insured / not insured?

[wallis1007]

A friend of mine has just told me he has been done for driving without insurance. He was driving his girlfriend's car when stopped by the police. He has tpf&t insurance on his own car so I was surprised that this didn't cover him to drive his girlfriend's car bearing in mind that she has insurance on her car. He got a �200 fine and six points and she got the same for letting him drive !. Is it possible that he is covered and hasn't read the small print. The police didn't even look at his insurance policy.

[devilhunter]

It is only your friends insurance that matters in this case as he was driving.

He needs to have "driving of other cars" on his insurance which usually means he is covered 3rd party only on any other vehicle he has a licience to drive with the owners permission.

If he is very young ie under 21 it may not be on there but do check just in case.

Not sure why the girl got done unless she said she knew he was uninsured.

[rachela500]

You generally need fully comprehensive insurance to be covered to drive other cars "with the owner's permission" it normally says.

[Toureman]

devilhunter

The girl got done because she allowed someone to drive her car without insurance!

The only way she would not have been prosecuted would be to say he was driving it without her permission, this would have meant he would have been prosecuted for TWOC.

[erimus1]

I find it har to believe that the police did not even look at the insurance policy. The easy answer is to look at the insurance plicy to find out of the policy owner had third party indemnity to drive any other vehicle that did not belong to him - if this is the case, then he will be able to appeal the conviction.

In respect of the girlfriend that also got 6 points. Toureman is correct in one respect, int that she would have escaped prosecution had she said he wias driving without her consent., but this would not have been the only defence - If she stated thate she had an 'honest and reasonable belief' that her boyfriend was insured to drive the vehicl, then she would also escape prosecution.

From my own driving experiences, i would say it more likely that someone was insured to drive other vehicles than not - I have three different policies, and they all alow me to drive other vehicles.

[gouldc]

Most policies have a section dedicated to DOC (driving otehr cars) whilst this is normally reserved for comprehensive policies, some TPF&T policies will also have this condition.

This allows you to drive another vehicle, not owned by yourself, under Third Party Only insurance IN AN EMERGANCY - this does not allow you to drive other cars when you feel like it, and can lead to problems if you have an accident in another person's car (apart from the fact that you wouldn't be covered for the damage in any case).

It would be stated o nthe insurance certificate as to whether this clause is in effect on your friend's policy, and the police would have checked this when he produced the document.

He is now in possession of an IN10 conviction, and his girlfriend gets an IN12 (if I remember correctly) - allowing or aiding and abetting someone to drive without insurance.

These MUST be notified to the relevant insurers and full circumstances given - we do not look lightly upon these convictions, and if they are found out about during the course of a claim, it could result in a policy being cancelled and all costs being lumped onto the policyholder.

[clancyblob]

Gouldc can advise, but I think I read somewhere that insurance companies are reviewing policy wording to remove "driving other car not owned" to further reduce the service we get for our money!

I have 30 years No Claims, and "driving other cars" was automatically included by all the various companies I have been with over the years (it also included motorbike in same situation where you had relevant licence) but all these bits are getting whittled away, and excess goes up and up. Also didn't "windscreen replacement" go the same way recently? Sorry, having a Victor Meldrew Moment...