Well in the same way as a car is just a car I suppose. I want cover fully comp on all cars and allow the same on mine. That is not typical and not something many online comparison sights offer. Then you add in car types and you again limit options. You pay for what you get is true and it is worthless to anyone outside the legal aspect until you need it. You pay for peace of mind and as this thread shows insurance isn’t really just insurance. Bit more nuanced.
Extremely worried about my insurance claim
- Thread starter Ryanjames
- Start date
Well in the same way as a car is just a car I suppose. I want cover fully comp on all cars and allow the same on mine. That is not typical and not something many online comparison sights offer. Then you add in car types and you again limit options. You pay for what you get is true and it is worthless to anyone outside the legal aspect until you need it. You pay for peace of mind and as this thread shows insurance isn’t really just insurance. Bit more nuanced.
Soldato
Man of Honour
I'm 30 and don't have third party cover for other vehicles on either of my 2 bike insurance polices or my car policy.
31 year old male - Fully comp policy with Admiral...
It'll be because of your specific occupation (something where you are far more likely to use other vehicles), or recent convictions.
Most people with Admiral will have DOC.
If you don't get DOC on one policy, it is to do with your characteristics, and so it is unlikely you would get it on other policies. I'm not aware of how motorbike insurance works.
Soldato
Huh? I'm an account director for a global software company, don't drive any other car apart from my own, never claimed on an insurance policy and haven't had a single brush with the law.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
You think a random number generator decides? Im with Admiral and have DOC and younger than you.
https://imgur.com/a/eh8dHoj
Man of Honour
If we're working on the evidence supplied then from the 4 people in the last couple of posts that have specified whether they do or not your stance of "significant majority" is incorrect.
You wanted evidence and there it is
If we're working on the evidence supplied then from the 4 people in the last couple of posts that have specified whether they do or not your stance of "significant majority" is incorrect.
You wanted evidence and there it is
That's just people trying to prove me wrong. Whilst I have intimate knowledge of the rules driving whether you get it for the largest insurers.
Associate
The work hours thing is not really relevant. It is the purpose of the journey. If you leave your permanent place of work during your work hours to go to the dentist - covered under SDP. If you go from your permanent place of work to visit another of your companies offices - needs business use.
Also the level of policy cover is independent of the usage restriction. Usage restriction is always on the Certificate of Motor Insurance which is why Police could prosecute you for no insurance under incorrect usage.
Someone earlier made the point that you always have third party cover irrespective of usage. This likewise is not strictly true. If you have an accident with a third party whilst using your vehicle beyond the usage covered under your insurance then the coverage can be invalidated (although as we have seen in this thread that is usually not enforced unless it is severe). However under the RTA for the protection of innocent third parties involved in accident with uninsured vehicles the car insurer has to deal with the third party element of the claim even if they have invalidated the cover. The same is true if someone not covered under the policy is driving. The twist is this. As they have invalidated the policy the insurer could in theory then look to recover what they have paid out from the policy holder. Whether that happens often I doubt as the legal costs would probably outweigh any realistic recovery but the option is there.
Of course, misrepresent my comment to try and make a point. Easier to disprove something I didn't say.
Given the complexity and confusion that this issue is generating even here. There really needs to be a change in the Law concerning motor insurance.
At the very least, the Legally mandated aspects of any motor insurance policy must remain in force regardless of whether any other T&C's have been broken.
The guy using his scooter to deliver pizza may well be an issue between him and his Insco in the event of a claim. But it should not be a Police/criminal court issue.
At the very least, the Legally mandated aspects of any motor insurance policy must remain in force regardless of whether any other T&C's have been broken.
The guy using his scooter to deliver pizza may well be an issue between him and his Insco in the event of a claim. But it should not be a Police/criminal court issue.
Soldato
This thread reminds me to check with my sister to see if she changed her insurance. She had commuting prior to changing jobs, but now she has to drive between different locations for work, I imagine she wouldn't have even thought about adding work use to her policy.
As Armageus points out, you'd be fine with commuting there as you don't need to travel to your home address for work. If you WFH most of the time, but had to travel into multiple offices, then i'd argue that's when business insurance would be required.
Adding in time restrictions seems to complicate things, i've never been asked what hours i drive my car, although some on here have mentioned they have. For example if you were retired, ergo not needing a commuting policy, there's nothing to say you're not allowed to be on the road during typical rush hour (it would be great if that would be the case mind!). Same with the SDP+Commuting and not driving within work hours, what if i'm driving to the shops during my lunch hour, i'm not conducting any business, this would be purely domestic.
I always had DOC as standard when i was insured with Admiral, i don't recall even being given the option to add/remove it.
Soldato
Why should it be a police/court issue?
The rider is responsible for making sure he is correctly insured. I would suggest that most takeaway delivery drivers don't tell their insurers because of the extra cost, to which they obtain led insurance fraudulently, a criminal matter.
Soldato
And are also driving uninsured.
Because the police have better things to do than deal with what are essentially contract issues between private companies and their clients.
I am simply saying that, as a matter of Law, the RTA aspects of any motor insurance policy should be mandated under all circumstances on any policy that has been bought and paid for.
The Law interferes with other aspects of insurance operations (Such as prohibiting Inscos from using certain classes of actuarial data) it would just make life easier all round if the Law covered this aspect too.
(Now personally I belive RTA cover should be provided via a fuel levy thus removing the legal requirement for motor insurance altogether, but that is another issue)
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,372
so you use your car for commuting - check
you didn't pick commuting because it was cheaper not to - check
therefore you were happy to drive without correct insurance because it was cheaper? - check
you now need the insurance and are happy to pay the difference - check
IMO they shouldn't pay you because you were clearly trying to game the system. which means those who do not now have to pay increased premiums because of people like you.
it wasn't an honest mistake. it's a multiple choice question. they ask you what type you need and you picked the wrong one on purpose because it was cheaper.
you reap what you sow.