Paying off Hire Purchase early

Fat_Walt

NewUserHere wrote: »

Got a few days holiday from my job as BA aviation mechanical engineer

New job, that year in college did you some good then.

AdrianC

NewUserHere wrote: »

Got a few days holiday from my job as BA aviation mechanical engineer

LABMAN

NewUserHere wrote: »

Got a few days holiday from my job as BA aviation mechanical engineer

Is that what you do that when you're not being a dodgy car salesman or a dodgy builder?

consumers_revenge

bought a 125 on HP over 4 years.


3 months in realised I didn't like the cash going out me bank each month


paid 1 lump some ( from matched betting profit ) and bought it outright on 3 month


think youre wrong.

arcon5

No wonder this forum has gone seriously downhill. Between members who argue for the sake of it and trolls like NUH this place is an absolute joke! And even worse people bite badly, it's embarrassing. Arguing hand over fist what is right what is not when it's quite clear some posts have the sole purpose of inflaming problems

Fat_Walt

arcon5 wrote: »

No wonder this forum has gone seriously downhill. Between members who argue for the sake of it and trolls like NUH this place is an absolute joke! And even worse people bite badly, it's embarrassing. Arguing hand over fist what is right what is not when it's quite clear some posts have the sole purpose of inflaming problems

Doesn't stop you, didn't you repeatedly post wrongly about insurance allowing you to drive other vehicles?

arcon5

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Doesn't stop you, didn't you repeatedly post wrongly about insurance allowing you to drive other vehicles?

No I didn't. But I did correct you. It's common knowledge that most policies nowadays require the 'other car' to have its own policy. You clearly have other ideas despite it being discussed around here over and over again and near enough every poster who has checked their own policy finding such a term. But not you, you find a couple of insurers who don't then use it to conjure up misleading claims

MikeWhite

arcon5 wrote: »

No I didn't. But I did correct you. It's common knowledge that most policies nowadays require the 'other car' to have its own policy. You clearly have other ideas despite it being discussed around here over and over again and near enough every poster who has checked their own policy finding such a term. But not you, you find a couple of insurers who don't then use it to conjure up misleading claims

Not wanting to argue, but can you show me some?
None of mine have this requirement. A quick (random) look at Churchill does not require it either:

Section A Liability to other people 1a Cover for you
We will cover you for your legal liability to other people arising
from an accident which involves your car and:
O you kill or injure someone;
O you damage someone else’s property.
This cover also applies to an accident involving a trailer or vehicle
you are towing.
1b Driving other cars
If your certificate of motor insurance says so, this policy provides
the same cover as above in 1a when you are driving any other motor
car as long as you do not own it and it is not hired to you under
a hire-purchase or leasing agreement. This cover only applies if:
O there is no other insurance in force which covers the same
liability;
O you have the owner’s permission to drive the car;
O the car is registered in and being driven in Great Britain,
Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands; and
O you still have your car and it has not been damaged beyond
cost-effective repair.
Note – There is no cover under clause 1b for damage, fire or theft
to the car you are driving.

Fat_Walt

arcon5 wrote: »

No I didn't. But I did correct you. It's common knowledge that most policies nowadays require the 'other car' to have its own policy. You clearly have other ideas despite it being discussed around here over and over again and near enough every poster who has checked their own policy finding such a term. But not you, you find a couple of insurers who don't then use it to conjure up misleading claims

Sounds like you didn't expect any to be named.

arcon5 wrote: »

Go on then... Name one insurer that don't have this term? And link to their terms...

Good luck

So that's Direct Line, Aviva, Churchill, More Than. Hardly small unheard of companies, I don't and have never had a condition written into the policy stating the other vehicle must be insured. Maybe your policy does because you're high risk.

Nodding_Donkey

Why does this argument always remind me of the Constable Savage sketch.


"He's a villain, and a jailbird"
"Yes I know he's a jailbird...............YOU arrested him on a (trumped up) charge"

and

"It's true, it's common knowledge"

"Yes it gets said a lot........by YOU"