![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Not currently, no.
Insurance through DOC
- Thread starter therealnerd2
- Start date
Not currently, no.
[TW]Fox;15806612 said:
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.
Its not the best aproach to insuring a car for all its use. Especially one that modified.
Regardless of how you might try and snow the issue, a car needs to be insured if it is used or kept on a highway. If it isn't the owner, registered keeper and user can be liable for prosecution, either using, causing or permitting the vehicle to be used on a road without insurance.
If your partner is the owner and registered keeper she must ensure the car is insured if it is going to be used or kept on a road.
Anyone with DOC endorsement on their policy can drive any car they do not own etc, but the car needs to be insured, taxed (trade plates), and MOT'd if applicable.
I have often heard people say their insurers have confirmed they are okay to drive cars that don't have any insurance on under their DOC entitlement. Like most things though, you only find out how true this is if you need to claim off it, or if the police stop you and examine your docs.
An example being, you drive a car without any insurance on under your DOC entitlement. The car brakes down, regardless whether you get out of the car or not, you are no longer classed as driving the vehicle. It may be argued the vehicle is still in your control, but your DOC entitlement states you are only insured whilst driving, therefore is no longer valid. You have now caused the vehicle to be on a highway without insurance, resulting in potentially you and the owner being prosecuted.
Not worth the hassle, especially learning the above when someone has been injured or even worse.
Not sure if it would be classed as fraud, but I'm sure the insurers would look to void ab initio your policy, due to lack of utmost good faith.
Jack
If your partner is the owner and registered keeper she must ensure the car is insured if it is going to be used or kept on a road.
Anyone with DOC endorsement on their policy can drive any car they do not own etc, but the car needs to be insured, taxed (trade plates), and MOT'd if applicable.
I have often heard people say their insurers have confirmed they are okay to drive cars that don't have any insurance on under their DOC entitlement. Like most things though, you only find out how true this is if you need to claim off it, or if the police stop you and examine your docs.
An example being, you drive a car without any insurance on under your DOC entitlement. The car brakes down, regardless whether you get out of the car or not, you are no longer classed as driving the vehicle. It may be argued the vehicle is still in your control, but your DOC entitlement states you are only insured whilst driving, therefore is no longer valid. You have now caused the vehicle to be on a highway without insurance, resulting in potentially you and the owner being prosecuted.
Not worth the hassle, especially learning the above when someone has been injured or even worse.
Not sure if it would be classed as fraud, but I'm sure the insurers would look to void ab initio your policy, due to lack of utmost good faith.
Jack
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,569
- Location
- Cambridge,York,Bristol
Thanks for all the comments guys.
I am still unclear how this can be fraud, as I am actually wanting to transfer ownership to someone else. I don't want to lie.
I do take all the other practical problems into consideration however.
To move the thread on somewhat, as I think we've covered the key points about 4 times each, what insurers would people recommend for limited mileage modified car? I know Adrian Flux is often a favourite...
I am still unclear how this can be fraud, as I am actually wanting to transfer ownership to someone else. I don't want to lie.
I do take all the other practical problems into consideration however.
To move the thread on somewhat, as I think we've covered the key points about 4 times each, what insurers would people recommend for limited mileage modified car? I know Adrian Flux is often a favourite...
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,569
- Location
- Cambridge,York,Bristol
We covered this being wrong right at the very start of the thread.
And this is wrong too. Recent case in the Mags (i think) court decided that leaving the car momentarily (ie to pay for petrol at a forecourt) did not render the DOC inactive.
DOC threads have to rank up there as one of the most boring threads that can ever possibly come up in Motors. We have done this topic not just to death, but we have raped the dead body, burnt it's ashes, jettisoned it in to space, decided to reclaim it for one more session of beatings, and then fired it back off again.
Honestly, it's getting quite amazing, because every single time we conclude the same thing - absolutely nothing. As far as I'm aware none of us in here are motoring lawyers, and the best of us barely have a grasp of the basic legalities of it.
There's really little value in continuing to debate this topic. We have been able to conclude the following points:
Honestly, it's getting quite amazing, because every single time we conclude the same thing - absolutely nothing. As far as I'm aware none of us in here are motoring lawyers, and the best of us barely have a grasp of the basic legalities of it.
There's really little value in continuing to debate this topic. We have been able to conclude the following points:
- With some insurers, you can drive cars via DOC insurance cover even if the car isn't otherwise insured.
- Nothing else. We have no information about the outcome of DOC insurance claims or court cases, we have no evidence to suggest that "ownership" equals or does not equal registered keeper-ship, we have no evidence to support that "driving" constitutes or includes cars being left in a supermarket car park while you go shopping.
Only sensible post in here.
One thing I've never seen concluded in these threads is what happens to the car when it's not being used?
My understanding was that a car had to be insured to be on a public road, even if its just parked (correct me if I'm wrong). If you're soley relying on DOC cover, it becomes insured when you step into it but isnt once you park it. Or am I missing something?
My understanding was that a car had to be insured to be on a public road, even if its just parked (correct me if I'm wrong). If you're soley relying on DOC cover, it becomes insured when you step into it but isnt once you park it. Or am I missing something?
We haven't concluded this and just aren't in a position to do so, as I mention above. We do not have any cases to reference and none of us are motoring lawyers. We are literally trying to extract very specific legal definition from a few words in a policy document or chats on the phone. It's a recipe for disaster!
My advice in any instance would be to speak to your insurer and specifically ask them the questions you have. If they don't know, have them get back to you in writing after investigating the details.
I want this thread to die.
Why am I posting in it
My advice in any instance would be to speak to your insurer and specifically ask them the questions you have. If they don't know, have them get back to you in writing after investigating the details.
I want this thread to die.
Why am I posting in it
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.
To say the above sweeping statement so boldy is somewhat laughable. Who covered this? 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?
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.
There is plenty of case law defining what constitutes driving, just sitting behind the wheel or having the keys is not driving.
I gave my advice in good faith. take it or leave it, as I said in my original post you generally only find out what it really covers when you need it.
Jack
However that situation is apparently close enough to driving to get you done for drunk driving?
If the public has reasonable access to the land (car park, petrol station, etc) then you need to have exactly the same things as to drive on the highway so a valid licence, insurance and MOT if needed.
Last edited:
Exactly so - a public road for the purposes of insurance is defined in the Road Traffic Act as 'A road to which the public have access'.
No you would be arrested and charged with being in charge of a motor vehicle whilst unfit through alcohol.
It is not as simple to say all car parks, petrol stations are public roads. What about when they are closed?
Anyway, it seems you all agree DOC is sufficient, i'll leave you to it.
Jack
Oh no we don't. It seems only a few of us can see what the OP is really trying to do - avoid paying for insurance that the rest of us have to by playing the system and pretending his girlfriend has a new car...
...that she can't even drive.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I'm not sure about specific case law, but if this is the case, not only would the OP be guilty of having a car in a public road or place without insurance but his GF would be guilty of permitting the aforementioned offence.
No but you are in charge of the vehicle. It depends on the wording of the policy, but I think being in charge is probably a key concept.
[TW]Fox;15808593 said:
It goes further than that, it doesn't need to be a road, merely a "public place".