Insurance on the continent

[Brian Kirby]

In the meantime, in case there is still a mistake, anyone wishing to take advantage of MotorCaravanWise's insurance would be very wise to write to them stating clearly what they intend doing, and asking for written confirmation that the insurance being offered fully covers accidental damage, fire, theft and third party risks in the same terms as set out in the policy document while the vehicle is being driven outside the UK and before it is registered in UK.  That way, if the worst happens and MotorCaravanWise are in error, and the underwriter consequently rejects the claim, it will be clear who said what to whom, and MotorCaravanWise will have to speak to their Professional Indemnity Insurer.  However, although that may, eventually, result in payment I wouldn't want to bet on full reimbursement of all the costs involved, so still tread with care!

[Abb]

While I can completely understand Abb accepting the German dealer's offer of trade-plates (I know full well I'd have done likewise!), I'd have been awfully jittery while I was driving the motorhome home.

 

 

This is a reply to Derek:

 

The German dealer before allowing me to use their plates, rang his insurance people to discuss the legality of me the owner driving the van back to UK.

If I am not mistaken, the answer was ok as long as the dealer is happy for me to sort of 'deliver' the van. The german dealer was not required by his unsurer to disclose anything about the delivery driver as long as the dealer is satisfied that delivery driver meets whatever conditions are set out in the insurance schedule.

Honestly the dealer seemed at the time more worried about the return of the physical plates because no plates means no delivery while remaking the plate which apparently would takes weeks of admin.

 

I think what anyone importing a motorhome from the continent should remember is that the German system allows one to tempoary register, insure 3P and drive the motorhome all the way to UK.

The French system would allow transit registration with no insurance what soever. I was lucky my Rapido dealer was in Rennes only 50miles from the port of St-Malo. The dealer made abondantly obvious that he was doing me a faveur to drive the motorhome to St-Malo. If I bought the motorhome say in Ma**eille, it would have been a different story.

 

PS. How would one 'frame' copy and paste paragraphs from other postings!

For instance the 1st paragraph of this posting if from Derek. I didn't know how to put it in a box in white!...Many thanks....

 

[Brian Kirby]

Last bit's easy.  Use the "quote" button below the post, when the text entry window pops up, get you cursor into the window and scroll right to the bottom.  Make sure you're right at the end of the quoted text, one space and then press return.  That starts a new para, and the original "quoted" text will appear at the top of your post within the white box.  You can see the effect of you press the "preview" button, which allows you to continue editing before the reply is posted.  Have fun!

[Abb]

Brian Kirby - 2008-08-03 9:47 PM

 

Last bit's easy.  Use the "quote" button below the post, when the text entry window pops up, get you cursor into the window and scroll right to the bottom.  Make sure you're right at the end of the quoted text, one space and then press return.  That starts a new para, and the original "quoted" text will appear at the top of your post within the white box.  You can see the effect of you press the "preview" button, which allows you to continue editing before the reply is posted.  Have fun!

 

Thank you very much Brian. I hope I've done it right. The preview just confirmed it right.....

[Derek Uzzell]

Abb:

 

When I mentioned my wariness of use of trade-plates by your Continental dealer to provide you with emergency insurance cover, I wasn't suggesting that you or the dealer were involved in anything remotely 'shady'.

 

Another forum member was offered the same option and, if I remember correctly, as a result chose not to have the motorhome he was purchasing 3rd-Party insured (or temporarily registered) in the Continental country he was buying the vehicle from.

 

My reservations are personal and I've absolutely no evidence that what your German dealer did was other than above board, nor that the insurance provided to you by the dealer's trade-plates was illegal or inadequate. All I've got is a gut-feeling about this based on my (sketchy) understanding of the purpose and limitations of trade-plates in the UK.

