I have an old banger which I run as a second car and i'm
trying to work out what the least I can pay to insure it
is?
I have a policy in my own name for another vehicle which
allows me to drive other vehicles third party only. The
exception is that it doesn't cover other vehicles owned
by me; fair enough. If I register the 2nd car in my partners
name then technically it's not owned by me so my insurance
should cover me to drive it? sound reasonable? Is this legal?
(might prove problematic when I try to re-tax it but can
save me 12mths insurance in the meantime).
|
If the 2nd car is not insured by anyone else then it won't be covered if you are not in it- when it's parked etc..
|
|
|
|
I think you'll find the cover you talk about won't extend to a car owned by your partner, especially if it's not insured by her (or him even !). Been checking my insurance details today and found out that More Th>n may offer to insure a second car owned by the policholder and apply the same NCD to both. I'm sure they're not the only company who do this so why not check that out as a way to reduce the cost.
|
not bothered if the car itself is not insured since it's
worthless (and nobody would steal it anyway).
So if my insurance didn't cover partner (hetrosexual, just
for the record) then I could
transfer ownership of it to parent/friend/Gordon brown and
still legally drive it?
|
Your insurance won't cover you to drive the car "if it is owned by (or hired/leased to) you or your husband or wife".
Is your partner your
wife ?
Also, if you transfer the car out of your name into hers that will be on the record and if you are involved in a serious accident whilst driving the vehicle, I'd be very surprised if your insurers didn't check up and refuse your claim.
Is it worth the risk to save a few quid ?
|
I wish car insurance was only a few quid! I double checked
my policy and it doesn't have any terms which exclude cars
owned by partner/spouse. So I guess it depends on the
details of the policy.
excerpt from policy>>>>
1b. driving other cars
If you qualify under this section, cover is limited to the policyholder and is restricted to Third Party Only. You are only covered when driving private motor cars within our territorial limits.
We will cover you for everything listed in clause 1a when you are driving any other car as long as:
your current Certificate of Motor Insurance says so and
the other car is not owned by you, a rental car, nor hired to you under a hire purchase or leasing agreement and
you have the owner's permission to drive the car and
you are not covered by any other insurance to drive it and
you still have the insured car, and it has not been damaged beyond repair, stolen or sold
|
|
|
|
Be very careful on this. I believe volvoman is right. Your insurance may well not cover you (at all, never mind just when it's in use) if the other car isn't insured in its own right by another person.
Also, even if it did cover you for driving, but not when it's parked you still have a problem. You couldn't legally park the car by the roadside when you're out, could you? It's an offence to have an uninsured vehicle parked on the road
Regards
John S
|
Ok, hadn't thought of that. I suppose I can run it to
work and back parking drive/works car park.
But I guess I might have a problem if it should
break down. (Or would it be my wife that would get
prosecuted since she was now the legal owner?). Anyway
probably not worth the risk.
Ta for the comments.
|
No, you'd be prosecuted, as the driver, for driving without insurance. Works car parks, from an insurance point of view, are probably not 'private property'. You need insurance where the public (other employees, visitors) have access and that will include works car parks. This really is too risky.
Regards
John S
|
|
|
|
you can drive another vehicle on your policy as long as it is not in your name ,and if you keep the car when you are not driving it the police cannot prosecute,i have done likewise before with 2nd cars etc , but my policy booklet does state (betwwen the lines so to speak) it should be a short term/emergency basis
insurance companys get enough monies out of us already and i for one use my policy to the full capabilities.
|
and if you keep the car
my thread should include "keep the car on private property" sorry
|
Just too risky, effectively this is fraud to try and get away without a proper insurance policy on the car.
Note the policy refers to any vehicle not *owned* by yourself. Ownership has nothing to do with the registered keeper, the insurance company would soon suss that in the event of a claim when they questioned you on the cars use at the time.
