Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: PhilRich on 26 February 2013, 22:00:46
-
Forgive what must seem to be a thick question to some, but I have never been in this position before and cannot find a definitive answer from either my family or the tinternet!
I have recently bought an Omega Estate and it is currently on my drive SORNed whilst I have lpg installed. I am still running my Omega Saloon. The Estates MOT runs out towards the end of March and will no doubt have expired before the lpg is finished. I know that the car can be driven to a pre arranged MOT appointment without a valid RFL & MOT but the bit that confuses me is the Insurance. Can any of you Bods tell me whether the CAR needs to be Insured (i.e. actually mentioned on the Policy Document) or can it be legally driven by my son on his Fully Comp. policy which states he is insured to drive any vehicle loaned to him? Any help would be most gratefully received :y
-
My policy wont allow me to drive an uninsured vehicle. I am Fully Comp.
I believe all policies are the same, unless a traders policy.
-
Im currently with swiftcover, with them it is stated in black and white that the loan car HAS to be insured in its own right.
Several years ago I was with direct line, and no distinction was made in the policy documents...
I rang them and they confirmed the loan car DID NOT have to be insured, but the second I stepped out of it, it was uninsured, so if brake failure etc occured, I would be liable for any damage caused.
So the only answer you can rely on - is the word of your own company, ring and ask them :y
-
The vehicle needs insurance in its own right.
You own it and you have insurance on another vehicle?
The other vehicle insurance gives third party only on any other vehicle driven by you (please check, not all policies do) as long as said other vehicle is not owned by you.
The DOC (driving other cars) insurance 'get out' is an old time carryover whereby in the s enario where you were out for a Sunday drive with your mate in his car and he took unwell then your insurance allowed you to drive his car home.
As said, a carry over from the 40's or 50's with no real life in this money hungry century where folks are all out to get anything and everything for nowt.
The insurance companies are well onto it and, personally, I wouldn't other than car being insured separately.
But that's just me! ;D
-
Vehicle must be insured itself I believe :y.
-
I was about to post but got this red screen up so I won't bother, as the advice you have been given is correct............ :y :y
-
If you only need it insuring to get it to the MOT test and back, and are not wanting to put it on the road straight away, you could just insure the car for 1 day. Lot's of policies around that cater for this.
IIRC, it would cost you around £25 - £30... :y
-
The vehicle needs insurance in its own right.
You own it and you have insurance on another vehicle?
The other vehicle insurance gives third party only on any other vehicle driven by you (please check, not all policies do) as long as said other vehicle is not owned by you.
The DOC (driving other cars) insurance 'get out' is an old time carryover whereby in the s enario where you were out for a Sunday drive with your mate in his car and he took unwell then your insurance allowed you to drive his car home.
As said, a carry over from the 40's or 50's with no real life in this money hungry century where folks are all out to get anything and everything for nowt.
The insurance companies are well onto it and, personally, I wouldn't other than car being insured separately.
But that's just me! ;D
Now my Jeep is only insured for me to drive, as swmbo does not like it, but, and without searching the document, in a medical emergency / situation another driver may drive my car home / hospital or safe place - something like that, currently with AxA.......
-
Thanks very much Chaps, I reckon that's a definitive answer if ever there was one! :y
-
You can rely on OOF............. :y :y
-
Vamps - see where you are coming from but it's not quite the same thing. Your policy for your car allows person(s) not named to drive your car in extenuating circumstances - please, please confirm them before possible use - but it is different to OP.
OP (policy holder) wants to drive another car owned by him (but not currently insured in its own right) on his original policy.
Different circumstances, I think you will agree. :)
-
Vamps - see where you are coming from but it's not quite the same thing. Your policy for your car allows person(s) not named to drive your car in extenuating circumstances - please, please confirm them before possible use - but it is different to OP.
OP (policy holder) wants to drive another car owned by him (but not currently insured in its own right) on his original policy.
Different circumstances, I think you will agree. :)
Yes B, I do understand that...... :y
-
Another option would be to ask your insurer to put the second vehicle on cover for a short period, some companies will do this for a period of up to a month for a small fee. I think I was charged £50 to put a second car on my policy for a month a few years ago.
