Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBoy]

One to catch you out.

If you have a fully comp policy with Admiral, you may not necessarily have cover to driver other cars, as they put a whole load of restrictions on.

In Mrs TB's case, on the Multicar policy we took out, she was the Policy Holder for TBE.  However, as she is not the registered keeper of TBE - I am - this meant she was not insured to drive other cars.

[Doctor Gollum]

Driving other cars cover isn't routinely provided as standard, and if it is offered, it is usually Third Party only, which makes it a moot point.

Obviously it depends on your circumstances, but being a named driver on policies of cars you regularly drive  ought to be sufficient.

[dave the builder]

Mrs TB must have done lots of research to find a policy which means she can't/doesn't have to drive the Zafira tractor 

sell her the Omega for £10,000 problem solved 

[biggriffin]

An Insurance company, trying to catch you out, by hiding something in the really small print,,, 

They are responsible and respectable business,that would never use underhanded and disposable practice to not have to pay out..... Would they.

[TheBoy]

Driving other cars cover isn't routinely provided as standard, and if it is offered, it is usually Third Party only, which makes it a moot point.

Obviously it depends on your circumstances, but being a named driver on policies of cars you regularly drive  ought to be sufficient.

Yes it is, and pretty much universal on most Comprehensive policies.  Obviously she is a named driver on all our other cars, but not being able to, for example, drive her dads car legally is a problem.

[STEMO]

Driving other cars cover isn't routinely provided as standard, and if it is offered, it is usually Third Party only, which makes it a moot point.

Obviously it depends on your circumstances, but being a named driver on policies of cars you regularly drive  ought to be sufficient.

Yes it is, and pretty much universal on most Comprehensive policies.  Obviously she is a named driver on all our other cars, but not being able to, for example, drive her dads car legally is a problem.

I had similar to this when I took the wife's car in for a service. We are both named drivers on each others policies, and both of us can drive another vehicle on our individual policies. But I needed a courtesy car when I took her car in. Although I could drive a courtesy car on my policy if my car was going in, I could not drive it on her policy as a named driver. I had to pay £12 for the day (which they let me off because I put a tenner in the car and it did a million miles to the gallon or something)

[Doctor Gollum]

Not in my experience it isn't. From memory only three policies have had it since my first one in 1996. Certainly my current insurer doesn't offer it. 

[STEMO]

We've had it on every policy for about the last ten years.

[dave the builder]

I make a point of checking when i renew or change my insurance
it's only 3rd party cover ,but that's all i need if i drive someone else's car
(because the whole fleet is rusty old Vauxhalls ) 

[YZ250]

..........
Obviously she is a named driver on all our other cars, but not being able to, for example, drive her dads car legally is a problem.

Similar issue here. As owner and policy holder I'm covered for my own vehicle and any other motor vehicle not belonging to me. This is all well and good but I also own a new Beemer which my daughter uses. My daughter has a policy on the Beemer, declaring her as the main user but me as the owner. So, technically I can't drive my own car as I don't have a policy on it. I can't drive it on my policy as I own it so the 'any vehicle not owned by me' invalidates that. I suppose she could add me as a named driver on my own vehicle. 
Incidentally, I've had the 'any other motor vehicle not owned by me' since I was about eighteen. In actual fact it used to say 'any car or motorcycle not owned by the policy holder. 

[Doctor Gollum]

I think the last policy I had it on was an Admiral Multi car policy when I had the two Omegas and possibly my Taxi policy... Both 4 and 5 years ago respectively 

[BazaJT]

I have three insurance policies[all with different companies] all are fully comp. and only one of those covers me to drive another vehicle not owned by me.

[YZ250]

I have three insurance policies[all with different companies] all are fully comp. and only one of those covers me to drive another vehicle not owned by me.

Got me worried then, worried enough to go and check.    All good though, definitely covered to drive any vehicle not owned by the policy holder. My wife's is the same for her policy. 
Obviously some insurers dropped this additional cover. 

[Broomies Mate]

Just checked my Admiral policy, and it states that the Policyholder Only can drive other vehicles;

The policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner of a private motor car as long as the other car is not a hire or rental car, is not owned by you or your partner nor obtained by you or your partner under a hire purchase or lease agreement, within our territorial limits, providing there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car. The cover is Third party only.

Me and SWMBO are named drivers on eachothers policies, so irrelivent to us, but if we weren't, I wouldn't be able to drive her car, but I could drive my nextdooor neighbours car (with their permission).

The Insurance Company thinks it's being clever by doing this, but in-fact, we both save money (reduced permium) by adding eachother onto our own policies.  I guess this would change somewhat if we didn't have impecible driving records!

[TheBoy]

Just checked my Admiral policy, and it states that the Policyholder Only can drive other vehicles;

The policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner of a private motor car as long as the other car is not a hire or rental car, is not owned by you or your partner nor obtained by you or your partner under a hire purchase or lease agreement, within our territorial limits, providing there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car. The cover is Third party only.

Me and SWMBO are named drivers on eachothers policies, so irrelivent to us, but if we weren't, I wouldn't be able to drive her car, but I could drive my nextdooor neighbours car (with their permission).

The Insurance Company thinks it's being clever by doing this, but in-fact, we both save money (reduced permium) by adding eachother onto our own policies.  I guess this would change somewhat if we didn't have impecible driving records!

