Insurance

[libby lou lou]

My mates missus is a named driver on his insurance. She has "borrowed" a car, which is in another name,bought outside a scrapyard

She has been pulled, gets a producer, he produces for her,everything is fine

Iv'e always told him, what he is doing isn't ,legally, worth a toss.

He thinks she's allowed to drive any vehicle that does not belong to her, EVEN thought there's no insurance on the borrowed vehicle, he's got away with this for 5 yrs, not now.

She's been summonds for no insurance, as a result of a very slight accident, in which the other party , or the police have claimed is a failure to stop,(she did get out, argument ensued, so she jumps in and goes home.

My mate, as i said, produced at the local, all excepted, now, the prosecution want to see a insurance policy for the vehicle involved, there is'nt one. My freinds argument with the prosecution, is that he's provided a green slip, a proof of submitting his doc's.

I still say the prosecution is right, that other vehicle MUST be insured for her to drive it, he thinks not. can anyone, with this experience help,no guessers please, the case is adjourned till may 21st.

 

[FredFlintstone]

Generally, in order for the third party insurance extension to apply, the OTHER vehicle must not be owned by the person covered and must be separately insured.

Sadly, when police pull people they usually seem to accept the Insurance Certificate showing the third party extension but do not insist on seeing the policy that applies to the actual vehicle.

Having said all that, I don't understand how your mate could possibly be covered by the third party extension! The TP extension usually only aplies to the policy holder, not any named driver.

Sadly it seems your mate is an innocent victim of her fella's lies. If that is the case then the best she can do is to say as much in court. If she isn't such a victim then it serves her right.

Hope this helps.

EDIT - Who is the insurance policy with? Do you have or can you get copy? It's the only real way of determining ho's right because policies do differ. However, the law doesn't, and the law states that any vehicle used or KEPT on a public highway must be covered by an insurance policy covering TP risks as a minimum.

 

[Moz]

yeah

Hello at other posts .......

 

[libby lou lou]

Cheers fred, my line of thinking, he will be reading this very shortly. at least he has other peoples views as well as mine, would like someone on here, give an attempt to defend her position, if only for when she goes back to court , softus, or johnd, maybe?

 

[JohnD]

here I am.

I think he should read his insurance policy, carefully, twice, and see what it says about driving other cars. I will not be surprised if it says the other cars must be insured by their owners. If so, your mate will see that he is not in conformance with the terms of his policy so his wife is not covered.

I didn't understand who owns this other car bought outside the scrapyard, and if the owner will be coming to court to confirm it is taxed, insured, MOTd and they gave permission for your mate's wife to drive it.

In the event that your mate and his wife are among those people who avoid taking out and paying for proper insurance, leaving the rest of us to pay extra to cover the cost of damage and injury they cause, I am only sorry that they will probably not be very severely punished and fined.

p.s. I have just had a look at my own certificate, it says "The Policyholder may also drive, with the owners permission, a motor Car not owned by the Policyholder and not hired to the Policyholder under a hire purchase or leasing agreement, for Third Party only cover".
Note it says "The Policyholder may..." not "The policyholder and named drivers may..."

Also, the owner of the other vehicle would have to come and give evidence that they gave permission.

 

[libby lou lou]

thanks for taking the trouble to reply john. appreciated, just out of intrest a borrowed traders policy going to solve it ?

 

[JohnD]

don't know.

I used to know a garage proprietor who used his trade plates all the time, once he was sitting outside the chip shops with trade plates on, police came and said that the cover was only for test drives, delivery and collection, not for going to the chip shop.

 

[Softus]

If you're the main driver of a car, you have to have a policy to cover you, and you have to be registered as the keeper of the car. It's bleeding obvious.

If she hasn't declared an insurable interest in the car she drives, to the insurer who thinks they're just covering her to occasionally drive someone else's car, then she hasn't declared all material facts, which will void that aspect of the policy and allow the insurer to decline to indemnify her.

