car insurance on a scrapped car?

The economics of this just don't add up but it is certainly a good idea to opt for a low-risk category (and hence low(er) premium) car during the first few years - to both build up the no claims (hopefully) and to actually survive to reach the age of being able to afford to run a high performance model.

Oh, I think insuarnce companies will happily take money off anyone who is less than honest in their statements - they have nothing to lose as they wouldn't pay up in the result of a claim.

ISTR that insurance companies do tend to ask if you have had any claims history. And if you don't mention it, the insurance is just an expensive bit of paper to use to get a tax disk...

Actually the first point is correct. You have to maintain it to keep it safe regardless of the MOT. Basically its so they don;t have to pay out when Joe Fuckwit with his completely shot brakes, that've been leaking for months, runs into someone.

But they *do* have to pay out. As already mentioned, they're not allowed to disclaim responsibility just because the car was unroadworthy,

Brian

They have to pay out the 3rd party bits. They don't have to pay for your car to be fixed though - although that's generally the cheap bit..

cheers, clive

Regardless of some of the 'holier than thou' responses in the thread so far, it isn't unknown for someone to insure a V5 belonging to a long since scrapped car in order to maintain NCB during a break from driving / riding.

However they'll only pay out to the third party and sue you for the payout.

I did say 'in general' Over decades of driving, with many different ins Co's, none have stipulated a borowed car must be insured by it's keeper, and from other posts on this subject, it would appear that that my experience is the norm rather than the exception. Apparently Conor's insurance is one exception. TBH the only one I've ever heard of.

As far as the advice you've been given by your insurance Co, unless specifically from the Co's legal department, I would consider it highly suspect. I've heard too many stories of incorrect advice being given by customer service staff to believe what I'm being told by a person who is unqualified to explain the finer legal points in a policy.

No. It is certainly not that specific. It gives cover for occasional use of a borrowed car, providing you have a reasonable excuse. Emergencies, down to something like using your wifes car because yours wont start etc. IOW more or less any time you have reasonable cause.

I think we all know that. AFAIK it's never been disputed.

I have done, but I made sure I was talking to one of their lawyers. Not someone who was there just to answer everyday customer queries.

I suggest you read your policy very carefully. I would be surprised if you find any clause or condition, saying a borrowed car must be insured by it's keeper. If you do, maybe you'd let me know the exact wording. Never having come across that condition before, I'm interested to know exactly how it's stated. Mike.

They can certainly attempt to recover the payout from the policyholder, although their ability to do so is inevitably going to be restricted by the policyholders ability to pay.

Thats substantially different from the insurance being invalidated

Brian

My answer was in context to the OP's post. If the car has not been officially scrapped, his insurance would still be valid, and cover him to drive a borrowed car. Maybe a littly iffy, but in the short term fairly legal. :-) Assuming the borrowed car is roadworthy of course. If it has been officially scrapped, he should suspend his insurance. Keeping it in force is simply a waste of money. Mike.

True, but you could always, get a car for nothing or very cheap (£50 or less, ideally much less), scrap it, watch it being crushed and made into a form that it could never possibly go back on the road, having removed the VIN plate and number plates from it before just in case, but not register it as having been scrapped. Then register it as SORN (Statutory Offroad Ripoff Tax) and insure it as if it existed. A bit naughty, but you're not doing anyone any harm.

Wouldn't be worth it - you never know when you'll have another accident (hopefully you won't, but there are no guarantees in this life), plus you'll get stung for cancelling your policy, so anything you'll gain from having a year's NCB will be lost by cancelling. Just leave it and worry about more important things :-)

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

Yeah, and it'd be a cheap insurance payout - a replacement V5 only costs £19.

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

That, and if you're going to do that, why not just insure a free or £50 car?

Richard

Because you might not have anywhere to keep it.

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

Then why not just save the £700 per year for 4 year (on a Grp 1 mythical car) and tolerate a £1000 premium for your first (group realistic real car) year?

Madness. I considered doing it myself, btw, but seriously, Siani had no UK licence and no NCB. Her first cars cost her £700 generally to insure, her Scorpio (mad grouping) is about £1100 now.

Richard

Yep, precisely. And at the end of the day, even the base premium for a 22 year old with a license held for 5 years and no NCB, but a clean license and no accidents/claims is still going to be a hell of a lot better than for a newly qualified 17 year old.

Peter

-- "The truth is working in television is not very glamorous at all. I just go home on my own at night and sit alone and eat crisps."

Why?

The certificate (and the policy) says nothing about any other insurance of the "other" vehicle being required.

So no clarification is required. No other insurance is required.

If it were a condition, it would say so.

Some first level customer service drone you spoke to at length, no doubt.

That would be why this fact is stated in the policy then (NOT!).

Yes. Your no claims bonus would disappear :-)

Well of course.

That is simple fact. To get car tax, you MUST have a policy which will be/was in force on the first day for which you are buying the tax, and which specified the vehicle concerned.

But then, you would normally only be expecting to pay for car tax on a vehicle you own. And that clause ONLY gives you permission to drive a vehicle NOT owned by you.

They can bankrupt you.

Which is still nothing more that the extent of the policyholder's liability to pay.Many years ago I did some work for a motor insurance company in Essex. One of the company's customers had recently been involved in an accident that had permanently disabled, physically as well as mentally, a promising young university student. The total payout, involving lifetime nursing care, remodeling of the house to accommodate wheelchair access and stairlifts etc, was huge, running into seven figures, way beyond what most people would be able to realise from their own assets if pushed to. As it happens, the driver was properly and adequately insured and they paid up without much complaint. Had the car not been roadworthy, the payout would still have been pretty much the same. Had the insurance company sought to bankrupt the policyholder, the payout would still have been the same. The only thing that would have changed was the amount of that payout that the insurance company successfully recovered from the policyholder. That doesn't amount to refusing to pay out, or invalidating the policy.

Brian