michele Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Can anyone please explain why you cannot have two insurances . So lets say you own your M/H and have it insured with adam & eve. Then you want to hire it out and insurance is paid for by the client nothing to do with you . Of course you are only two glad that they are not affecting yours if anything was to happen a totally seperate insurance company steps in and takes on the risk. Why is it that you are not allowed vto do this ???why would it make my insurance nil& void ? why when if anything happened to the camper whilst out on hire the other insurance company would step in . Please dont tell me its illegal because its not you would not be breaking any laws but for some reason you can't do it .....anyone know why ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Just a couple of for instance's.... Bogus hirer's steal your van and you claim on second hire policy. how do you explain this to first company where hire and reward is not allowed.... total loss due to accident whilst on hire, same question... furthermore, what is the hire insurance package like in the first place - are they a large reputable company? Do you not deal with hirer directly regards monies and driving licenses etc? would be interesting to see get out clauses in insurers contract under these circumstances in event of a claim. Sorry! its the job that does this to me..... just a suspicious old Hector :-D just read your other post, this is a bit of a minefield and I believe you need legal advice. I have considered hire before myself as not at all precious regards possessions. but I get to this stage and back of and forget about it. a 5-10k rig maybe if legal. but as in your case 40k plus - it needs some serious investigating *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Hi, It is the person who is insured, not the vehicle....I think. My brain hurts when I think of this. The insurers are interested in who the policy holder is, who is the owner, and who is the driver. DVLA are only interested in who is the registered leeper. VERA states that only the registered keeper can tax a vehicle. DVLA insist that the insurance policy is in the name of the registered keeper. This could get interesting if you don't trust your chaufeur. The proposer need not hold a driving licence. The registered keeper need not hold a driving licence. When I have sold vehicles, I have often not told my insureres (although the policy becomes void immediately). Presumably the new owner takes out a policy in his name....but nobody has ever come back to me to tell me to cancel my policy. My policy is a civil contract between myself and the insurers, surely I have not commited a criminal act by not telling anybody....unless I later make a fraudulent claim. Only the Third Party element is a legal requirement. If two insurers are covering a single vehicle, each will be liable for half the claim. I imagine that situation could get interesting, and both would rather avoid it. But I suspect that it is the police, DVLA, or whever who want a nice crisp insured/uninsured decision that can been acted on by their computers. Our life gets complicated to make theirs easy. The UK keeps a record of the Registered Keeper, there is no record of TITLE. One day, we are going to have to fit in with the rest of the EU. Are you able to PROVE every change of owner of your vehicle since it was new? 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayKay Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 JudgeMental - 2007-08-25 11:15 PM Just a couple of for instance's.... Bogus hirer's steal your van and you claim on second hire policy. how do you explain this to first company where hire and reward is not allowed.... total loss due to accident whilst on hire, same question... furthermore, what is the hire insurance package like in the first place - are they a large reputable company? Do you not deal with hirer directly regards monies and driving licenses etc? would be interesting to see get out clauses in insurers contract under these circumstances in event of a claim. Sorry! its the job that does this to me..... just a suspicious old Hector :-D just read your other post, this is a bit of a minefield and I believe you need legal advice. I have considered hire before myself as not at all precious regards possessions. but I get to this stage and back of and forget about it. a 5-10k rig maybe if legal. but as in your case 40k plus - it needs some serious investigating *-) Hi Judge, My 3 year old Hymer is out on hire at the moment, I hire it out through a reputable agency that puts hirers in touch with me, I then deal direct with that hirer with regard to all documentation, driving license eligiabilty, proof of address and insurance. The agency use a motorhome hire co. for the insurance which must be contacted days before hire commences in order that they can "do their checks on hirers", a copy of the booking form and driving license must be sent to them. Any claim is on this insurance for the duration of the hire, when the van is returned I have to phone to take the van off insurance. The van then reverts to my own insurance and I can then legally drive it. I would be extremely stupid to make a claim from two insurance companies for the same incident, if the van is on hire then the large insurance co. deal with the claim, if I am driving then my insurance co. have the pleasure of dealing with that claim. ( I am sorry but I do find it difficult to use reputable and insurance company in the same sentance) I am not sure what you mean by get out clauses with regard to insurance companies as the hire company that organises the insurance for the hirer has not had a problem in this area in the past, perhaps you could expand on this for me and any other forum member who this may affect. The private motorhome hire market is a growing market and if it was it was affecting other owners private insurance I am sure we would have heard about it by now, there appears to be a lot of opinions and conjecture but not a lot of facts, I hope that by replying to your post I have not started something that leads to what we see in the "Gas Attacks" postings. :'( :'( :'( John D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 John Maybe you could clarify, you say about phoning to swap van from