33 replies to this topic

[tingymagig]

ok so say u have a policy that allows u to drive other cars TPO or whatever

does that mean ANY car as long as its not yours and insured ie what if the other car is modified?

also what about traders policys etc would they cover any car even if its modified

[Lottie]

Other car has to be insured or you could end up insuring a Rover Metro but then drive a Ferrari under the DOC cover and yes cant belong to you.

As for traders poicy it does exactly what it says on the tin, covers any vehicle so yes will inc mods and it doesnt have to be insured either as its covered under the trade policy

[V70Ben]

If more people chose to read the required laws <and that includes police officers and insurers staff> ...

http://www.opsi.gov....#pt6-pb1-l1g148

[Lottie]

I dont get it ben do you want to highlight which section your refering to?

[Lottie]

Ive read through that 3 times now and i stil dont get what point your trying to make? Anyone else thinking the same or is it just me being blonde?

Edited by Lottie, 06 September 2010 - 11:09 .

[Redbrick]

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 11:09 , said:

Ive read through that 3 times now and i stil dont get what point your trying to make? Anyone else thinking the same or is it just me being blonde?

+1 might help if it was in English

or maybe I just get bored too easily.

[FletchV70RAWD]

I`ve just had my insurance renwal through and it now states:-

"Driving other vehicles as long as it is insured"

I asked them about that and they said it is now stated as people were insuring minis and driving other cars so it now needs to be in black and white-the other car has to be insured.

[V70Ben]

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 10:54 , said:

Other car has to be insured or you could end up insuring a Rover Metro but then drive a Ferrari under the DOC cover and yes cant belong to you.

As for traders poicy it does exactly what it says on the tin, covers any vehicle so yes will inc mods and it doesnt have to be insured either as its covered under the trade policy

Other car does NOT have to be insured <although many policies now state that> Of course, if you'd like to provide the law that says such - please do, I've asked it many times of many others who should know, profess to know - yet still can't provide an answer.


Quite simply...

My earlier post is dead simple - if you are used to reading legislation

I'm going to do an Engineer now.....

Read it, then read it again slowly - then read it again...

If you still can't understand it - then I may provide a plain english interpretation.

But in basics... Insurers may try to "limit" their liability in some regards, yet the law stops them doing so as to protect Third Parties - although if they pay out to a third party, it doesn't stop them coming after you for the cash.

[Lottie]

Well if you want to try that out with your insurance Ben please feel free and let me know how you get on as i can safely say it will not be covered, as simple as that. That car has to be insured and if its not your insurance company will not cover it. at the end of the day your insurance covers your car not you, and if they wish to extend that cover to another vehicle then terms are it has to be insured unless your insurance company state otherwise.

I dont get what you mean though about limiting their iability so you will need to give me an example of it. Alot of whats written in the RTA is not relevant to insurance.

Biggest example i can give it drink driving. If you are insured through my company and do not have the drink drive endorsment then we will cover your repairs and also the third party repairs. If you have it and have been drink driving and had an accident as a result of that then we wont cover your vehicle, we will pay out any third party claim regardless of the amount and we will come looking for you for every penny we have paid out.

Oh and less of the "read it again, read it slowly" crap please. Im not thick and do not appreciate you trying to belittle me!

[chopster]

Don't worry Lottie, it was total gobldy gook to me too.... I think they do it to confuse the fook out of the masses so they can interoperate it as they see fit

I have a traders policy and it covers me for any vehicle in my ownership or care (modded or not)

[V70Ben]

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 13:33 , said:

Well if you want to try that out with your insurance Ben please feel free and let me know how you get on as i can safely say it will not be covered, as simple as that. That car has to be insured and if its not your insurance company will not cover it. at the end of the day your insurance covers your car not you, and if they wish to extend that cover to another vehicle then terms are it has to be insured unless your insurance company state otherwise.

The car itself does not have to be insured, unless specified within the clause on your insurance stating that any vehicles driven under the 3rd party extension are insured - and the companies pushing that line recently are being pushed by the ABI to do so, primarily due to the changes regarding "Continuous Insurance" which will be coming shortly.

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 13:33 , said:

I dont get what you mean though about limiting their iability so you will need to give me an example of it. Alot of whats written in the RTA is not relevant to insurance.

