my insurance is third party fire and theft but allows me to drive any vechile not owned owned by myself, under that insurance. i wanted this so i could drive my gfs car my parents car etc etc. and was told that would do that , never knew taht was possible until then, thought id have to be fully comp. :S anyways im also insured through work to drive a mid wheel base merc sprinter van, which i believe is a class 7 vechile cant get it mot at the normal car places.... now if for example i tak ethe van fishing with my bosses permission, and the work insurance doesnt cover me as its for social useage(an asumption) does my car insurance now pick up the slack and cover me to drive the van as i dont own it and its for social use? or does it not apply being a class 7?

the insurance company isnt open today, i dont have a cvopy of the van insurance and my insurance doesnt say anything about driving other verchiles in the policy. i want to drive the van to my gfs place 12 miles away tonight to go to work tomorow morning. but dont wanna get busted for not knowing the ins and outs and being a victim of the gastopo

didnt think 3rd party F&T covered you to drive any vehicle, only fully comp does that. as any other vehicle you then drive is driven 3FT. if your insurance doc's dont mention that you can drive another vehicle then chances are, your not covered.

they spefically said i could when i took out the insurance it was kinda the deal breaker. confused me too

they spefically said i could when i took out the insurance it was kinda the deal breaker. confused me too

 

trust me on this one, if its not showing in your insurance documents, then your not covered. id be ringing and asking why its not mentioned in your insurance documents. if you get stopped by the police and you had your documents on you, and it didnt mention that you could drive another vehicle, you would get done for driving with no insurance.

in all honesty it doesnt say much. just what car ive got. i even looked through the handbook from the insure and theers no mention of driving other vechiles with any level of cover.

in all honesty it doesnt say much. just what car ive got. i even looked through the handbook from the insure and there's no mention of driving other vehicles with any level of cover.

 

Then your not covered.

 

Mine states

 

Driving other vehicles

You are covered up to third party fire and theft of another vehicle being driven with the owners consent.

as vods says you only have this cover if it is mentioned on the certificate of insurance it self and is not on the whole included unless over a certain age and you take a fully comp policy

 

but if it is on there then there should be know reason why you cant drive it with the owners permission and if you have the valid license to drive said class of vehicle, as far as im aware as you say this would cover social and domestic use only!

 

there are also people who work directly for insurance firms here so see what they say as your 100% conf ;)

ok i found it....

two boxes side by side:

DRIVERS

insured only

 

provided that the person driving holds a liecense to drive the vehicle, or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a liecense, and is driving on the policyholders order or permission

 

box next door

 

Use as follows

use only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes but excluding use for racing yadadh yadah....

didnt think 3rd party F&T covered you to drive any vehicle, only fully comp does that. as any other vehicle you then drive is driven 3FT. if your insurance doc's dont mention that you can drive another vehicle then chances are, your not covered.

 

just checked mine, im 3rd party F & T, and covered to drive any other vehicle not belonging to me under 3rd party cover :-) admiral :-)

ok i found it....

two boxes side by side:

DRIVERS

insured only

 

provided that the person driving holds a liecense to drive the vehicle, or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a liecense, and is driving on the policyholders order or permission

 

box next door

 

Use as follows

use only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes but excluding use for racing yadadh yadah....

 

That merely says that only you can drive your car and you must have the relevant licence. No mention is made of driving another vehicle.

 

Doesn't look like your covered.

ok i found it....

two boxes side by side:

DRIVERS

insured only

 

provided that the person driving holds a liecense to drive the vehicle, or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a liecense, and is driving on the policyholders order or permission

 

box next door

 

Use as follows

use only for social, domestic and pleasure purposes but excluding use for racing yadadh yadah....