-
I'd be inclined to ask your MOT tester if he/she has a Traders policy and the necessary plates. Slip them a tenner and they can legally drive the car to and from the MOT.
-
Another option would be to ask your insurer to put the second vehicle on cover for a short period, some companies will do this for a period of up to a month for a small fee. I think I was charged £50 to put a second car on my policy for a month a few years ago.
I was paying £30 a month for an extra Mig, but was on a Multi Car policy where I had 3 other cars insured....... ;)
-
Alot of reading there.. (lazy git mode) If a vehicle has no mot, then insurance is invalid anyway. Thats why you quote you reg when taking it down to the test station as its as i believe , under there umbrella..??
-
I insured my Renault for 24 hours to get it to the mot station. I did it online and it cost £18. :y
-
Alot of reading there.. (lazy git mode) If a vehicle has no mot, then insurance is invalid anyway. Thats why you quote you reg when taking it down to the test station as its as i believe , under there umbrella..??
I don't think that is the issue, no probs with giving the reg no, just still needs to be insured... ;)
-
Alot of reading there.. (lazy git mode) If a vehicle has no mot, then insurance is invalid anyway. Thats why you quote you reg when taking it down to the test station as its as i believe , under there umbrella..??
'...a vehicle may be driven to/from a pre arranged test, or to/from a place of repair in relation to said test...provided it is suitably insured...'
The pre arrangement part simply allows you to drive an unlicensed vehicle to or from the testing station or garage. Stopping at the shops/taking the kids to school/Mrs to work on the way is not allowed, as they would imply that the car was being 'used', and therefore would require tax/mot etc :y
-
Might be wrong but
I am told that any car driven by a non owner has to be insured in its own right (as most have allready pointed out) but the driver (non owner) allthough he is covered to drive some one elses car on thier own isurance will normally only be be covered as third party. (Obviously policies vary)
-
Might be wrong but
I am told that any car driven by a non owner has to be insured in its own right (as most have allready pointed out) but the driver (non owner) allthough he is covered to drive some one elses car on thier own isurance will normally only be be covered as third party. (Obviously policies vary)
That's about the size of it :y
-
Alot of reading there.. (lazy git mode) If a vehicle has no mot, then insurance is invalid anyway. Thats why you quote you reg when taking it down to the test station as its as i believe , under there umbrella..??
Wrong. The giving of reg no means that the mot is now booked into a given slot on a given day, nothing more. Insurance has nothing to do with the test station whatsoever.
Your insurance cover is valid when going to and from said prebooked mot.
-
I'd be inclined to ask your MOT tester if he/she has a Traders policy and the necessary plates. Slip them a tenner and they can legally drive the car to and from the MOT.
Wrong.
Trade plates cover road tax/VEL only, nothing to do with insurance.
A traders insurance policy does not automatically provide you with trade plates (they come from DVLA) and likewise, getting trade plates from DVLA does not automatically give you insurance. Two completely separate matters.
As to the 'hire' of the plates for a tenner, if that's found out by the polis then everyone involved gets nicked and he trader/garage will loose their plates....
-
I'd be inclined to ask your MOT tester if he/she has a Traders policy and the necessary plates. Slip them a tenner and they can legally drive the car to and from the MOT.
Wrong.
Trade plates cover road tax/VEL only, nothing to do with insurance.
A traders insurance policy does not automatically provide you with trade plates (they come from DVLA) and likewise, getting trade plates from DVLA does not automatically give you insurance. Two completely separate matters.
As to the 'hire' of the plates for a tenner, if that's found out by the polis then everyone involved gets nicked and he trader/garage will loose their plates....
Wrong!
The traders policy WILL cover the person who hold the traders policy to drive the vehicle. Quite obvious really! ::)
The 'hire' of the plates is just what you read into it - Simply, it is payment for a service over and above the standard MOT.... you wouldn't expect the tester to go out of his way for nothing, would you? Of course, that is IF the policy calls for trade plates.
-
I'd be inclined to ask your MOT tester if he/she has a Traders policy and the necessary plates. Slip them a tenner and they can legally drive the car to and from the MOT.
