Right, I really don\'t like paying out for insurance on two cars (my daily drive & my FD) especially when I can only drive one at a time. My insurance policy for both states that I am insured third party only to drive any vehicle with the owners consent. So, I was considering signing the daily drive over to the missus and driving it under the FD policy (with her permanant consent!). I have done this before but got pulled over by the Police as the registration flagged up as an uninsured vehicle. After I showed them my policy documents I had with me, they phoned my insurance company and very begrudgingly let me go saying they should have impounded the vehicle and that I had got away with it on a technicality. They suggested I pulled off the road and get insurance for that vehicle immediately, which I duly did.
When I spoke to the Insurance company, they said the vehicle has to be insured as well as the driver.
I have always understood that it is the driver that must insured, not the car. It seems to me that the insurance company\'s are trying to make more money. Anybody know what is required by law here?
I remember a similar discussion from another place. IIRC the consensus was that if you\'d transfer the FD to your missus, she\'d have to insure it and only then you\'d be able to legally drive it, basically on her insurance...
At the end of the day the Post Office won\'t give you a tax disc if you can\'t wave a certificate of insurance for this particular car right under their noses.
If you want a substantial reduction in insurance premium and have off-road parking, try to get classic insurance on the FD instead.
Any car on the road has to have some form of insurance. A lot of people misunderstand the "Drive the car on the owners consent" issue. You were, for all intents and purposes, driving an uninsured vehicle, as it had no basic insurance.
For example, I am fine driving my partners Clio, as it is insured under her name. However, if she was the owner, but didn\'t have it insured, I would be driving it illegally as although I am insured to drive any car, that car would not be insured, and therefore not legal.
This is because, for instance, if the car was parked on a hill, and the handbrake failed, and it rolled down the hill and hit someone. If it was insured, it would be fine as you are covered. But in your instance, there\'s no insurance on it. You are not Covered for the claims that that person will have.
Hope that makes sense.
Quote from: nikpAny car on the road has to have some form of insurance. A lot of people misunderstand the "Drive the car on the owners consent" issue. You were, for all intents and purposes, driving an uninsured vehicle, as it had no basic insurance.
For example, I am fine driving my partners Clio, as it is insured under her name. However, if she was the owner, but didn\'t have it insured, I would be driving it illegally as although I am insured to drive any car, that car would not be insured, and therefore not legal.
This is because, for instance, if the car was parked on a hill, and the handbrake failed, and it rolled down the hill and hit someone. If it was insured, it would be fine as you are covered. But in your instance, there\'s no insurance on it. You are not Covered for the claims that that person will have.
Hope that makes sense.
Exactly what he says ^^^^^^ :Thumbs-up
basically as soon as you get out of the car thats uninsured you are responsible for leaving an uninsured car on the road, a car needs to be insured while on the public highway not just while being driven. Its been a bit of a loop hole for some time and i\'m suprised the insurance companies have not put a clause on saying the car must be seprately insured.
Quote from: nikpAny car on the road has to have some form of insurance. A lot of people misunderstand the "Drive the car on the owners consent" issue. You were, for all intents and purposes, driving an uninsured vehicle, as it had no basic insurance.
For example, I am fine driving my partners Clio, as it is insured under her name. However, if she was the owner, but didn\'t have it insured, I would be driving it illegally as although I am insured to drive any car, that car would not be insured, and therefore not legal.
This is because, for instance, if the car was parked on a hill, and the handbrake failed, and it rolled down the hill and hit someone. If it was insured, it would be fine as you are covered. But in your instance, there\'s no insurance on it. You are not Covered for the claims that that person will have.
Hope that makes sense.
Well she doesn\'t even have a driving licence, but I figured it does not mean she cannot \'own a car and let me drive it\'. I understand what Tim is saying about the tax, and I have got around that with one months insurance. I also appreciate what you are saying about the car rolling down the hill, but this could theoretically happen from your own driveway - but you would not be be legally obliged to have the car insured if it was on your own property. But I take the point, the hassle and potential consequences aren\'t really worth it - I\'ll have to stop being a scrooge and fork out!
Agreed
Driving other cars does NOT replace the basic need for a vehicle to have insurance
Lets face it, if it did, every bugger would do this.
Quote from: davefrithAgreed
Driving other cars does NOT replace the basic need for a vehicle to have insurance
Lets face it, if it did, every bugger would do this.
Not every bugger is allowed to drive other cars on their policy, or are prepared to drive under TP only cover.
Indeed ! :)
Quote from: Jin KazamaWell she doesn\'t even have a driving licence, but I figured it does not mean she cannot \'own a car and let me drive it\'. I understand what Tim is saying about the tax, and I have got around that with one months insurance. I also appreciate what you are saying about the car rolling down the hill, but this could theoretically happen from your own driveway - but you would not be be legally obliged to have the car insured if it was on your own property. But I take the point, the hassle and potential consequences aren\'t really worth it - I\'ll have to stop being a scrooge and fork out!
If your partner or spouse \'owns\' a car, and that car is on the road, whether they can drive it or not, it will have to be insured.
This is basically the Insurers ripping off the great British Public. It is clear to anyone but a fool (and an insurer) that if you own 2 cars but can only drive 1 at a time, the risk associated with the 2nd vehicle (not being driven) is less and as such there should be a reduced premium for a 2nd car.
However insurers don\'t do this and it has always struck me that there is a big gap in the market here. I would accept a higher premium on my main car if the combined cost of insurance for the two was reduced.
Car insurance is a ridiculus scam, unless you write off your car it\'s barely worth claiming as your premiums will rocket even if your no claims bonus is protected! No wonder so many people don\'t have it.
Can someone explain how a friend who owned a TVR Cerbera paid less car insurance that I did for a Renault Clio (clean license no accidents)? How is the risk calculated on that?
Thieves and con merchants the lot of them.
Quote from: nicksterrx7This is basically the Insurers ripping off the great British Public. It is clear to anyone but a fool (and an insurer) that if you own 2 cars but can only drive 1 at a time, the risk associated with the 2nd vehicle (not being driven) is less and as such there should be a reduced premium for a 2nd car.
However insurers don\'t do this and it has always struck me that there is a big gap in the market here. I would accept a higher premium on my main car if the combined cost of insurance for the two was reduced.
Car insurance is a ridiculus scam, unless you write off your car it\'s barely worth claiming as your premiums will rocket even if your no claims bonus is protected! No wonder so many people don\'t have it.
Can someone explain how a friend who owned a TVR Cerbera paid less car insurance that I did for a Renault Clio (clean license no accidents)? How is the risk calculated on that?
Thieves and con merchants the lot of them.
I couldn\'t have put it better myself.
The straw that broke the camels back for me, was that thet would not honour my full NCB for a second car and I would have to pay a premium as if I had no driving experience whatsover and start all over again. The reasoning being "well you haven\'t built up any no claims bonus on that particular vehicle sir". However, if you change your car that main policy exists on, your NCB goes with you then. How the hell does that work?
Quote from: nikpIf your partner or spouse \'owns\' a car, and that car is on the road, whether they can drive it or not, it will have to be insured.
Do you know who is legally responsible? Is it the owners responsibility to ensure that whoever drives the car has adequate coverage, or is it the driver\'s responsibility to ensure that the owner has the coverage? If you get pulled, who gets the fine?
My insurance renewal came the other day and said i was no longer able to drive any other car (insured for the other person) 3rd party untill i hit 25 on my fully comp cover which is pain because i used to drive my parents all the time (they have a fairly low value used mostly for work with the animals), by december i will have 2 years NCD, bye bye norwich union>,ps i cant bloody understand thier call centers, theres nothing worse