 

As philP said, that is stating that "Insured only" (IE: you, and those insured to do so) can drive your own car, it would be listed under Driving other vehicles

agreed with philp and vods

ok yeh found my full certificate and it clearly states that im allowed to drive any other CAR as long as i have the permission of the owner. so it does cover me to drive my gfs car but not the works van as its a comercial vechile. phew

ok yeh found my full certificate and it clearly states that im allowed to drive any other CAR as long as i have the permission of the owner. so it does cover me to drive my gfs car but not the works van as its a comercial vechile. phew

 

i think when it says car it means anything under 3.5 ton as thats what your licence allows you to drive, so any lgv. but as mensioned you do need to double check.

 

It is strange to have 3rd party and drive any car?? who are these insurers?? Because i could just go out now, buy a fiat panda 900cc for 5 quid a pint and a kitkat,,, insure it for next to nothing, then put the zed in my g/f's name and drive it legally??

 

Somhow i think this cant be right?

i think when it says car it means anything under 3.5 ton as thats what your licence allows you to drive, so any lgv. but as mensioned you do need to double check.

 

It is strange to have 3rd party and drive any car?? who are these insurers?? Because i could just go out now, buy a fiat panda 900cc for 5 quid a pint and a kitkat,,, insure it for next to nothing, then put the zed in my g/f's name and drive it legally??

 

Somhow i think this cant be right?

 

Doesnt work like that, for you to legally be able to drive the zed, the zed would still have to be insured on its own policy

the extra clause should read as follows

The policly holder may also drive a motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a hire purchase agreement, as long as the policy holder has the owners permission to drive the car

 

.....and agreed with mid-wales zed ex, the said van may be a commercial vehicle in its normal use but you are using it to go fishing (not commercial use) if you are allowed to drive that class of van theoretically you should be covered but double check!!

Hi guys, sorry I wasn't around to comment on this sooner.

 

Driving Other Cars Extension:

 

The policy holder of an insurance policy, MAY be allowed to drive another vehicle which is not theirs and not insured in their name, Third Party ONLY. It must state that this extension is valid on your own insurance documents, it NORMALLY only comes with comprehensive cover, but I have seen it on TPFT policies occassionally. The vehicle you intend to drive must be;

 

1. Insured by someone else

2. Road Legal

3. The owner must be aware you are driving it, not by agreement either, they must know you took it that day and time.

4. Must be the same or lower insurance grouping than your own insured vehicle, i.e. if you're insuring a mini and have the Driving Other Cars Extension, you couldn't get in your mates 300zx because they are different insurance groups.

 

You should NOT buy a policy with Driving Other Cars with the intention of driving other peoples cars on a regular basis, this extension is dying out now with insurers, it was originally intended as an emergency type of cover in case you absolutely had no other choice but to drive someone elses vehicle, it was not intended to allow you to drive your mums car to the shops instead of your own on a regular basis.

 

Driving Other Cars will not cover Vans under any circumstances because EVERY van will be a different insurance group to any car you have insured on your own policy. It is also a common mis-conception that the cover is TPFT (Third Party Fire & Theft), it is not, it's third party ONLY cover, if the vehicle does burst into flames or gets stolen whilst in your possession, the owner of the vehicle will have to attempt to claim on their own insurance, however their insurer may refuse to pay out such a claim as the vehicle was damaged/stolen whilst not in their care.

 

If you want to drive someone elses car, be it regularly or in an emergency, you are far better off adding yourself to their insurance policy as a permanent or temporary driver, not all insurers will allow this however, in which case there is a website I used to use a lot called http://www.dayinsure.com.

 

Hope this clarifies stuff on the Driving Other Cars extension?

Edited March 27, 201114 yr by HollowPoint

excellent post there mate and there we have it!! :)

read this thread with interest! Insurance is such an emotive subject!

 

HollowPoint, 2 and 3 on your list seem to based around law, but i was interested to see 1 and 4 - surely its down to the Ts and Cs for each policy as what stipulations are?

 

I have had driving other cars on various policies for years and it never ever stated it has to be insured elsewhere (why? a car cannot ever be liable for something, only a person can and that would be the person driving at the time the liability occured...), and my policy(s) defiantly never stated it has to be a lower group than the insureds car.