 

As you've no doubt begun to appreciate from reading this thread, this is a complex matter and it's often the case with insurance that the Devil is in the detail. Your German dealer telephoned his insurance provider over whether it would be OK from their point of view to let you use his trade-plates after ownership of the motorhome had transferred to you. The insurance provider (as I understand it) gave the dealer latitude and the dealer chose to permit you to use his plates. Everybody would have been content with this arrangement - insurance provider, dealer, you - as long as you didn't have an accident. If you had, then nobody - insurance provider, dealer, you - would have been happy and that's when it would have been discovered whether on not the arrangement was flawed. Of course this is all academic as you didn't have an accident, so the legality/effectiveness of the trade-plate arrangement can't be ascertained.

 

Incidentally One: (I once considered purchasing a Chausson motorhome from a Rennes-based dealership and they also offered to drive the vehicle to St Malo when I mentioned the insurance problem. They said too that the price of the motorhome (LHD naturally) would include replacement of headlights and speedometer to meet UK registration requirements. Apparently, the dealer had had quite a few Jersey-based customers who had told him that their new motorhomes would be inspected for 'UK legality' when registered in Jersey. At the time (2004), such vehicle inspections were not normally carried out as part of the general UK 'mainland' registration process, though, more recently, they have become commonplace.)

 

Incidentally Two: (With the 'Quoting' thing, once you've done as Brian advises (and as you've successfully achieved), if you feel so inclined, you can edit the quote itself to remove anything within it that's superfluous, and you can insert your own text before as well as after it. For example....

 

Abb - 2008-08-03 8:18 PM

PS. How would one 'frame' copy and paste paragraphs from other postings!

 

This avoids repeating unnecessary original text if only a minor section of a large posting being quoted from is relevant to one's comments.)

[donna miller]

Derek Uzzell - 2008-08-03 7:05 PM

 

plus the advice that this cover removes the need to obtain 3rd-Party insurance from the 'foreign' end.

 

 

 

 

I would have thought by now, anybody buying a van in Germany would know, the purchase of temporary export plates is non negotiable and compulsary, the purchase of these plates includes 3rd party cover for the duration of the journey. The insurance cover is NOT an option, and cannot be left out. The dealer who offered the use of trade plates obtained advice from his insurers before making the offer, so ensuring the legality of the situation. His trade plates would then offer the same protection as an export plate.

 

If everyone stopped bringing up the issue of 3rd party insurance from UK brokers, then the matter would be a lot clearer to everyone, NEVER, have I or anyone else if my memory serves me correctly, suggested that motorcaravanwise offered or gave my friend and myself 3rd party cover whilst abroad, they merely insured our vehicles against fire,theft and accidental damage.

 

Perhaps I might be convinced by the previous statements that "it is illegal for UK based insurers to offer accidental damage cover" to my vehicle and contents before UK registration, if they posted the relevant section of the document that contains that particular legislation.

I am not interested in the sections that say 3rd party cover cannot be offered, these sections are irrelevant as I already have cover against damage or injury to a third party. I want to see where my broker is not allowed by European or British legislation, to cover my vehicle for damage or loss.

 

When everyone stops analysing everthing down to the last letter, things are so much easier to understand.

 

And I can confidently say that if everyone starts calling the brokers and quoting that certain members of a motorhome forum say the cover they offer is illegal, then sooner, rather than later , the brokers will withdraw the service. That will leave us all in a worse situation.

 

Mel, Brian, can you not just accept that some people have managed to obtain cover that they were happy with, and some ( including yourselves)have not, several people have stated that the broker in question has given or offered cover, even after intense questioning, why is that not enough to convince you.

 

 

[donna miller]

Mel E - 2008-08-03 11:45 AM

 

Brian,

 

It's quite straightforward: buy Third Party insurance in any EU country on a vehicle registered in that country and it is valid for travel to/through any other EU country and no Green Card is now needed (though it's always worth checking the recent accession states).

 

BUT you can only LEGALLY buy such TP Cover in the country of the vehicle's registration - hence the TP cover in association with temp Geman plates. You CANNOT buy TP Cover in the UK on a German registered vehicle (or vice versa).

