Sport0 min ago
car insurance grey area??
Hi i have a question for those of you in the know! im currently insured fully comprehensive on my car, and on my certificate of insurance it states that i can drive any other vehicle 3rd party providing that, that vehicle does NOT belong to me and that i have the owners permission. All thats pretty straight forward, so heres my question, i have another older car that i drive occasionally but a 2nd policy is quite expensive.... so could i put my 2nd vehicle in to say my mothers name, have her permission to drive it and do it that way, the car is taxed and has mot on it, it would save me having to pay 2 lots of car insurance!
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jesyca. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The other car that you drive, not belonging to you, MUST be insured in its own right.
So unless your mother insured it, no. Also. when the tax runs out, you wouldn't be able to renew it without its own insurance.
Your policy gives you insurance to DRIVE any vehicle - but as soon as you park it up and leave it on the public highway, it would not be insured.
The registration plate would flag up as uninsured by any police officer - so it could be towed away.
In a nutshell - no.
So unless your mother insured it, no. Also. when the tax runs out, you wouldn't be able to renew it without its own insurance.
Your policy gives you insurance to DRIVE any vehicle - but as soon as you park it up and leave it on the public highway, it would not be insured.
The registration plate would flag up as uninsured by any police officer - so it could be towed away.
In a nutshell - no.
Ethel - I thought we had laid to rest the assertion that a car "MUST be insured in its own right" as being incorrect - for the moment at least...
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Motoring/Questi on339442.html
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Motoring/Questi on405315.html
In short you can legally drive the car but not leave it unattended in a public place.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Motoring/Questi on339442.html
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Motoring/Questi on405315.html
In short you can legally drive the car but not leave it unattended in a public place.
Kempie, this is news to me. Is there a legal definition of unattended in a public place?
Say for example, and I hate the "what if scenarios" the law dictates you leave the vehicle. Say on the say so of Police Officer in uniform wishing to test the breaks. A silly example, but could happen.
In the interim of between when the officer gets in and the driver gets out the vehicle will be uninsured. Say somebody rear ends you in that split second??
NOt wishing to be argumentative, but I always thought the car must be insured. Otherwise, will we have loads of millionaire 17 year old driving daddies Ferrari, because it is in the fathers name.
Say for example, and I hate the "what if scenarios" the law dictates you leave the vehicle. Say on the say so of Police Officer in uniform wishing to test the breaks. A silly example, but could happen.
In the interim of between when the officer gets in and the driver gets out the vehicle will be uninsured. Say somebody rear ends you in that split second??
NOt wishing to be argumentative, but I always thought the car must be insured. Otherwise, will we have loads of millionaire 17 year old driving daddies Ferrari, because it is in the fathers name.
I think you'll find the law changed in the road safty act 2006.
It is now an offense to keep a vehicle that does not meet insurance requirements:
83. Section 143 of the RTA makes it an offence to use a vehicle on a road or other public
place without a policy of insurance or security against third party liability as required by Part
6 of the RTA. The new scheme will create a new offence of being the registered keeper of a
vehicle the use of which is not insured against third party liability as required by Part 6 of the
RTA. It will therefore be possible to detect the new offence from records of registered
keepers held by DVLA and insurance records.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/en2006/ukpgaen_200 60049_en.pdf
It is now an offense to keep a vehicle that does not meet insurance requirements:
83. Section 143 of the RTA makes it an offence to use a vehicle on a road or other public
place without a policy of insurance or security against third party liability as required by Part
6 of the RTA. The new scheme will create a new offence of being the registered keeper of a
vehicle the use of which is not insured against third party liability as required by Part 6 of the
RTA. It will therefore be possible to detect the new offence from records of registered
keepers held by DVLA and insurance records.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/en2006/ukpgaen_200 60049_en.pdf
As I stated in the previous thread, Section 83 of The Road Safety Act 2006 has not yet come into force as per Section 61 of that Act...
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60049--a. htm#61
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60049--a. htm#61
All that said I have just read the small print on my insurance details and regardless of any Road Traffic or Safety act, I can not drive any other car unless it is insured.
I imagine, therefore, regardless of legal technicalities, insurance companies stipulate that the "other" car must have insurance in its own right.
I imagine, therefore, regardless of legal technicalities, insurance companies stipulate that the "other" car must have insurance in its own right.
In the new Section 144B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by The Road Safety Act 2006) an exception to the offence will be made for vehicles not kept for use on a road or other public place only if a prior statement (such as a statutory off-road "SORN" declaration) has been made to the appropriate authorities as required by regulations.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60049--a. htm#22
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/60049--a. htm#22
I work in car insurance so please allow me to set the record straight.
The extension that allows you to drive other vehicles only covers you for third party damage, and that vehicle MUST be insured in its own right.
It doesn't matter if you park it up because it would still be insured, and besides you couldn't cause third party damage if you're not driving it.
As per your question, you're absolutely right there. If the vehicle is in your mother's name it would be her car, not yours. However, if you are insured on that policy, your "driving other cars" extension would not apply because you would be covered directly under the vehicle's own policy.
So yes, you've found a loophole, but as others have commented, i strongly doubt it would be economical for you.
The extension that allows you to drive other vehicles only covers you for third party damage, and that vehicle MUST be insured in its own right.
It doesn't matter if you park it up because it would still be insured, and besides you couldn't cause third party damage if you're not driving it.
As per your question, you're absolutely right there. If the vehicle is in your mother's name it would be her car, not yours. However, if you are insured on that policy, your "driving other cars" extension would not apply because you would be covered directly under the vehicle's own policy.
So yes, you've found a loophole, but as others have commented, i strongly doubt it would be economical for you.
Unfortunately barcelonic29 you have not set the record straight at all.
Each policy (or underwriter) will stipulate the conditions for "driving other vehicles" (if allowed) in the Ts & Cs and it is not yet a blanket condition of all Motor Insurance Policies for the other vehicle in question to already have insurance cover. As I have written above, this condition does not form a part of my current policy.
However, it is likely that increasing numbers of policies will make such a condition a standard part of the "drive other vehicles" extension in readiness of the impending change in legislation also mentioned above.
Each policy (or underwriter) will stipulate the conditions for "driving other vehicles" (if allowed) in the Ts & Cs and it is not yet a blanket condition of all Motor Insurance Policies for the other vehicle in question to already have insurance cover. As I have written above, this condition does not form a part of my current policy.
However, it is likely that increasing numbers of policies will make such a condition a standard part of the "drive other vehicles" extension in readiness of the impending change in legislation also mentioned above.
kempie pls look again at my last post where i did indeed "set the record straight" - this msg is for the author.....> if you are insured on your mothers policy you will be refused DOC on your own policy. Only if you are not already insured to drive that other car would they accept it, and some insurers specify this must only be for emergencies (although insurers sometimes tend to ignore this clause).
In relation to what kempie suggested about not being covered if the car is parked that is rubbish. the fact is with DOC you are only covered for damage you cause to other cars, not for the car itself. And given DOC only applies to cars which are already insured in their own right, you would never be in the position where the car would be towed, unless you had driven it there without being insured under either DOC or a std policy
In relation to what kempie suggested about not being covered if the car is parked that is rubbish. the fact is with DOC you are only covered for damage you cause to other cars, not for the car itself. And given DOC only applies to cars which are already insured in their own right, you would never be in the position where the car would be towed, unless you had driven it there without being insured under either DOC or a std policy
1 to 20 of 20
