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

john539

iolanthe07 wrote: »

- but the car still has to be insured.

The driver is insured not the car.

john539

Tucker wrote: »

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

That article seems quite old.

My current & previous policies both include driving other cars not owned.
Both of my policies are 3rd party as well.

john539

Wig wrote: »

You will need to carry the insurance certificate, AND the policy book with the relevant policy clause highlighted, and preferably a personal letter from your insurer agreeing that you will be insured,

My policies have always stated on the Certificate of Insurance that you can drive other cars not owned with 3rd party cover.

raskazz

LittleTinker wrote: »

Like the other poster said....if you dont need the owner to insure the car, what is to stop someone buying me a ferrari and me driving it on my insurance?[

Beacuse driving other cars is only applicable to cars not belonging to yourself and not hired or leased to yourself.

Wig

john539 wrote: »

My policies have always stated on the Certificate of Insurance that you can drive other cars not owned with 3rd party cover.

Have you not been paying much attention to what has been said in the thread? I suggest you read post #21 for proof that not all policies are the same. It is the detail in the policy that you need to be concerned with.

It might say on the certificate, but it will definately not list the detailed exclusions that apply. You might have read YOUR policy but if you don't have it with you when you drive the other car then how is plod to know what YOUR policy says, unless you can pull it out of your glove box with the relevant clause highlighted, you may very well find that plod confiscate your car and leave you to do the chasing up yourself, you will find you have a hefty fee to pay to release your car whether or not your insurance was valid on the day. Hence, why I suggested you get your insurer to write you a letter of confirmation to take with you, aswell as the policy booklet.

Tucker

derrick wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...ance.insurance

From your link; - "Cover is on a third-party basis only and the borrowed car has to be insured by the owner."

I am talking about whether the person would be convicted on production of his certificate with DOC included for driving without insurance. I knew numerous people who produced their certificate with the DOC extension for production at a police station and it was always accepted and they never needed to prove the car was covered elsewhere. I have certainly never known of anyone convicted who had DOC on their certificate for driving someone elses car.

Every Monday morning we'd have people in who'd lost their document and needed a duplicate ordering within the 7 day time limit. Most were driving their own cars, but we had plenty who were using the DOC extension.
In some cases it's not even third party cover it's RTA only cover which is even less.

john539

Wig wrote: »

Have you not been paying much attention to what has been said in the thread? I suggest you read post #21 for proof that not all policies are the same.

Hence, why I suggested you get your insurer to write you a letter of confirmation to take with you, aswell as the policy booklet.

I don't think insurers will write under any circumstances additional letters qualifying your policy. They will refer you to your policy.

My policy is not same as post #21.

Mine says:

The Policyholder may also drive a Motor Car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a hire purchase or leasing agreement, as long as the Policyholder has the owners permission to drive the car.

The certificate says it all & is good enough.

Wig

Tucker wrote: »

I knew numerous people who produced their certificate with the DOC extension for production at a police station and it was always accepted and they never needed to prove the car was covered elsewhere.

I think it's fair to say that in the old days such policy exclusions would not have been common and it would be fair to say that as so many people believe the internet myth to be true and absolute that many police are now also aware of possible policy exclusions and some of them probably don't understand that it does not apply to all policies. Therefore the police today would be far more likely to ask to see the policy document aswell and take it further if necessary.

In some cases it's not even third party cover it's RTA only cover which is even less.

Not sure what you mean by 'RTA only' if you mean Road Traffic Act only, well that is "third party only" the minimum insurance cover required by law in the EU is cover of third party risk.

Tucker

Road Traffic Act only, is the minimum covered required. I think you'll find it is different to Third Party Only cover and the law hasn't changed on that to my knowledge.
I can't recall the differences off the top of my head, but there are some as the RTA only cover specifies some liability limits, whereas TPO doesn't.

I'll have to check, but there's a difference.

Wig

john539 wrote: »

I don't think insurers will write under any circumstances additional letters qualifying your policy. They will refer you to your policy.

Of course they would.

My policy is not same as post #21.

Which was my point - not all policies are the same - plod knows this and will require proof

Mine says:


The certificate says it all & is good enough.

No, it is not good enough, The certificate does not say it all, it gives a brief outline. As it happens my certificate says exactly the same as yours does, but my certificate does not list all the exclusions that apply....which are as follows:
This cover only applies IF:
# There is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim
# The car is being driven in Geat Britain , N.I., Isle of Man, the Chanel Islands and
# You still have the insured car and it has not been damaged beyond economical repair
I suspect that some of the insurers who have the exclusion clause refferred to in this thread would not have that clause on the certificate. It is because of this fact that not all the exclusions are printed on the certificate that the certificate alone is not good enough.

If I was the plod dealing with you, I would not accept your certificate as proof positive, I would possibly (depending on your manner with me) confiscate your vehicle and ask you to provide your policy to the police station and a letter from your insurer.

I think that you do not intend to drive another car, you only asked your OP for a debate, but in the event that you did actually want to do this I gave you good advice on what you should do to minimise the risk of having your car confiscated. If you want to ignore my advice that's up to you, but don't be surprised when you get your car confiscated.