Insurance companies are NOT allowed to limit their liability to third parties within the restrictions laid out within the RTA.

Oh, and the RTA is the main primary legislation that binds users and providers of motor insurance, so despite it being about other matters too, the insurance provisions are incredibly important, and incredibly relevant to the requirements for insurance for motor vehicles.

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 13:33 , said:

Biggest example i can give it drink driving. If you are insured through my company and do not have the drink drive endorsment then we will cover your repairs and also the third party repairs. If you have it and have been drink driving and had an accident as a result of that then we wont cover your vehicle, we will pay out any third party claim regardless of the amount and we will come looking for you for every penny we have paid out.

Thats YOUR company, Many other insurers (my last 3 IIRC) specifically state that if you have written off your car as a result of being pissed you will have no cover.

However, I'm purely talking about Third Parties, and that Insurers can't say to a Third Party - "sorry but the driver of the car that hit you was pissed, and as a result his insurance is void, and you aren't getting a penny" The RTA section I quoted stops the insurers doing such and even provides a list. <For some reason, parliament forsaw that Insurers may choose to wriggle out any which way possible out of paying to Third Parties, and stopped that by legislating for it>

Of course, the RTA even provides, that in such a case - the insurer can pay out to the Third Party - then chase their insurered for that total amount.

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 13:33 , said:

Oh and less of the "read it again, read it slowly" crap please. Im not thick and do not appreciate you trying to belittle me!

I wasn't attempting to "belittle" you, so get off your high horse - It was tongue in cheek, obviously the wrong time of the month for that though

As you aren't thick, you won't have any problems reading and interpreting the legislation then will you.

[Lottie]

Ben i will argue black and blue with you if i have to that the other vehicle has to be insured unless specified otherwise. It is always assumed the vehicle has to be insured unless stated otherwise,

And who the hell mentioned that insurance companies were limited to what they pay out on for people that were in effect un-insured on their vehicle as a result of something which has rendered their policy un-indemnified? No-one as for as i can see so i really dont know why you brough that into it? I know they arent limited, joe bloggs knows they arent limited. I dont know what that question has to do with anything that tingy has asked?

Also ive never seen an insurance company say they arent paying out as their customer was drink driving either. Yes i know they wont have cover if they are drink driving with every other insurer as its my insurance company are the only dullards to not exclude that from their cover but thats their problem not mine.

Ive never said they wont cover it either so again whats your point????? Every insurance company has a legal liability to deal with a third party claim as a result of their insured's drink driving regardless what covers in force for their policy holder.

I seriously dont get what the hell your going on about and the only thing relevant to tingys question you have made reference to is if the vehicle has to be insured or not. Everything else has nothing to do with it?

As for me being up on my horse because of time of month you couldnt be any further from the truth if i had drop kicked you from it. I cant have children and not getting a time of the month is a very real reminder that Myself and Simon never can have children. Something in fact that im reminded of every single month when that time is meant to come but it doesnt. So dont be a prick all your life and think before you speak! Its not only me your offending but Simon!

So if you can manage to crowbar your head out of that asshole of yours you will see my love that you seem to be up on your high horse.

If your going to argue something, argue something which is relevant to the question and not just throw random things in!

Edited by Lottie, 06 September 2010 - 14:38 .

[V70Ben]

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 14:36 , said:

Ben i will argue black and blue with you if i have to that the other vehicle has to be insured unless specified otherwise. It is always assumed the vehicle has to be insured unless stated otherwise,

Where did I say to the contrary?

If you have an insurance policy, that does not say "The other vehicle you are driving has to have a valid certificate of insurance in force to use your 3rd party extension" Then indeed, you can drive a vehicle (such as an uninsured ferrari) on the 3rd party cover provided on your insurance certificate.

As Fletch pointed out above, thats why his insurer has added the clause.

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 14:36 , said:

And who the hell mentioned that insurance companies were limited to what they pay out on for people that were in effect un-insured on their vehicle as a result of something which has rendered their policy un-indemnified? No-one as for as i can see so i really dont know why you brough that into it? I know they arent limited, joe bloggs knows they arent limited. I dont know what that question has to do with anything that tingy has asked?

Also ive never seen an insurance company say they arent paying out as their customer was drink driving either. Yes i know they wont have cover if they are drink driving with every other insurer as its my insurance company are the only dullards to not exclude that from their cover but thats their problem not mine.

