high chance of being pulled over and given a producer.

lisyloo

why bother when its only a "fixed" penalty of £200!:rotfl:

I think someone can sue you in a civil case for a whole lot more so if you have a house with equity you could lose it (or have an attachement made to your earnings where money is taken out up front).
You could stand to lose hundrends of thousands (if you have it).

I didn't mention Ferrari in my post

I mentioned Ferrari.
It was meant to demonstrate a certain point.
I expected people to understand the point I was making not get finnicky about the brand.
I honestly believe there are a lot of "muppets" out there if you want to call them that.
I think that there are some people deliberately trying to take advantage of the system adn probably a larger number who simply don't understand insurance and don't understand that what they are doing is wrong.
That's partly the fault of the industry for not making things clearer.

MarkyMarkD

I have (once) taxed a car using a DOC extension. I'm not saying that it should be possible, but it's been done.

Whilst you would doubtless get pulled on an ANPR check, you would also be entirely legitimate once producing your DOC extended insurance certificate so it's a matter of inconvenience rather than illegality.

The issue of people using (or thinking they are using DOC) is a far smaller issue than the issue of people driving around uninsured. Both sets of people are muppets, and the inadequate financial penalties for driving uninsured are an issue which ought to be reviewed.

I don't believe, lisy, that the car insurance industry makes a big deal of the DOC benefits, and nobody sensible genuinely goes round thinking it's a good idea to drive a car which isn't properly insured by relying on DOC cover.

If anyone believes it covers other cars THEY personally own, they simply can't read.

If anyone believes it covers anything other than third party risks, they simply can't read.

darich

lisyloo wrote: »

What happens if it's parked on a hill, handbrake fails and it rolls down and damages other cars? i.e. no driver or spontaneously combusts due to an electrical fault.

My own understanding was that a car had to be insured to be on the road.

Who is responsible when there is no driver as in the above scenarios?

Whoever owns the car would (or should) have it insured. If i borrowed your car, while driving it, i'm insured on my policy. But when i park it, it's back to your responsibility because you'd have your own insurance.

You're right - it does have to be insured to be on the road but that's a different thing from driving other cars on a different policy.

I agree with MArkyMark in that no where on the policy does it state that my driving other cars only applies if there is another policy covering the car.

As Mattymoo said some people could use this to buy a cheap banger and a nice car then insure the banger with the DOC extension. I'm sure some people do. The same way as every car must be insured - there are many people who refuse to. Same with holding a driving licence - some people don't.

It's a loophole in insurance and some people will take full advantage for a long time until they get caught (possibly) but assuming they've not killed someone, they'll be fined less than what they've saved so they'll do it again if they're banned!

alfie74

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I have (once) taxed a car using a DOC extension. I'm not saying that it should be possible, but it's been done.

It must have been a long time ago. The last time I successfully managed it was in early 1998. Time has moved on, and it shouldn't be possible these days.

lisyloo

Whoever owns the car would (or should) have it insured. If i borrowed your car, while driving it, i'm insured on my policy. But when i park it, it's back to your responsibility because you'd have your own insurance.

You're right - it does have to be insured to be on the road but that's a different thing from driving other cars on a different policy.

I agree with MArkyMark in that no where on the policy does it state that my driving other cars only applies if there is another policy covering the car.

When I first read this I thought it was totally contradictory.
So can I confirm that I've understood it right.

What you are saying is that every car has to be insured to be on the road (because whilst it's left parked on the public highway it's that insurance that is in place as well as for fir, theft etc.).

But if it is not insured this would not invalidate a DOC extension.

Correct?

darich

Lisyloo - it doesn't state in my insurance certificate that the car must be insured by another policy for my DOC cover to be valid.
Therefore, my reading of that, is that another policy on the car, is not necessary for my DOC to be valid.

We all know that all cars should be insured on the public road whether being driven or not. But if my car is in my drive/field/garage etc ie private land, then insurance is not a legal requirement.
So let's say my car is is too expensive to run but before i can sell it, the insurance cover expires.
Let's say you need to borrow my car. Fine you can borrow it - as long as your policy covers you for DOC.
The only difference between this and my previous post is that when you park my car, an offence is committed because my vehicle is on the road uninsured. Legally it would probably be me that is liable for any claims resulting from my uninsured car, even though i didn't leave it there.
Your DOC would still be valid because there are no exclusions on the policy - the only requirement is that you have my permission, and you do.

"if it is not insured this would not invalidate" - isn't this a contradiction??
Not sure what you mean by this!

lisyloo

The only difference between this and my previous post is that when you park my car, an offence is committed because my vehicle is on the road uninsured.

So it can be driven from one piece of private land e.g. driveway to another as long as the driver does not leave it at any point on the public highway.

"if it is not insured this would not invalidate" - isn't this a contradiction??

If the car is not seperately insured in it's own right then this does not invalidate the DOC extension.
I believe this is what you are saying.
It would of course need tax and MOT (unless travelling to an MOT test to be pedantic).

darich

lisyloo wrote: »

So it can be driven from one piece of private land e.g. driveway to another as long as the driver does not leave it at any point on the public highway.



If the car is not seperately insured in it's own right then this does not invalidate the DOC extension.
I believe this is what you are saying.
It would of course need tax and MOT (unless travelling to an MOT test to be pedantic).

Correct.
If my car is not insured there is nothing stopping you driving it under your DOC because your policy doesn't state that another policy must be in place for your DOC to work.

You're also correct about Tax and MOT but they've been ignored since DOC insurance cover is the topic