 

 

Mel E

====

 

 

All the above is exactly what Mark, Derek and myself have been trying to say all along, we haven't suggested MCW have offered 3rd party cover on the vehicle, only accidental damage to our own vehicle.

 

Just for the record, somebody mentioned that 14 days was not long enough to register a vehicle once you had imported it, and that 20 + days was the norm.

 

Here is what happened to the first 2 vans we imported.

 

Monday 10 am...........Arrived home after wonderful journey from Mulheim.

 

2 pm..............Van MOT'd at local station.

 

4.30 pm......... previously obtained forms, along with new mot and £39 registration fee + fee for 6 months tax, posted to local licencing office.

 

 

Thursday 8.30am...........postman Pat delivers envelope from Licencing office containing tax disc and registration number for the Van.

 

No inspections, no hassle, £4k saving from robbing UK dealers, Full Fiat service inc cambelt change, courtesy of German dealer,insurance company advised of new reg, tanks filled and away for the wekend.

 

Recommend it to everyone.

:D :D

[Derek Uzzell]

Why does my head hurt? Oh yes, it's because I keep banging it against a brick wall.

 

How are you so well informed, Donna? I spent part of my career dealing with insurance claims - personal, vehicle and marine - and I'll happily admit that the insurance cover we have been discussing here taxes my brain as to what is or isn't legally available.

 

Perhaps I'm just thick and, if that's the case, then (based on your avatar) perhaps the saying "Angels walk in where fools fear to tread" would be appropriate.

[Brian Kirby]

donna miller - 2008-08-04 8:52 AM ..................Perhaps I might be convinced by the previous statements that "it is illegal for UK based insurers to offer accidental damage cover" to my vehicle and contents before UK registration, if they posted the relevant section of the document that contains that particular legislation. I am not interested in the sections that say 3rd party cover cannot be offered, these sections are irrelevant as I already have cover against damage or injury to a third party. I want to see where my broker is not allowed by European or British legislation, to cover my vehicle for damage or loss.

I don't think anyone is suggesting your broker cannot offer such insurance, what we are struggling to understand is the basis on which this was offered.  You are not helping us with that understanding by merely, in effect, answering "because I say so" and becoming irritated when pressed for greater information and clarity.  These requests are not denigrating you, or calling you a liar as you have claimed.  They stem from genuine doubts that this particular broker is actually selling what he claims to be selling.  What you are doing is publicly endorsing this broker's claims, with an implied recommendation to others to buy the same product.  It is just that we think the broker may be wrong, and may, therefore, be misleading his clients into a position from which, if they have an accident en-route home, they end up losing a lot of money.  This is not, and never was, about you and us, or about who is right because they say so, it is about whether the broker's claim is safe to endorse and pass on through a public forum.  From the information we have, variously, accumulated while trying to obtain the insurance your broker claims to offer, we have all become convinced that such insurance is not available, as described, within the UK.  If this is correct, people buying this insurance are, actually, uninsured against accidental damage, fire and theft risks, and are driving home on third party insurance only.  Please forget the "who is right" aspect of this.  Personally I couldn't give a damn who is right, the only thing I am interested in is that the insurance being offered by MotorCaravanWise does what they claim, and is not the result of a genuine mistake on their part which, when exposed, leaves one of their clients in an expensive mess.  We can't help having these misgivings, they are based on the facts as we know them.  You could help us all by quoting what MotorCaravanWise have put into writing to you.  If all your dealings with them were over the 'phone, you were entirely dependant on the knowledge of your informant, who may not have been so expert as they should have been before giving an abnormal assurance.  There may well be tapes of the conversation, but these can suffer problems when the chips are down.  Am I a cynic?  You bet I am when dealing with insurance!  However, if the information is in writing, on their headed paper, first - someone usually checks their facts before they sign and second - they are committed by what they say, and cannot subsequently claim there was some misunderstanding.  This issue really is far too important for personalities to be allowed to obscure the facts.

donna miller - 2008-08-04 8:52 AM When everyone stops analysing everything down to the last letter, things are so much easier to understand.

