Car insurance without a licence

flyingsnail

My grandfather is getting on in years and the recent decline in his health means that he is unlikely to pass the medical for his licence this year. The thing is he wants to keep the car fully road legal (Tax insurance, NCT ect) so that other people in the family could use it to bring him places as he finds it much easier to get into and out of his car compared to the other cars people have. We had thought about driving the car on a 3rd party basis on our own policy but they require the car to be insured in its own right.

Has anybody done / come across a situation like this before, any thoughts or ideas.

To Elland Back

You can request an 'insured excluded' policy. Not always granted but is designed to allow a spouse or family carer continue to use the car.

Special Circumstances

flyingsnail wrote: »

We had thought about driving the car on a 3rd party basis on our own policy but they require the car to be insured in its own right.

Which insurers? What is the wording of this clause?

flyingsnail

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Which insurers? What is the wording of this clause?

I am with Allianz, I dont have the policy document to hand but that is what I was told when I rang them. I will dig out the policy document in the morning.

whomitconcerns

You've heard wrong most likely. A driving other cars extension is the only insurance needed in this case. I have never heard of a policy that requires the other car have a separate insurance policy. It would make no sense.

To Elland Back

Some do, some don't. Check you policy wording

CiniO

To Elland Back wrote: »

Some do, some don't. Check you policy wording

Please give example of at least one which do...

Special Circumstances

No mention of it here. Try getting it in writing with a directions to the specific paragraphs/page.

Allianz pdf available for download here : http://www.allianz.ie/Car-Insurance/FAQs/
Bizarrely, no mention of 3rd party extension in the FAQs.

Endorsement No 4 – Driving other Cars
We will insure You in respect of legal liability, as provided under Section 1 (Third Party
Insurance) whilst You are driving another Private Car, provided such Private Car:
1. Does not belong to You or Your employer.
2. Is not hired or leased to either of the parties described above under a Hire Purchase or
Leasing Agreement.
3. Is not the property of or in the custody or control of a Motor Trade business of which
You are a director, member or employee.
Cover under this Endorsement is limited to use within Ireland and the United Kingdom only.

NEVER take as gospel anything you hear from the headset slave you get onto when you call your insurer.
This is a direct allianz policy, maybe broker is different.


Of course, if it's going to be a common occurence it should have a valid disc to comply with laws of the Irish state.
But "not displaying a disc" is completely different to "not insured".

whomitconcerns

whomitconcerns wrote: »

You've heard wrong most likely. A driving other cars extension is the only insurance needed in this case. I have never heard of a policy that requires the other car have a separate insurance policy. It would make no sense.

It was always my understanding that you are covered to drive any car in Ireland and Uk as long as that other car is insured. It doesn't explicitly say so on my policy, but when I rang to enquire if I could drive a relatives car while staying with them in the UK, that is what I was told.

Special Circumstances

It doesn't explicitly say I can only use the car on Wednesdays if I'm carrying geese to a country market.

But I like to play it safe

CiniO

Deleted User wrote: »

It was always my understanding that you are covered to drive any car in Ireland and Uk as long as that other car is insured. It doesn't explicitly say so on my policy, but when I rang to enquire if I could drive a relatives car while staying with them in the UK, that is what I was told.

If something isn't stated in writing on the policy or schedule or cert, then it just isn't the case.

The Bishop Basher

CiniO wrote: »

If something isn't stated in writing on the policy or schedule or cert, then it just isn't the case.

I've had a number of policies in the past where driving a third party car was covered as long as the other car had a policy attached.

No offence but I'd sooner go by what the insurance company tells me directly rather then some randomer on the Internet.

Always better to err on the side of caution with insurance. They will find any way possible not to pay out.

CiniO

Swanner wrote: »

I've had a number of policies in the past where driving a third party car was covered as long as the other car had a policy attached.

No offence but I'd sooner go by what the insurance company tells me directly rather then some randomer on the Internet.

Always better to err on the side of caution with insurance. They will find any way possible not to pay out.

I'm not telling you what your insurance covers.
I'm telling you, where to find information what is covers - and this info is all in writing provided by your insurer.

What they tell you over the phone is irrelevant - in most cases they have bunch of unqualified advisors who just don't know what they are saying.
Tried many times to ring them twice, talk to two difference consultants, ask the same question and get completely opposite answers.
Go with what your policy and schedule and cert says.

jimgoose

Special Circumstances wrote: »

It doesn't explicitly say I can only use the car on Wednesdays if I'm carrying geese to a country market.

But I like to play it safe...

Don't you oppress us, you bastid!!

OP, why not just transfer ownership of the car?

Special Circumstances

Cinio, I hear you - My feeling after talking to some of them is that if you rang the exact same person in the morning and the afternoon you would have different answers, never mind asking two different people.

My advice when dealing with insurers would be "Get clarification in writing" if you have to.


Anyhoooo - the "insurer excluded" policy sounds like a good idea here. I'd recommend calling into an insurer with a local office for this - sounds like something that would be way outside the comfort zone of the battery hens in the call centre.

Special Circumstances

jimgoose wrote: »

Don't you oppress us, you bastid!!

Or you're going in the boot next time.

YouThere

Just a thought - leaving aside the 3rd party cover stuff for a moment - once the current road tax expires - will a cert that explicitly covers grandpa's car be needed in order to renew? Might be easier to bite the bullet = transfer ownership, and set up some kind of occasional use policy (if these exist).

After which, other family members can still exercise their own 3rd party cover etc.

(these ideas "only" if you fail with the 'insured excluded' policy suggestion!)

