Should i drive a car i don't own?

lemon125

My brother is after emigrating in August, he left his 08 Audi at home for when he gets back from Oz in a year, but that's moved out now till Aug 2013. He has it fully paid for and left it to the father to drive to keep it ticking over and so when he comes back he will have a car without having to splash out.

Anyway, the father isn't driving it and hasnt updated the insurance or tax. I was thinking of selling my older car and driving his car until he comes back, putting the insurance and tax etc on it.

Is there anything i should be careful about if i go do this? Bar crashing my brothers car?

Barr

You can't insure a car you don't own. You'd have to change the log book into your name.

TestTransmission

I would think if the car is in his name ,you won't be able to take out an insurance policy on it. I'm open to correction on this.

mathepac

I'm in agreement with the last two posters; a lack of "insurable interest" would prevent you having valid insurance on the car.

lemon125

Was thinking it couldn't be that easy.

So only option would be to change the ownership to me, then change it back when he is home but I take it that would devalue the car allot more by putting two extra owners on the car.

barura

I think if you ask your brother and come to an agreement with him, something along the lines of him signing the car over to you for while he's away and you making sure it's serviced and valeted for when he gets back... Can't see a problem there.

But in fairness, it would be less hassle to keep your own car. What are you driving anyways?

coylemj

Not so sure, it's been discused here before and I don't think there was a definitive answer.

The point I usually make is that a company car is typically owned by finance company A who lease to it Company B who then give it to their employee C. In that situation the employer (B) pays the motor insurance even though they don't own the car.

Surely the issue about not having an insurable interest only applies to the comprehensive element of the policy? I accept fully the point that you can't insure something that you don't own but in the case of basic third party motor insurance, you are paying to insure your use of the car, not the car itself.

I can't see any legal blockage to you paying for third party even though you don't own the car. At the same time why not pay for comprehensive cover but name the owner of the car as the beneficiary if you wrap the car around a tree?

Barr

coylemj wrote: »

Not so sure, it's been discused here before and I don't think there was a definitive answer.

The point I usually make is that a company car is typically owned by finance company A who lease to it Company B who then give it to their employee C. In that situation the employer (B) pays the motor insurance even though they don't own the car.

Surely the issue about not having an insurable interest only applies to the comprehensive element of the policy? I accept fully the point that you can't insure something that you don't own but in the case of basic third party motor insurance, you are paying to insure your use of the car, not the car itself.

I can't see any legal blockage to you paying for third party even though you don't own the car. At the same time why not pay for comprehensive cover but name the owner of the car as the beneficiary if you wrap the car around a tree?

I'm sure the op would want comprehensive on a 08 Audi.

heate

Op im led to believe that cars are one of the very few assets that can be insured by an individual other than the titles owner.
As pointed out earlier in this thread you can insure leased cars in your own name as well as car purchased on HP.
People transfer their insurance policy to cars they don't own every day - ever had a loaner from a dealer?
With the permission of your brother (not legal just moral) transfer you existing policy to his Audi.

mathepac

coylemj wrote: »

.... The point I usually make is that a company car is typically owned by finance company A who lease to it Company B who then give it to their employee C. In that situation the employer (B) pays the motor insurance even though they don't own the car. ....

That point is dealt with by distinguishing between the "beneficial owner" in this case Company A and the "registered owner" in this case Company B. This differentiation of responsibilities is dealt with in the contract between Company A and Company B

Fleet insurance for companies is different to private motorists' insurance and may cover specific named employees of Company B or more generically "properly authorised drivers".

Private Insurance proposal forms (in Ireland) ask about the "registered owner". If the proposer is not the "register owner" (keeper in the UK) and not the "beneficial owner" then getting insurance will be a problem. Simplez. :cool:

Before anyone asks about hire-cars, it's all dealt with in the contract between the hirer and the rental company.

coylemj

heate wrote: »

People transfer their insurance policy to cars they don't own every day - ever had a loaner from a dealer?

Good point, forgot about that. They do ask when you phone to do the temporary transfer to say who owns the car so obviously the policy covers you for third party but if the car is writen off and you have fully comp. they will pay the owner.

heate

coylemj wrote: »

heate wrote: »

People transfer their insurance policy to cars they don't own every day - ever had a loaner from a dealer?

