A few questions on car insurance (for a couple)

facade

In The Olden Days, when I started driving, insurance used to be Social, Domestic & Pleasure.

Social = Partying, driving to pubs & clubs with a car full of mates, giving people a lift etc
Domestic= to do with running your home, so collecting kids from school, shopping, going to work
Pleasure= believe it or not, but in The Olden Days people actually "went for a drive", usually on a Sunday- unbelievable! To think anyone would actually enjoy driving about aimlessly. (Remember, despite the lies pedalled today, most roads were virtually empty, and in better condition, you could also drive pretty much anywhere, and park too)

Then it became SDP & commuting (you had to specify the commuting bit)
Then it became SDP & commuting to a single place of work

And so on.

I an still at a loss as to what "domestic" actually means, I would have thought that going out to earn enough money to keep a roof over your head would be the very definition of domestic use

SouthLondonUser

IanMSpencer wrote: »

There shouldn't be a debate. The insurers do make this quite clear on their web sites and also you are welcome to discuss it with them. The onus is on you to insure correctly.

What do you mean by "discussing with them"? I very much doubt that a conversation with Joe or Jane from the call centre, even if you were to record it, would hold much water in case of a dispute on the interpretation of the terms. Maybe if the insurer agreed to put something in writing or clarify the wording of the policy, but what are the chances of this happening?

Practical example: when insuring my motorcycle, I have NEVER (and I mean, NEVER) been able to obtain a clear definition of what "garage" means. In a few occasions, when comparing quotes, I asked the question on the telephone, and was told that it means "a garage only I have access to".
"Where are you reading from?"
"This is our policy"
"Can you please point me to the exact document and section where this is defined?"
"Sorry, sir, I can't"
"Are you telling me that I should be bound by a contractual term which is not in writing?"
"Ehm...."

Wrt modifications, it would be interesting to see if there is any case law confirming whether insurers can or cannot void or change the pricing of a policy based on utterly meaningless modifications, which do not alter the risk profile (like a sticker).

kmb500

Mercdriver wrote: »

The reason people care is that you can be stopped by the police and if they establish you are commuting or using the car for business use and your insurance doesn't cover it, they will give you 6 points and £300 fixed penalty. It's not just the risk of having a claim paid and the insurance cancelled, it's the very real risk of being stopped and prosecuted. It's not imaginary risk there are cases on pepipoo.

It seems it's not just box junctions and red light cameras that you know little about. What else don't you know? Do you at least know what you don't know?

I can't imagine any case of the police doing that, I'm not going to live my life based on silly paranoia. Stop being condescending also please.

Mercdriver

kmb500 wrote: »

I can't imagine any case of the police doing that, I'm not going to live my life based on silly paranoia. Stop being condescending also please.

Now you are proving you have no credibility. There are a number of cases on pepipoo.

Also, you're encouraging people to not worry about having the correct insurance cover. That is irresponsible. Getting done for no insurance is not trivial. It can inconvenience the offender in all sorts of ways.

Need to hire a van to help your relative move? Can't because can't rent from a reputable rental firm because was stopped while commuting when insurance cover didn't include commuting.

Just because you can't see box junctions or red light cameras or people being done for driving without proper insurance cover doesn't mean they don't exist.

Do you drive to work?

Do you have commuting cover on your insurance? Do some dummy quotes for SDP, SDP+commuting and compare them, oh and while you're at it compare them witha quote with a fail to insure conviction.

My question was a fair one.

Knowing what you don't know is the first stage of learning. We all have things we don't know...even me!

facade

kmb500 wrote: »

I'm not going to live my life based on silly paranoia.

Why is it silly paranoia to think that if you are breaking the Law, you might actually get caught one day?

Car_54

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

@Mercdriver, simply googling "car insurance modification stickers" will produce some results.
This specific case was mentioned multiple times by the press:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/11383692/Car-insurance-Vicar-told-Jesus-stickers-could-void-policy.html

Whether the press which mentioned it is any more trustworthy than the bloke down the pub, well, that's a separate matter! Jokes aside, I would like to know how the case ended up - I really do not know.

In this case the lady didn't just have some stickers saying "Baby on board", or "My other car is a Porsche". The report says 'She paid £120 to cover her car in messages "spreading the gospel.'

So effectively the car was liveried to promote her business.

SouthLondonUser

Oh, so treating stickers like an undeclared modification is fair and sensible?

Mercdriver

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Oh, so treating stickers like an undeclared modification is fair and sensible?

They most likely saw her as turning her vehicle into a commercial vehicle.

SouthLondonUser

But she was not advertising a business nor using the car as a business vehicle. Or, if she was, it wasn't clear from the press.

rudekid48

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Oh, so treating stickers like an undeclared modification is fair and sensible?

You really are missing the point. Any insurer is free to choose who & what they will offer cover for. They also have to be very clear and unambiguous when asking a question, so for example, if an insurer asks about modifications and specifically lists stickers as a modification then you must answer accurately. It is only if you lie that they can impose terms/void the policy.
If they do not specifically link stickers to modifications in the question then the FOS would rule against them...