Problem with this is, it is insurance, and it is exactly "analysis to the last letter" that is critical to knowing what is being offered.  The underwriter will do this if he receives a claim, to see if he is contractually obliged to pay, and how much.  The buyer should do likewise.

donna miller - 2008-08-04 8:52 AM And I can confidently say that if everyone starts calling the brokers and quoting that certain members of a motorhome forum say the cover they offer is illegal, then sooner, rather than later , the brokers will withdraw the service. That will leave us all in a worse situation. Mel, Brian, can you not just accept that some people have managed to obtain cover that they were happy with, and some ( including yourselves)have not, several people have stated that the broker in question has given or offered cover, even after intense questioning, why is that not enough to convince you.

I shall be more than happy to accept that this insurance is everything you say it is, once I have the evidence for this before my eyes and can read it for myself.  This does not reflect any opinion I may have of you, it is just that I never take anyone else's word for something, I always do my own checking.  That is the sole reason I am struggling to understand what you got: I cannot find it for myself, so cannot confirm its existance.  As above, that is where you alone could help.

I assume what was offered was entirely legal (even if there is a mistake, provided the mistake is genuine, it is not illegal), and can see no reason the broker should withdraw a legal product.  The only reason, logically, for him to do this, would be if he became aware of his own mistake, when he would be obliged to withdraw the product, or if he knew the product was dodgy, and feared exposure.  I either case, withdrawal would surely be a better outcome than continuing availability of a product that let down its buyer when it was most needed.

So, after all that oil being poured on the waters, how about letting us (and anyone else who's still awake!) see the written facts for ourselves?

[donna miller]

Hi Derek

 

Yes my head is hurting as well.

 

In answer to your question, I'm not a frilly frock and knitting type of person, I hold a cpc in road transport, spent 20 years driving artics including my own concrete mixer and now run my own business (with the soh). I've had the hassle of insurances here and abroad for my trucks as well as a trader policy.

 

In respect of the current thread, I just like to look at things logically, It's not my desire or intention to be deemed right or for anyone else to be proven wrong, someone asked for experiences and advice, I tried to give an honest account in both instances. The accidental cover given by UK insurers, to my knowledge has never been governed by European legislation, only the provision of 3rd party road risk, when you can differentiate between the two, it's as clear as a pint of Guinness.

:D

 

Anyway, It worked for me, let's hope it continues to for others.

 

p.s. For wall banging induced headaches, next time you go to Turkey, buy supplies of Nurofen, they are in boxes of 20 for 75p as opposed to £2.79 for 12 over here......................................Cue posts regarding the import of non prescription drugs from non EU countries. *-)

[donna miller]

Brian Kirby - 2008-08-04 7:31 PM

1.. I don't think anyone is suggesting your broker cannot offer such insurance, 2..we have all become convinced that such insurance is not available, as described, within the UK.  3..Please forget the "who is right" aspect of this.  Personally I couldn't give a damn who is right, the only thing I am interested in is that the insurance being offered by MotorCaravanWise does what they claim,4.. You could help us all by quoting what MotorCaravanWise have put into writing to you.  If all your dealings with them were over the 'phone, you were entirely dependant on the knowledge of your informant, who may not have been so expert as they should have been before giving an abnormal assurance.  5..There may well be tapes of the conversation, but these can suffer problems when the chips are down.   However, if the information is in writing, on their headed paper, first - someone usually checks their facts before they sign and second - they are committed by what they say, and cannot subsequently claim there was some misunderstanding. 6.. This issue really is far too important for personalities to be allowed to obscure the facts 7.. The underwriter will do this if he receives a claim, to see if he is contractually obliged to pay, and how much.  The buyer should do likewise8..I shall be more than happy to accept that this insurance is everything you say it is, once I have the evidence for this before my eyes and can read it for myself.  This does not reflect any opinion I may have of you, it is just that I never take anyone else's word for something, 9..So, after all that oil being poured on the waters, how about letting us (and anyone else who's still awake!) see the written facts for ourselves?