 

I think that the advice further up is probably spot on (not least becuase everyones policies are likey to be different - there may be additional conditions that apply to some that are not mentined yet in the thread!) and that its all about reading your policy very carefully and if in doubt check..

 

lets be honest - the bast#ads dont need much of an excuse to avoid honouring their contract and paying out!

 

I have often wondered if enough people got together privately and paid money into an account to create a fund, they could become self insured - major corperations do it as its cheaper to cover the liability themselves than pay a 3rd company (who has to make proffit and pay salaries and rent etc etc)

 

up the revolution!

 

:)

read this thread with interest! Insurance is such an emotive subject!

 

HollowPoint, 2 and 3 on your list seem to based around law, but i was interested to see 1 and 4 - surely its down to the Ts and Cs for each policy as what stipulations are?

 

I have had driving other cars on various policies for years and it never ever stated it has to be insured elsewhere (why? a car cannot ever be liable for something, only a person can and that would be the person driving at the time the liability occured...), and my policy(s) defiantly never stated it has to be a lower group than the insureds car.

 

I think that the advice further up is probably spot on (not least becuase everyones policies are likey to be different - there may be additional conditions that apply to some that are not mentined yet in the thread!) and that its all about reading your policy very carefully and if in doubt check..

 

lets be honest - the bast#ads dont need much of an excuse to avoid honouring their contract and paying out!

 

I have often wondered if enough people got together privately and paid money into an account to create a fund, they could become self insured - major corperations do it as its cheaper to cover the liability themselves than pay a 3rd company (who has to make proffit and pay salaries and rent etc etc)

 

up the revolution!

 

:)

 

Points 1 and 4 are always the case.

 

It has to be insured by someone else, because when you park it up, it switches back to the other insurance policy and there are things which are not covered under the Driving Other Cars extension which get covered by the cars original insurance.

 

A car can be liable for all sorts of things if is stationary, if the handbreak fails, if bits of it fall off or are sticking out etc. etc. etc. As for being in the same or lower insurance group, I've never seen an insurer give the Driving Other Cars extension without that rule, it's mostly just an attempt to stop you from driving something that is more powerful than you're used to and to stop you from insuring a mini and then driving a 3.0 Twin Turbo third party only. You have to understand that the insurer rates you and the car for Third Party Only purposes, if you're then driving around in something far more powerful than you stated when you bought the policy, the insurer hasn't rated the risk of the policy correctly at all.

 

As for self insuring, I do believe there are ways you can do it if you have enough money in the bank, but the rules on this have changed a lot over the years. The MD of our insurance company is a multi-millionaire, he owns a football club, an insurance company and an insurance broker, yet his DB9 is still covered on a proper insurance policy.

I can assure you neither 1 or 4 apply to my policy. driving other vehicles is a standard clause that I have had for many years - may be that its a legacy thing and the rules are tightening on new policies.

 

I cant agree that a car, as an inanimate object, can ever be liable, in any circumstance. As you suggest, the liability might (depending on the exact details ie poor maintenance) fall back to the owner and his / her insurance may or may not cover them. Equally it could reside with the last person driving if they parked it on a dangerous bend. Or the manufacturer of the vehcile if a design or manufacturing fault or the installer of the hand brake cable etc. Never the "car"!

 

I dont doubt that your experience is as you state it- just that it MAY not apply equally to everyone, in every circumstance, and I stand by the suggestion that people should read there own policies carefully.

 

I think the fact your MD is a multi millionaire proves the point about insurance being a rip off!

 

shall we have a whip round and see how much we can raise?!

 

LoL!

i think when it says car it means anything under 3.5 ton as thats what your licence allows you to drive, so any lgv. but as mensioned you do need to double check.