Also now the insurance details are on the police database then, in the case of a routine stop, your car would come up as uninsured. You would have to try and talk your way out of that with the police and of course your story would have to include lies...it's not going to easily convince the boys in blue.
I understand that in the event of a claim this fraud will not stop your insurance company paying out to an injured third party but they will be able to recover all their costs from you under law. Ouch.
People who set up their own policies with a youngster as a named driver run the same risk when it turns out the child has been using the vehicle to go to work every day for a year...it is clearly their car not their parents and this raises all sorts of difficult questions.
Mark(RLBS) will tell you the absolute truth shortly I bet.
MM
|
i was stating what my policy read ,not owned by yourself means excactly that and my interpritation is that if i do not own the vehicle, i can drive it with 3rd party cover.
i guess people can interprit what this means themselves..
|
gibbo,
My post was after yours but more directed at the "should I do it" question from KA..
You are obviously happy to take this risk, your choice.
MM
|
point taken but my advice would be use all of your insurance benefits and if in any doubt contact your insurance broker
heaven knows they are quick enough to contact you about renewals and excesses but very slow in paying out.
|
|
|
|
"It's an offence to have an uninsured vehicle parked on the road"
John,
Whilst whole-heartedly agreeing on the folly of KAB's attempts to 'extend' his/her insurance, is it really an offence to park a (taxed, MoT'd) car on the public highway without it being insured on someone's policy?
I appreciate that the car could be parked on a hill, parking brake fails, car rolls away and kills child etc., but nothwithstanding the crippling financial consequences, has a 'motoring offence' actually taken place?
Not advocating it, just a 'philosophical point' :-)
|
LHM
Yes, it is an offence to keep a car on the public highway without insurance. For just the reasons you describe. Doesn't have to be a motoring offence to result in a claim.
Absolutely - KAB is just trying to cheat the system to everyone's detriment.
Regards
John S
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some insurance companies will let you insure a second car with them and get any ncb you have on your first car on your second car. This is the cheapest legitimate way of insuring two cars. Alternatively invest in a cheap classic which is tax exempt and a fully comp classic policy would be around £120 a year for most cars. Or you could give the car to your partner, who would insure it and drive around it and you could be a named driver on their policy.
teabelly
|
This 'you are also insured to drive' clause in most policies is very misleading, and gives lots of people the impression that this is a way of insuring a second car.
I think the point is that 'being insured to drive another car' is not the same thing as that other car being itself insured to be on the road.
|
|
|
Firstly, there is a difference between who owns a car and whose name it is registered in.
Secondly, this would come under the heading of a material fact. The material fact being that you were regularily using this vehicle.
If you had an accident then they would be coming after you for their losses.
At a push, it would come under intention to deceive and then you'd be in even more trouble.
In either case you would have your insurance cancelled, future insurance declined and the losses recovered from you. Your future insurance, if you could get it, would be astronomic.
To rely on your DOC extension would be as a minimum stupid, and potentially expensive and illegal.
|
Mark
I couldn't agree more. Having surfed this site for three days, this is the second instance I have come across where an individual is trying to save a few quid on his car insurance by flexing the rules, and putting other road users at unnecessary risk. I don't mean to be rude but a point has to be made.
I suspect that, should the Police require the driver of this car to produce insurence, he would need to produce the insurance for the car he was driving, not the car he had insured. I believe I am right in saying that the car would need to be legally "on the road", which would include a separate policy for it, for him to legally drive it on his insurance. The aim of this is to cover people for when they may need to borrow a car, or drive another person's car to help them out in some way, say taking it to the garage or such like. Regular use of other vehicles is not the idea here.
The likely scenarios in the event of an accident should KABBABAB2 decide on his suggested course of action include, some poor person who was not at fault suffering financial hardship as a result, huge legal bill and compensation claim against the "uninsured", a lifetime of debt as a result, which would not only affect the driver but also his dependents.
