DOC cover

[Joshy]

True but when talking about younger drivers with aspirations bigger than their wallets, all they care about is being legally able to drive. The level of cover (or lack of) doesn't phase them because, of course, they're not going to crash.....are they?

But that's utterly irrelevant. Every single 'young' driver I know is insured on a third party (occasionally fire and theft) policy anyway, myself included. Fully comp seems rather pointless when - A) Your excess is likely to be sky high due to your age and B) Due to your age, you probably have a cheap banger not worth much more than the sky high excess.

I was very happy to find out that my insurance company offer DOC, and I've found it stupidly handy. With me driving a rather impractical little hatchback, the chance to borrow a proper sized (if woefully slow) saloon car from the 'rents is great. I toyed with the idea of 'cheating the system' but thinking about it in more detail, it would be far more hassle than it's really worth (regarding the legalities of who 'owns' the car, insuring the car in the other person's name (which isn't cheap considering they'd have no NCB for the policy), etc) . What I will be doing come renewal time is looking into trade policies

 

[The_Dark_Side]

But that's utterly irrelevant. Every single 'young' driver I know is insured on a third party (occasionally fire and theft) policy anyway, myself included. Fully comp seems rather pointless when - A) Your excess is likely to be sky high due to your age and B) Due to your age, you probably have a cheap banger not worth much more than the sky high excess.

And the chances are that Fully comp cover for a Kia Pride is a lot less than third party cover for a Skyline, right?
So if the DOC'd vehicle doesn't need to be insured, someone with no NCD and/or a bad record could buy a Skyline and a Kia, put the Skyline in their fathers name then drive it under DOC.

 

[[TW]Fox]

And the chances are that Fully comp cover for a Kia Pride is a lot less than third party cover for a Skyline, right?
So if the DOC'd vehicle doesn't need to be insured, someone with no NCD and/or a bad record could buy a Skyline and a Kia, put the Skyline in their fathers name then drive it under DOC.

Not legally they couldnt, no.

They might as well not bother to insure it? Thats just as cheap a way of getting a Skyline right?

 

[The_Dark_Side]

Not legally they couldnt, no.

They might as well not bother to insure it? Thats just as cheap a way of getting a Skyline right?

Why not legally.
As far as I'm aware there is no way to identify who the legal owner is, just the registered keeper.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Why not legally.

Because it doesn't cover cars not owned by you. Lying about ownership does not make it legal, it just means you are comitting fraud.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

Because it doesn't cover cars not owned by you. Lying about ownership does not make it legal, it just means you are comitting fraud.

Fraud that you could never be charged with, as there is no evidence as to who the owner actually is. The only evidence states who the keeper is, so you could easily buy a rocket, put it in the name of an older relative (with their permission) and insure a motorised shoebox with DOC cover then drive said rocket around without fear of being caught for no insurance.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Insurance companies often use investigators if they feel a claim is suspicous, and a 17 year old Kia owning Barry crashing a Skyline GT-R would be exactly this. It isn't difficult to establish the true owner of a car.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

Insurance companies often use investigators if they feel a claim is suspicous, and a 17 year old Kia owning Barry crashing a Skyline GT-R would be exactly this..

It would raise eyebrows, but someone who would go down this route to run such a car has as their major concern the need to be able to drive it without being "done" for lack of insurance. If the relative was prepared to backup the driver and state it was their car, then the insurance company might not be happy about it but all legal bases would be covered unless you could prove that the owner and keeper are not one in the same?

It isn't difficult to establish the true owner of a car.

How?
Serious question.

 

[Muncher]

Purchase receipt?
Any finance on it?
Ask the previous keeper (not hard)
Ask neighbours (you wouldn't pay for and install upgrades on someone else's car)
Who paid for servicing?
Who paid for tax?

There are all manner of ways. In practice, insurers would refuse a claim and you would have to sue them, the burden of proof is then on you to show on a balance of probability that you didn't own it.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

Purchase receipt?.

Do you keep yours? Neither a requirement to keep it nor a crime if you don't.

Any finance on it?

On a low value car (and you can get something like an Evo 3 for under £3k) this is unlikely. It's also pretty much a certainty if the driver is unemployed, for example, which would also make his insurance premium much higher giving him even more reason to try to circumvent the system.

Ask the previous keeper (not hard)

If you're father is prepared to say it's his car for insurance purposes, or if asked by plod, then it's not unrealistic to consider that he'd go with his son to buy the car. Pay cash and there's no trace.

Ask neighbours (you wouldn't pay for and install upgrades on someone else's car)

Not sure what you mean here. I didn't see anyone mention upgrading or modifying. Plus, apart from wheels almost all upgrades are invisible to the outside observer.

Who paid for servicing?

Cash+"sorry I can't find the service book" spring to mind. Not a legal requirement to keep it so not much they could do there. Pay cash and there's no trace.

Who paid for tax?

My mum can't drive, yet she's taxed at least a dozen cars in the last five years. Besides no overworked PO worker is going to remember who taxed what. Pay cash and there's no trace.

There are all manner of ways. In practice, insurers would refuse a claim and you would have to sue them, the burden of proof is then on you to show on a balance of probability that you didn't own it.

Last time I checked, it's innocent until proven guilty.
And again, this is assuming there's a claim. Drivers insure their cars because it's a legal requirement to do so, and that not doing so is easily detectable and as a consequence punishable.
My point is that someone could easily use the DOC route to cheaply insure and run a car that they'd otherwise have needed to pay through the nose to do so. Yes, if there's a claim then the stakes are raised and the insurers might very well try to wriggle out of a payout. But then this would only make a difference if the accident was the drivers fault, and that puts him in the same bracket as anyone who has third party fire and theft cover and has an accident that's their fault. Either way, there'd be no payout. Most people don't crash, but on occasion they are checked to see if they have cover, and this would mean that legally (unless proven otherwise, which is almost impossible and definitely not worth the effort for plod) they'd meet the requirements of the law.

 

[Gribs]

There's the problem that the car would always have to be parked off the road when not in use.

The insurer would generrally check the usage of the car and it would be very suspicious if the car wasn't insured elsewhere by the owner.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

There's the problem that the car would always have to be parked off the road when not in use.

A garage or even driveway would be enough.

The insurer would generrally check the usage of the car and it would be very suspicious if the car wasn't insured elsewhere by the owner.

Traders policies don't show vehicle details, therefore if any such search took place the results wouldn't be proof of anything.

 

[Joshy]

There are all manner of ways. In practice, insurers would refuse a claim and you would have to sue them, the burden of proof is then on you to show on a balance of probability that you didn't own it.

Utterly irrelevant. The DOC cover will almost certainly a third party policy, so you wouldn't under any circumstances expect a pay out directly from your insurance company. If somebody else was at fault, do you really think an insurance company is going to bother investigating an open and shut case that isn't costing them anything? And of course, if the DOC'd driver hit someone, the insurance company cannot deny to make a payment to the third party anyway. If they later decide the claim was fraudulent, they have to claim the money back from the driver.

I'm not going to get into your other points as The_Dark_Side did that for me

Personally the only reason I wouldn't do it is the ball ache of insuring the car in someone else's name. It might not HAVE to be done, but with all the ANPR cameras out there, I'd rather have the car go under the rader as insured, than to be pulled every 5 minutes to explain my dodgy insurance situation.

 

[Cob]

No it doesn't! It's the opposite!

Go find me a policy that says it needs to have another policy in effect!

That's from my dads online policy documents.