Insurance Question - Driving other vehicles

[spnracing]

I know there are some policemen on Pistonheads and I'd be interested to know what anyone else thinks about this too.

Most UK motor insurance policies have a clause that states 'The policyholder may drive any other car not owned by him or hired to him under a hire-purchase agreement' or words to that effect.

If I were to buy a car (cash from a private seller) and register it in someone elses name, would the police then try and prosecute me if I was stopped and asked to produce documents? How would they go about proving that I 'owned' the car (which I know is different from being the registered keeper).

If the registered keeper was my partner (i.e. living at the same address) surely it would be impossible to prove that either one of us 'owned' the car and therefore my 'driving other cars' policy from another vehicle would be enough?

Does anyone have any practical experience of what might happen in thses circumstances?

[VTECDave]

I asked a similar question before:

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&h=&t=7732

[spnracing]

Indeed that was exactly my question.

One of the replies was;

quote:
technically you would be allowed to drive it on your insurance, but when you got out of it (parked it)presumably on a public highway, then it would not be insured, which is illegal.

So as long as I don't park the car on the public highway (which I never would) its technically legal?

Other replies stated that both the driver AND the car have to be insured. Surely not, since it is perfectly possible to purchase third party only motor insurance? In which case the car is still not 'insured', even if the policy refers directly to that vehicle?

[hertsbiker]

Then the interesting question of what happens if you are driving someone elses car, 3rd party - and your own vehicle catches fire while you have an accident elsewhere.

So the insurance have to pay out to the person you hit (3rd party cover) AND the fire element of your own policy....

Sounds a bit dodgy.

rgds.

[Captain Chaos]

The answer is this - you may be able to convince the police you are insured without too much difficulty using the insurance document for your other vehicle, but your insurance company would normally look very closely at any claim on a TPO extension like this and take a very dim view, quite likely refusing to pay up in the event you have an accident.

The REASON they would decline your claim (and leave you open to unlimited third party liability claims not to mention a IN10 - driving without insurance)
- you are declaring that a car you are driving isn't owned and registered by you, but you brought it and drive it. So you are lying to them and going against the spirit of the extension, effectively driving two cars on one insurance policy but only paying for and declaring one car. Do you really think insurance companies will pay up if you have an accident?

Can't do it old chap. Well, you can but you are stupid if you do.

Captain Insurance

[M@H]

This is debatable...

I bought the 914.. gave it to my then girlfriend/ now wife who registered it under her name, and I drove in in clear concience on my beetle fully comp policy, knowing I was not the owner, despite the fact I bought it in the first place..

Cheers
Matt.

[Captain Chaos]

quote:
This is debatable...

I bought the 914.. gave it to my then girlfriend/ now wife who registered it under her name, and I drove in in clear concience on my beetle fully comp policy, knowing I was not the owner, despite the fact I bought it in the first place..

Cheers
Matt.

Your situation is different - your girlfriend will have purchased her own insurance for the car? Therefore no problem. But if she had no current insurance on it (insurance company will check) and you drove it and crashed it then they wouldn't pay up. Good point but different scenario.

El Capitan

[spnracing]

To put this into context;

The car in question is my Group One race car. I've just reshelled it so it happens to be MOT'd and taxed. I don't generally drive it on the roads, but since it does have an MOT for a while it would be useful to take it round the block every now and then to check something I've done on it - e.g. fit rev limiter, adjust suspension, etc etc. The only other way to do this is tow it to a race track and pay for days testing, which may be a little overboard sometimes.

I can't just insure it - most companies wouldn't touch it and the ones that do would charge me 3 figures plus for third party road insurance. Which obviously I won't be doing for the occasional trip around the block.

But I DO have a policy now that clearly states I can drive any car I don't own. And my wife 'owns' the race car. If the insurance company don't want people to do what I do, why do they put those words into the policy at all? By the way I specifically bought a policy that had those words included so I could do exactly this.

I know I'm taking the piss. I know its not in the spirit of the policy. But technically as far as I can find out from the Road Traffic Act and the wording on my insurance policy, I'm doing nothing wrong - right?

[Basil Brush]

I'd be very careful because if you do have a claim and the insurance company can get out of paying it at all, they will. The whole situation will be considered, not just the apparent facts, so you would probably be held to be the true owner, even if you have artificially created a change of ownership.

The main problem is that the vehicle isn't insured by the owner, so it automatically appears false.

[Neil Menzies]

quote:
I know I'm taking the piss. I know its not in the spirit of the policy. But technically as far as I can find out from the Road Traffic Act and the wording on my insurance policy, I'm doing nothing wrong - right?

I think most insurance policies include the words 'in utmost good faith'. This could be a stumbling block.

[CarZee]

quote:I think most insurance policies include the words 'in utmost good faith'. This could be a stumbling block.

WTF would insurance companies know about good faith?

[JSG]

quote:
I can't just insure it - most companies wouldn't touch it and the ones that do would charge me 3 figures plus for third party road insurance. Which obviously I won't be doing for the occasional trip around the block.

But I DO have a policy now that clearly states I can drive any car I don't own. And my wife 'owns' the race car. If the insurance company don't want people to do what I do, why do they put those words into the policy at all? By the way I specifically bought a policy that had those words included so I could do exactly this.

The problem with your theory is that as far as I am aware all policies state that you may drive another car not belonging to you as long as the other car is insured by the owner under a seperate policy.

Cheers,
JSG

[madcop]

quote:
The problem with your theory is that as far as I am aware all policies state that you may drive another car not belonging to you as long as the other car is insured by the owner under a seperate policy.