one insurance to other? is this michele's problem trying to have two insurances running concurrently when it should be two insurances running alternatly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayKay Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Hi Colin, When the van goes on hire the insurance on the hirer is dated and timed to start at 1230hrs. and finishes on a stated date and at 1130hrs. This is all stated on the Hire/insurance document which is emailed to me prior to hire, the hirer must sign this in my presence, I can then check signatures against driving license/s signatures. If the hirer is late returning the van the insurance continues until I phone to say that the hirer is back and the insurance cover can now be stopped, the hirer has to pay for extended cover. If they have not contacted me to say they are going to late then at 1135hrs the "Phantom" tracker kicks in and all hirers are informed of this. Hope that covers your query Colin. John D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 You can tell from the lack of responses what a difficult subject this is. I only responded with my concerns, because I consider Michele a good friend (even though we have not meet :-D) Nothing said so far satisfies me regards this issue. all hearsay until tested with a claim or an examination of the contract. If main insurance company happy with this than it might be OK. But has anyone involved in this kind of arrangement asked their main insurers opinion or made a claim.... JayKay, "The agency use a motorhome hire co. for the insurance" Why is this - does it not seem complicated? Just wish i had PM'd Michelle rather then get involved *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayKay Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Hi Judge, I am glad that you have got involved in this as I hope you bring some degree of sanity to this subject, like you I have had contact with Michelle via PM but have never met and look on her & hubby as friends. The hire agency run the web site and marketing but have no expertise in Hire & reward insurance whereas the hire company have the expertise and contacts with regard to the insurance. This arrangement seems to work well for all involved parties as the insurance cost's have reduced this year, presumably because of increased volume. I just hope Howie will not get jealous after reading the first part of this reply. John D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 W3526602 - 2007-08-27 6:24 AM The UK keeps a record of the Registered Keeper, there is no record of TITLE. One day, we are going to have to fit in with the rest of the EU. Are you able to PROVE every change of owner of your vehicle since it was new? 602 Not necessary - as long as you've a record of the transaction when YOU bought the vehicle, that gives you good title in law - even if the seller stole it. Tough luck on "real" owner, but that's how it is. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 W3526602 - 2007-08-27 6:24 AM DVLA insist that the insurance policy is in the name of the registered keeper. This could get interesting if you don't trust your chaufeur. 602 Not quite. I lent my "spare" car to one of the girls at church for a few months. The advice we got from friends in traffic police was that although her policy on another car (in use by her hubby) allowed her 3rd party cover on any vehicle, this could be hard to prove if stopped, so she should insure my car as a temp 2nd vehicle on her policy. She did this, advising her insurers that I was both owner and keeper, and I gave her a letter to keep in the glovebox, authorising her to use the car. No problem. Incidentally, we were also told that insurers will prob soon have to withdraw that "any vehicle" clause, as it confuses the DVLA computers! But insuring a car that's not yours should still be OK, as police run their check on the reg no, not the person. Clear as mud? Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted August 28, 2007 Author Share Posted August 28, 2007 Ok Eddie, you know what I am like explaining things. The company is reputable the insurance is also and dealings with them are very professional. The fault seemingly falls at the insurance (OUR OWN's) door. Apparently whilst the van is only driven by us then its on our normal insurance . When the van go's out on hire another company steps in now if the van got smashed or damaged for whatever reason my insurance company still get paid there is no claim made to them and if the van was out on hire for 6 months of the year what in the hell have my insurance got to loose . So in my eye's they are reducing their risk and still getting paid a full term no losses makes sense to me. But apparently they dont like it But also apparently if I were to phone them with every Tom Dick & Harrys name they wouldn't mind it (Of course not because they are taking money ) seems to me the customer cannot win. I hope that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Tony Jones - 2007-08-28 9:17 AM Not necessary - as long as you've a record of the transaction when YOU bought the vehicle, that gives you good title in law - even if the seller stole it. Tough luck on "real" owner, but that's how it is. Tony Though this is off subject so should be on a different tread, I do not believe you are correct here. I have, last year, had experience of my vehicle being cloned and the poor person who bought the cloned vehicle did NOT have any right over it i.e. they did not have 'good title in law' and was having to sue the person from whom he purchased for what he had spent out, I don't know the outcome as the seller had been arrested on suspicion of being part of a ringing gang and my involvement finished once our vehicle was proved to be the origional. Had some worrying times as there was a point where it may have been impounded. Having a record of a transaction does not give you title it only proves you handled stolen goods whether wittingly or not! Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Tony Jones - 2007-08-28 9:17 AM W3526602 - 2007-08-27 6:24 AM The UK keeps a record of the Registered Keeper, there is no record of TITLE. One day, we are going to have to fit in with the rest of the EU. Are you able to PROVE every change of owner of your vehicle since it was new? 602 Not necessary - as long as you've a record of the transaction when YOU bought the vehicle, that gives you good title in law - even if the seller stole it. Tough luck on "real" owner, but that's how it is. Tony My reply is a bit off-topic, but we do need to be clear on one thing. Tony's statement is wrong (sorry Tony). It is the opposite which is true. Here's the boring bit:- In English law (English Common law in fact) you DO NOT and can never acquire good title to a good or a service UNLESS the seller had good title to it, and could thus pass good title on to you. This is from where the legal words "caveat emptor" (let the buyer beware) originate. It is for YOU as the BUYER to satisfy yourself that the seller has good title - if the original owner of the (say) motorhome, or the Police, later trace his vehicle after it was stolen from him, and was then sold on by the thief to another person who bought it in good faith, and who then sold it (in good faith) to you.......you do not have good title to the van, and if discovered it would pass back to the original owner, as he was the last person with good title to it. Now you might say that's hard (unless you were the person from whom the van was knicked), but that it the law. Personal view:I for one think it is better for the law to be that way round, rather than the other way round. To have it the other way round would benefit the thief, and that could not be right. In some other countries the opposite is true in their legal systems (I know for a fact this is the case in Polish law), but in England, buying in good faith does not in itself give you good title. Cheers, Bruce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 The concensus seems to be that I've been misinformed on this one: fortunately, I've no first-hand experience. Sorry! If this question affects anyone here, TAKE QUALIFIED LEGAL ADVICE. As has been pointed out, we're a bit off-thread so let's leave it there. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Tony Jones - 2007-08-28 9:23 AM W3526602 - 2007-08-27 6:24 AM DVLA insist that the insurance policy is in the name of the registered keeper. This could get interesting if you don't trust your chaufeur. 602 Not quite. I lent my "spare" car to one of the girls at church for a few months. The advice we got from friends in traffic police was that although her policy on another car (in use by her hubby) allowed her 3rd party cover on any vehicle, this could be hard to prove if stopped, so she should insure my car as a temp 2nd vehicle on her policy. She did this, advising her insurers that I was both owner and keeper, and I gave her a letter to keep in the glovebox, authorising her to use the car. No problem. Incidentally, we were also told that insurers will prob soon have to withdraw that "any vehicle" clause, as it confuses the DVLA computers! But insuring a car that's not yours should still be OK, as police run their check on the reg no, not the person. Clear as mud? Tony The CIS insurance on van quotes 'insured to drive other vehicles not owned etc' but CIS sent a covering letter this year stating that the 'other vehicle' rights only apply in case of emergency, when I phoned to query this and get more details they where less than forthcoming, but did state that this cover was never meant as a caveat to drive any other vehicles unless it was an emergency. It may be prudent to carefully read any 'changes to terms or conditions' and check if this change may have been made in previous years before asuming you have cover to drive other vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Hi, I noticed that my insurance (self and spouse) now gives comprehensive cover if damaged while in the hands of a garage. I'm not sure if 3rd party is covered as well. Or whether I lose my NCB if the garage have a prang in my car. Hmmm....remind me to read the policy again. I still have "drive any other car" facility. Emergency or not, if thats what the certificate says, thats what they have to pay out. Very difficult for an insurer to avoid a 3rd party claim. I almost feel sorry for them. :-D A roadside camera can recognise whether a car is insured or not. It cannot identify whether the driver is insured to drive it, or even if he has a driving licence. Come the day when we are identified by a bar-code stamped on our forehead. In Oz, and elsewhere, basic insurance is included in the road tax. 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W3526602 Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Hi, I spent a few minutes reading my insurance certificate. It says I may drive..... Any motor car which is loaned to the policyholder under the Motor Damage Claim Service, or by a member of the Motor Trade while the vehicle specified above is in the custody of the Motor Trade for service, repair or MOT. Hmmm, thats not what I thought it said first time I read it. Presumably the car I have been loaned is also covered by the garage policy. Double cover? It goes on to say.... The policyholder may also drive with the owners permission a private motor car not owned by the policyholder and not hired to the policyholder under a hire purchase agreement. Hmmm, so if I hit a pedestion or whatever, the two insurance companies will split the bill between them. Double cover? On the back of the certificate it says.... The driving of other cars extension referred to in Part 5 of this certificate covers vehicles registered in Great Britain, Norther Ireland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and is limited to Third Party cover only. Loss or damage to the vehicle you are driving is not covered. Mmmm, no mention of "emergency only". Also no mention of the vehicle needing to be insured in its own right. On the other hand, I would hate to argue in court that "drive" includes walking away from the car after I have parked it. But my Motoring Organisation disagrees with me, they say that the criteria is "who is in charge of the vehicle" at the time. Pick over the bones of that lot. 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted August 29, 2007 Author Share Posted August 29, 2007 You getting me at it it's hard enough as it is . They are a business at the end of the day greedy they takes your money and they does what they want to cover themselves. I have lost the plot now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.