Good point, forgot about that. They do ask when you phone to do the temporary transfer to say who owns the car so obviously the policy covers you for third party but if the car is writen off and you have fully comp. they will pay the owner.

Was never asked that I have transferred as the names driver on a policy so I had assumed that the entire policy had transferred given that it wasn't even my policy that was being transferred!

mickdw

Could your brother, the owner not take out the policy and name you as a named driver. I dont think there could be any law against him keeping his property insured while he is in another country, after all, it would be wise to keep it insured against fire & theft etc anyway. This would also help him when he returns as he would have continuous insurance history iin ireland. The actual payment arrangements are between you and your brother. Of course if brother doesnt want you driving the car, he wont do this but in that case you shouldnt be considering using it anyway.

ronaneire

Rather then have it just sat there, either have him transfer it into your name or put it up for sale. Shame to see such a nice car parked up until 2013, might be worth quite a bit now but come then who knows what it would be.

marryabroad

insure it in your brothers name with you as a named driver. you'll be fully comp to drive it and still remains in his name. don't be too quick to tell insurance company your brother is living abroad

gpjordanf1

lemon125 wrote: »

My brother is after emigrating in August, he left his 08 Audi at home for when he gets back from Oz in a year, but that's moved out now till Aug 2013. He has it fully paid for and left it to the father to drive to keep it ticking over and so when he comes back he will have a car without having to splash out.

Anyway, the father isn't driving it and hasnt updated the insurance or tax. I was thinking of selling my older car and driving his car until he comes back, putting the insurance and tax etc on it.

Is there anything i should be careful about if i go do this? Bar crashing my brothers car?

Sell your car and buy a cheap car, insure it fully comp with fully comp for driving other cars that aren't your own! Simple.

ronaneire

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Sell your car and buy a cheap car, insure it fully comp with fully comp for driving other cars that aren't your own! Simple.

You can't drive other cars unless there is an unsure policy taken out for that car regardless if you have 3rd party fire and theft or fully comp.

gpjordanf1

ronaneire wrote: »

You can't drive other cars unless there is an unsure policy taken out for that car regardless if you have 3rd party fire and theft or fully comp.

The only restriction on driving other cars is, it doesn't belong to me or my employer, no mention of another insurance policy??

I could be wrong though?

coylemj

ronaneire wrote: »

You can't drive other cars unless there is an unsure policy taken out for that car regardless if you have 3rd party fire and theft or fully comp.

That's been done to death here on multiple threads, it is not true.

A lot of policies state that if the other car (the car you borrow) has it's own policy then you must claim off that policy if it covers you to drive but failing that you are covered by your own policy if it allows you to drive other vehicles.

Ultimately it is not a condition of your own policy that the 'other car' has it's own policy. Unless you can quote otherwise from your policy.....

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

The only restriction on driving other cars is, it doesn't belong to me or my employer, no mention of another insurance policy??

I could be wrong though?

You're not wrong, the insurance cert and policy make no mention of this fictional requirement.

ronaneire

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

The only restriction on driving other cars is, it doesn't belong to me or my employer, no mention of another insurance policy??

I could be wrong though?

You can't drive another car that is in some other persons name if there is no insurance policy on that particular vehicle.

coylemj

gpjordanf1 wrote: »

Sell your car and buy a cheap car, insure it fully comp with fully comp for driving other cars that aren't your own! Simple.

Has it's merits, you don't own the other car, it's not hired and it's not leased by your employer, you would be covered.

coylemj

ronaneire wrote: »

You can't drive another car that is in some other persons name if there is no insurance policy on that particular vehicle.

Name an insurance company that imposes that condition.

ronaneire

coylemj wrote: »

Name an insurance company that imposes that condition.

If that's the case, all people would need to do would be take out fully comp insurance and then they can drive any other car regardless if that car has insurance on it or not?

And how would you explain to the Guards when you get pulled over for the car not having ant insurance on it.

You name an insurance company that state you can drive any vehicle regardless if that car has a policy attached to it or not?

coylemj

ronaneire wrote: »

You name an insurance company that state you can drive any vehicle regardless if that car has a policy attached to it or not?

Quinn..

Under General Exceptions on P. 11 is the following...

2. We will not provide cover if the insured person is entitled to claim or is covered under any other policy.

Which is the point I mentioned in my earlier post i.e. if you can claim off the other guy's insurance then you must do so.

