Drive any car policy- is this allowed/legal

[danielman2]

hi

 

I want to drive another car without buying another policy, this is my plan.

 

My policy allows drive any car not belonging to me or partner

 

1.Buy another car and put in my sons name.(he is 9 )

2.Insure tempory for 7 days and get road tax, then cancel

3.Drive car on my insurance.

 

I want to do this so my wife can have the car and I can drive a cheap banger to work, (not doing so i can drive a ferrari).

 

Whats your views, if its legal and saves me 200 pound a year, why not?

[barracad]

I don't think you can do this. It depends on the wording of your policy, but I don't think it would be possible.

 

If you are insured to drive any car, it is there for temporary purposes, e.g. driving your friend's car - it will not cover you for vehicles which you regularly have access to (hence why they specifically mention you and your spouse) - you can't keep this additional car and fail to mention it to your insurers. In fact, it could also invalidate your whole policy as you are usually asked if you regularly have access to other vehicles.

[barracad]

Actually just thought a little more and there's no way you can do it. Your policy states you cannot drive any other car belonging to you or your partner - as this is your car then you wouldn't be insured to drive it.

[danielman2]

okay, I would put car in fathers name, then no way they would know,

 

i think its possible in law, but not advisable.

 

thanks for replies

[barracad]

It's not possible in law and I think you've misunderstood my previous reply.

 

Your insurance does not cover you for any other car belonging to you. The Registered Keeper listed on the registration document is completely irrelevant - it doesn't matter if it's your son, your father, a mate from the pub, or Mickey Mouse - the fact is you own the car and you will be driving without insurance if you do what you are proposing to do.

[Helford]

Danielman,

 

I have to say, how totally irresponsible!

 

Bottom line, you are going to get 'pulled' by the Police, time and time again as the vehicle will not have any insurance on it, in it's own right and as such will not be on the Motor Insurers Database.

 

The 'Driving other cars facility' is SOLELY aimed at allowing you to drive in an emergency situation. e.g. You are the passenger is someone else car and they (the driver) is taken ill. You can drive with Third Party only cover, that is there is no cover for the car being driven only cover for damage to third party property or third parties (Persons) themselves. A lot of web based insurers do not necessarily even include this cover.

 

The V5 registration document states words to the effect that the registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner. Where does a nine year old get the money to buy a car? You (or some other adult) would be the legal owner.

 

A short term insurance policy would cost you dear anyway.

 

Ask yourself this; You have just accidently knocked down a pedestrian who is seriously injured (or similar), how are you going to explain your 'arrangement' to the Police or the insurance company?

 

Your 'plan' is doomed to failure.

[danielman2]

okay, clam down,

 

just wanted to know if it was legal, after discussing here decided against the idea, so thanks for your views

 

p.s also short term insurance cost as little as 8 pound per day

[patdavies]

Bottom line, you are going to get 'pulled' by the Police, time and time again as the vehicle will not have any insurance on it, in it's own right and as such will not be on the Motor Insurers Database.

 

No car has insurance on it, in its own right. In the UK, the driver is insured, not the vehicle. Think about it for a moment, if you have third party only insurance, there is no insurance cover for the vehicle. However, since the car is a vital factor in deciding the insurance risk, the policy is attached to a particular vehicle in that the driver is insured (not the vehicle) to use that vehicle.

 

Contrast this to Germany, where the vehicle is the insured ansd virtually all policies are thus any driver.

 

The 'Driving other cars facility' is SOLELY aimed at allowing you to drive in an emergency situation. e.g. You are the passenger is someone else car and they (the driver) is taken ill. You can drive with Third Party only cover, that is there is no cover for the car being driven only cover for damage to third party property or third parties (Persons) themselves. A lot of web based insurers do not necessarily even include this cover.

 

It is not emergency only, unless the policy or certificate specifically states this. There have been court cases to this effect.

 

Forget web-based, many insurers are withdrawing DOC cover

a) under pressure from the authorities who want to see every vehicle on the insurance database ( at the moment, ANPR cannot determine if a vehicle is being driven uninsured as even if it is not linked to a policy, it can be driven on DOC);

b) because of mis-use like that being proposed here

 

The V5 registration document states words to the effect that the registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner. Where does a nine year old get the money to buy a car? You (or some other adult) would be the legal owner.

 

True, but a nine-year old could be legally gifted the car; this does not negate ownership.

 

 

 

Ask yourself this; You have just accidently knocked down a pedestrian who is seriously injured (or similar), how are you going to explain your 'arrangement' to the Police or the insurance company?

 

Any claim by the third party would be met, even if the driver's policy were voided. The insurance company would probably be entitled to look to recover their costs (including the pay out to the third party) if the could prove fraudulent use.

[patdavies]

I don't think you can do this. It depends on the wording of your policy, but I don't think it would be possible.

 

If you are insured to drive any car, it is there for temporary purposes, e.g. driving your friend's car - it will not cover you for vehicles which you regularly have access to (hence why they specifically mention you and your spouse) - you can't keep this additional car and fail to mention it to your insurers. In fact, it could also invalidate your whole policy as you are usually asked if you regularly have access to other vehicles.

