Driving other cars on insurance

[bdiedericks]

I am the registered keeper of my vehicle; my husband is the main driver and my son is an additional driver. About 6 years ago my husband was stopped by police driving a friend’s vehicle and was told that he was not allowed to drive the vehicle and got 6 points.

Ever since that happened I was conscious regarding the insurance making sure we can drive other vehicles. My son has been using my sister-in-law’s vehicle for the past few weeks. Last week he was stopped outside our home returning from a nightshift and was told he wasn't allowed to drive the vehicle. He came inside the house and told me what happened. I was confused and downloaded the insurance. The police were outside waiting for the tow truck. I showed them the insurance but according to their database this was not the case. The car was impounded and my sister-in-law had to pay £150 to get the car back.

When I contacted RAC they said that even I couldn't drive other cars even though I am the registered keeper. When we initially took out the insurance I was specific that we needed cover for other cars. My son has now received a conditional offer for the fixed penalty with a fine of £300 and 6points.

I want to contest this because within Section 5: Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive it shows all our names. Then in the clause for Driving other cars it states: If paragraph 5 above allows a driver to drive a car not belonging to them or hired by them, the cover for that car will be limited to Section 1 of the policy - Liability to others. They will not be covered for any loss or damage to the car they are driving. This was an automatic assumption that we were all allowed to drive other cars because even I was using my daughter’s car for 2 months driving her to hospital.

How can I proceed with this? We have 30 days from 13 April to contest.

[des8]

What is the full wording of section 5 on the certificate of insurance?
Besides naming all insured drivers it would normally state (if DOC is covered) that cover extends to driving another car (subject to the owner's express consent).

Your own post alludes to this at: " If paragraph 5 above allows a driver to drive a car not belonging to them...."

Unfortunately driving uninsured is a strict liability offence with very few defences.
The driver has to make sure he is covered by the policy.
Altho' you requested the cover it seems it was not given.
Your automatic assumption would seem to be incorrect.

Presumably RAC are your insurers (brokers) and the lack of cover will need to be taken up with them.
(all complaints should be in writing) but this will not help your son

I don't see a valid defence for court so probably best to take the penalty and points and future increases in insurance premiums, as going to court will only increase the cost

[dslippy]

I suspect that DES8 has it correct.

[wales01man]

The policyholder can drive other vehicles not owned or hired by them then only if the other car is insured methinks not the other named drivers please someone correct me if im wrong

[MIKE770]

insured driver can drive other cars but cover is restricted to third party? seems still in existence.

found this:-


You can only drive someone else's car on your insurance policy if it includes driving other cars insurance. This will only be third-party cover, even if your own policy is fully comprehensive.

[islandgirl]

I have that on my cover - can drive other cars with permission but will only have 3rd party cover.

[MIKE770]

IT would be advisable to check cover on own policy everytime just in case changes not notified!

[Pezza54]

Your daughter's comprehensive car insurance policy should provide cover for occasional drivers that she has given her permission to drive her car.

But the policy would not cover anyone who regularly drove her car. Your daughter should have contacted her insurance company and paid the extra premium for yourself or your son to be added as named drivers for a temporary period

Be thankful you didn't have a major accident while you or your son were driving your daughter's car. Both of you were not insured.

[des8]

Your daughter's comprehensive car insurance policy should provide cover for occasional drivers that she has given her permission to drive her car.

But the policy would not cover anyone who regularly drove her car. Your daughter should have contacted her insurance company and paid the extra premium for yourself or your son to be added as named drivers for a temporary period

Really? All drivers (even occasional) of the vehicle need to be named on the certificate of insurance

[Pezza54]

Yes you are right Des8. My mistake. Some policies do allow for other drivers to drive the car in an emergency

[Pezza54]

Sorry having a bad day. Meant sister-in-law, not daughter, and was reading about the "any driver" policy, which the sister-in-law obviously didn't have.

[bdiedericks]

thank you everyone for the input.

this is in my policy:
Driving other cars extension
The cover under this section of the policy is extended to the specific drivers noted in the Certificate of Motor Insurance as having the benefit of this extension when driving other cars not owned by, or registered to, or hired, rented or leased to the specific driver, their business partner or their employer, or is being kept or used in connection with their employer's business. This extended cover only applies if: This extension is shown on your Certificate of Motor Insurance; and There is no other insurance in force that covers the same claim ; and There is a current and valid Certificate of Motor Insurance held for the other car in accordance with Road Traffic Acts; and The other car has not been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority; and The driver has the owner's permission to drive the other car; and The other car is registered within the territorial limits; and The other car is not being used outside the territorial limits; and You still have the car and it has not been stolen and not recovered; or damaged beyond cost effective repair.

All 3 our names are on the Certificate of Motor Insurance and my sister-in-law has insurance on her car. In the Driving other cars on the COMI it states: Driving other cars: If paragraph 5 above allows a driver to drive a car not belonging to them or hired by them, the cover for that car will be limited to Section 1 of the policy - Liability to others. They will not be covered for any loss or damage to the car they are driving.

My son was not involved in any accident, he was returning from work with his aunt's car when the police stopped him.

Have I misread my policy and gave my son bad advice?

[des8]

Does the Certificate of Motor Insurance In Para 5 state that the named drivers may " drive a car not belonging to them ....." ?

If it does your son was covered; if it doesn't your son was not.