 

It is strange to have 3rd party and drive any car?? who are these insurers?? Because i could just go out now, buy a fiat panda 900cc for 5 quid a pint and a kitkat,,, insure it for next to nothing, then put the zed in my g/f's name and drive it legally??

 

Somhow i think this cant be right?

 

That is right, as long as your girlfriend insures the Z, the car that is going to be driven must also hold a valid insurance certificate for that vehicle. Plus you drop down one level of cover, so fully comp becomes third party fire and theft, and third party fire and theft becomes third party only......If I am reading things right.....lol.

Hi guys, sorry I wasn't around to comment on this sooner.

 

Driving Other Cars Extension:

 

The policy holder of an insurance policy, MAY be allowed to drive another vehicle which is not theirs and not insured in their name, Third Party ONLY. It must state that this extension is valid on your own insurance documents, it NORMALLY only comes with comprehensive cover, but I have seen it on TPFT policies occassionally. The vehicle you intend to drive must be;

 

1. Insured by someone else

2. Road Legal

3. The owner must be aware you are driving it, not by agreement either, they must know you took it that day and time.

4. Must be the same or lower insurance grouping than your own insured vehicle, i.e. if you're insuring a mini and have the Driving Other Cars Extension, you couldn't get in your mates 300zx because they are different insurance groups.

 

You should NOT buy a policy with Driving Other Cars with the intention of driving other peoples cars on a regular basis, this extension is dying out now with insurers, it was originally intended as an emergency type of cover in case you absolutely had no other choice but to drive someone elses vehicle, it was not intended to allow you to drive your mums car to the shops instead of your own on a regular basis.

 

Driving Other Cars will not cover Vans under any circumstances because EVERY van will be a different insurance group to any car you have insured on your own policy. It is also a common mis-conception that the cover is TPFT (Third Party Fire & Theft), it is not, it's third party ONLY cover, if the vehicle does burst into flames or gets stolen whilst in your possession, the owner of the vehicle will have to attempt to claim on their own insurance, however their insurer may refuse to pay out such a claim as the vehicle was damaged/stolen whilst not in their care.

 

If you want to drive someone elses car, be it regularly or in an emergency, you are far better off adding yourself to their insurance policy as a permanent or temporary driver, not all insurers will allow this however, in which case there is a website I used to use a lot called http://www.dayinsure.com.

 

Hope this clarifies stuff on the Driving Other Cars extension?

 

Great write up, sorry I hadn't read it before I posted my last reply.....:thumbup:

I can assure you neither 1 or 4 apply to my policy. driving other vehicles is a standard clause that I have had for many years - may be that its a legacy thing and the rules are tightening on new policies.

 

I cant agree that a car, as an inanimate object, can ever be liable, in any circumstance. As you suggest, the liability might (depending on the exact details ie poor maintenance) fall back to the owner and his / her insurance may or may not cover them. Equally it could reside with the last person driving if they parked it on a dangerous bend. Or the manufacturer of the vehcile if a design or manufacturing fault or the installer of the hand brake cable etc. Never the "car"!

 

I dont doubt that your experience is as you state it- just that it MAY not apply equally to everyone, in every circumstance, and I stand by the suggestion that people should read there own policies carefully.

 

I think the fact your MD is a multi millionaire proves the point about insurance being a rip off!

 

shall we have a whip round and see how much we can raise?!

 

LoL!

 

Without wanting to start a flame war, this is important because you are now misleading others in a way that could be devastating, you are also misleading yourself with a belief that is false.

 

I can assure you, without any shadow of a doubt, that your policy is no different to others, unless it is a non-standard insurance policy, purchased through a non-standard insurer, which I doubt is the case, and that both those points WILL apply to your policy, I'd say ring your insurer, but unless you ask to speak to an actual underwriter you may well get false information, the people you speak to on the phone are nothing more than an advisor and are NOT trained underwriters who are expected to know everything about insurance.