Brian, I have selected the above sections from your post and will try to answer them as best as I can,1..Mel E has catagorically stated that any UK broker offering comprehensive insurance is acting illegally. You have stated on several occasions that you do not believe this cover is available. 2.. A total contradiction of your above staement.3..If you do not care who is right or wrong, why have you such a problem accepting that I may be right in this instance.4..When have I ever said I had something in writing, you are confusing me with someone else. Any employe of a broker or underwriter would obtain confirmation from a senior member of staff if they were unsure of something.5..Taped, written or verbal, in English law, a contract is a contract, all employees represent the company that employs them.6.. It would appear that personality IS an issue for some, maybe also that a mere woman could possibly have knowledge of such a controversial subject.7..As answer 5. You enter into a contract when you purchase goods or a sevice, any attempt to dishonour that contract is illegal and the penalties are severe.8..As I said previously, when did I ever claim to have anything in writing, maybe you should be asking for the proof that Mel claims to have, that MCW are unable to legally offer accidental damage cover, because let's be honest, that is the real issue, nothing to do with 3rd party road risk. No one is in any doubt about the legislation regarding that. However, you have refused point blank to accept the different issue of accidental damge cover. 9..I have no desire or need to convince you or anyone else of my dealings, you obviously have no intention of accepting what I say and have constantly picked holes in every posting I've made.Mel E made the original comment that my insurer was acting illegally, I disagree that the piece of legislation he quoted applies to fire, theft and accidental cover to a vehicle. And as yet, he has provided no proof to me that I am wrong.You disagree with me with a passion, and yet will not accept that I may disagree with Mel.So you can continue to claim that I, answer "because I say so" and becoming irritated when pressed for greater information and clarity. When in reality,what really irritates me is the inability of people to see anybody else's point of view.And before I say anything that will be accused of being curt, irritable, or anything else, this is my final word in this thread.

[Brian Kirby]

1 “I don't think anyone is suggesting your broker cannot offer such insurance,”

Mel E has categorically stated that any UK broker offering comprehensive insurance is acting illegally.  Yes, because comprehensive insurance de facto includes third party insurance.  UK brokers cannot, legally, provide third party insurance on un-registered vehicles that are outside the UK, hence they cannot offer comprehensive insurance on such vehicles.

You have stated on several occasions that you do not believe this cover is available.  But, this is not comprehensive insurance; it is accidental damage, fire and theft insurance.  I do not believe this is available on vehicles that are being moved under their own power.  I was hoping you would be able to convince me otherwise.  It seems not.  Saying that I believe it to be un-available is not the same as saying it is illegal, or that the broker cannot offer it.

2  “we have all become convinced that such insurance is not available, as described, within the UK. 

A total contradiction of your above statement.  Er, no.  If something is not available, it does not follow that it is illegal, nor that anyone is restrained or prevented from offering it.  I may be unavailable for commercial reasons, which appears the case with this insurance.  If the insurers entered into pan-European cross-bonding arrangements, the insurance, as I understand it, would be legal.  Such arrangements are judged too expensive to be economically worthwhile.  In their absence the provision of the third party cover, as above, is disbarred.

3  “Please forget the "who is right" aspect of this.  Personally I couldn't give a damn who is right, the only thing I am interested in is that the insurance being offered by MotorCaravanWise does what they claim,”

If you do not care who is right or wrong, why have you such a problem accepting that I may be right in this instance.  I have not the slightest problem with the notion that you may be, or are, right or that I may be, or am, wrong.  However, despite numerous requests you have not provided the evidence to back your assertion that your information is accurate.  That has made me suspicious that the evidence may not exist.  I do not doubt that you believe you are right, but I will not accept mere assertion from anyone, however often or loudly expressed, irrespective of who they are.  As I said, I believe the evidence of my own eyes.  I heard a Chinese proverb tonight: “to see with one’s own eyes is better than being told one hundred times”.  That is where I stand.