Ive never said they wont cover it either so again whats your point????? Every insurance company has a legal liability to deal with a third party claim as a result of their insured's drink driving regardless what covers in force for their policy holder.

You bought up drink driving, and you bought up the fact you wanted an example of "Limiting their liability" as you didn't quite get it - hence I used the point you bought up about drink driving to illustrate... You may get it - others dont.

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 14:36 , said:

I seriously dont get what the hell your going on about and the only thing relevant to tingys question you have made reference to is if the vehicle has to be insured or not. Everything else has nothing to do with it?

Tingy asked about whether it included whether any car he was driving under a 3rd party extension would still be covered even if it was modified - Hence my reason for pointing out that specified within the RTA exclusions is a list, one of which quotes engine size, and that effectively your insurance is still valid.

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 14:36 , said:

As for me being up on my horse because of time of month you couldnt be any further from the truth if i had drop kicked you from it. I cant have children and not getting a time of the month is a very real reminder that Myself and Simon never can have children. Something in fact that im reminded of every single month when that time is meant to come but it doesnt. So dont be a prick all your life and think before you speak! Its not only me your offending but Simon!

So if you can manage to crowbar your head out of that asshole of yours you will see my love that you seem to be up on your high horse.

Well I apologise for that comment, and I had no idea - but thats not generally a surprise as I don't keep up or even try to keep up with every nuance of everybodies lives I'm afraid. Maybe I can see why you've taken offence at it, but like I said, no idea - so hardly surprising. And I'm not offending Simon, and it's you who dragged his name and personal history/life story into it - unless of course he also wants to randomly take offence about something that I had no idea about, but that you've told the world about - and quite frankly, had no interest in, nor wanted to know.

I generally do think before I post, but quite frankly some people don't like stuff, some do - As for your "prick" comment, you started the personal insults - if you don't like it, don't read it and pish off elsewhere to something you do understand.

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 14:36 , said:

If your going to argue something, argue something which is relevant to the question and not just throw random things in!

Oh it's all entirely relevant, but if it surpasses your understanding and capability to understand the arguments - don't blame me and get all narky and personal about it

[Lottie]

Do you know what im fuming enough as it is so im going to leave this for 10 and then come when ive calmed down before i come back again.

[V70Ben]

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 15:08 , said:

Do you know what im fuming enough as it is so im going to leave this for 10 and then come when ive calmed down before i come back again.

That would be a good idea you know.

[GazT4R]

tingymagig, on 06 September 2010 - 10:06 , said:

ok so say u have a policy that allows u to drive other cars TPO or whatever

does that mean ANY car as long as its not yours and insured ie what if the other car is modified?

also what about traders policys etc would they cover any car even if its modified

So in short Yes and Yes.
Check the small print for any exceptions put in place by your insurance company.

Edited by GazT4R, 06 September 2010 - 15:48 .

[tingymagig]

GazT4R, on 06 September 2010 - 15:47 , said:

So in short Yes and Yes.
Check the small print for any exceptions put in place by your insurance company.

ta i was planning to avoid getting any more involved but yea i got that

just seems odd to me as it costs me 3 times the amount to insure my car modified then it does my dad to insure his std car but he can drive mine with the mods but whoever said ins made sense


none of this applies to me (yet) as being under 25 a driving other cars policy costs far more then its worth

[Lottie]

GazT4R, on 06 September 2010 - 15:47 , said:

So in short Yes and Yes.
Check the small print for any exceptions put in place by your insurance company.

Which is what i said in the first place lol

[GazT4R]

Lottie, on 06 September 2010 - 16:01 , said:

Which is what i said in the first place lol

Well I wanted to keep it short and sweet for Aiden. He might be 'busy' at work, for busy read doing anything but work .
I'll may be looking at traders policy next year given the number of cars I have plus handy for driving customers cars when I do the detailing.

[tingymagig]

GazT4R, on 06 September 2010 - 17:00 , said:

Well I wanted to keep it short and sweet for Aiden. He might be 'busy' at work, for busy read doing anything but work .
I'll may be looking at traders policy next year given the number of cars I have plus handy for driving customers cars when I do the detailing.

nope im on my rest week this week as ive done so much work over the last few weeks