Insurance through DOC

[Burnsy2023]

No your not, you are wanting everyone to think you've done this. It's a meaningless, empty gesture for the purposes of exploiting an insurance loophole. It's like me gifting my mobile phone to my girlfriend, making her the owner, but keeping it myself.

It's not meaningless in law, and let's be honest, that's all the matters here.

 

[Lum]

c) That she never drives and is outside the typical vehicle type for her demographic

Now you see, this one irritates the hell out of me. As I may have mentioned in the past my GF drives a heavily modified S13 200SX. At 250bhp it's putting out more power than my Cefiro and weighs less too. The modifications aren't done to look pretty, there is no shiny bling in the engine bay. They're not bodges as they're just practical and work properly (eg. Volvo 740 diesel intercooler held in by two strips of Mecanno-like metal we got from B&Q)

I almost never drive it, I prefer 4WD, and our spare car is the Volvo. I've also got a company car coming soon, but occasionally I have to drive hers, usually just out of the driveway onto the road so I can get my car out, and on one occasion before we got the Volvo I had to do a Tesco run in it.

If I were to have a bump, you're saying the insurance would accuse me of fraud and that it's really by car because "outside the typical type of vehicle for her demographic" which is basically another way of saying "because she's a woman and women only drive cutsey little pink French superminis with no oil in them"?

Surely there's a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen if an insurance company actually says that in an official capacity.

 

[PMKeates]

It's not meaningless in law, and let's be honest, that's all the matters here.

To be honest, I don't think you are qualified to say that. Law is law, but this is a very grey area and any advice that we give out could get the OP in to some serious trouble if something serious happens and it goes to court.

If he phones his insurance company and explains what he is going to do and they will cover it, fine. However, I'd be almost certain they won't accept it.

If I were to have a bump, you're saying the insurance would accuse me of fraud and that it's really by car because "outside the typical type of vehicle for her demographic"

Is she the registered keeper? Does it get parked at her place of work, in a way that people could substantiate she drives it regularly? How long have you owned it? Are there bills for it her name? Etc. etc. In that instance they could suspect you, but a reasonable investigation would uncover that it is her car. However, in the OPs instance, any investigation would point to that it isn't, and all he would be relying on is some technicality in some wording.

 

[Burnsy2023]

If he phones his insurance company and explains what he is going to do and they will cover it, fine. However, I'd be almost certain they won't accept it.

Surely it depends more on the wording of the policy document as that is the contract the insurance company needs to enforce?

 

[Sugar Free]

Either way DoC is (was, im under 25 and cant get it any more!!) a great advantage for those "bugger, my cars broke, can I borrow yours for a couple of days" moments..

You just need a better insurer

 

[Lum]

.Is she the registered keeper? Does it get parked at her place of work, in a way that people could substantiate she drives it regularly? How long have you owned it? Are there bills for it her name? Etc. etc. In that instance they could suspect you, but a reasonable investigation would uncover that it is her car. However, in the OPs instance, any investigation would point to that it isn't, and all he would be relying on is some technicality in some wording.

Yes she's the RK. It's parked in a public car park when she takes it to work (no record of number plate), she's owned it for about a year now (having previously owned another 200SX). No bills in her name as the mechanic she uses is cash only with the exception of one which as a previous insurance claim, hit whilst parked, in Bath.

I just find it annoying that such an investigation would be launched and we'd have to prove our innocence purely because of an annoying stereotype.

 

[PMKeates]

Surely it depends more on the wording of the policy document as that is the contract the insurance company needs to enforce?

It does depend on the wording of the policy document, but it's highly unlikely that it goes in to enough detail to specify the rules in the situation the OP is describing. Any judge looking at this case would see that the OP is the "true" owner. He bought the car in the first place, why transfer it?

I imagine it's a similar situation when you transfer assets before bankruptcy. If you cannot show a genuine business reason for transferring them, and it's apparent you did so purely for your own financial interests, then they can be taken back.

