Motability Cars & DOC

It does sound like she's ended up with the wrong code on her licence as I'm pretty sure her offence should be a INxx code. Is it worth kicking up a stink over? I don't know, you need to speak to a legal professional.
 
It's because you have to have the OWNER'S permission to drive on your own insurance. Motability seem to have specifically denied that permission on their cars.

I think it's because Motability is basically a hire purchase scheme, the cars aren't actually owner by the people driving them, and most DOC cover has small print along the lines of "not hired, etc", meaning the DOC can't be used.
 
We own ours. We use the DLA to pay the monthly bill, which is interest free HP rather than a lease in our case. Apparantly it's quite common to do this and i don't understand why people wouldn't.

This is something that must be happening on an hourly basis, simply because people don't realise.
 
I'm a driver on my wifes motability car.
From the RSA motability insurance policy:

Motability said:
Other drivers are not allowed. Even if they have fully comprehensive insurance which provides cover to drive other cars, they are not covered to drive your Motability car.

Can an insurance policy arbitrarily void a clause in an entirely separate and unrelated policy? Surely any exclusions would have to be provided by the company providing the DOC cover?

EDIT: Just read the rest of the thread, understand now.
 
havent read the replies OP, but to drive a mobility car you need to be Insuraned on that mobility car seperatly. costs like £225 for 3 years(per person after the first 2 people) so not a lot (£75 a year). normal insurance doesn't cover mobility cars. this should have been explained to your dad before he bought it that only people on his policy can drive it.

so yea, she was driving without insurance.
 
Last edited:
IN10 - driving a car without insurance
IN14 - allowing someone to drive your car knowing they are not insured.

Both codes you will find the mainstream insurance companies dont like so expect an increase if not a decline in cover.

If your partner has DOC on her insurance (taking it for granted shes not covered on her dads insurance) and the car is insured elsewhere im not to sure why they are giving the points out. might be worth taking all documentation for both cars to the police station and showing them how your OH would have been covered at the time, but this would all come down to the T&C of the mobility car
 
Last edited:
If your partner has DOC on her insurance (taking it for granted shes not covered on her dads insurance) and the car is insured elsewhere im not to sure why they are giving the points out. might be worth taking all documentation for both cars to the police station and showing them how your OH would have been covered at the time

Read the thread - it's a motability car, they specifically deny permission to drive under DOC cover.
 
Try reading the thread...mobility cars are very different from normal ones in terms of insurance. If she is not named on the father policy, having DOC is irrelevant, it still comes under no insurance.
 
DOC is provided by the insurance company of the OP OH, so if the mobility company say they are not insuring the driver, doesnt mean the OP OH would not of been insured under her own policy, again not having a mobility car i wasnt 100% sure hence why i said it comes down to the T&C
 
SGWills - you're missing the point. DOC allows you to drive another car third party *with the owner's permission*.

The mobility company do not give this permission == not insured to drive it.
 
DOC is provided by the insurance company of the OP OH, so if the mobility company say they are not insuring the driver, doesnt mean the OP OH would not of been insured under her own policy, again not having a mobility car i wasnt 100% sure hence why i said it comes down to the T&C

No, DOC doesn't work for hire cars (Motability is a glorified rental system), hence DOC being of no use.
 
SGWills - you're missing the point. DOC allows you to drive another car third party *with the owner's permission*.

The mobility company do not give this permission == not insured to drive it.

my apologises for making a suggestion/assumption for the OP. Seeing as DOC T&C is determined by the insurance company and each company will have a different T&C for use of DOC, some are really strict as mentioned owner/RK consent,insured elsewhere, not regular use of a particular car etc, others dont have as much conditions, e.g as long as the car is insured elsewhere. As i said mobility cars is not something i take a great deal of time with as they not something i use :)
 
I've never seen a DOC clause which doesn't say "with owner's permission". Otherwise arguably you'd be insured to drive a car that you had taken without consent!
 
my apologises for making a suggestion/assumption for the OP. Seeing as DOC T&C is determined by the insurance company and each company will have a different T&C for use of DOC, some are really strict as mentioned owner/RK consent,insured elsewhere, not regular use of a particular car etc, others dont have as much conditions, e.g as long as the car is insured elsewhere. As i said mobility cars is not something i take a great deal of time with as they not something i use :)

I'd be surprised if any insurance company provided DOC cover that allows you to drive other cars without the owners permission, that'd be asking for trouble. You could just steal any random car off the street and be insured on it, i'm pretty sure no insurance company would be stupid enough to allow that sort of thing to occur.
 
indeed as i said they have different T&C but im sure you could deduct that my post did not include all T&C :) it was mentioned earlier that if they asked the mobility company they are saying no (which would fall under RK consent) if they ask for owners consent (and before this turns in to the mobility company are classed as the owner aswel blah blah blah) if the father is show as the car owner but the mobility company are the RK, then if her insurance company ask for owners consent, then technically the owner has given consent
 
indeed as i said they have different T&C but im sure you could deduct that my post did not include all T&C :) it was mentioned earlier that if they asked the mobility company they are saying no (which would fall under RK consent) if they ask for owners consent (and before this turns in to the mobility company are classed as the owner aswel blah blah blah) if the father is show as the car owner but the mobility company are the RK, then if her insurance company ask for owners consent, then technically the owner has given consent

Motability own the car. The registered keeper might well be the father, or it might be Motability, it doesn't matter. Motability have (as the owner of the vehicle) denied permission to use the car under the DOC clause on someone elses insurance. The DOC clause will state that they will insure other cars "with the owner's permission" (amongst other conditions); the owner (Motability) have already stated that they DO NOT grant this permission.
 
Back
Top Bottom