Norwich Union withdraws driving other cars from policies

Warning.

Norwich Union are withdrawing the third party cover to drive other cars from their comprehensive polcies. see :-

formatting link
It looks like other insurance companies are looking to what happens with NU as to whether they will also withdraw this cover.

I would suggest that if you're an NU customer, you change insurer at the next renewal. - I can't see them knocking much/ any money off, despite them reducing your cover.

If enough customers leave, they might change their mind.

Reply to
xscope
Loading thread data ...

It does state 'will apply to all new policies from January' does this also include existing policies?

I can see why they're having to do this, as it gets abused by buying a £50 policy on a £100 Fiesta & then go driving around in £10,000 BMW I wonder how much they will start charging if we have to add & then remove a day later the drivers of our vehicles

Reply to
¦ Jason ¦

Quote: 'He said the firm would take a 'considerate' view of anyone with fully comprehensive insurance who had to drive another car in an emergency and hoped the police would do the same. '

Would the courts though, without the clause?

Reply to
¦ Jason ¦

£15 a time, at present.

-- krystnors

Middle age is when a broad mind and a narrow waist change places.

Reply to
krystnors

The thing which doesn't make sense to me with that above statement is that the cover for other vehicles is 3rd party only. You write off your £10k BWM by totalling it into a lamp post then it's your problem. That alone would put me off using the "drive other vehicles" part of the insurance as if I damaged the car I was driving, I could potentially be quite a bit out of pocket.

D
Reply to
David Hearn

I don't think "Considerate" view would stand up in court.

You're either insured or not.

Reply to
xscope

But remember the BMW would have to have its own policy anyway.

I'm not sure this is as open to abuse as is suggested; I wonder if the insurance companies can quote any figures?

It's a feature I've rarely used, but just a couple of times I've needed to drive my father-in-law's car. Let's face it, it only provides bare-minimum third party cover.

Reply to
Chris Bolus

The issue is apparently that the motor insurance database only records which vehicles have some sort of insurance, not which people are insured.

By having to be insured for each specific vehicle, apparently will make it easier for the police to check on you.

I find it very convenient having this facility on my insurance, the only reason behind taking it away seems to be a badly designed system for checking.

I actually think it will result in more people will be driving uninsured, because they won't realise their policy had changed. Also, how many people will be tempted to borrow someone's car for a short journey, whilst not covered?

Reply to
xscope

formatting link

So how do they expect you to test drive a secondhand car bought privately?

Reply to
Zog The Undeniable

Well, we're with NU at the moment, through the AA. I was not intending to renew with the AA anyway, as we're still waiting for the NCB from an accident Laura had a year ago (a year and two days to be exact).

I was considering NU Direct, as they are one of the better policies we have at work to deal with - free and automatic courtesy car cover. If this ceases I shall not be renewing simply out of principle.

Reply to
Andy Hewitt

Might be kinda difficult soon, what with NU buying the RAC :-)

Reply to
John Laird

The RAC, or RAC insurance services?

Reply to
Andy Hewitt

formatting link

There was also a large item about this issue in Auto Express No 878. Other companies are discussing to follow suit: Cornhill, AXA, Sun Alliance and maybe more. They say that DOC or 'Driving Other Cars' has been abused by e.g. someone owning a Fiesta and mostly driving a Porsche. But as Zog The Undeniable says, it must present a problem when shopping around for a secondhand car.

Reply to
Johannes

To be strictly accurate, Aviva (aka NU in the UK) bought the RAC (in its entirety). They haven't to my knowledge started to flog bits off just yet, and have announced plans to expand the customer base of both the motoring services and insurance arms.

HTH.

Reply to
John Laird

How do you tax the Porsche without insurance?

formatting link
>

Reply to
TurboJo
[Snipped Text]

Righto, I would expect that it'll make no difference whatsoever to other brokers selling their policies. They ain't likely to lose a possible source of custom are they?

Reply to
Andy Hewitt

1) There might be an insurance that expired just after tax date; the owner didn't renew. That gives almost a year of tax with no insurance. 2) It could have been insured in the name of a middle aged uncle with long NCB and living in a low risk area.
Reply to
Johannes

Since car insurance came under the regulations of the FSA you have the right to cancel your policy and get a full refund up to 14 days after taking it out (providing there's been no claim in that time). I suppose the unscrupulous chav could insure their Porsche legit and receive the temp cover note which would allow them to tax it and then cancel the policy and instead take out insurance for a group 1 1980 Fiat Panda with DOC cover.

Reply to
John

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.