Indeed.
It certainly is not a practical way of doing that.
Of course not.
Nor would I drive somebody else's expensive car on my policy, except in an emergency.
But in both cases, that is because I would be unhappy about only having 3rd party cover.
Try reading what I wrote.
You snipped the following two paragraphs I wrote, in order to make your (non) point.
These were:
I don't think you can have read your policy properly, because if it is correct, In theory you could insure a Micra, buy an older Jaguar, or other higher performance taxed car, register it in your wifes name, and drive it until the tax ran out on the premium of a Micra. No insurance Co is going to leave a loophole like that in their policy.
The policy is the legal document that explains the conditions of the contract between the policyholder and ins Co. A certificate does not necessarily mean you're insured if the policy conditions have not been met. Mike.
Phrasing is usually "not belonging ... not hired as part of a hire agreement" (i.e. HP) and does not usually say the car that is being borrowed needs to be insured in its own right.
One misconception that some of my sons/daughters friends have had recently is - can they drive someone else's car while they are on as the second driver on their mom or dads policy - and the answer is - unless the documents say so, NO - the clause usually refers to the policyholder.
Yep, it certainly does. Bird at uni seemed to reckon she was covered Third Party, *Fire and Theft* on any car under her mum's insurance, the theory being that if you borrow someone else's car then you're covered if it's stolen or burnt out when in your posession. I tried to explain to her how ridiculous the idea is, and how open it left the insurance companies to fraud, but she wouldn't be told......
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."
I most certainly *have* read my policy correctly.
I think they would (rightly, IMO) argue that the Jaguar in your example was actually owned by you.
I doubt they are very worried about that loophole, because it would take somebody really stupid to take advantage of it. Or so broke that they would not be able to afford an expensive car anyhow.
I agree the certificate must be read in conjunction with the policy. But generally, the conditions that would exclude insurance completely will be specified on the certificate.
The police will accept the certificate as proof you are insured. And they would not generally do that if the policy was also required to determine whether the insurance was valid.
You're a very silly bunny, aren't you. Jaguars aren't all expensive. You can buy a Sovreign for £500 easily. Still costs a bloody fortune to insure.
What bothers me, insurance companies and the Police is NOT what people drive or make; it is having real coverage for third parties. Until someone posts here saying they have had an accident in a borrowed car that was not insured by the owner, which they were driving on third party extension, and they had no problems, I'm going to be cautious.
Insurance companies are /very/ worried about any loophole. Remember all the 17 year olds driving Impreza 2000s as a 'named driver' on their mother's policies? You can still do it, but they make sure the policy cost is suitably loaded now.
Richard
Would be difficult if your wife actually did buy and own the car.
Doesn't need to be expensive. Older high powered cars can be baught for a few hundred quid. A late 80's Celica GT4 turbo,147mph, for well under 1k for example. Hypothetical, but two teenagers could buy one each, and simply swap cars.
They accept it but it's hardly proof. Almost anyone can get a certificate if they are prepared to lie. If it's obtained by fraud it doesn't mean they are insured.
And
But the fact remains that a certificate is not proof of cover.
An interesting deabate but I think we should just agree to differ. By the sound of it neither of is going to be affected regardless of who's interpretation is right. Mike.
My sort of attitude is no matter what scam someone thinks they've just invented to get round a high insurance premium, there's a good chance the insurance company has seen it before and got it covered - therefore not him.
Have you ever heard of a car having to be insured twice. No of course not. If you are insured to drive other cars not owned by you TP only that is what you have. Insurance that gives bare TP cover. If folks say the car has to be insured first then what is the point of having it on your policy saying you can drive cars not belonging to you. It is a well known dodge and a legal one but it costs the rest of us who pay for insurance for our car as insurance companies build the risk into their charges to the rest of us. There has been arguments about this on uk.legal in the past and it has even been established that you can drive without insurance if you deposit a large amount of money with some body or other which just doesn't make it worthwhile. pete
They were bull sh*tting then. pete
I have never seen the words "main driver" on an insurance policy regarding the driving of cars not belonging etc. pete
Higher cover isn't justified for many cars.
I would have thought the answer was obvious. It's the driver who's insured for a particular car not the car itself. If another car is insured by its owner, unless he has "any driver" on the policy, then you wouldn't be able to drive it. That's why you get the right to drive other people's cars on your policy.
This "large amount of money" *is* insurance - self-insurance.
That is correct. The clause refers only to the policyholder, not named drivers.
I've never been asked this, though they sometimes ask how many vehicles there are in the household.
The message from snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (John Prendergast) contains these words:
My proposals have always asked whether I have access (which I take to mean insured access) to any other vehicles.
and it has even been established that you
Around 30-40 years ago the deposited sum required for self insurance was £50k. I expect it's a little more these days. :-) Mike.
I heard £100,000. Can't remember where or why though.
Richard
It's £500,000.
Surprisingly little considering a claim could run into millions. Mike.
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.