It's a web of lies silent and deceipt, so she'll be done up like a kipper, which is exactly what she deserves.

Not only has she been playing fast and loose with other people's lives, by not having third party cover, but the cost of her accident is likely to be borne by the MIB, which is funded by insurers, who are funded by...guess who? People who pay for their policies.

The fact that she's stretching "facts" in an attempt to evade conviction is testimony to her conscious culpability. I, for one, will be utterly delighted to hear that she's had the book thrown at her.

just out of intrest a borrowed traders policy going to solve it ?

Solve it? F*cking solve it?! The only thing that's going to solve this one is throwing the woman in prison for a few weeks.

 

[Moz]

I would shout but that ...softus .... ...




at least the *major* clues

I scanned mates ........a lot combos
I MajoR Real W/........... .......



Softus

 

[bernardgreen]

If she hasn't declared an insurable interest in the car she drives, to the insurer who thinks they're just covering her to occasionally drive someone else's car, then she hasn't declared all material facts, which will void that aspect of the policy and allow the insurer to decline to indemnify her.

The reason for being allowed to a car owned by another is mainly for emergencies. ( owner taken ill, etc ) and is not intended as a way to ""drive an E type jag on a policy for a sit and and beg Ford Popular ""

So this is abuse of the policy. The insurers may decide afterwards not to re-insure the policy holder or will raise the premiums to cover two cars at all times. One refusal to insure or especially loaded premium will be known to all other insurers so re-newing insurance may become difficult

The other thing to be wary of is the DRIVER at the time and not the owner is responsible that the vehicle is road worthy at the time of the offence or accident. That can be a nasty sting in the tail if there were any defects on the vehicle.

So best advice is be honest, admit the facts and ask for leniency.

 

[BoxBasher]

All the court will need to do is get the insurance firm in

If it comes to an argument with the insurers the insurance co will inevitably win. They can wriggle out of paying out for people who are legitimately insured when something has happened within the terms of the policy, I'm sure they will have no trouble stitching up someone who is trying to play them for fools.

 

[Spark123]

The thing with a traders policy is that it can allow someone who is nominated by the policy holder to drive a vehicle (their are often clauses such as long as the car is not owned by the nominated driver, age of driver vs vehicle cc etc). This is the sort of policy generally used by garages/showrooms to allow potential buyers to test drive cars.

 

[masona]

p.s. I have just had a look at my own certificate, it says "The Policyholder may also drive, with the owners permission, a motor Car not owned by the Policyholder

I never understood this, is this verbally or written agreement? What happen if the car owner is lying to you about giving permission to drive the car afterward?

Example, My car insurance is fully comp and yet if I drive another car with the owner premission which is only insured on third party then I have an accident and it's my fault but can't afford the repairs, what happen then because the car owner could've says I've stolen the car.

 

[Thermo]

then you would technically be prosecuted for TDA and youd have to fight it out between you at court.

libby lou lou most of its been covered already. from my experiance from when i was in the police vehicle insurance can be a minefiled so without actually knowing the full circumstances and seeing the wording of the policy i wouldnt want to comment. What i will say is if they go down the road of trying to cover it up they will open themselves up to a whole new ball game. they should remeber that police can now have access to the insurers database so checking it out is easy.

Also just because he has provided his documents at the police station means nothing. the details are recorded by a desk clerk and then passed to the officer who will check it out. Any offences that are revealed will then be dealt with.

 

[Steve]

I drive a Ford Fiesta 53 plate 1.4 TDCi
My Dad drives a Ford Focus 54 plate 1.6 TDCi.

We are both fully comp for our own cars. No extra drivers etc. On a typical fully comp policy, can I drive his? And can he drive mine?

(I THINK the answer is yes, though i have never driven his car except to put it on the drive or take it off the drive)

If yes, if one were to have an accident in the other's car, whose insurance would pay out?