 

Whether you can agree that an inanimate object can be liable for things or not, the law agrees that it's a fact, which is why, any vehicle that is at any time on the public highway, must be insured, the law does not actually say the driver must be the one insured, it says the vehicle must be insured and the driver must be covered under said insurance, to take charge of the vehicle. You can buy vehicle policies that have no drivers, it's simply insured to sit there, on the road, as an inanimate object, because by law, IT has to be insured. As the policyholder, you do not even have to be a driver, you are simply the benefactor of any payout and as the owner/policyholder the one held liable for any damage caused by the vehicle, whether you are driving it or not. Do you realise if a named driver claims on your policy, YOU lose your NCD and YOU also have to declare it as a loss/claim for 3 years? Were you liable for the accident that the named driver caused? No of course not, but you're the benefactor/person liable.

 

I don't deny insurance is a rip off, Insurance companies make far too much money and I would love to see the industry revolutionised and cleaned up, but it isn't going to happen any time soon. In the mean time, I would rather people were fully aware of what their insurance policy covers and more to the point, what it doesn't. Also the sad fact is, insurance companies have to be rich, otherwise they wouldn't be able to offer insurance.

 

11 years ago when I began my underwriter training, it was standard practice for all sales advisors to inform the customer of the rules pertaining to the Driving Other Cars extension, wherever it applied to the policy, these days the rules seem to have slackened somewhat and it is assumed that people understand what it is and what's involved, which clearly, many don't.

 

People should remember, Insurance is not about common sense! TPO insurance is the minimum level of cover required by law, it ONLY covers a third party (Not you) against your vehicle, causing damage to them or their property, how that damage may be caused is simply what increases the premium, not what dictates what is covered, put simply, "The vehicle is covered, if you want to drive it, that costs extra". If you want cover for yourself or your own vehicle against damage, you purchase TPFT or Comprehensive insurance, which is still TPO insurance, with some bolt-ons that the insurer agrees to cover in the event that they are required.

 

I cannot stress this enough folks, no one reads their insurance papers any more, just the same as no one reads the licence agreement on a piece of software, they just click "I agree". You should be fully aware of what your policy covers you for and what it doesn't.

 

/EndRant

................./EndRant

 

Tbh, i agree as i have read my insurance documents, and yes you do need insurance to have a car on a public road. whether you are driving it or not, it even clearly states that the VEHICAL is insured not the driver. they only like to know who the driver is going to be so they know who is holding the policy, but the policy is for the vehicle and driver. not just one or the other. other wise you wouldn't have to give your reg details and would be able to jump in any vehicle at anytime as YOU would be insured and not the vehicle.

Tbh, i agree as i have read my insurance documents, and yes you do need insurance to have a car on a public road. whether you are driving it or not, it even clearly states that the VEHICAL is insured not the driver. they only like to know who the driver is going to be so they know who is holding the policy, but the policy is for the vehicle and driver. not just one or the other. other wise you wouldn't have to give your reg details and would be able to jump in any vehicle at anytime as YOU would be insured and not the vehicle.

 

This is where you realise Insurance is far from Common Sense, because although what you've said is true, if we took that as an absolute, you could jump in any vehicle that was insured, whether named on the policy or not, yet you can't. lol

 

Basically the insurance policy has two parts to it, first the vehicle, the part that must be insured by law, secondly there is the driver section, in order to be allowed to move that vehicle on a public highway by law, you must be named on the insurance policy as a driver, in some form or another, which is where DOC (Driving Other Cars) comes in, you have an insurance policy on your own vehicle and the insurance company allows you to use that policy temporarily against other vehicles which are rated at the same or lower risk, yet that vehicle must also have it's own insurance policy in order to cover anything that happens to it/with it when you're no longer moving it on the highway, because if you park it on a bad bend as suggested previously, believe it or not, you are not the one held liable, the vehicle is, and therefore, it's own insurance is the one that is claimed on, and the policyholder of said policy is held liable.

 

If I showed you an underwriting manual, your head would likely explode, mine always does! lol