How much money are we talking about for insuring this second car? Between £100 to £200 TPF? Probably less if he can get it on a second car discount with his current insurers. Some do a discount equivilent to the no claims bonus of your first car. Others may just to a juicy 2nd car discount - so he should shop around. Try NIG insurers, or even Direct Line, Churchill etc. He may get a low mileage discount on the car he doesn't drive that often.
OK Let's say it's £240 Per year - That's £20 per month, less then £5 per week - How much does he spend in a pub in a week -let alone petrol. I spend around £80 per month on petrol.
If he can't justify the insurance premium, then he cannot justify the 2nd car. It's as simple as that.
By the way, I am speaking as one who was recently involved in a non fault accident, and I am so glad that the other driver was properly insured.
No offence KABBABAB2 but I would just find the cheapest 3rd party 2nd vehicle quote, add the uninsured loss recovery service (£12 or so) and pay it. Then you've got peace of mind.
|
Just a small point that seems to me to be relevant to this. I've been using my broter-in-law's car for a few weeks now, pending actualy buying it from him, and co-incidentally I actually topped up my insurance today (to account for the change from my old car).
My (old) policy said that it covered me for driving any car which wasn't my own, no limitations or qualifications stated. Which made me thnk that driving the Astra was fine!
However, from what you are saying here, I should only have been driving it as a temporary or emergency matter? I didn't know this, and neither did my policy point this out. Does this mean I have been driving around illegally for the last few weeks?
HF
|
HF
You need to be careful. It's rare for the cover to be comprehensive on another car, even if your policy is comprehensive. The 'other car' cover is usually only third party, but this isn't always made clear on the insurance certificate. That's merely to show the police you have legal minimum cover. This is clearly because it's not designed to cover you long term. After all if you used this car for a realyy long time, then you've become the main driver, not your brother. That probably contradicts the statement he made when he insured it.
You need to check the wording in tha actual policy document.
I doubt you've been driving ilegally, but you may not have been as well insured as you thought.
Regards
John S
|
|
|
|
|
A general point - some people seem to be under the impression that Insurance Conpanies are ripping them off or that they are making huge profits from motor insurance. This is a myth - most of the time they are making a loss on motor insurance, and in the last 2 years they have mostly been losing money overall on all business.
Also, it seems some people think it is OK to defraud Insurance Comppanies if they are making profits. These people possibly think it is OK to steal from Supermarkets or "any person richer than themselves".
As to the question of squeezing the most value out of your policy as one person is suggessting: read the "material facts" part of your policy as Mark(RLBS) has pointed out, as you are apparently in breach of it.
The bottom line is, if you cannot afford to insure your car, you cannot afford (in law, not in money terms) to own or drive it - unless you are willing risk having to pay a heavy penalty for it.
HF : Phone your insurance company to find out - you may well have been driving the Astra without proper legal cover.
|
|
Oops. Sorry about the typos in my post above. I need a new keyboard, or must remember to preview before posting in future.
|
|
|
John S and MB,
Thanks for your posts.
Since the car is now in my name and my insurance has been changed, any irregularities that there might have been no longer exist. It certainly wasn't made clear on my insurance documents that the cover for a car not owned by me was only temporary/emergency, I was only alerted to that by this thread, but I see your point, John, that my brother-in-law's policy no doubt put him as the main driver.
MB - surely it's not a good idea for me mention to my insurance company now that I might not have been properly covered?
HF
|
MB - surely it's not a good idea for me mention to my insurance company now that I might not have been properly covered? HF
To HF: Let sleeping dogs lie, as the saying goes. I should have made the advice clearer "in future, before driving another car on a regular basis, phone your Ins.Co. to make sure that you are covered."
To All: Just to add to my earlier post, the premiums we honest motorists pay are higher than they need to be - because we subsidise those who drive without insurance.
|
OK, thanks MB.
Agree wholeheartedly with your point about subsidising drivers without insurance, too.
HF
|
|
|
|
|
