Tony Jones Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I referred to this in my post on Scott Lewis' "campervan valuation" thread, but it had come as a surprise to me and others may not be aware of it - hence new thread. Ever since I've had my own car (1972), my insurance certificates have always included (under the "driver" bit), a provision that the policyholder could also drive other vehicles, as long as they didn't belong to him/her. The policy itself always made it clear that this was only 3rd party cover, but it was there. Last year, I lent my (then) spare car to someone else on that basis - I'd tranferred my insurance off it, but it was still taxed so she used it for a while quite legally, as she was "the policyholder" for the car her husband took to work. When challenged, she showed her own certificate and a letter from me authorising her use, and that was that. I know the police and Govt haven't been keen on this sort of thing, as it meant that a car could be driven legally without showing on their database as "insured," but it was still quite lawful. Checking my documents this time around, though, I find that neither my van nor my mini have that provision at all anymore. Most of us have assumed for years that we could when necessary borrow a friend's or relative's car on the strength of our own insurance. If you do that sometimes, check your latest certificate. Of course, my (two different) insurance companies may be exceptions, but it rather looks as if the database snoopers have got their way, and had this useful provision removed because it stopped them knowing what we were up to!! Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJH Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Very good advice to check your certificate in general Tony. I wonder whether the company you use has removed the "other vehicle" cover as a way of reducing premiums? I just checked our documents, both car and van insured through Saga. For reasons of our own convenience, car is in my name and van in Jill's so we each have insurance policies which give fully comprehensive cover for both of us for driving both vehicles (persons allowed to drive "Policyholder and xxxxxx"). Both certificates state "The policyholder and xxxxxx may also drive with the consent of the owner a motor car not owned by and not hired under a hire purchase or self-drive hire agreement to the Policyholder or xxxxxx" Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Have checked my van insurance and I still have the same 'statement' as Graham. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 My insurance certificates too are the same on all three of our vehicles with 'doc' included and none of the policy documents refer to any need for the 'driven' vehicle to be specifically insured by it's owner. Some companies cover third party only and some restrict it to RTA (road traffic act) only. Full third party cover is for any damage to third party property (ie not the driver of the borrowed car's property), although whether this includes the borrowed car is not made crystal clear, but it is generally excluded. RTA only cover ONLY personal injury to a third party which, interestingly, also includes any passengers in the vehicle should they be injured by negligent driving, as indeed in theory do all motor insurance policies. This again is a bit of a grey area with most policies being quite vague about the definition of a third party. That said I do seem to recall a case some years ago where an insurer refused to pay out on an 'doc' claim as the 'driven' car was not specifically insured by it's owner, so it does seem to be a grey area? I know little of the law of the land but unless the insurer specifies in the policy document about any need to specifically insure a borrowed car elsewhere they might have a problem if it ever came to court following their refusal to pay out after a crash? This cover extension does tend to be excluded from many younger drivers policies as, it seems, these are the folk more predisposed to abuse it - or so a broker tells me! Perhaps someone who is currently in the insurance industry can clarify as my own knowledge base on motor insurance is now 16 years out of date! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 GJH - 2008-09-10 3:28 PM Very good advice to check your certificate in general Tony. I wonder whether the company you use has removed the "other vehicle" cover as a way of reducing premiums? I just checked our documents, both car and van insured through Saga. For reasons of our own convenience, car is in my name and van in Jill's so we each have insurance policies which give fully comprehensive cover for both of us for driving both vehicles (persons allowed to drive "Policyholder and xxxxxx"). Both certificates state "The policyholder and xxxxxx may also drive with the consent of the owner a motor car not owned by and not hired under a hire purchase or self-drive hire agreement to the Policyholder or xxxxxx" Graham You need to be very carefull about this one. I have a motor trade policy still, although I am officially retired, I have this so I can drive any vehicle. Private policies do usually allow you to drive another car but that car has to be already insured by its owner and it will probably only cover you third party. You really need to check this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Many years ago I queried this with insurance company and was told 'other vehicle must be insured also by another driver', I have since assumed this to always apply, but couple of years ago my CIS renewal had a covering letter stating that the other vehicles part was for emergences only, this was not on policy and when I phoned about it didn't get a very precise answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJH Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Just checked the certificate further and, on the back, it says "When driving other cars cover is limited to Third Party only. Damage to the car you are driving under this extension is not covered by your policy". I've also had a look at the policy booklet and can't see anything about the vehicle having to be insured under another policy. This is just as I would have expected. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cattwg Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Yes Tony, I too had a rude awakening when, a couple of years ago I read my Safeguard Certificate. I had assumed that I was insured for "other vehicles". I raised it on this forum at the time as something to be aware of. Regards John :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROON Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Hi Tony, many years ago I ran my own string of businesses as Insurance Broker and Estate Agents, so I was really interested in this thread. At THAT time Fully Comprehensive policy holders were allowed to drive other vehicles (Third party only - don't think you can even get TPO nowadays) AS LONG AS THAT VEHICLE WAS LEGALLY ROADWORTHY. This meant that it had to be taxed and insured in it's own right. Another point worth mentioning and I don't know what the current situation is, is that although the Insured on the policies were legally covered to drive other legally roadworthy vehicles, the named person/s on that policy were NOT (e.g. spouse). I saw many a person come a cropper because of this. Also, bad tyres, dangerous bodywork rendered the vehicle ILLEGAL so the driver wasn't covered either. Joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROND Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I first came across this about 4 years ago and rang up my insurance company, Norwich Union, and demanded they re istate it as i think it is important, after 3 attempts t get it right and 3 new certificates later they got it right and i have gone through the same thing each year since, never easy when you are talking to somebody in India. If you think you may need to drive another car one day then demand they put it in if they dont then go elswhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david lloyd Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 ROND - 2008-09-10 7:33 PM I first came across this about 4 years ago and rang up my insurance company, Norwich Union, and demanded they re istate it as i think it is important, after 3 attempts t get it right and 3 new certificates later they got it right and i have gone through the same thing each year since, never easy when you are talking to somebody in India. If you think you may need to drive another car one day then demand they put it in if they dont then go elswhere. Our son had to deal with Norwich Union (India Branch) when another driver ran into his car and, since witnessing his frustrations, my first question of any insurer would be - do you have english call centres? - Norwich Union are very definitely off my short list of insurers! However, back to the thread. The car is insured with C&CC and does allow us to drive a vehicle not belonging to us with the owners consent. Our motorhome is insured with Safeguard and the policy specifically rules out cover for any other vehicle. Up until last year though I had assumed we could drive another vehicle until I read the policy documents through fully. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J9withdogs Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I have found that some motorhome insurance policies are 'second vehicle' policies inasmuch as they don't accrue no-claims bonus. I wonder whether this affects the cover if you drive another vehicle . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted September 11, 2008 Author Share Posted September 11, 2008 Just to clarify, my Mini is a "classic," on a very cheap policy which doesn't accrue no-claims bonus (otherwise they'd end up paying ME!) so I wasn't really surprised that there was no "other vehicle" cover on that. But my van, because it's my "main" vehicle, has to be used for my work as well, so CIS now insist I use a "commercial" policy for it. This does have certain advantages as it covers any driver, and isn't affected by mileage (I've already clocked 10K since new in March!), but it's expensive, and the no-claims is capped at 40%. So I was surprised it didn't have "other vehicle" cover. I'd have thought "commercial" users would need this, if only for replacements when their "white van" is in for servicing. I might have a chat with them about it - their call centre is in Lancashire so I can understand them!! Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROON Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 EEeeee by gum Tony lad. Suh pleased tha can understand us lot as much as them lot at tha wom. Joy ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 ROON - 2008-09-11 10:35 AM EEeeee by gum Tony lad. Suh pleased tha can understand us lot as much as them lot at tha wom. Joy ;-) Excuse my ignorance Joy, but where is " tha wom " ? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROON Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 :-D Hi Malc, wom (don't know correct way to write it) is home. When I was fifteen I went out with a really broad Lancashire lad who for some reason in our group always put 'tha' (their/your) when referring to someone else's home.... eg 'Eh thee goooing a tha wom now?' It sort of stuck. Aside: My dad made me finish with him because he said he would never make anything of himself with an accent like that.... A really weird story, a Chatterbox one, I found myself talking to him on the f]phone last year ...... he is a really successful businessman, and apparently money no object... :-( I always think of him as my first REAL REAL LOVE) Siiiiiiiigh. APOLOGIES FOR THE DEVIATION THE THREAD HAS TAKEN EVERYBODY. Back to insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brayn Posted September 11, 2008 Share Posted September 11, 2008 An interesting thread. I've just checked mine, both car and m/home with Saga. They both allow policyholder and named driver to drive any vehicle not owned etc., with no mention of insurance on other vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.