Insuring a car that I don't own..help please?

yoke

Hmm.. that citizensinformation page makes things even more clear (or unclear ), as it keeps saying "it's an offence to DRIVE in a public place without insurance" - never mentions parking in public places.

I have heard in other places that it's an offence to park your car on the side of a public road if it is untaxed - but never "uninsured", as the car itself is not required to be insured in Ireland, only the driver.

CiniO

yoke wrote: »

Hmm.. that citizensinformation page makes things even more clear (or unclear ), as it keeps saying "it's an offence to DRIVE in a public place without insurance" - never mentions parking in public places.

I have heard in other places that it's an offence to park your car on the side of a public road if it is untaxed - but never "uninsured", as the car itself is not required to be insured in Ireland, only the driver.

It's an offence to use your car in public place when it's untaxed or uninsured.

"Use" includes parking.

djimi

yoke wrote: »

Hmm.. that citizensinformation page makes things even more clear (or unclear ), as it keeps saying "it's an offence to DRIVE in a public place without insurance" - never mentions parking in public places.

I have heard in other places that it's an offence to park your car on the side of a public road if it is untaxed - but never "uninsured", as the car itself is not required to be insured in Ireland, only the driver.

How do you propose getting the car into the public place...?

I think the wording in the RTA is that it is an offense to use the car in a public place without insurance. Its not a case of whether or not the car is moving.

Also, unoccupied cars can still cause damage, ie if the handbrake were to fail, or it were to catch fire due to faulty wiring etc. This still needs to be covered while the car is in a public place.

djimi

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0056.html#sec56

56.—(1) A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time or there is in force at that time either—

(a) an approved policy of insurance whereby the user or some other person who would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, is insured against all sums without limit (save as is hereinafter otherwise provided) which the user or his personal representative or such other person or his personal representative shall become liable to pay to any person (exclusive of the excepted persons) by way of damages or costs on account of injury to person or property caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, or

(b) an approved guarantee whereby there is guaranteed the payment by the user, or some other person who would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, of all sums without limit (save as is hereinafter otherwise provided) which the user or his personal representative or such other person or his personal representative shall become liable to pay to any person (exclusive of the excepted persons) by way of damages or costs on account of injury to person or property caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user.

yoke

djimi wrote: »

How do you propose getting the car into the public place...?

Well, I would be covered while driving the car into the public place, by my own insurance policy :pac:

djimi wrote: »

I think the wording in the RTA is that it is an offense to use the car in a public place without insurance. Its not a case of whether or not the car is moving.

Well, this comes back to the definition of a car - in my view, a car or carriage is something designed to carry or transport people and things, and a parked car cannot be said to be "currently in use" any more than a "parked" knife in a kitchen drawer can be said to be "currently in use". Otherwise, my dinner guests can all start claiming that I was using my kitchen knife on them

djimi wrote: »

Also, unoccupied cars can still cause damage, ie if the handbrake were to fail, or it were to catch fire due to faulty wiring etc. This still needs to be covered while the car is in a public place.

Cheers for the statutebook quote btw - that is interesting as it (at least the part quoted! I'm unaware of the rest) explicitly says that the only requirement is someone to be liable for injury "caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time" - that seems to explicitly rule out the need to insure a car when the only risk of liability is due to something which was NOT caused by negligent "use" by the driver - eg. mechanical failure such as handbrake failing while parked, etc.

CiniO

yoke wrote: »

Well, this comes back to the definition of a car - in my view, a car or carriage is something designed to carry or transport people and things, and a parked car cannot be said to be "currently in use" any more than a "parked" knife in a kitchen drawer can be said to be "currently in use". Otherwise, my dinner guests can all start claiming that I was using my kitchen knife on them

It's not up to you to decide what "vehicle use" means.
It's defined in the law, and it clearly says that "use" include "parking".

Cheers for the statutebook quote btw - that is interesting as it (at least the part quoted! I'm unaware of the rest) explicitly says that the only requirement is someone to be liable for injury "caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time" - that seems to explicitly rule out the need to insure a car when the only risk of liability is due to something which was NOT caused by negligent "use" by the driver - eg. mechanical failure such as handbrake failing while parked, etc.

No. You didn't understand it correctly.

A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time or there is in force at that time either—

What's important is bolded.
You can not use a vehicle unless you have insurance.

yoke

fair enough - I didn't know that vehicle use was clearly defined in the law, and it explicitly included parking.

yoke

So in another twist, I went and looked at my actual insurance policy, and it turns out I am actually insured for "use" of any car not owned by me and not hired out by me (not just "driving" but "use").... guess that means the policy does actually allow me to park the car in public places, if parking constitutes use of a car

I'm with AXA btw - not sure if everyone's policy contains the same wording, but I'm guessing it is probably quite standard for most insurers.

Of course, this brings back the original question - is there any need for an owner of a car to insure it, for others to drive it (as long as the car is taxed and NCTed, and whoever is driving it is insured for use of it as per above style policy)?

