ChatterBank4 mins ago
help
Help my boyfriend just got pulled on the motorway in my brother inlaws car. When the police did a pnc it came back that he was fully comp insured. But not insured to driveany car other than his own. Does anyone know why? We thought fully comp ment you could drive other cars wth the owners concent
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mandascfc. 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.Excuse me! He is far from a silly boy who did not check his insurance.I was unawair that thirty five year old men with familys and a good career came into this catagory.Do not assume all people that make a mistake to be the same. He as been insured fully comp for near on fiteen years and this is the fist policy which this as occured in. So please TOUREMAN thin before speaking.
he will receive 6 points and a heavy fine,for driving uninsured,pleading guilty and explaining his case should get him off with just that, in future he as everybody has said check before driving,your brother in law could also be charged with allowing him to drive without insurance,fully comp means a lot of things,but you must read the small print.
stupid boy pike.
stupid boy pike.
You see this is now a matter of difference of opinion. I do not think that he shud be treated any differently from the next person. I just do not agree with people insulting others who they do not no. If he raced around the streets under the influence of drugs or alchol with no insurance. Then yes i would be the first person to call him A SILLY LITTLE BOY. But as this was not the case and he genuinely beleived he was insured to drive the car with the policy which he held i do not beleive that he is A SILLY LITTLE BOY infact from it. Perhaps niaeve not to double check his policy.
As mentioned, quote " If he raced around the streets under the influence of drugs or alchol with no insurance. Then yes i would be the first person to call him A SILLY LITTLE BOY. "
He had no insurance, and obviously had not checked to see he was insured to drive that vehicle so I agree that he was A SILLY LITTLE BOY.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
He had no insurance, and obviously had not checked to see he was insured to drive that vehicle so I agree that he was A SILLY LITTLE BOY.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Is your boy friend in the motortrade ??
originally most policies covered you to drive other peoples vehicles 3rd party with there consent...Over the years the ins.companys have clamped down on this practice due to over abuse of the system.
It also depends on your occupation, as i honestly declared on my insurance that i am in the motortrade my fully com only covers my vehicle.I knew this when i took the policy out but its only recently that i found out the reason.
There logic is that i would be driving customers/company cars on my personal policy.
This is absolute rubbish as i work for a multi billion pound group under there insurance. I tried to explain this to my ins. co. and could provide proof but they wouldnt budge on it... (tescos by the way).
originally most policies covered you to drive other peoples vehicles 3rd party with there consent...Over the years the ins.companys have clamped down on this practice due to over abuse of the system.
It also depends on your occupation, as i honestly declared on my insurance that i am in the motortrade my fully com only covers my vehicle.I knew this when i took the policy out but its only recently that i found out the reason.
There logic is that i would be driving customers/company cars on my personal policy.
This is absolute rubbish as i work for a multi billion pound group under there insurance. I tried to explain this to my ins. co. and could provide proof but they wouldnt budge on it... (tescos by the way).
Interesting - I have just checked my policy and it quite clearly states that I am insured 3rd party to drive any car, however "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."
Presumably that is to prevent someone getting insurance on say a Fiesta and then driving around in an Impreza or similar, which I think was the reason this policy benefit became less common.
And the policy I have was extremely inexpensive - by far the cheapest I found. It is with swiftcover.
Good luck - sounds like a genuine mistake.
Presumably that is to prevent someone getting insurance on say a Fiesta and then driving around in an Impreza or similar, which I think was the reason this policy benefit became less common.
And the policy I have was extremely inexpensive - by far the cheapest I found. It is with swiftcover.
Good luck - sounds like a genuine mistake.