4  You could help us all by quoting what MotorCaravanWise have put into writing to you.  If all your dealings with them were over the 'phone, you were entirely dependant on the knowledge of your informant, who may not have been as expert as they should have been before giving an abnormal assurance. 

When have I ever said I had something in writing, you are confusing me with someone else.  Again, no.  I have merely assumed that you must have the evidence to back you assertions, and for me that would mean written confirmation.

Any employee of a broker or underwriter would obtain confirmation from a senior member of staff if they were unsure of something.  Would obtain?  Well, definitely should obtain, but the world is an imperfect place, and people do not always do what they should, do we?  Have you never had such employees say to you over the phone “I’m sure that is the case”, or “I think that is true”?  I know I have.  Where the issue is insurance, I have always insisted I have two things.  1, written confirmation of any specifics, usually in the form of a copy of the proposal document, and 2, a copy of the full policy document, so that I can read all the conditions, before I pay the premium.

5  There may well be tapes of the conversation, but these can suffer problems when the chips are down.  However, if the information is in writing, on their headed paper, first - someone usually checks their facts before they sign and second - they are committed by what they say, and cannot subsequently claim there was some misunderstanding.

Taped, written or verbal, in English law, a contract is a contract, all employees represent the company that employs them.  Yes, in theory.  The problem is that when there is a dispute you first have to be able to prove the existence of the contract, which should present no problem I this case, but you then have to be able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, what were the conditions governing that contract.  Most vehicle insurance is on standard conditions, as set out in the policy document.  If you had nothing specific in writing about driving the vehicle outside the UK, and you had submitted a claim for events outside the UK, you would have needed to prove you had told the broker that was your intention.  If you had written to inform them of this, and had received a favourable reply, you would have your proof.  Without that, unless the tape of your conversation absolutely bore you out, you would not have that proof.  Conversations leave scope for misunderstanding and mistake.  For that reason, even if the conversation was taped, the broker should still have given written confirmation of his understanding that you would be driving the vehicle, on their insurance, outside the UK, before it was registered.  Why?  Because that requirement varies the normal terms of the insurance, and the written document needs written confirmation of the change.

6.. This issue really is far too important for personalities to be allowed to obscure the facts

It would appear that personality IS an issue for some, maybe also that a mere woman could possibly have knowledge of such a controversial subject.  Hmmm.  Bit cheap, that!

7.. The underwriter will do this if he receives a claim, to see if he is contractually obliged to pay, and how much.  The buyer should do likewise

As answer 5.  You enter into a contract when you purchase goods or a service, any attempt to dishonour that contract is illegal and the penalties are severe.  Well, sort of.  You are liable to an action for breach, but you’d probably end up in arbitration.  Any penalty will most likely be financial, unless there is provable fraud.  In practice, few contractual disputes are as easy to settle as you imply, very few are resolved cheaply, and even fewer end with one or other party having won 100%.  Contract law is not a black and white world!  I’ve spent all my working life in the construction industry, so I have quite a bit of direct experience of contract law.

8  I shall be more than happy to accept that this insurance is everything you say it is, once I have the evidence for this before my eyes and can read it for myself.  This does not reflect any opinion I may have of you, it is just that I never take anyone else's word for something,

