Basic Car Moving Questions (Legality, Options, Obligations)

MikeT · Unread post by **MikeT** » 13 Mar 2011, 19:23

pug_owner2002 wrote: It's always been stated on all my other policys that the 3rd party cover for other vehicles was for vehicles that are not owned by me and is covered on a policy by the owner of the vehicle.

Odd that I've never seen such conditions on any of my policies.

Just as strange, my certificate is worded differently to yours.

My current SwiftCover certificate simply states insurance for...

a. - my car details and
b. "Any motor car supplied to the policyholder under the Replacement Car Option (Section J) of this Policy or any motor car supplied to the policyholder under an agreement between the insurers and a Recommended repairer while the Car described above is being repaired by that repairer as a direct result of damage covered by this Policy."

I don't have Replacement Car cover so Section J is irrelevant anyway.

I guess it's a moot point with the new SORN laws anyway - a car that's not insured now, won't be taxed and vice-versa.

xmexclusive · Unread post by **xmexclusive** » 13 Mar 2011, 19:29

The change earlier this year introducing mandatory insurance or SORN has clarified the law on driving anothers vehicle. There is now a clear prosecutable offence if you for example leave the car to fill up and go to pay for petrol as the car becomes uninsured.

John

pug_owner2002 · Unread post by **pug_owner2002** » 13 Mar 2011, 19:31

MikeT wrote:Just as strange, my certificate is worded differently to yours.

My current SwiftCover certificate simply states insurance for...

a. - my car details and
b. "Any motor car supplied to the policyholder under the Replacement Car Option (Section J) of this Policy or any motor car supplied to the policyholder under an agreement between the insurers and a Recommended repairer while the Car described above is being repaired by that repairer as a direct result of damage covered by this Policy."

I don't have Replacement Car cover so Section J is irrelevant anyway.

I guess it's a moot point with the new SORN laws anyway - a car that's not insured now, won't be taxed and vice-versa.

Mike, the part that states that I have cover to drive another car is in section 5 "Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive" of the motor certificate. You would think all swift cover, fully comp policy holders would have this (as long as they are over 25 years of age I think).

addo wrote: Here it's a permit costing just over $30 for most such exercises, up to double that for a week or so.

Addo, I wish they did that here. It would be have been useful to have had that option in the past!

MikeT · Unread post by **MikeT** » 13 Mar 2011, 19:51

pug_owner2002 wrote: Mike, the part that states that I have cover to drive another car is in section 5 "Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive" of the motor certificate. You would think all swift cover, fully comp policy holders would have this (as long as they are over 25 years of age I think).

It just has my name (main driver) in section 5. I wonder what's so different about our policies that yours has it included - did you state you have access to other vehicles? I didn't.

xmexclusive wrote:The change earlier this year introducing mandatory insurance or SORN has clarified the law on driving anothers vehicle. There is now a clear prosecutable offence if you for example leave the car to fill up and go to pay for petrol as the car becomes uninsured.

Indeed, they've covered all angles.

pug_owner2002 · Unread post by **pug_owner2002** » 13 Mar 2011, 20:00

MikeT wrote:
pug_owner2002 wrote: Mike, the part that states that I have cover to drive another car is in section 5 "Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive" of the motor certificate. You would think all swift cover, fully comp policy holders would have this (as long as they are over 25 years of age I think).
It just has my name (main driver) in section 5. I wonder what's so different about our policies that yours has it included - did you state you have access to other vehicles? I didn't.

I did state that I'm a named driver on another policy, other than that I've got the legal cover and courtesy car option and the insurance is for social and domestic pleasure including comuting. So pretty standard really.
I have been with swiftcover for about 3 years now, so wonder if they've changed things for new customers.
When did you jojn them Mike? I renewed my policy with them in December. Just wondering if that has anything to do with it.

Xaccers · Unread post by **Xaccers** » 13 Mar 2011, 20:08

Most policy wordings I've seen in relation to driving other vehicles state that the policy holder must not own the other vehicle.
This was why when I needed to move Cassy to a house with a drive to be SORN'd Jim had to drive her as I had not renewed her insurance.

MikeT · Unread post by **MikeT** » 13 Mar 2011, 20:10

Sorry addo, this is getting a bit off-topic....

pug_owner2002 wrote:I did state that I'm a named driver on another policy, other than that I've got the legal cover and courtesy car option and the insurance is for social and domestic pleasure including comuting. So pretty standard really.
I have been with swiftcover for about 3 years now, so wonder if they've changed things for new customers.
When did you jojn them Mike? I renewed my policy with them in December. Just wondering if that has anything to do with it.