Wrong.
Trade plates cover road tax/VEL only, nothing to do with insurance.
A traders insurance policy does not automatically provide you with trade plates (they come from DVLA) and likewise, getting trade plates from DVLA does not automatically give you insurance. Two completely separate matters.
As to the 'hire' of the plates for a tenner, if that's found out by the polis then everyone involved gets nicked and he trader/garage will loose their plates....
Wrong!
The traders policy WILL cover the person who hold the traders policy to drive the vehicle. Quite obvious really! ::)
The 'hire' of the plates is just what you read into it - Simply, it is payment for a service over and above the standard MOT.... you wouldn't expect the tester to go out of his way for nothing, would you? Of course, that is IF the policy calls for trade plates.
Not going to enter into an extended thread to the detriment of the OP but I can personally speak to examples such as you describe whereby the plate holder lost his plates due to folks 'slipping him a tenner' .
Plates are issued by DVLA and misuse is governed by DVLA and consist of one warning then withdrawal of the plates.
Insurance is issued by the insurance company the trader chooses and likewise, any misuse can result in withdrawal of insurance.
But there is no direct crossover or direct link between withdrawal/suspension of one automatically resulting in withdrawal of the other.
Likewise, the issue of one does not automatically confer granting of the other.....
-
I don't know why trade plates have even been mentioned, the only thing that is needed by the Op to legally drive his car for an mot test is valid insurance ::)
-
I don't know why trade plates have even been mentioned, the only thing that is needed by the Op to legally drive his car for an mot test is valid insurance ::)
;D
agreed!!
Its OOF so diverse meanderings are expected. :o ;D
See replies 2 & 3. They pretty much cover it until the Broomie fella muddied the waters a tad. ;) :y
-
I don't know why trade plates have even been mentioned, the only thing that is needed by the Op to legally drive his car for an mot test is valid insurance ::)
;D
agreed!!
Its OOF so diverse meanderings are expected. :o ;D
See replies 2 & 3. They pretty much cover it until the Broomie fella muddied the waters a tad. ;) :y
;D ;D :y
-
The only reason the Trade Plate point was added, was if the OP knew someone with plates the vehicle could have been driven to the MOT station that way, without the need of gaining insurance for the day, week, month, century. Not Rocket! ::)
-
Trade plates would not be needed, you don't need valid VED on a vehicle going to an MOT. It would be perfectly reasonable and legal to ask the garage to collect your vehicle, and drive it on their trade insurance.
In short, answers to your questions and a brief elaboration;
If your vehicle is on SORN, it does not need insurance.
If your vehicle is in posession of valid VED, it does need to be insured, even if not on the road.
For an MOT; the vehicle must be insured. Either yourself insuring it, or the garage using their trade policy, but does not need VED.
To enable the 'driving other vehicles third party' the subject vehicle, must have its own insurance.
Trade plates only count as a portable VED licence that is granted for use with connection to said persons business, they are not needed to enable a vehicle to be driven to an MOT station.
They do not have any insurance capabilities. However, a trade plate number would be added to a motor trade policy and to the MID in the same way a normal VRM is added.
-
... but I can personally speak to examples such as you describe whereby the plate holder lost his plates due to folks 'slipping him a tenner' .
.......
I didn't read it as the plates being lent out for a tenner. The way I interpreted it was, that the tenner was being given for the garage/trade plate owner to go & collect the car & take it to the MOT testing station.
-
I think we are over complicating a situation where op simply needs to take out a 24hr insurance policy and book in his MOT........... :y
-
The only reason the Trade Plate point was added, was if the OP knew someone with plates the vehicle could have been driven to the MOT station that way, without the need of gaining insurance for the day, week, month, century. Not Rocket! ::)
But trade plates aren't needed... I have a full motor trade policy (no trade plates as I don't need "portable" RFL) and could drive the op's vehicle to and from a pre-arranged mot completely legally without taxing it ;)
-
I think we are over complicating a situation where op simply needs to take out a 24hr insurance policy and book in his MOT........... :y
Yep :y