Thats the old wording.  Which was on my old policy (and an Admiral agent denied, despite me having the certificate in front of me).

Its now only the policy holder AND if the car being insured is legally owned* by the Policy Holder.



*In Admiral's view, Legally Owned means name on V5, which is legally incorrect according to DVLA.

[TheBoy]

Not in my experience it isn't. From memory only three policies have had it since my first one in 1996. Certainly my current insurer doesn't offer it. 

Never, ever had a FC policy which didn't have it.  TPFT tend not to as standard, and commercial use is a different kettle of fish altogether.

It was lucky I spotted this sneaky change that was in no way highlighted, nor visible to most until the policy stated.

[STEMO]

Here's the wording on mine

Providing the above vehicle is still owned and insured under this policy, the Policyholder may also drive, subject to the owner's permission, any other motorcar which does not belong to him/her or is not hired or rented to him/her under a hire purchase, hire or leasing agreement.

[YZ250]

........
Its now only the policy holder AND if the car being insured is legally owned* by the Policy Holder.

*In Admiral's view, Legally Owned means name on V5, which is legally incorrect according to DVLA.

It can be a minefield of mis-information.    The owner not neccassarily being the registered keeper, the registered keeper not neccassarily being the main driver and so on. 
My daughter is the main driver of a car owned by me and the registered keeper is also me. She has a policy with Admiral for this car, I have no policy on it as I don't drive it since handing it over for my daughters use. Gets well confusing when you read the terminology as she is neither the owner or registered keeper, but she is the main driver, which sort of goes against the registered keeper terminology. 

[hotel21]

We bounced around assorted insurance companies over the years for our two cars.  Things got a little muddled between named keepers, owners, primary drivers and the like so we did a consolidation in order to get on the correct side of the small print.

What seemed universal and also echoed my previous trades experiences was the reg keeper/primary driver/other cars use extension. 

DOC is far and away only for named policy holder only and for third party only.  Further, the other car must have a stand alone insurance policy in force and not reliant on the DOC driver, thus preventing an uninsured car magically becoming insured because your Harris is in the drivers seat.

In the main, the majority of scrotes I dealt with back in the day relied on this as a get out of jail card.  Watching more current interceptors type telly shows that it’s still a very common misunderstanding.  It is quite expensive and so, rare, to get 3rd party cover on current fully comps.  If you do, at no extra cost, then we’ll done.

[Entwood]

From my Policy ...

5. Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive
Insured and Spouse
The policyholder may also drive a motorcar not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a hire purchase or leasing agreement, as long as the policyholder has the owner's permission to drive it.

[Doctor Gollum]

From my Policy ...

5. Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive
Insured and Spouse
The policyholder may also drive a motorcar not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a hire purchase or leasing agreement, as long as the policyholder has the owner's permission to drive it.

If you were to have an accident whilst doing so, your insurers could drive a fleet of buses through the gaping chasm in that clause

[STEMO]

Seems clear enough to me.

[Doctor Gollum]

It's more what it doesn't say

[STEMO]

It's more what it doesn't say

It says enough 

[Entwood]

From my Policy ...

5. Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive
Insured and Spouse
The policyholder may also drive a motorcar not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a hire purchase or leasing agreement, as long as the policyholder has the owner's permission to drive it.

If you were to have an accident whilst doing so, your insurers could drive a fleet of buses through the gaping chasm in that clause

As they wrote the clause, any attempt to "get around" it would fall squarely under present legislation:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/50

as amended by

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted

[TheBoy]

DOC is far and away only for named policy holder only and for third party only.  Further, the other car must have a stand alone insurance policy in force and not reliant on the DOC driver, thus preventing an uninsured car magically becoming insured because your Harris is in the drivers seat.

The thing with Admiral, as well as the above, the policy holder needs to be the legal owner (which they define as the name the V5 is in).  Its this last bit that I've never come across before, and certainly wasn't in my previous Admiral policy that I had up until a year ago.


Turns out, Admiral changed their policy back in 2015, but only applied it to new customers, hence why I didn't have this restriction previously.

Additionally, Admiral upheld my complaint and gave me another £25 as well as agreeing a full refund on the policy I took out


Seems it will be easier to put TBE's replacement in her name going forward, as I suspect other insurance companies will forllow suit at some point.

[hotel21]

Seems Admiral are changing reality to suit themselves.  Even DVLA recognise that the v5 registered keeper does not prove ownership!

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I got my renewal through from Aviva a few days ago. It had dropped slightly to £215.
Went online, through Quidco. Got fully comp, protected no claims, £45 excess, insured to drive other cars with Hastings for £174.
£35 cashback to come so actually £141. 

[STEMO]

I got my renewal through from Aviva a few days ago. It had dropped slightly to £215.
Went online, through Quidco. Got fully comp, protected no claims, £45 excess, insured to drive other cars with Hastings for £174.
£35 cashback to come so actually £141. 

Your postcode must be clean. Mine isn't 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

They know your a doddery old ficker. 

[STEMO]

They know your a doddery old ficker. 

That should make it cheaper. NCD is about 15 years, but they seem to stop any further discount at around 10. It's a bit off when I could buy your car for what it costs to insure ours.