Insurance. Driving other vehicles!

[madmatt101]

actually they would only get it if it was in the terms of their fully comprehensive insurance. My fully comp insurance makes no mention of driving other cars, therefore I will not be covered to drive other cars.

 

It would depend on the insurance policy and the terms and exclusions of that insurance. I once had 3rd party insurance which allowed my to drive other cars, but I had to give them the reg number first and it allowed hire and reward but without profit, the idea being that mates can chip in for fuel on a road trip.

[Raykay]

As i have previously stated watching these cop reality shows where they take the car of people for no insurance

 

 

 

As in post 20, just because they are on television doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. I have also seen episodes where the police have got it wrong in respect of other matters.

[dacouc]

You may only drive an insured car… Not a car that has been declared SORN or is otherwise uninsured for the road.

 

This is an absolutely black and white issue. Apart from traders who are allowed to move vehicles using trade plates, it is the car which must be insured in the first instance.

 

I have a policy with Direct Line, they do not require the other vehicle to hold it's own cover.

 

They also personally confirmed that the other vehicle does not need it's own insurance and helpfully sent me a transcript confirming this when I asked for proof as people on forums would not believe it.

 

Where is it written down as a law or case law that you can't drive another vehicle unless it hold's it's own Insurance assuming you're with an Insurer such as Direct Line who do not require the other vehicle to be insured.

 

Please don't say Continuous Insurer law or SORN as they apply to the registered keeper so would not apply to someone who is not the RK / Owner. Granted the RK would be breaching those laws bit the driver would not and would suffer no penalty

[obiter dictum]

http://www.bewiser.co.uk/knowledge-base/insurance-knowledge/driving-other-vehicles-what-exactly-are-you-covered

[Aretnap]

http://www.bewiser.co.uk/knowledge-base/insurance-knowledge/driving-other-vehicles-what-exactly-are-you-covered

Indeed, BeWiser are one of the insurers who require that the other car has a policy of its own. But they're not the only insurer out there, and they don't get to decide what conditions other insurers attach to their DOC cover.

 

On the other hand, here's Direct Line's policy wording. The driving other cars section is on page 8.

 

Driving other cars

If your certificate of motor insurance says so, this policy provides the same cover as above in 1a when you are driving any other motor car as long as you do not own it and it is not hired to you under a hire-purchase or leasing agreement. This cover only applies if:

• there is no other insurance in force which covers the same liability;

• you have the owner’s permission to drive the car;

• the car is registered in and being driven in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands; and

• you still have your car and it has not been damaged beyond cost-effective repair

Which part of that requires that the other car has a policy of its own?

[Raykay]

http://www.bewiser.co.uk/knowledge-base/insurance-knowledge/driving-other-vehicles-what-exactly-are-you-covered

 

Another internet website that only gives its own version. As in other posts, it all depends on the terms and conditions of the relevant insurance company.

[Aretnap]

The correct answer to most questions about insurance is "it depends on what your policy says".

 

These threads only end up at over long because people decide that they know what your policy says because of something they saw on TV or read on the internet, rather than reading the actual policy.

[dacouc]

The correct answer to most questions about insurance is "it depends on what your policy says".

 

These threads only end up at over long because people decide that they know what your policy says because of something they saw on TV or read on the internet, rather than reading the actual policy.

 

Is a very good answer.

 

Read your Policy, it's a good life practice to read and understand contracts you're a party too.

 

On a side note, a lot of lower end insurance staff would give you the same (Wrong) answer as they make a guess on what they think their policy says or in this case doesn't say and make a guess based on what they think it should say and with a bit of believing urban myths.

 

There are a few questions I could give you to ask lower end insurance staff and the majority of them would give you the wrong answer

[ThedaBara]

So… it sounds as though you can just get an insurance policy for your own car, which allows you to drive another person's car (with their permission), then say your partner has a dozen cars, all in their name, but uninsured, you can drive any one of them on your own policy?

That would be amazing if it were true!!

[Old Cogger]

all policies I have seen state - you are covered 3rd party as long as that vehicle is insured on the road?

[CrappoMan]

So… it sounds as though you can just get an insurance policy for your own car, which allows you to drive another person's car (with their permission), then say your partner has a dozen cars, all in their name, but uninsured, you can drive any one of them on your own policy?

That would be amazing if it were true!!

 

It is true, but the cost saving on insurance policies would be offset by the fines and court costs your partner would get for keeping uninsured vehicles.

Remember we are talking here about DRIVING a car, not having/keeping/owning the car.

[Aretnap]

all policies I have seen state - you are covered 3rd party as long as that vehicle is insured on the road?

You must not have seen Direct Line's then. There are still quite a few others which don't have that condition. Whether there will be in a few years time remains to be seen.

 

Insurance policies come in all shapes and sizes. If you go to a high net worth insurer like Hiscox you can get a policy which provides fully comprehensive driving other cars cover for all named drivers. Rather handy if your friend offers you a spin in his Ferrari, but you do have to move in certain social circles to make the best use of it. (And it's not cheap, but then it's aimed at people for whom price isn't the primary concern)

[ThedaBara]

all policies I have seen state - you are covered 3rd party as long as that vehicle is insured on the road?

 

Exactly...

[ThedaBara]

It is true, but the cost saving on insurance policies would be offset by the fines and court costs your partner would get for keeping uninsured vehicles.

Remember we are talking here about DRIVING a car, not having/keeping/owning the car.