However on P.15 in the section titled 'Driving Other Cars' it says the following.....

If your certificate of insurance says so, we will also cover you, the policyholder, for your liability to other people while you are driving any other private motor car which you do not own or have not hired or leased, as long as:

1. the vehicle is not owned by your employer or hired to them under a hire-purchase or lease agreement;
2. you currently hold a full European Union (EU) licence;
3. the use of the vehicle is covered in the certificate of insurance;
4. cover is not provided by any other insurance;
5. you have the owner’s permission to drive the vehicle;
6. the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition; and
7. you still have the insured vehicle and it has not been damaged beyond cost-effective repair.

http://www.quinn-direct.com/ireland/car/policyinfo.html

Section 4. basically says that if your use of the car is not covered by any other policy, Quinn will cover you. The only issue for Quinn is whether you are covered by another policy, not whether a policy exists or not.

Q.E.D.

mgbgt1978

ronaneire wrote: »

You can't drive another car that is in some other persons name if there is no insurance policy on that particular vehicle.

Yes you can. As coylemj has said it has been done to death here already.
Do a search and see for yourself.

edit; Beaten to it by the faster keyboard fingers of coylemj.......

ronaneire

coylemj wrote: »

Quinn..

Under General Exceptions on P. 11 is the following...

2. We will not provide cover if the insured person is entitled to claim or is covered under any other policy.

Which is the point I mentioned in my earlier post i.e. if you can claim off the other guy's insurance then you must do so.

However on P.15 in the section titled 'Driving Other Cars' it says the following.....

If your certificate of insurance says so, we will also cover you, the policyholder, for your liability to other people while you are driving any other private motor car which you do not own or have not hired or leased, as long as:

1. the vehicle is not owned by your employer or hired to them under a hire-purchase or lease agreement;
2. you currently hold a full European Union (EU) licence;
3. the use of the vehicle is covered in the certificate of insurance;
4. cover is not provided by any other insurance;
5. you have the owner’s permission to drive the vehicle;
6. the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition; and
7. you still have the insured vehicle and it has not been damaged beyond cost-effective repair.

http://www.quinn-direct.com/ireland/car/policyinfo.html

Section 4. basically says that if your use of the car is not covered by any other policy, Quinn will cover you. The only issue for Quinn is whether you are covered by another policy, not whether a policy exists or not.

Q.E.D.

It's fair enough, I certainly wouldn't like to trust it.

coylemj

ronaneire wrote: »

It's fair enough, I certainly wouldn't like to trust it.

Well then try Axa..

Loss of or damage to a car you borrow from another person

This cover will only apply if:

• you do not regularly use or drive the car;
• there is no other insurance policy which covers you driving that car (whether or not that policy would cover what is covered by this extended cover);
• the car does not belong to you or your husband, wife or partner;
• you have the owner’s permission to drive the car and have been driving it for less than 30 days; and
• the loss or damage happens in Ireland.

The most we will pay under this extended cover is €50,000.

No mention of a requirement that there is another policy, only that you are not covered by it if it exits.

Note the condtion that says that you must not have been driving it for more than 30 days, this addresses that issue which you mentioned earlier.

ronaneire

coylemj wrote: »

Well then try Axa..

Loss of or damage to a car you borrow from another person

This cover will only apply if:

• you do not regularly use or drive the car;
• there is no other insurance policy which covers you driving that car (whether or not that policy would cover what is covered by this extended cover);
• the car does not belong to you or your husband, wife or partner;
• you have the owner’s permission to drive the car and have been driving it for less than 30 days; and
• the loss or damage happens in Ireland.

The most we will pay under this extended cover is €50,000.

No mention of a requirement that there is another policy, only that you are not covered by it if it exits.

Note the condtion that says that you must not have been driving it for more than 30 days, this addresses that issue which you mentioned earlier.

Yeah no mention, but have you tired it personally? If so or if you plan on it let me know the outcome.

coylemj

ronaneire wrote: »

Yeah no mention, but have you tired it personally? If so or if you plan on it let me know the outcome.

I'll plan an accident in someone else's car, checking beforehand to make sure that his policy has elapsed - just to prove a point that you seem to have difficulty accepting?

