How is it hypocritical? Where I have not told the insurance company what I'm doing? They know I have a Mazda MX-5 (we have to tell them what cars we own), and it's expressly covered in the additional cover. My non-family colleagues are not on this bit of insurance. I'm not technically insured if I use my car for commercial reasons, so I don't. We have a company van for that.
But that feature is NOT to allow you to insure a cheap car and then use another as your main form of transport. I guarantee it (non-financially, of course).
Because it's illegal.
Feel free to do it. But be prepared to face the consequences if caught. I can't stop you; I can only advise you from the little I know of insurance and the law around it.
Heh, I know both ways are illegal (and I'm not doing either way. I'm a named driver on my mum's policy, it's her only car), but you will be caught doing Jakg's way. At least with the way I mentioned, you have SOME hope of being safe as long as you don't need to claim. If you were asked for insurance details from the police (for whatever reason), you have an actual policy to show.
passed his test 6 months ago and if your insured your insured
Personally i think his insurance will say the other car has to be insured and he has to be over 25. But if it doesnt ask them to make that clear in a letter to you because your worried about taking your dads car out.
In the UK a form of third party insurance is required, the legal level is slightly less than a standard third party policy, but it is not commonly sold by brokers. It is possible to self insure, and there are companies that let you insure yourself to insure yourself, it gets confusing but generally only worth it for companies or individuals with unusual collections of high value vehicles.
Standard policies in the UK are third party, third part fire and theft and comprehensive. They pretty much do what they say on the tin, extras are available (personal injury cover, legal assistance but not required). Our insurance is done on a per car basis, each car needs one and the policy holder must be the main driver, additional drivers are allowed but must not be the primary user of the car. Policy holders (and not named drivers) build up a no claims bonus which significantly reduces the insurance premium.
There is a common clause that the policy holder may drive any other vehicle that has its own insurance policy, basically on the grounds that they didn't invisige using it as a routine form of transport, if your car breaks down, you want to borrow someones car because it has a bigger boot or drive them back from the pub that is fine, use as a daily driver is not. Given that Jack intends to do 10,000 miles a year on a car that no one else would be insured to drive I would just love to hear the explanation he gives.
This clause was pretty much universal to all policies but in the last few years has been removed from most, some still offer it as an optional extra and a few offer it as part of the package, but mostly only to certain customers, certainly not high risk young males.
And all this they will try everything to get out it again my claim at the minute (other person pulled out on me) im 20 so have to have my bike restricted and nobody has asked me to produce my certificate to says its been restricted
"The policyholder, if they have a full EU license, may also drive, with the permission of the owner, any Private Motor Car subject to the terms and conditions of the policy".
The policy booklet, and the person who spoke to who actually WORKED for Quinn both say that this applies to me.
HOW?
My insurance say i'm covered in any car I do not own - I don't own the car, therefore i'm covered.
...except thats not what my policy says. My policy doesn't say any limit, and the person who worked for Quinn confirmed there were no limits, but you all seem to know more than her...
Most companies charge you a set amount then put the premiums up by about £50 - Quinn usually double theirs...
No, we looked at getting me a policy on the Focus and adding my Dad as the named driver to build up a NCB, despite the fact I wouldn't have been the rea main driver (doubt even insurance companies would try and do you for that ), but getting named driver experience and paying less at the time worked out better.
third party cover is a waste of time, anything less than fully comp is, and fully comp is usually the same price as TP, so that argument is void. i wouldnt begin to imagine driving about 3rd party. for a start, youll have a 500 pound excess, and then youll lose 1500 which you paid for the car, at least if you had FC you would still have 1000 to spend.
If you really still believe it is legitimate then write to them explaining your exact circumstance, explain that you will be the main driver on an uninsured high insurance group car owned by a family member. Make it very clear that you intend to do 10,000 miles a year in said car and the insured car will barely be used. If you can get written confirmation that you will be covered then go for it, you know you won't be though and you know they won't pay up.
Why? If you have a accident what does it matter if you drove the car yesterday or the day before. All that matters is if you are insured at the time of the accident. And when has jack mentioned 10000 i got the impression it would be a second car
Fully Comp is £800 more on my car, with a £500 excess on a £700 car - and thats the cheapest I could get.
If I did claim, the "saving" would be offset against the cost of not having any NCB so it seems pointless to ever claim on the insurance unless I have to - hence why my car is only TPF&T (and thats only because F&T was the same as TP)
I've attached a picture of my insurance documentation (biiiig images, though).
