SambaS Posted July 26, 2013 Author Share Posted July 26, 2013 Just spoken to my insurers and the small print has changed. This loop hole has been closed. My Driving Other Cars extension now requires the Other vehicle in question to have an insurance policy.. Shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meggersdog Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Incidentally people can't drive my cars on their (fully comp) policy as my trade insurance states it's not allowed so it's another thing to consider. If your cars are on the policy then they are insured and the driving other cars that are insured should be ok (I asked an insurance broker about this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faker Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Some insurance companies have different terms and conditions, it's that simple. Some will cover driving other vehicles third party, when the other vehicle has no policy in effect, some won't. I have come accross companies that will cover when there is no other policy in place. The reason the stipulation for borrowed vehicles to be insured mainly arose after incidents of 'young johnny' bought himself a 1 litre metro and insured it in his own name, then bought an imprezza and registered it his mummies name. ' young johnny' then borrowed the imprezza on a regular basis and drove it third party. I know of dozens of people who drove hot hatches back in the day, that were insured in this way. In 1990 I paid £1,080 to insure my first car third party only, and it was a ford signal yellow mk1 1300 S Fiesta that cost me £400 ( insurance in N. Ireland was always a scam, and much more expensive that in the mainland). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overrun Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 I drove my previously SORN'ed Escort to a pre-booked MoT, insurance, and proof I was driving for the test are all that are needed. Regarding day cover, the car has to have tax and test for the vast majority of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drum Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 ...I believe that the reason many policies stipulate separate insurance on another policy is to prevent the massive loophole of buying a barn full of cars, registering them in your wife/gran/dogs name, and driving them all on one policy.This is why the car has always had to be insured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Livered Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 Also, there's the practical point, from the old bill's perspective: using ANPR to spot uninsured vehicles is useless unless the database that's being used can compare registration numbers to insurance policies. They want to be able to tell from a reg number whether or not a car is insured, and they can only do so if every car needs its own insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pillock Posted July 27, 2013 Share Posted July 27, 2013 But it's not down to the plod. If the underwriter are willing to insure you without existing insurance on the car, then you have insurance and the plod can just smile and let you on your way. Road traffic act doesn't state insurance with x,y and z conditions.... Just says insurance. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now