Police, car insurance -driving uninsured car on "driving cars not owned clause"

Optimist

I tend to agree with the previous answers the car will need to be insured by its owner as well. If not once you leave/park said vehicle on a public road it would be classed as uninsured

If in doubt ask your insurance company

Tight_Old_Git

john539 wrote: »

Why does the owner need to insure a car they are longer going to drive ?

Don't expect to get the correct answers to your questions on a chat forum. Myth 1: You don't have to have Comprehensive cover to get the 'drive other cars' extension. Myth 2: You won't get done by the cops if the other car has no insurance in its' own right whilst you are driving it as by definition, your insurance allows you to drive other cars not owned by you etc.

However there will be no insurance on the vehicle when parked and you won't be able to buy a tax disc for the vehicle unless it has its' own insurance.

Conor_3

john539 wrote: »

Why does the owner need to insure a car they are longer going to drive ?

Because, as my mate found out, it may get stolen.
You need to check with your insurers whether to qualify for driving a vehicle under the "other vehicles clause" whether or not that vehicle needs to be insured in its own right because some companies do require the vehicle to have a policy in force on it and others don't. It's policy specific so you need to check.

Regardless, if it doesn't have a policy in force on it, expect to be stopped frequently. Carry the Certificate of Insurance with you or they will tow it and it will cost £105 to release it every time regardless of the fact you can prove you were covered.

john539

Conor wrote: »

Because, as my mate found out, it may get stolen.
You need to check with your insurers whether to qualify for driving a vehicle under the "other vehicles clause" whether or not that vehicle needs to be insured in its own right because some companies do require the vehicle to have a policy in force on it and others don't. It's policy specific so you need to check.

Regardless, if it doesn't have a policy in force on it, expect to be stopped frequently. Carry the Certificate of Insurance with you or they will tow it and it will cost £105 to release it every time regardless of the fact you can prove you were covered.

Seems like any Police check is only a basic general level check, regarding insurance against a car.

It doesn't tell them if the person driving has insurance.

You could have a car insured by its owner, who lets someone else drive who is not insured. I'm sure there are many uninsued drivers occasionally driving shared cars, which are insured by their owners.

Yes, I think its best to carry the insurance certificate, otherwise they'll want to confirm with my insurance company or seize the car.

bryanb

john539 wrote: »

Seems like any Police check is only a basic general level check, regarding insurance against a car.
.
Yes, that's because people don't have number plates.

Tucker

I used to work for an insurance company and in this instance you would be legally covered as far as motoring offences are concerned, if stopped by police. However, it would show up as uninsured on their database, but on production of your certificate, you could not be convicted of driving without insurance - that's definate.

This is a loophole that's been there for years and is open to abuse. The purpose of the clause is to provide you with emergency cover to drive someone elses car, with their permission. Unfortunately it can be used as a way of insuring just one car and running two by registering the second one in someone elses name.

For that reason, insurers are clamping down and removing this clause over time and no doubt it will dissapear completely one day. This was from an article on the subject:

Millions of UK motorists will no longer be insured to drive another car on their existing policy by the end of the year, even if they have paid for "fully comprehensive" cover.

Traditionally, a feature of virtually every comprehensive motor insurance policy on the market is "driving other cars (DOC), which provides policyholders with third party cover when driving any other vehicle with the owner's permission.

But Norwich Union, RAC and Asda are all phasing out DOC cover because they claim it is being abused by consumers and stands in the way of a government clampdown on uninsured drivers.
Royal & Sun Alliance, More Th>n, Cornhill Direct and Axa are also carefully considering the move and admit they may be looking to follow suit in the near future.
Craig Martin, product manager for motor at Norwich Union, says: "The cover was initially intended for emergencies only but policyholders are using it as an alternative to getting cover on a second, more powerful vehicle."
Currently motorists can insure themselves on a Ford Fiesta but drive around in a Lamborghini. If they are pulled over by police and asked to produce insurance documents then they can claim it was an emergency because policy certificates rarely specify what constitutes an emergency. Cover is on a third-party basis only and the borrowed car has to be insured by the owner.

Tucker

Full article here if you want to read it. Also it lists which insurers are planning to withdraw the privilage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2005/aug/13/motorinsurance.insurance

molerat

My policy with e-sure does not have the DOC extension.

cyclonebri1

Tucker wrote: »

I used to work for an insurance company and in this instance you would be legally covered as far as motoring offences are concerned, if stopped by police. However, it would show up as uninsured on their database, but on production of your certificate, you could not be convicted of driving without insurance - that's definate.

This is a loophole that's been there for years and is open to abuse. The purpose of the clause is to provide you with emergency cover to drive someone elses car, with their permission. Unfortunately it can be used as a way of insuring just one car and running two by registering the second one in someone elses name.

For that reason, insurers are clamping down and removing this clause over time and no doubt it will dissapear completely one day. This was from an article on the subject:

Millions of UK motorists will no longer be insured to drive another car on their existing policy by the end of the year, even if they have paid for "fully comprehensive" cover.

Traditionally, a feature of virtually every comprehensive motor insurance policy on the market is "driving other cars (DOC), which provides policyholders with third party cover when driving any other vehicle with the owner's permission.

But Norwich Union, RAC and Asda are all phasing out DOC cover because they claim it is being abused by consumers and stands in the way of a government clampdown on uninsured drivers.
Royal & Sun Alliance, More Th>n, Cornhill Direct and Axa are also carefully considering the move and admit they may be looking to follow suit in the near future.
Craig Martin, product manager for motor at Norwich Union, says: "The cover was initially intended for emergencies only but policyholders are using it as an alternative to getting cover on a second, more powerful vehicle."
Currently motorists can insure themselves on a Ford Fiesta but drive around in a Lamborghini. If they are pulled over by police and asked to produce insurance documents then they can claim it was an emergency because policy certificates rarely specify what constitutes an emergency. Cover is on a third-party basis only and the borrowed car has to be insured by the owner.

Quote;
"This is a loophole that's been there for years and is open to abuse. The purpose of the clause is to provide you with emergency cover to drive someone elses car, with their permission. Unfortunately it can be used as a way of insuring just one car and running two by registering the second one in someone elses name."

Which is wot I said but better explained:beer:

Edited to add;
This subject crops up over and over again
What people fail to understand here is that we are not talking law/legislation, but what is actually written into any individual insurance.

oldagetraveller

"The policyholder may also drive with the owner's permission a car not
owned by the policyholder and not hired to the policyholder under a hire
purchase or annual leasing agreement and is not used in connection with
the motor trade. This is provided the owner of the car has valid insurance
in force on that car but which does not cover the policyholder of this Policy
to drive that car."

The above taken directly from my own Certificate of Insurance. This clause might be different with other insurers but I've never known that to be the case. Hopefully answers the question fully?