Cheers,
JSG

The above is not necessarily the case. Think about the
case where you buy a new car and transfer your policy from your old one tho the new. You have the old one at home which you intend to sell privately. Unless you continued a seperate policy to cover the old car as well, there would be no insurance covering it.

A prospective buyer could come along and test drive your old car with a view to purchase it and be covered by the minimum risk. If it was damaged in the process and his fault, then the risk is transferred to the driver to find the relevant repair costs. (basically you sue him in county court)

The answer is that you can drive any vehicle at THIRD PARTY RISK ONLY (on your own policy. Even if you have comprehensive cover, this is not transferred to the non owned vehicle) that is owned by someone else regardless of whether there is another policy in force or not.

You Cannot have two policies of insurance covering the same vehicle but where this situation is concerned, the risk covers the drivers liability whilst the vehicle is in motion ( or stationary while he is driving it).

So you can drive the race car on the road under your own policy at third party risk, when the cars is your wifes.
That means that if you are stopped by Police you can show a valid and correct policy that will cover you for your minimum liability.
Once you cease driving, the car is not covered by any insurance for theft/fire/damage, even off of the road.

The down side to this is that if you crash and the blame is fixed in any way on you, the insurance company would pay for the damge/injury to the third party but you would be left to finance your own risk (damage/injury).

Section 143(1) Road Traffic act 1988 is the legislation covering this. It is long and complicated but accessible in the local library.

Basically the trick where insurance is concerned is to ask yourself the following questions.

DOES

THIS POLICY cover

THIS PERSON to drive/use

THIS VEHICLE for

THIS PURPOSE on

THIS DAY.

If you manage to fulfill all of the above criteria, then you will be covered.



>> Edited by madcop on Sunday 30th June 10:57

[JSG]

quote:

quote:
The problem with your theory is that as far as I am aware all policies state that you may drive another car not belonging to you as long as the other car is insured by the owner under a seperate policy.

Cheers,
JSG

The above is not necessarily the case. Think about the
case where you buy a new car and transfer your policy from your old one tho the new. You have the old one at home which you intend to sell privately. Unless you continued a seperate policy to cover the old car as well, there would be no insurance covering it.

I'm not convinced you're right here Madcop, but I'm no expert. My insurance company allow a months overlap if you tell them you still have your old car to sell, otherwise the cover on the old car is stopped.

I'll dig out the policy and see what the wording is.

Cheers,
JSG.

[CarZee]

quote:

quote: The above is not necessarily the case. Think about the case where you buy a new car and transfer your policy from your old one tho the new. You have the old one at home which you intend to sell privately. Unless you continued a seperate policy to cover the old car as well, there would be no insurance covering it.

I'm not convinced you're right here Madcop, but I'm no expert. My insurance company allow a months overlap if you tell them you still have your old car to sell, otherwise the cover on the old car is stopped.

Indeed - my wife had the same cover for her old car when we bought the TT (her insurance). The policy (with Avon, formerly Brittanic) covered both cars so long as only one was in use or on the public highway at any one time.

[madcop]

quote:
The above is not necessarily the case. Think about the
case where you buy a new car and transfer your policy from your old one tho the new. You have the old one at home which you intend to sell privately. Unless you continued a seperate policy to cover the old car as well, there would be no insurance covering it.

This was just an off the cuff example.
Many policies will have different conditions of cover which will be individual to that company.

quote:
I'm not convinced you're right here Madcop, but I'm no expert. My insurance company allow a months overlap if you tell them you still have your old car to sell, otherwise the cover on the old car is stopped.

I'll dig out the policy and see what the wording is.

Cheers,
JSG.

The difference with this policy is that it is one policy covering two vehicles which is allowed.
What is not allowed is two seperate policies covering the same vehicle.

The best line to take over this is to check the small print to find exactly what your individual policy states.

The above advice is taken from the law as it stands at the moment.(1st post on this subject.)

>> Edited by madcop on Monday 1st July 01:59

[cirks]

There is a simple solution that has already been mentioned. Just phone your insurance company and get a 'temporary additional vehicle' put on your policy. Years ago I had 2* 350i and CIS had no problem covering both of them on my policy despite both being owned and registered by me. The cost - the grand sum of £5 per month. Costs will have gone up by now and there is usually a limit of a about three months a year.
There are enough uninsured drivers on the road without you having to take risks with your (or our) insurance cover.

[spnracing]

quote:
The answer is that you can drive any vehicle at THIRD PARTY RISK ONLY

quote:
So you can drive the race car on the road under your own policy at third party risk, when the cars is your wifes.
That means that if you are stopped by Police you can show a valid and correct policy that will cover you for your minimum liability.

Excellent, thanks for this, its exactly what I needed to know. One complication I didn't mention is that the race IS insured for fire and theft in a separate 'race car' policy, so any attempt to properly insure it for the road would then be a second policy on the same vehicle.

Unfortunately for the moment all of this is largely irrelevant, since I managed to comprehensively blow the engine up YET AGAIN at Snetterton on Saturday. Bugger.

[spnracing]

quote:
The problem with your theory is that as far as I am aware all policies state that you may drive another car not belonging to you as long as the other car is insured by the owner under a seperate policy.

Nope - most definitely not. My policy states the driving other cars bit but there is no mention of the requirement for it to be insured elsewhere.

[Basil Brush]

I don't think that there is a question about the 3rd party cover on other people's cars being correct. The problem you may have, as I said above, is that should a claim arise the insurance company may well easily realise that you are actually the owner of the vehicle, even though you have artificially transferred ownership to your wife.