Can i drive another car on my insurance?

mchale

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

That depends on the wording of your policy.

That's why I put generally, it was altered to stop people claiming back cars which had been seized for no ins & getting friends to release them on their DOV polices, I know of no policy which allows DOV on a uninsured car, but the might be a exception.

Billy_Bullocks

mchale wrote: »

That's why I put generally, it was altered to stop people claiming back cars which had been seized for no ins & getting friends to release them on their DOV polices, I know of no policy which allows DOV on a uninsured car, but the might be a exception.

Both of my policies allow it, the only stipulation they have is I can't get one out if the pound seized for no insurance.

unforeseen

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

But you're not required to have ved or an mot driving to a prebooked mot. So the insurance would cover.

There's nothing in law preventing him taking it for a test drive on the way to or from the mot.

That is a point to argue with the insurers. It may be OK for the owner to do so but I doubt DOV would allow it and regardless of what the law says it will be the insurers deciding whether you can drive a vehicle on DOV that has neither tax nor MOT.

Billy_Bullocks

unforeseen wrote: »

That is a point to argue with the insurers. It may be OK for the owner to do so but I doubt DOV would allow it and regardless of what the law says it will be the insurers deciding whether you can drive a vehicle on DOV that has neither tax nor MOT.

But what you're failing to comprehend is the vehicle doesn't need tax or mot.

unforeseen

I am not failing to understand that. What you are failing to understand is whether you insured will allow you to drive it without either.

If your insurance states that you can drive vehicles not owned by providing that the vehicle has a valid MOT and current VED then that is what you have to go by regardless of what the law states. The insurers have stipulated a set of conditions to be met to drive another vehicle over and above what the law allows.

Billy_Bullocks

unforeseen wrote: »

I am not failing to understand that. What you are failing to understand is whether you insured will allow you to drive it without either.

If your insurance states that you can drive vehicles not owned by providing that the vehicle has a valid MOT and current VED then that is what you have to go by regardless of what the law states. The insurers have stipulated a set of conditions to be met to drive another vehicle over and above what the law allows.

Are you one of these people who believe the lack of an mot or tax invalidates your insurance cover? :rotfl:

unforeseen

No. But if you can not meet the conditions for using DOV then you effectively do not have DOV. It may not result in any action from the police but in the event of an accident it opens the door for the insurers to claim the third party costs from you as you were not driving in accordance with your insurance. Would you want to be liable for both sides cost in the, albeit unlikely, event of an at fault accident?

Billy_Bullocks

unforeseen wrote: »

No. But if you can not meet the conditions for using DOV then you effectively do not have DOV. It may not result in any action from the police but in the event of an accident it opens the door for the insurers to claim the third party costs from you as you were not driving in accordance with your insurance. Would you want to be liable for both sides cost in the, albeit unlikely, event of an at fault accident?

That would never happen as the use of the vehicle would have been legal at the time of the collision.

dacouch

unforeseen wrote: »

I am not failing to understand that. What you are failing to understand is whether you insured will allow you to drive it without either.

If your insurance states that you can drive vehicles not owned by providing that the vehicle has a valid MOT and current VED then that is what you have to go by regardless of what the law states. The insurers have stipulated a set of conditions to be met to drive another vehicle over and above what the law allows.

Direct Line do not specify the vehicle needs to have an MOT or VED when driving other vehicles.

I doubt Aviva do either

unforeseen

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

That would never happen as the use of the vehicle would have been legal at the time of the collision.

Why? You didn't meet the co xitions for using do