Just go away please.

ronaneire

coylemj wrote: »

I'll plan an accident in someone else's car, checking beforehand to make sure that his policy has elapsed - just to prove a point that you seem to have difficulty accepting?

Just go away please.

No you just seem to know it all.

Now back on topic!!!

Barr

ronaneire wrote: »

It's fair enough, I certainly wouldn't like to trust it.

Why not ..its there in writing. Coylemj is correct here.

lemon125

I drive a 04 VW passat.
The main thing is the brother WANTS the car to be driven to keep it serviced and keep the parts moving. Havent approached to ask can i be the one to drive it yet. Its too big and powerful for the father so that's why he isn't driving it. He was supposed to keep it taxed and drive it to the shops now ad again.
He doesnt want to sell it as if he does and arrived back to Ireland, his first job is to get out a 16k loan to buy a car again or use 16k+ in savings he made in Oz to buy a car again. We told him about selling it and putting money in deposit savings but the temptation to use it is too much.

I suppose there wont be any harm ringing an insurance company as see what they think and if its possible

heate

lemon125 wrote: »

I drive a 04 VW passat.
The main thing is the brother WANTS the car to be driven to keep it serviced and keep the parts moving. Havent approached to ask can i be the one to drive it yet. Its too big and powerful for the father so that's why he isn't driving it. He was supposed to keep it taxed and drive it to the shops now ad again.
He doesnt want to sell it as if he does and arrived back to Ireland, his first job is to get out a 16k loan to buy a car again or use 16k+ in savings he made in Oz to buy a car again. We told him about selling it and putting money in deposit savings but the temptation to use it is too much.

I suppose there wont be any harm ringing an insurance company as see what they think and if its possible

It's madness from a financial POV - sell the car put the money in a 2yr term deposit account where the penalties to remove money will make any temptation to do so go right away

mathepac

The usual stupid suggestions about the brother in Oz insuring the car and naming OP as "other driver" have appeared right on cue. If brother is in Oz he can of course have insurance on a car in Ireland, but the difficulty arises when OP is the main (or only) driver of the vehicle rather than an occasional driver as is explicit in the "other / named driver" classification. (The question on the insurance proposal form is usually something like "Will you (the proposer) be the main driver of the vehicle?" " Well yeah, I'll be in Oz but sure that doesn't matter, does it?")

Insurance companies copped on to this fiddle years ago when Mammy or Daddy insured baby Jacinta on her Nissan Micra as a named driver when in fact Mammy and Daddy never even sat into the car never mind driving it.

TestTransmission

mathepac wrote: »

Insurance companies copped on to this fiddle years ago when Mammy or Daddy insured baby Jacinta on her Nissan Micra as a named driver when in fact Mammy and Daddy never even sat into the car never mind driving it.

They haven't really,I know a fella doing it currently on his first car (TT quattro) :pac:

coylemj

TestTransmission wrote: »

They haven't really,I know a fella doing it currently on his first car (TT quattro) :pac:

I think the proof of the pudding is when you try to claim and they start asking awkward questions. You can drive around with a fake insurance disc and cert and it proves nothing.

knird evol

Correct me if I'm wrong but an Open policy covers you to drive another car if that car itself is also currently insured. Also you can't be the owner of that car.

coylemj

knird evol wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but an Open policy covers you to drive another car if that car itself is also currently insured.

You are wrong, go back to post #19 and read forward.

knird evol wrote: »

Also you can't be the owner of that car.

Correct, it can't be owned by you, under hire to you and in some cases it can't be on lease to your employer.

mdebets

coylemj wrote: »

Well then try Axa..

Loss of or damage to a car you borrow from another person

This cover will only apply if:

• you do not regularly use or drive the car;
• there is no other insurance policy which covers you driving that car (whether or not that policy would cover what is covered by this extended cover);
• the car does not belong to you or your husband, wife or partner;
• you have the owner’s permission to drive the car and have been driving it for less than 30 days; and
• the loss or damage happens in Ireland.

The most we will pay under this extended cover is €50,000.

No mention of a requirement that there is another policy, only that you are not covered by it if it exits.

Note the condtion that says that you must not have been driving it for more than 30 days, this addresses that issue which you mentioned earlier.