 

As you say, it depends on the wording of the policy or certificate, but the situation outlined above would be very unusual. Most policies do not even refer to spousal ownership.

 

Mine says, and I quote.

 

"The policyholder may drive any car not owned or under hire purchase agreement to him"

 

My wife's policy for her car states the same (different insurer)

 

There is nothing there about belonging to spouse or near family, or about regular access or use; there is nothing about emergency use only.

 

What Danielman2 is suggesting is , technically legal providing the wording of his policy allows it. It remains morally indefensible. He needs to remember two things however.

 

1) DVLA and Post Offices (on DVLa instructions) exceed their lawful authority and will not issue VED without an insurance certificate showing the vehicle's VRM. This despite the fact that DOC does provide legal minimum cover.

2) he would be well advised to carry both his insurance certificate showing DOC cover and a statement of ownership of the vehicle.

 

If he carries this through, it will put a further nail in the coffin of DOC cover. There are those of us who believe it a very useful thing to have for the odd occasion that it is necessary to drive another vehicle. For example, 2 years ago, I part exchanged my car. The 'new' vehicle comprehensively lunched its engine at speed on the motorway. It was recovered to the selling dealer who proceeded to source and fit a replacement engine. In the meantime, he loaned me my 'old' car back. This was driven for 10 days on DOC cover. All perfectly lawful, as I was no longer the owner.

[gwc1000]

 

1) DVLA and Post Offices (on DVLa instructions) exceed their lawful authority and will not issue VED without an insurance certificate showing the vehicle's VRM.

 

Not always. My Motor Traders policy has no reg no's but says : Any motor vehicle which is your property or in your custody or control. This is all I ever use to tax vehicles. However each year at premium renewal I have to list all vehicles held in stock to give the insures an idea of risk.

I have to say the OP is treading a very dangerous path, and one open to prosecution. If it were that simple everybody would insure a Cinqucento and drive a Maserati

[barracad]

Mine says, and I quote.

 

"The policyholder may drive any car not owned or under hire purchase agreement to him"

 

My wife's policy for her car states the same (different insurer)

 

There is nothing there about belonging to spouse or near family, or about regular access or use; there is nothing about emergency use only.

 

Even still, when you took out your policy I imagine you would have been asked if you had regular access to any other vehicles. I don't know if all insurers ask it, but it does seem very common. If the OP doesn't declare this then it could potentially invalidate the whole insurance policy.

[vusys1]

DOC has always been open to abuse, but this benefit is slowly being closed off.

 

Even though some companies do say that the DOC is only to be used in an emergancy, there is no definition of emergancy in the policys, so a hubby could drive the mrs uninsured car, but please take note the TPO cover only covers TPs whilst the uninsured vehicle is being driven, when its parked up on public highway etc its uninsured.

 

Wording has recently changed (about time to) about using DOC to release impounded vehicles.

but again there are ways round this for a minimal fee, like temp cover for 1 day is about 7 quid and the car is covered to drive away.

[borisbeaver]

No car has insurance on it, in its own right. In the UK, the driver is insured, not the vehicle. Think about it for a moment, if you have third party only insurance, there is no insurance cover for the vehicle. However, since the car is a vital factor in deciding the insurance risk, the policy is attached to a particular vehicle in that the driver is insured (not the vehicle) to use that vehicle

AFAIUI, in the majority, car insurance is linked to the vehicle by the VRM, which gives the basic Third Party Cover. It's this that allows ANPR to work and to identify who is insured to drive the vehichle.

 

Third Party insurance on the vehicle is normally a requirement of DOC insurance.

 

On a slightly different tack, the insurance companies are clamping down on those people who are down as additional drivers but not the main driver that are the primary user.

 

Sorry if this sounds like gibberish, but I normally brain dump and it uses chaos theory as a download tool!

[patdavies]

AFAIUI, in the majority, car insurance is linked to the vehicle by the VRM, which gives the basic Third Party Cover. It's this that allows ANPR to work and to identify who is insured to drive the vehichle.

 

But the problem is that TPO insurance covers the driver to use the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. Whilst it is well-nigh impossible to obtain for a private individual, in theory you could have an any vehicle policy (like motor traders have), so no VRM is linked to the policy on the database.

 

Third Party insurance on the vehicle is normally a requirement of DOC insurance.

No, if only because the vehicle is never covered by Third Party only insurance; only the use of the vehicle. Unless (unusually) it is written into your policy that is provinding DOC, there is no requirement for any other insurance linked to the vehicle

 

On a slightly different tack, the insurance companies are clamping down on those people who are down as additional drivers but not the main driver that are the primary user.

No, they are clamping down on 'fronting'; where a low risk driver is policyholder, but the main user is an additional driver of high risk. The main user must be the policyholder.

[gwc1000]

in theory you could have an any vehicle policy (like motor traders have), so no VRM is linked to the policy on the database.

 

Yes, but this system is foolproof. Any vehicle that a Motor Trader has in stock that is taxed or that he himself taxes, the trader must by law update the database himself. I do it online, adding the VRM. Any vehicle that is untaxed would not be added to the database as it must be driven on trade plates. The trade plates become the temporary VRM for the journey and are already on the database.