Another boring insurance question?.

[gazm3]

Has anyone who has it on their policy to drive another car third party, attempted to use this to put road tax on another vehicle. That is owned by them.

Im wondering if the people in the Post office will allow this form of insurance to effectively put road tax on another car.

Or does the vehicle need to be insured to put road tax on?.

Interesting point ?.

Cheers Gareth.

[billgatese30]

i think it has to be insured, the same as it does for someone to drive it on their own insurance third party

[kidsinister]

Although you are allowed to drive another car on your insurance, that car has to be insured in it's own right.

[gazm3]

Thank's Alec its an interesting angle, yes I understand the logic.

However if you had to produce your documents on a car that isn't insured, but you as a person are insured to drive any car third party are you insured?.

Cheers Gareth.

Basically is it you thats insured or the car you are driving?

[Moofles]

did you know that most companies insist that the "other" car you are driving has insurance? however there are a few that don't put this in their T&C's, meaning that you can drive the other car even if it doesn't have any other insurance on it (whatever other people say...i read about this on PH)

As the reason for requiring insurance and mot to get tax was to try and ensure your car was legal, i would think that the post office *should* accept it - whether that happens in reality is a different matter as i'm sure that it will be hard to convince a person in the post office if they decide to not believe you.

[Simon13]

I see your point, but the way i've understood it is like Alex said. The car has to have it's own insurance policy to make your own insurance policy valid on it.

If this was an exploitable loop hole we would all be driving 2 cars on one policy!

[dazleeds]

If this was an exploitable loop hole we would all be driving 2 cars on one policy!

aagghhh the good old days when that did work

[Moofles]

simon, it's only if your insurance states there must be another insurance policy directly on the car, that it matters...99% of policies specify this (if they even allow you to full stop), but as I read on PH, some people have gone through ALL their policy conditions, T&C's, everything....and nothing says the other car must have insurance already. As that is their contract with the insurer, their insurer must honour it and provide cover when they are driving the other car...

and yup it is a loophole...in those cases where it exists (very rare).

This question came up on the PH speed/plod/law forum about a week ago actually, and believe me even people who worked in insurance tried to argue that these people with "lucky" insurance couldn't do it, it's not been tested but i side with the contract. At the end of the day it's not an illegal contract (signing you up to something you just can't be signed up to, in law) so if the insurers choose to leave that loophole, well fair play to them...

[Simon13]

mu insurance on my sport allowed me to do drive other cars. So i could of taken the alpina home with me. Or if i take anyone with me with insurance like this they can drive it home when i collect!

but they must read their policy first though. interesting this is

[gazm3]

Simon,

Iv'e got 4.

Its interesting. Until you have a bump I suppose or are given a producer.
What if the police stop you, they check the car's insurance?. Dont they. But what happens when you pull your insurance document stating that you can drive any car third party?.

Are you insured to drive you must be?.

[Simon13]

i don't know thats the nitty gritty bits of law u would need to find out.

i would guess u are covered.

The police only know when they pull u, who the car is registered to, tax,mot etc but not insurance. I expect thats why we get the 7 day wonder.

[Jackle]

I've only just read this thread, but if I read the OP correctly this wouldn't be possible. All the insurance I've had has allowed me to drive other cars with and given third party only insurance. But the car mustn't be owned by me. ie I can drive anybody else's car and have TP insurance but if I were to buy a second car I wouldn't be able to do this.
Hope that make sense...

[Simon13]

yes that is true also, so thats how they get over that one. I forgot that

[gazm3]

But what if you register the car in somebody else is name.
Mum, Dad , Brother , Sister .

[Simon13]

is this about u driving 4 cars on one policy!

1 e30 is enough, 2 is greedy anymore is just mad! u must have a big garage!

[Moofles]

i guess the car not being registered in your name is another clause, just like the car already having insurance directly (so it may or may not have this clause depending on the company).

FYI here's the PH thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 7&f=10&h=0

you'll need to be a member though, the speed/plod/law forum is only visible when you are logged in...

The above thread only shows that insurance policies exist where you can drive other people's cars that don't already have insurance...

[Kos]

is this about u driving 4 cars on one policy!

1 e30 is enough, 2 is greedy anymore is just mad! u must have a big garage!

big drive way?

[gazm3]

The Law get you in the end, I feel its not worth playing that game.

But there are loop holes!.

I love my German cars Simon 4xE30's and my GTI.

Cheers Gareth

[Simon13]

well i'm not far behind with 2x e30's and also a golf!

[Kos]

technically it was three for a few hours??

[kidsinister]

Its interesting. Until you have a bump I suppose or are given a producer.
What if the police stop you, they check the car's insurance?. Dont they. But what happens when you pull your insurance document stating that you can drive any car third party?.

Are you insured to drive you must be?.

To clarify, if you were pulled in a car you don't own, your insurance isn't enough to cover you, it has to be already insured by the owner (this will most likely be the gist of what's in your policy).

In fact this was being phased out a few years back, some of my policies recently would not have allowed me to driver another car regardless, but it seems to be the norm again now.

[Moofles]

To clarify, if you were pulled in a car you don't own, your insurance isn't enough to cover you, it has to be already insured by the owner (this will most likely be the gist of what's in your policy).

in fact, it's *only* if this is stated in your policy that it isn't enough to cover you - did anyone read that thread i linked to? i guess no-one's a member of PH?

the terms and conditions in your motor insurance policy and certificate form a contract between you and the insurance company - if it doesn't require the other car to have insurance, then that is part of the contract. The insurance company cannot simply introduce a new rule 'cos it feels like it' - that's the point of a contract!

that said, it has not been tested in real life, by being pulled over (and this is stated in the thread). Though i would be very very confident, if i had that type of policy, and i was pulled over and it not accepted, that i would win in court.

[gazm3]

Moofles,

I tried to look at the tread, will have to join.

I checked the fine print on my policy with Equity Red Star.

And I am insured to drive another vehicle 3rd party, it does say with the owners permission. But if Im the owner, I give my permission

Opposed to driving somebody else's car.

I suppose with the Road Tax issue, its the car that needs to be insured.

Cheers Gareth.

[Moofles]

I read the details here:

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/forms/pdf/V10.pdf


and if you look here:

http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/howdoi_licence.htm

You'll see that they say "When you use a motor vehicle on the road you must be insured against third party claims for death or injury and damage to property caused by using the vehicle. The insurance must be valid when the licence comes into force and indicate that it covers the use of the vehicle by the licence applicant. If the cover is unclear you may be asked to provide written confirmation.
Note: The third party cover included on a comprehensive insurance policy that allows you to drive a vehicle not belonging to you cannot be used as evidence of valid insurance at vehicle licensing."

Which almost certainly will make them reject it, however it seems to indicate there may be certain circumstances where you could do this:

If you own the other car, and your insurance allows you to drive any other cars 3rd party (even if you own them), you could get tax...it says that "The third party cover included on a comprehensive insurance policy that allows you to drive a vehicle not belonging to you cannot be used as evidence of valid insurance at vehicle licensing", however if the vehicle belongs to you what's the situation? I suspect actually they will say that "the insurance you have still covers you to drive vehicles NOT belonging to you, so is invalid" - i wonder if you can get an insurance policy where they only allow you to drive cars that are registered to you! lol...that would then rule out that clause above