I joined last month as they came up cheapest on the comparison sites this year. I never buy any options/additional cover, it's a waste of money IME. (famous last words! )

I won't be renewing with them next year as their T&C's only recognise up to 5yrs NCB (I've currently only got 4)! And, according to online reviews, they're a nightmare to deal with if you need to claim.

pug_owner2002 · Unread post by **pug_owner2002** » 13 Mar 2011, 20:22

MikeT wrote:Sorry addo, this is getting a bit off-topic....

I joined last month as they came up cheapest on the comparison sites this year. I never buy any options/additional cover, it's a waste of money IMO.

I won't be renewing with them next year as their T&C's only recognise up to 5yrs NCB (I've currently only got 4)! And, according to online reviews, they're a nightmare to deal with if you need to claim.

Yes, sorry Addo.

Mike, Your right regarding the 5yrs NCB, I didn't know this when I joined and only realised at this renewal. I'm pretty annoyed about it as I should now have 14yrs NCB but can now only prove 5

As for dealing with them to make a claim I can't fault them. The first claim start to finish was resolved within 3 weeks of the accident (the car was repaired with 2 weeks of the accident). A colleague is also insured with them and had to claim, he also received good service.
I'm hoping I don't have to see what they are like by making a 3rd claim!

Ah well at least none of them were mine or my wifes fault.

MikeT · Unread post by **MikeT** » 13 Mar 2011, 20:30

pug_owner2002 wrote:Mike, Your right regarding the 5yrs NCB, I didn't know this when I joined and only realised at this renewal. I'm pretty annoyed about it as I should now have 14yrs NCB but can now only prove 5

I'd be livid too and looking to challenge such an absurd policy if I were you.

pug_owner2002 wrote:As for dealing with them to make a claim I can't fault them. The first claim start to finish was resolved within 3 weeks of the accident (the car was repaired with 2 weeks of the accident). A colleague is also insured with them and had to claim, he also received good service.
I'm hoping I don't have to see what they are like by making a 3rd claim! Ah well at least none of them were mine or my wifes fault.

That's refreshing to know! Not that I expect to make a claim.

citronut · Unread post by **citronut** » 13 Mar 2011, 20:40

xmexclusive wrote:The change earlier this year introducing mandatory insurance or SORN has clarified the law on driving anothers vehicle. There is now a clear prosecutable offence if you for example leave the car to fill up and go to pay for petrol as the car becomes uninsured.

John

surely a filling station is private property,

Adam im sure it is still ok to transport a non taxed vheical with one axle of the ground,

regards malcolm

addo · Unread post by **addo** » 14 Mar 2011, 05:17

If it's like here, garages and supermarket carparks are road-related areas, and one is therefore bound by the same T&C's.

It's why, if you do a massive burnout in the supermarket carpark, you can potentially be caught on camera and fined as if you'd done it while waiting at an intersection...

At what point does a vehicle have to be SORN'ed - when it becomes physically unable to operate legally? As in, if you oxied the back off a car that was still MOT'ed taxed and insured, would it be then mandatory to declare it SORN?

citronut · Unread post by **citronut** » 14 Mar 2011, 07:44

no i would not think so Adam although you would probably get a tug by the boys in blue, if you had/drove a vheical on a public highway with the rear end lopped off,

SORN= Statutory Off Road Notification,

this is usualy if the road TAX, MOT, or insurance has expired,

as all three of these are picked up on an ANPR camera,

regards malcolm

jgra1 · Unread post by **jgra1** » 14 Mar 2011, 09:25

3rd party cover with swiftcover.

just going back to this again, I was told that insuring drivers 3P to drive other vehicles was now being phased out.. (by one insurer)

also, someone at work has a clause in their policy that suggests they can only drive someone else's car 3P if it is an emergency..

john

addo · Unread post by **addo** » 14 Mar 2011, 09:30

If they haven't defined "emergency" carefully, that's a gate you could usher collected stampeding pachyderms through.

addo · Unread post by **addo** » 14 Mar 2011, 09:34

What I was getting at, Malc, was (say) if the registered keeper of a taxed, insured vehicle put it up on chassis stands and hacked large pieces off it kerbside, would they immediately have to declare it SORN?