CiniO

yoke wrote: »

Of course, this brings back the original question - is there any need for an owner of a car to insure it, for others to drive it (as long as the car is taxed and NCTed, and whoever is driving it is insured for use of it as per above style policy)?

No, there isn't in most cases. Make sure with your policy that there is no such requirement, but I suppose that kind of requirement (for other car driven to be insured by owner) is quite rare thing.

However it's impossible to tax a vehicle when there is no policy attached to it. (at least legally).

Also your cover on driving other cars is most likely only third party, so the car itself is not covered in case it's damaged.

yoke

CiniO wrote: »

However it's impossible to tax a vehicle when there is no policy attached to it. (at least legally).

The original idea was to get the relative to transfer their existing policy onto the car, tax it immediately, and transfer insurance back to the old car, every year. You shouldnt lose much money doing this, depending on how much time was left on their policy at the time of transfer.

CiniO wrote: »

Also your cover on driving other cars is most likely only third party, so the car itself is not covered in case it's damaged.

yep - the purpose of this is to be able to insure a small, cheap commuter car, and still be able to drive a relatively low-value but expensive-to-insure "weekend car" without having to pay the typically high premiums and excess.

BradyH

Just to update,

Phoned both motorinsurance Ireland and Citizens info..
both gave conflicting accounts of the lawfullness surrounding a registered car owner having to be insured on their vehicle at all times..

I phoned a gazillion insurance brokers/companies and was repeatedely told that nobody would insure me on a car that I dont own until...
At last one broker told me that only two out of loads would insure me in this way with a premium beginning at €750..

I still dont know for sure about how to tax the car blah di blah under those circumstances..

Anywho so we finally got a quote for my parent and it is double the cost of the policy they have on their own car because of the lack of ncd..it would not be 'mirrored' by anyone..

But that is ok its not as extortionate as I imagined..
its still alot less than 750.

happy days..

There wasnt an option of taking cash instead of new car...I would have leapt at that but still that wouldnt have come within smelling distance of our debt mountain..

happy days:)

thanks.

christy02

What a country we live in. You can't pay your mortgage but yet are working out how to scam the system and own a new car without actually owning it.

Its grand sure the rest of the country will pay for you.

If you can't afford your mortgage how can you afford to run a brand new car? Surely your parents should help you with that before buying you new cars?

CiniO

christy02 wrote: »

What a country we live in. You can't pay your mortgage but yet are working out how to scam the system and own a new car without actually owning it.

Its grand sure the rest of the country will pay for you.

If you can't afford your mortgage how can you afford to run a brand new car? Surely your parents should help you with that before buying you new cars?

Sorry but what's wrong with parents buying a car and letting their flat broke children to use it. Nothing wrong with it.

Dord

christy02 wrote: »

What a country we live in. You can't pay your mortgage but yet are working out how to scam the system and own a new car without actually owning it.

Its grand sure the rest of the country will pay for you.

If you can't afford your mortgage how can you afford to run a brand new car? Surely your parents should help you with that before buying you new cars?

I know which one I'd go for given the option of new car, or no new car.

In fairness actually, OP stated that their car is quite old. Should any unforeseen repairs come along they may only increase the debt issues and/or leave them without a car. A new car with good warranty might be the best for them.

unkel

I really struggle to see how OP does not want a new car in their name, unless they either claim off social welfare / are likely to be in a debt write-off or bankruptcy situation and can't have assets over a certain value

Dord wrote: »

In fairness actually, OP stated that their car is quite old. Should any unforeseen repairs come along they may only increase the debt issues and/or leave them without a car. A new car with good warranty might be the best for them.

It is very doable to buy a reliable family car for under a grand. For a bit over a grand, you can buy a relatively new luxury car. Have a look at the bangernomics thread

dar83

Can't believe we still have an issue of the Op not wanting to receive a gift, when the only reason not to is the previously mentioned Bankruptcy one. In which case can you not put it in the spouses name? Or is it a requirement that both declare bankrupty in a situation where they're trying to get debt written off?

I can only think that this situation has been way over complicated by people thinking too much and the simple facts being overlooked.

Dord

unkel wrote: »

It is very doable to buy a reliable family car for under a grand. For a bit over a grand, you can buy a relatively new luxury car. Have a look at the bangernomics thread

Well aware of that, but as we all know, there is an element of risk involved.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

yoke

christy02 wrote: »

What a country we live in. You can't pay your mortgage but yet are working out how to scam the system and own a new car without actually owning it.

Its grand sure the rest of the country will pay for you.

If you can't afford your mortgage how can you afford to run a brand new car? Surely your parents should help you with that before buying you new cars?

fix the system then and close the loopholes, rather than moaning at someone trying to figure out how to legally live the best life they can.

If you want people to pay their mortgages, put higher penalties for not doing so.

If you want people to not be allowed to give gifts to whomever they choose, you have a very hard and possibly unenforceable battle ahead of you. Case in point - parents arent allowed to gift more than a certain value to their kids (without paying a high tax on it). stupid rule which is almost completely unenforceable, all that happens is that clever parents end up giving gifts untraceably.