Insurance through DOC

therealnerd2 · 23 Jan 2010 at 21:58

Hi all,

Currently looking for insurance on my second (mainly for track) car, which is fairly heavily modified. Even with the mods though, I would do very few miles and wouldn't expect to pay a great deal for this insurance.

While searching, an alternative has occured to me. My Bell policy on our main car includes DOC, and has no restriction on the other car having insurance. The only restriction is that the second car is "not owned by me".

So, why could I not transfer ownership of the second car to my partner, and simply use DOC whenever I want to drive the second car?

One problem could be that there must be some implication that the second car is not my primary vehicle. However I will be hardly driving the second one, so that shouldn't be a problem.

Second issue could be getting often stopped by cops and arguing about insurance, which could be even more fun.

Third issue could be I'd have difficulty getting tax. Will have to temporarily take out a normal policy to get that.

Thoughts?

NOTE for all who say "ask your insurer", I will be as soon as their phone lines are open.

peterattheboro · 23 Jan 2010 at 21:59

A car must be insured (fully comp I believe) by someone else for you to be able to get DOC cover on it.

stigggeh · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:03

peterattheboro said:
A car must be insured (fully comp I believe) by someone else for you to be able to get DOC cover on it.

Not on mine with Post office (fortis). We (Me and GF) phoned up because we wanted to test drive a car which was not insured and wanted to drive it on our Doc cover.

They said yes fine as long as you have owners permission.

paradigm · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:06

peterattheboro said:
A car must be insured (fully comp I believe) by someone else for you to be able to get DOC cover on it.

Don't give legal advice unless you know what you are talking about.

L0rdMike · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:07

peterattheboro said:
A car must be insured (fully comp I believe) by someone else for you to be able to get DOC cover on it.

Wrong.

[TW]Fox · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:07

Just because you make your other half the registered keeper doesnt mean its her car - it obviously isnt, its your car. Doing what you intend is fraud - have a second low mileage policy for the car, its the only way.

Rich1988 · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:09

paradigm said:
Don't give legal advice unless you know what you are talking about.

yup, mine covered me on any car provided it was road legal (mot and tax) no current policy was required on it not that what he intends to do it totally legit anyway.

peterattheboro · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:11

Ooooooo ok

So what's to stop someone just registering a car but not insuring it and then letting someone else drive it? This sounds illegal to me.

therealnerd2 · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:18

[TW]Fox;15805759 said:
Just because you make your other half the registered keeper doesnt mean its her car - it obviously isnt, its your car. Doing what you intend is fraud - have a second low mileage policy for the car, its the only way.

Hummm, I'm interested in this point. Ownership:

owned, own·ing, owns
v.tr.
1.
a. To have or possess as property: owns a chain of restaurants.
b. To have control over: For a time, enemy planes owned the skies.

They key point would seem to me to be if she accepts responsibility to the vehicle, taking primary control of what is done with it in future, and deciding who is allowed to drive, when and where.

I am perfectly happy to pass on that responsibility to her, I have no problem with that. True, she would never drive the car, only I would. However, that does not mean that I would be the owner.

[TW]Fox · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:20

Its fraud - its your car, not hers.

L0rdMike · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:22

Keeper doesnt equal owner.

Clarkey · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:24

[TW]Fox;15805827 said:
Its fraud - its your car, not hers.

Impossible to prove though, no?

rypt · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:26

[TW]Fox;15805759 said:
Just because you make your other half the registered keeper doesnt mean its her car - it obviously isnt, its your car. Doing what you intend is fraud - have a second low mileage policy for the car, its the only way.

In the eyes of the DVLA the RK is the "owner" - and by that I mean person responsible for administering the vehicle., in the eyes of the "law" the owner is whoever "owns" the car.
If the OP gives the car to his GF, then she becomes the legal owner, even if he is the primary user of the car.

It is that simple, the owner in LEGAL terms is simply whoever owns the car, much like you are the owner of your computer - and if you give the computer to your GF then your GF owns the computer now.

Joshy · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:30

Clarkey said:
Impossible to prove though, no?

Insurance companies aren't idiots.

They probably aren't going to believe that the heavily modified track car is "owned" and used regularly by the Partner, Particularly seeing how she wouldn't have a valid insurance policy out on the vehicle.

therealnerd2 · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:43

Joshy said:
Insurance companies aren't idiots.

They probably aren't going to believe that the heavily modified track car is "owned" and used regularly by the Partner, Particularly seeing how she wouldn't have a valid insurance policy out on the vehicle.

I still don't quite get you here. She would own the vehicle - in what way would I own the vehicle?

I would use it.
She wouldn't use it.
Why does that imply I'm the owner?? The owner could be anyone! It's nothing to do with who drives it.

[TW]Fox · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:45

Because its your car, you are just pretending she owns it so you can defraud your insurer?

therealnerd2 · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:45

[TW]Fox;15806000 said:
Because its your car, you are just pretending she owns it so you can defraud your insurer?

But I'm giving it to her!

In your eyes, is there any possible way she could own the car? I'm trying here, I want her to be the owner!

[TW]Fox · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:47

therealnerd2 said:
But I'm giving it to her!

She wont drive it, you are only 'giving' it to her so you dont need to insure yourself on it!

therealnerd2 · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:48

[TW]Fox;15806014 said:
She wont drive it, you are only 'giving' it to her so you dont need to insure yourself on it!

Correct. Why does this make her not the owner? Why does the reason for me giving it to her prevent the act of giving?

Joe T · 23 Jan 2010 at 22:57

So she owns a car she's not insured on?