As I said previously, when did I ever claim to have anything in writing, maybe you should be asking for the proof that Mel claims to have, that MCW are unable to legally offer accidental damage cover, because let's be honest, that is the real issue, nothing to do with 3rd party road risk.  No one is in any doubt about the legislation regarding that.  However, you have refused point blank to accept the different issue of accidental damage cover.  But you see, I don’t need to see Mel’s proofs.  Two reasons: first, because they confirm what I have already found and, second, because although I have not taken my investigations as far as Mel, I have struggled through the relevant European Insurance Directives myself, and have also spoken to members of the insurance industry, and it all points in the same direction.  As I’ve said above, I don’t take other people’s word on things, I do my own checks.  It is you who is making the “out of step” assertions and, in my book, that places to onus on you to come up with the goods.  As you say above, you cannot do this, because you have nothing to trade beyond assertion, based on you understanding of your conversations with telephone sales staff at an insurance broker.  It seems, from what you say, that you have not pressed the issue to the point of speaking to senior staff at the brokerage, but have taken comfort from your belief that the persons to whom you have spoken would be knowledgeable enough to realise when they should seek advice.

9  So, after all that oil being poured on the waters, how about letting us (and anyone else who's still awake!) see the written facts for ourselves?

I have no desire or need to convince you or anyone else of my dealings, you obviously have no intention of accepting what I say and have constantly picked holes in every posting I've made.  No, I have merely asked for proof, because what you say runs counter to everything I have learned.  That is not pocking holes, it is a rational reaction to something about which I am sceptical

Mel E made the original comment that my insurer was acting illegally, I disagree that the piece of legislation he quoted applies to fire, theft and accidental cover to a vehicle.  And as yet, he has provided no proof to me that I am wrong.  Mel will have to make his own comments.

You disagree with me with a passion, and yet will not accept that I may disagree with Mel.  I question what you say, but you have, until now, resisted my requests for evidence.  You have now confirmed that your only evidence is your memory.  So, I’m sorry, but I remain unconvinced that you actually got what you think you got.

So you can continue to claim that I, answer "because I say so" and becoming irritated when pressed for greater information and clarity. My statement is based upon the tone of your replies, no more, no less.

When in reality,what really irritates me is the inability of people to see anybody else's point of view.  Trouble is Donna, insurance is not a point of view.  It is a complex, expensive, serious, dispute-fraught  business.  Your point of view would count for nothing if your van had been wrecked on your way home and your broker had turned out to have given you duff advice.  What would count then would be what you could prove.  For proof, you would have tendered your memories.  Not a great start.

[Derek Uzzell]

This is a link to an early-2007 thread on the MHF website:

 

http://www.motorhomefacts.com/forum-printtopic-1-23891-0-0-asc-viewresult-1.html

 

There's an intriguing reference to a Hymer dealership in Dortmund who was said to be able to register a new motorhome with the DVLA before the UK purchaser collected it from Germany.

 

Before collecting my Hobby in July 2005 I had visited the German vendor 3 months previously and mentioned the difficulties of obtaining total-journey-home all-risks insurance from a UK provider. He suggested the possibility of 'UK registration pre-collection', offering to send me all the vehicle-related paperwork required by the DVLA. Then, once the motorhome was UK-registered, I would have no problem getting comprehensive insurance via a UK provider or in obtaining UK number-plates.

 

This would mean that, when I subsequently collected the motorhome, the UK number-plates could be fitted to it and the vehicle would already be insured comprehensively. An added attraction was that this would avoid the hassle (and cost) of obtaining temporary German registration/3rd-Party insurance. I asked the dealer if he'd ever actually been involved in doing this, or was it just theory. He said that it was theoretical, but he didn't see why it shouldn't work in practice.

 

When I explored this cunning plan, it soon became apparent that (besides the tricky logistics) I would have to be economical with the truth when I completed some of the DVLA forms. Essentially, I would need to tell the DVLA that the motorhome was in the UK when it wasn't. There was also the very real chance that the DVLA might choose to inspect the vehicle prior to registration and that would have been more than embarrassing. I thought that a UK insurance provider wouldn't be over the moon either if an accident occurred and they discovered what I'd been up to. There was never any question of the German dealer colluding - all he would have done was send me the paperwork and, if I chose to play silly buggers with the DVLA and insurers and got caught out, then that would be my funeral not his. I decided that, if everything went smoothly, it might be possible to get away with it, but I wasn't prepared to take the risk. (Me and Mr Sod's Law are not best mates!)