I will send them a letter / email - simply because my Dad is an arse and would never agree to anything like this anyway.
EDIT - To clarify - I will have "my" car in my name, on my insurance - I will then use my "Dad's" second car as I am covered to drive it. He won't drive it because he just won't - It will be registered in his name, but in every other way it will be mine.
I know someone who was involved in a accident whilst driving his Mum's car, he was asked to produce the relevant documents (license, insurance cert. to his local police station). He had no worries until he went there and found that his policy did not actually allow him to drive his Mum's car third party. There was a clause in the handbook of terms you get stating that third party cover on other vehicles was only valid over the age of 25. Which is as far I know the same with my policy.
Second, it would be illegal to drive another car as your main car. You can twist and bend whatever your told by your insurance company as much as you like, but if they get a sniff that your driving a far higher risk car on the policy as your main car they'll void your insurance. Insurance companies are not stupid, they will look for every opportunity to void your claim.
Can't understand why you need a `powerful` car. That SEAT has 100,000 miles and is only taxed till March. I bought my 2000 Fiesta for £1000, it had done 53,000 miles and was pretty well looked after. I live out in the sticks and have to use lots of narrow twisty roads with very little opportunity to overtake and still manage to overtake cars without too much bother in my 1.25. It's pretty nimble and very predictable to drive. My insurance in my name with Mum as a named driver is £850 with no NCB.
Just can't understand the reasoning of buying a car you can't afford to run, insuring it third party and then when you do eventually wrap it round a tree... you lose everything
No such clause exists in either the policy booklet, or the person I spoke to at Quinn
Then they must be the only insurance company I've heard of that allow under 25s to drive any car they so desire.
How exactly is it illegal to drive another car in addition to the one I own? What a ridiculous thing to say - they say in their bloody documentation i'm covered.
Ridiculous? Go ring your insurance company and tell them exactly what you plan to do. No around-about stories and questions. You tell them that you plan on insuring a car you have little intention on driving and using the policy to drive another car as your main round around.... see what they say to that.
Also as far as I've ever known it would be illegal to drive the car without it having a insurance policy attached to it. Again my policy stipulates that any other car I wish to drive must have valid insurance. I would imagine you'd attract the attention of the traffic cops seeing as it wouldn't appear on there database.
On your logic I can strap myself in to my Dads 170bhp (450kg) kit car and use it as my daily run around when I'm actually supposed to and paying to drive a Fiesta. Do you think the insurance companies are muppets?
I don't - Someone mentioned the Seat to me and I looked and found a very very nice speced car with a lovely engine in it for a bargain price. Of course the insurance was a silly price - but I was giving an example of a car I COULD afford to buy.
Bargain? Have you gone and viewed the car. Checked it for previous accident damage, checked its mechanical condition. Having searched high and low for my current car, I know that more often that not if the price is too good to be true it usually is. Out of 6 cars I went to view and was told they were in brilliant condition, on further inspection 4 of them had previous accident damage.
I can afford to run it - it's 2MPG less than my current car and should be more reliable. Fully comp is out of the question - it'd be nigh-on £4k fully comp, £2 or £3k third party or £1,125 "my way"
You can't afford to run it. You can't afford the insurance which is an essential to running a car. My point still stands, there is no logic in spending that much on a car that when you do wrap it round a tree you lose every penny spent.
Either Quinn got a 2 year old to write their terms or your just not reading them correctly...
TPFT is pretty good for people who've been driving/riding for less than 2 or 3 years. Most accidents would tend to be slow speed dings rather than wrap around a tree, and for me at least, Full Comp was double + a bit over TFPT.
By the way jack, GL getting anywhere near those fuel figures for one of those. My sister had one on trial (either that or a Golf V5) and the Leon was getting about 28mpg overall.
The booklet is my terms and conditions for my insurance, and i also have my certificate of insurance. I'm also basing my judgement on what the person who I spoke to who worked for Quinn said - I will double check with someone else that works their but their lines are closed atm.
For reference, on that car (again i'm just using it as an example:
Jack you haven't posted the insurance terms, you have posted a (very) brief summary of the insurance policy, which is more a sales pitch of what the policy offers than anything useful, other insurers neglect to mention the full terms of the insurance policy such as the age cut off (trust me I've looked). If you can't get written confirmation of exactly what you want to do then forget about it.
), but getting named driver experience and paying less at the time worked out better.
