33 replies to this topic

[GazT4R]

tingymagig, on 06 September 2010 - 17:15 , said:

nope im on my work week this week, at home, as ive had so much rest over the last few weeks at work

Fixed

[tingymagig]

GazT4R, on 06 September 2010 - 17:40 , said:

Fixed

Too right and all

[GazT4R]

[V70Ben]

Sorry to be a "prick" again....

In regard to "Other car has to be insured or you could end up insuring a Rover Metro but then drive a Ferrari under the DOC cover" comment, and that they'll argue black is blue.

Feel Free.



Most DOC policies say that the vehicle is insured whilst it is in 'use' by the policy holder with the DOC extension. The interpretation to this term has precedence in a court ruling (Secretary of State for Transport V. Richards ( 1998 ) JP 682 Queen's Bench Division) in regard to a vehicle excise licence. The ruling decided that 'use' must be used in the context of a whole journey, therefore you could park the vehicle, enter a shop and return with the vehicle being insured during the intermediary period.

Therefore unless the policy requires the vehicle to have another policy in force, or uses terms other than 'use' then the DOC extension is valid is the driver is still in the progress of his/her journey.




Of course, if anyone would like to rebut that with an equally well argued and presented case or legislation - do feel free.



I did say I'd explain further if required

[chopster]

To pick your brains then:

I noticed a couple of years ago that fully comp and TPF&T policies stopped giving third party cover on any vehicle in your possession UNLESS it was covered on another persons insurance policy, so what was then happening was when said person with the Metro insurance was driving his Ferrari the plod'd pull them over and impound the car... Metro guy would then get a friend in the motor trade to produce insurance cover for the car and un impound the Ferrari... but in the last 6 months or so plod aren't releasing the cars as they seem to have some kind of loophole to do with the Ferrari needing to be on M.I.D. I know of at least one person who's had their car crushed and 6 points for no insurance even though a friend had stated that it was a car that belonged to him so was then covered on his trade policy.
Don't get me wrong I agree EVERYONE should have a valid insurance policy in force to drive on the public roads (and I know they're doing it to get at the scallies) but it seems plod are managing to bend the rules in their favour especially in the inner cities

[tingymagig]

chopster, on 06 September 2010 - 21:37 , said:

To pick your brains then:

I noticed a couple of years ago that fully comp and TPF&T policies stopped giving third party cover on any vehicle in your possession UNLESS it was covered on another persons insurance policy, so what was then happening was when said person with the Metro insurance was driving his Ferrari the plod'd pull them over and impound the car... Metro guy would then get a friend in the motor trade to produce insurance cover for the car and un impound the Ferrari... but in the last 6 months or so plod aren't releasing the cars as they seem to have some kind of loophole to do with the Ferrari needing to be on M.I.D. I know of at least one person who's had their car crushed and 6 points for no insurance even though a friend had stated that it was a car that belonged to him so was then covered on his trade policy.
Don't get me wrong I agree EVERYONE should have a valid insurance policy in force to drive on the public roads (and I know they're doing it to get at the scallies) but it seems plod are managing to bend the rules in their favour especially in the inner cities

good tbh

if a cars uninsured and gets pulled unless the person driving it at the time produces insurance for it then crush the dam thing

[V70Ben]

chopster, on 06 September 2010 - 21:37 , said:

To pick your brains then:

I noticed a couple of years ago that fully comp and TPF&T policies stopped giving third party cover on any vehicle in your possession UNLESS it was covered on another persons insurance policy, so what was then happening was when said person with the Metro insurance was driving his Ferrari the plod'd pull them over and impound the car... Metro guy would then get a friend in the motor trade to produce insurance cover for the car and un impound the Ferrari... but in the last 6 months or so plod aren't releasing the cars as they seem to have some kind of loophole to do with the Ferrari needing to be on M.I.D. I know of at least one person who's had their car crushed and 6 points for no insurance even though a friend had stated that it was a car that belonged to him so was then covered on his trade policy.
Don't get me wrong I agree EVERYONE should have a valid insurance policy in force to drive on the public roads (and I know they're doing it to get at the scallies) but it seems plod are managing to bend the rules in their favour especially in the inner cities

You will find that all "Traders Policies" now have written on the certificate of Insurance (as does your own non traders policy) that the "Third Party Cover" does not extend to releasing impounded vehicles - such as:


"This policy does not cover:
Use to secure the release of a motor vehicle, other than the vehicle identified above by its registration mark, which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority."

It's all been pushed through by ABI to prevent "Mates" getting seized cars released, then giving them back to scrotes to continue driving again.