But all this covers only the insurance part, not the Motor Tax.
The other car needs to be taxed for you to be able to drive it with your own insurance policy. You can't tax a car if you don't have insurance, so the other car needs to have its own insurance policy, for you to be able to use your insurance policy to drive it.

coylemj

mdebets wrote: »

The other car needs to be taxed for you to be able to drive it with your own insurance policy.

No it doesn't. Insurance companies don't give a XXXX about whether your tax disc is current or not. I'm been over lots of motor insurance policies and have never come across any mention of the tax disc.

knird evol

knird evol wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but an Open policy covers you to drive another car if that car itself is also currently insured.

coylemj wrote: »

You are wrong, go back to post #19 and read forward.

I wasn't talking about the insurance policy but the law. At the very least there will be no insurance disk on the car, itself an offence. Also I think there's more than that but I'll have a glance through the RTA and confirm it.

coylemj

knird evol wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but an Open policy covers you to drive another car if that car itself is also currently insured. Also you can't be the owner of that car.

I think you're moving the goalposts here, you never said anything about the disc. You talked about the conditions under which you would be covered, look at your post above.

I recognise that there is an issue with the disc but I would carry my insurance cert. with me and the general consensus on other threads is that if you're stopped at a Garda checkpoint and produce the cert, you won't have a problem as long as the 'driving other cars' option is indicated on the cert.

If you go to a car dealer and take a secondhand car for a test drive, it will not have an insurance disc but the Gardai are prepared to accept that the dealer has a policy which covers any of their cars being taken for a drive by prospective customers while accompanied by a member of staff.

mdebets

coylemj wrote: »

No it doesn't. Insurance companies don't give a XXXX about whether your tax disc is current or not. I'm been over lots of motor insurance policies and have never come across any mention of the tax disc.

The insurance company might not, but the Garda asking you for your insurance and tax might.

knird evol

Coylemj, you talk about moving goal posts ....i'm not trying to get to get in an argument here or contradict anyone. I'm no more of a legal expert than you are. I'm only trying to tease out the exact legal position so that collectively we all have a definitive answer. What a garda let's away on a check point is different from what is decided after an accident where someone is killed.

Also a car on trade plates isn't required to have an insurance disk.

I'd always been led to believe that a car itself also had to have insurance ie owner insurance. Now if that's not the case, great, you learn something new everyday. I just want to confirm that for sure. Just having a look at the RTA it seems to say that just User insurance is required. I'm still not 100% convinced ....I think i'll throw this at the 'emergency services' and 'legal' forums to be sure.

Marcusm

mathepac wrote: »

I'm in agreement with the last two posters; a lack of "insurable interest" would prevent you having valid insurance on the car.

I fully agree with this; however, the brothers could quite lawfully execute a renting or hiring agreement between them with the owner brother imposing an obligation on the hiring brother to maintain and keepsafe the car, fair wer and tear excepted which would give him an insurable interest without actually reregistering the car!

corktina

To get around the lack of disc, you could just display your ins cert in the windscreen, I don't think its defined what form the disc should be, just that evidence of insurance needs to be displayed.

Bearcat

Very interesting post by the op. my m in law in cramming for her finals in hosp.....god luv her etc.....anyway I've sold my 5 and I'm in her jazz.....insurance co will only insure me on my policy on her car for two weeks before they advise bugger off....in my late 40s.....I'm only doing the ðecent th.ing by putting the jazz on my policy.......looks like and she couldn't give a rats if I drive her car re her probs, that I go on her policy as a named driver .......silly stuff says me re the ins co.

guil

knird evol wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but an Open policy covers you to drive another car if that car itself is also currently insured. Also you can't be the owner of that car.

open driving covers anyone with a full licence and between 25 and 65 to drive your car without being named on your policy

pburns

So your brother is suffering 3 years depreciation on a car he is not using? Sounds nuts, he should release the money tied up in the car and buy when he returns in 2013.

knird evol

guil wrote: »

open driving covers anyone with a full licence and between 25 and 65 to drive your car without being named on your policy

If you'd being following the debate for the last few posts we're talking about 'your policy' or Owner policy. The driver/user has 'open driving' yes, but is it necessary for the car to be insured by the registered owner and display an insurance disk from him.

heate

pburns wrote: »

So your brother is suffering 3 years depreciation on a car he is not using? Sounds nuts, he should release the money tied up in the car and buy when he returns in 2013.

Ah just the usual financial nonsense that keeps Ireland going