 

The Dortmund dealer reference is interesting however, as it's the UK-registration that's the show-stopper when it comes to obtaining UK-arranged comprehensive insurance. If the DVLA would officially agree to registering a 'virtual' motorhome up to 3 years old (it's hard to see how the process could work if the vehicle required a UK MOT test) just based on the vehicle's documentation and while the DVLA knew the vehicle was yet to enter the UK, then 'driving home'-type motorhome importing might be made more straightforward and more secure.

 

Does anyone have more information on the Dortmund-dealer UK-registration technique (the German dealership advertises in MMM) or has even had first-hand experience of using it?

[Mel E]

Donna,

 

I was not going to bother replying, but when you mis-quote what I write, I feel a need to put it right. You state (and I quote):

 

<<1..Mel E has catagorically stated that any UK broker offering comprehensive insurance is acting illegally. You have stated on several occasions that you do not believe this cover is available. >>

 

You have repeated this statement several times in different places but I have said NO SUCH THING. Indeed, in my post on 2 August, I stated:

 

<<5. Finally, my Fact Sheet Supplement has advised that the only legal course is to buy your foreign Third Party cover which provides cover automatically in any other EU country including the UK (although Germany is most often mentioned, the same applies from any other EU country) and try and obtain a special policy from a UK broker providing ONLY Comprehensive and explicitly cancelling the UK Third Party element and stating that the policy is only valid in association with a valid Third Party policy from the country of exportation.>>

 

My experience is that insurers will not offer such special policies and those that have done so occasionally in the past have stopped doing so. One of the reasons may be that I gave in my next paragraph:

 

<<6. However, the foul-up in the Fifth Directive makes this almost impossible. This is because UK (and European) Law has moved to set up registration databases. The UK database must have new/imported vehicle registration details entered within 10 days of registration and, I am told, has no provision to accept ONLY VIN numbers. I (and intermediaries I have spoken to) cannot see how this can work with a foreign import. It can now take 10 days or more to register the vehicle after its return to the UK because almost all imports are now inspected by the DVLA or VOSA.>>

 

What I have said is illegal is Third Party cover issued in the UK on a foreign registered vehicle.

 

I produce the MMM Fact Sheet to help personal importers of motorhomes, not to hinder them! So if there are insurers who will provide cover then we need to know. Accordingly, I rang the insurer you used and they do indeed offer Fully Comprehensive cover on a UK chassis number for foreign registered personal imports. My problem with this is that I cannot see how it can possibly be valid given the law as it stands so my PERSONAL OPINION is not to rely on it. If, Donna, you need more detailed reasons why, please send me your email address and I'll discuss why in private.

 

In the meantime, can I gently ask you to read postings properly before responding to them in such trenchant "I'm right and you're wrong" terms.

 

Mel E

====

[donna miller]

Mel

 

In reply to your post, this is why I said you posted that UK insurers were acting illegally. You may recognise it as part of your original post on the thread.

 

 

1. UK based insurers reading the new law realised that the fully comp cover they had been providing to UK inporters from the foreign dealer was actually illegal.

 

5. Finally, my Fact Sheet Supplement has advised that the only legal course is to buy your foreign Third Party cover which provides cover automatically in any other EU country including the UK (although Germany is most often mentioned, the same applies from any other EU country) and try and obtain a special policy from a UK broker providing ONLY Comprehensive and explicitly cancelling the UK Third Party element and stating that the policy is only valid in association with a valid Third Party policy from the country of exportation.

 

In The contents of the second paragraph you state that the only course of action was the exact scenario I described, except Brian stated his belief

quite clearly that you could not split 3rd party cover from a comprehensive policy.

 

And you have accused me of not reading things properly. >:-(