 

Not sure what you mean… it's legal to keep an uninsured car as long as it is kept off the road and SORN'd… you can't drive a SORN'd car as it isn't insured… and you definitely can't take a SORN'd vehicle on the road just because you are allowed to drive any car on your insurance...

[ThedaBara]

Continuous Insurance Law does not have any effect on Driving Other Cars.

 

The responsibility to keep the vehicle Insured under CIEis down to the owner / keeper it has nothing to do with the driver.

 

The CIE & being leaned on by the Government is why the majority of Insurers now stipulate that the other vehicle holds it's own Insurance. But there are still a fair few of the bigger Insurers who do not require the other vehicle to be insured and by using this you do not break any law. Only the owner / keeper and break the CIE law

 

Hmmm… in all the years of owning a car, I have never com across any situation where an insured driver can drive someone else's uninsured car...

[hightail]

Surely the baseline would be that the car being driven on the public highway complies with every law/rule required to be on the road and this includes it being insured. You can't take an uninsured vehicle on the road. Whether the person driving it is covered, either as a named driver or third party under their own policy, is another issue.

[obiter dictum]

That is the way i see it

 

Any vehicle that is not SORN has to have a certificate of insurance by the owner of that vehicle, so by default all road vehicles must have a minimum of third party insurance to be on our roads by the owner of that vehicle

 

I am going to comment no more on this issue. It is written in the Road Traffic Act and Continuous Insurance Enforcement Scheme

 

I am not saying i am right or wrong

 

It is just i have seen no definitive proof in legislation or links that states different except peoples own personnel opinions

[unclebulgaria67]

Surely the baseline would be that the car being driven on the public highway complies with every law/rule required to be on the road and this includes it being insured. You can't take an uninsured vehicle on the road. Whether the person driving it is covered, either as a named driver or third party under their own policy, is another issue.

 

Correct. Perhaps people should read the law regarding compulsory insurance requirements for all vehicles to be driven on a public highway.

 

Bit of a grey area which sparks arguments. If you drive a vehicle on driving other cars extension, even if there is no requirement stated on cert that other vehicle is insured, if the other vehicle is not showing as insured on MID, i would be wary of driving it too far. If you get stopped by the Police, you are going to have a lot of hassle trying to explain to them what insurance you have. The Police might not agree with your explanation and they refuse to let you drive on.

[CrappoMan]

Hmmm… in all the years of owning a car, I have never com across any situation where an insured driver can drive someone else's uninsured car...

 

This is getting tiring having to explain simple things to people too stubborn to understand.

 

If your neighbour has a car on his drive, which is SORN'd and the MOT has expired, which he needs to get to a pre-booked MOT test, how can he get it there ?

 

Do you agree that it is legal to drive a car without VED or MOT to a pre-booked MOT test as long as the journey is covered by a policy of insurance against third-party risks ?

 

Either he can take out insurance or YOU can drive on your DOC coverage (provided it does not specify that the other vehicle must have its own insurance).

 

If you don't agree, tell me exactly which part of the above is wrong.

 

In 25+ years of driving, I have had policies that haven't had DOC cover but have never had one that specified the other vehicle must have its own insurance. Policies like that do exist but I have never had one.

[obiter dictum]

I inquired with the old bill on this one

 

Three years ago before i stopped driving i needed to MOT a motorcycle which i restored. I had yet to arrange insurance cover as i was unsure if it would pass the MOT.

 

The police told me i could insure the vehicle for the day. I contacted Aviva, paid £10.00 and covered for 24 hours. They even email the insurance certificate

[hightail]

If your neighbour has a car on his drive, which is SORN'd and the MOT has expired, which he needs to get to a pre-booked MOT test, how can he get it there

He insures it just as every other car owner who wishes to take a vehicle on the road is meant to do.

 

 

Notwithstanding anecdotal tales of drivers getting away with driving uninsured vehicles, the real test would be if an insurer had ever paid out a third party claim in such a situation. If there's evidence they have done so then maybe it's true that uninsured vehicles can be covered by other drivers' policies but I doubt it.

[caro]

For info traders pay for insurance for any driver for their business. Very expensive!!

[Raykay]

That is the way i see it

 

Any vehicle that is not SORN has to have a certificate of insurance by the owner of that vehicle, so by default all road vehicles must have a minimum of third party insurance to be on our roads by the owner of that vehicle

 

I am going to comment no more on this issue. It is written in the Road Traffic Act and Continuous Insurance Enforcement Scheme

 

I am not saying i am right or wrong

 

It is just i have seen no definitive proof in legislation or links that states different except peoples own personnel opinions

 

S.143, Road Traffic Act 1988 requires that a person must have insurance for the use of a motor vehicle on a road. It may be their own car with their own insurance, or a third party vehicle if their insurance policy terms and conditions allow it.

 

 

It has nothing to do with the SORN requirement or CIE scheme, which is a matter for the registered keeper, not the driver.

[obiter dictum]

Continuous Insurance Enforcement Scheme also makes it a legal requirement if not SORN to have a minimum third party cover

 

I will now withdraw until a link has be given on this subject from an objective source to state any different on this subject

[CrappoMan]

Continuous Insurance Enforcement Scheme also makes it a legal requirement if not SORN to have a minimum third party cover

 

I will now withdraw until a link has be given on this subject from an objective source to state any different on this subject

 

CIE legislation makes it a requirement for the KEEPER to have a policy of insurance. It says nothing about the driver.

 

Just as i said in post #61 at the top of this page, but people keep bringing up CIE as if it helps their argument. IT DOESN'T!