Either way, none of us know or are qualified to work it out. We are just confusing the matter for the OP who should contact his insurance company to avoid potentially huge hassle in the future.

 

[SB118]

... any case law per chance? I take it you're willing to stand by your advice should anyone fall foul of the law and end up in court as a result?

Case law isn't required when the information is stated in your policy documents.

You think....Anyway, bear in mind a petrol forcourt is not in fact a road or a highway, it is private land. Do you need insurance to drive or keep a car on private land? I think you'll find that may have been an issue in the case you refer to.

Richards, who owned a car for which he possessed no vehicle excise licence, intended to obtain an MOT test certificate. Richards did not possess a vehicle excise licence in respect of his vehicle and in order to obtain it intended to obtain an MOT test certificate. He accordingly arranged to obtain an MOT test certificate by arranging for the vehicle to be submitted for a test at 4 pm on that day. The test was to take place at a garage some six miles from his home. At 11.30 in the morning he left home. On the way he stopped at a garage to buy petrol. Shortly after stopping to buy petrol he stopped to buy cigarettes. At the time that he bought cigarettes the car was parked by the shop for some ten minutes whilst Richards spoke to the shopkeeper At the time the car was left at the side on a public road.

During that 10 minutes, unknown to Richards, the vehicle was reported for its lack of vehicle excise licence. When Richards left the shop he drove to the garage where the test took place.

After the test had been completed he took the vehicle and attempted to buy a vehicle excise licence, but the post office was closed. The following day he, obtained an excise licence. He was charged with this offence and convicted by the justices. The matter went to appeal before the Crown Court and the Crown Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.

The Appeal Court said "On the facts of this case, it is ridiculous if a driver could not stop to obtain petrol on the way. It would fly in the face of common sense if some short stop cannot be made by the driver, for whatever purpose, providing he is on his way to the test station."

and some further clarification from a Magistrate on the issue ...

Although it deals with VED and not insurance the case turned on the definition of the word "use" in the course of a journey by motor vehicle. Once a higher court has made a decision on a matter of this kind the rest of us adopt it in any situation where the circumstances are sufficiently similar.

I did think it was the Mags Court, it was actually the Crown Court, my bad.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Case law isn't required when the information is stated in your policy documents.

That's not quite true, especially if you include case law on unfair contract terms.

Got a link to the stuff you quoted? Looks interesting Also, it's nice to see a Judge using common sense in a judgement, it's somewhat reassuring.

 

[SB118]

I had a dig through over at 5ive-o.org, i've copy/pasta pretty much all the details there, but i'm sure a good google should bring something up from the case name.

 

[JackRegan]

Whilst that is an interesting case, it appears to deal with an offence of not having a VEL, an offence against the SST not the Crown. R at the time of being reported wasn't displaying a VEL and gave his/her reasons to the Court which was accepted on appeal.

Richards, who owned a car......

Is the opposite of what DOC is for.

any situation where the circumstances are sufficiently similar

Is someone driving (with DOC) and then leaving unattended their partners car which has no insurance of its own, sufficiently similar to the unfortuante sequence of events in SST v Richards?

As motoring convictions go, in a nutshell the owner of the car will always be a user, depending on the circumstances they can cause or permit an offence to be committed. If you own a car and it is used or kept on a road it needs insurance. Fudging the ownership to take advantage of DOC is not sufficient.

 

[SB118]

any situation where the circumstances are sufficiently similar

Is someone driving (with DOC) and then leaving unattended their partners car which has no insurance of its own, sufficiently similar to the unfortuante sequence of events in SST v Richards?

It set the legal precedent of what "use" of the vehicle means. Leaving the vehicle for a short time was ruled not to result in an unattended vehicle.

This a decision and understanding made by the Appeal Court, not me. I hoping they have a sufficient understanding of the law to give a correct result.

Fudging the ownership to take advantage of DOC is not sufficient.

This part we all agree on.