Nothing stopping someone really in the sh*t from getting it collected by a friend with a suitable transporter/trailer - their friend just has to produce their certificate of insurance for the trailering vehicle (both have to attend, with full documentation inc. driving licences)

[Buttcrack]

Insurance , always a good topic.

How I understand things, its that your company can impose any restrictions they want, so read the small print, lower the cost the lower the cover and more restrictions.

If you crash into someone they will always sort out the other driver/car/occupants.

You will be stuffed if you have a 3rd party policy only.

The restrictions on full comp with the 3rd party cover for use on other cars not owned by you has been tightened up. Most will now only give this cover when you are old, and when the borrowed car has its own cover.

This is in place to stop cars taken by the police under the powers in sect 165 of the RTA being collected by anyone with a full comp policy, and the 950cc micra owner using his mates 400bhp scooby.

The traders policy will cover cars owned by the poilcy holder and need to be stated on his policy, other cars have to be used in connection with the trade, so popping to the shop, going on holiday, collecting a new bed/TV, scrap metal , what ever, won't be covered and if you get stopped in such circs then the car will be taken, so be careful what you buy, a traders policy is not the best unless you are in the trade and using the cars for business of trading.

Just my thoughts and I now wait to be shot down.

[chopster]

V70Ben, on 07 September 2010 - 06:39 , said:

You will find that all "Traders Policies" now have written on the certificate of Insurance (as does your own non traders policy) that the "Third Party Cover" does not extend to releasing impounded vehicles - such as:


"This policy does not cover:
Use to secure the release of a motor vehicle, other than the vehicle identified above by its registration mark, which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority."

From my policy:

The policy does not cover:

Use to secure the release of any vehicle that has been seized by any goverment or public authority unless at the time of seizure the vehicle was:
i) your property; or
ii) the property of your spouse if he or she is declared as a driver on this policy; or
iii)held in trust by you or was in your custody or contol for motor trade purposes.

So it seems nothings changed... in effect any vehicle is in my custody or care with the owners consent, or at worst any car can be signed over to me.

Buttcrack, on 07 September 2010 - 11:59 , said:

Insurance , always a good topic.

The traders policy will cover cars owned by the poilcy holder and need to be stated on his policy, other cars have to be used in connection with the trade, so popping to the shop, going on holiday, collecting a new bed/TV, scrap metal , what ever, won't be covered and if you get stopped in such circs then the car will be taken, so be careful what you buy, a traders policy is not the best unless you are in the trade and using the cars for business of trading.

Just my thoughts and I now wait to be shot down.

My traders policy covers me for any car in my ownership or care, it has no VRM on the policy itself as cars I use or own are constantly changing although I have access to the companies website to update vehicles for MID they usually take days to get updated on the database itself. It just wouldn't be cost effective for the insurance company to send out a new policy every time I (or anyone in the car job) buy or sell a car.

[V70Ben]

Buttcrack, on 07 September 2010 - 11:59 , said:

The traders policy will cover cars owned by the poilcy holder and need to be stated on his policy, other cars have to be used in connection with the trade, so popping to the shop, going on holiday, collecting a new bed/TV, scrap metal , what ever, won't be covered and if you get stopped in such circs then the car will be taken, so be careful what you buy, a traders policy is not the best unless you are in the trade and using the cars for business of trading.

Just my thoughts and I now wait to be shot down.

Bang....


Many "Traders Policies" now cover SDP purposes for policy holder and spouse, all they have to do is notify them to the insurer via text or online.. doesn't even have to be on MID as they have time allowances for cars appearing on the MID register.

Some providers even offer "HomeFleet" products...

[V70Ben]

chopster, on 07 September 2010 - 12:31 , said:

or at worst any car can be signed over to me.

Nah...

"At the worst" you will become "Bubba's Bitch" and be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice - or worse.

[chopster]

V70Ben, on 07 September 2010 - 17:00 , said:

Bang....


Many "Traders Policies" now cover SDP purposes for policy holder and spouse, all they have to do is notify them to the insurer via text or online.. doesn't even have to be on MID as they have time allowances for cars appearing on the MID register.

Some providers even offer "HomeFleet" products...

Yep SDP cover is also included on the policy and you have 2 weeks grace apparently from purchase to it needing to be on the MID

V70Ben, on 07 September 2010 - 17:03 , said:

Nah...

"At the worst" you will become "Bubba's Bitch" and be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice - or worse.

Lol, I did notice after posting that the vehicle in question had to belong or be in the care of the motor trader at the time of seizure

Edited by chopster, 07 September 2010 - 17:48 .

[850mad]

Love the banter, plenty of food for thought though.
Oh S**t, Where's my f******g policy gone??!!??

[Cassis R]

I am just going to phone Adrian Flux up, as they will know for sure