Duiske

Your grandfather would be better off to insure the car as open drive, meaning anyone aged 25-70 with a full licence can drive it. Theres a snag or two in driving another car using the 3rd party extension. If the other car has no policy attached to it then its not going to have an insurance disc which leaves the driver open to a €60 fine. If the other car does have its own policy, theres a possibility that the policy limits driving to those actually named on the policy. Having said that, it doesn't really help the op's situation. To process any claims one of the first things an insurance company asks for is a copy of the main drivers licence. Could get a bit messy if something went wrong.

CiniO

CiniO wrote: »

If something isn't stated in writing on the policy or schedule or cert, then it just isn't the case.

Ignorance is no defence if an accident happened and charges were brought. I'd err on the side of caution and go to a reputable Insurance broker and get their advice.

coylemj

To clarify the issue of whether a car needs to have a policy of it's own in order for a person borrowing the car to be covered under the 'driving other cars' clause of his own policy......

This comes up time and again on this forum and is just not true. It is a complete urban myth and nobody when challenged on boards.ie has ever managed to produce a paragraph from an Irish motor policy which states it. Often it is said by call agents but they are told to err on the side of caution and in any event, nothing they say has any meaning because the contract of insurance you have is dictated by what is in the policy document so it doesn't matter what a call agent tells you.

Most policies state that if you have driving other cars cover, it only applies if the car's own policy doesn't cover you. What this means is that if I borrow my neighbour's car and have a crash as a result of which there is a 3rd party claim, I must first attempt to have the claim settled by the owner's insurance and only if his policy doesn't cover me will my insurance step in.

What this means in practice is that the 'driving other cars' clause in your policy only covers you if the other car you borrow has no insurance to cover you which ironically is the direct opposite of what is claimed as fact here.

whomitconcerns

Deleted User wrote: »

It was always my understanding that you are covered to drive any car in Ireland and Uk as long as that other car is insured. It doesn't explicitly say so on my policy, but when I rang to enquire if I could drive a relatives car while staying with them in the UK, that is what I was told.

Well after being insured with a number of companies over the years and reading this often discussed topic, I believe there is yet to be anyone to show a policy document that says this.

UK is different they have a law of continuous insurance enforcement unless car declared off road. We dont have this law.
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

flyingsnail

Thanks for all the reply guys,
I looked at my policy documents and it does not mention about the other car having to be insured, the person on the phone yesterday was adamant that it had to be but when I queried it today they refused to commit one way or another and I am to get a call back from somebody later to clarify the matter.

We had thought of transferring the car but ran into a small roadblock of stubborn old man.

I will certainly look into the insured excluded policy and let you know how I get on.
Thanks again.

coylemj

If that exclusion existed, it would be in the policy and as you've discovered it is not so I've no idea why you're phoning them. The strict answer any call agent should give to that type of question is: 'read the policy document' because at the end of the day, the policy document rules and it doesn't matter what someone tells you over the phone.

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

Ignorance is no defence if an accident happened and charges were brought. I'd err on the side of caution and go to a reputable Insurance broker and get their advice.

A great response considering that you are relying on unrecorded telephone advice rather than what is written on your policy documents!

Cushie Butterfield

flyingsnail wrote: »

We had thought of transferring the car but ran into a small roadblock of stubborn old man.

Maybe you could approach the entire matter from a different angle with the view to getting him to agree to signing the car ownership over to a family member.

Bearing in mind that 'giving up the car' would, for him, quite possibly be a much bigger deal than any of us can understand - basically in his mind the beginning of his loss of independence & dependence on others, relinquishing of control etc. He possibly feels that at least if he holds on to the car that he won't feel as much of a burden on others if he can supply the transport even though he can't actually drive the vehicle.

My suggestion would be to try to get his GP involved in your efforts to persuade him - quite often older people respect the advice of their GP over that of younger family members. Maybe if whoever the closest next of kin were to have a quiet word with his GP, explain the situation (it won't be the first time this sort of issue has arisen) & ask him to casually advise your grandfather to sign the car over to a family member.

Then let him visit his GP alone & if/when the GP refuses to sign the medical form the GP could advise him of the advantages of signing it over to a family member. He could perhaps suggest that he would agree to sign over ownership if the car was left in your grandfather's driveway when not in use, which might well be the ideal compromise. I know this is outside the remit of a GP, but I'd be surprised if they wouldn't agree to attempt to put your grandfather's mind at ease.

The aim of this would be for your grandfather to announce that he's prepared to give up the car & that this is his decision to transfer ownership to a family member. It would still be outside the door, he could still pay for petrol/diesel, service, maintenance which would give him the feeling that nothing has really changed apart from the fact that he can't drive it any more. You could even go as far as telling him that he could still pay for tax, NCT & even reimburse whoever was going to insure the car in their name if it makes him feel better. The only thing you'd want to be careful of is making sure he didn't have keys to the car in case he was for some reason tempted to drive or move it further down the line (a spare key could be left with a trusted neighbour).

The above is all easier said than done, but certainly worth a try if you don't get sorted out through the insured excluded policy route.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

A great response considering that you are relying on unrecorded telephone advice rather than what is written on your policy documents!

Exactly. Which is why OP MUST get first hand advice (in writing) from an Insurance Broker rather than depend on strangers on an Internet forum!

seamus

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

Maybe you could approach the entire matter from a different angle with the view to getting him to agree to signing the car ownership over to a family member.

This is by far the best route to go down.

Worth noting that I have never once seen a "driving other cars" extension require the other car to be insured, and every time this comes up, nobody else has ever seen it either.

However, if you park a car in a public place, there must be an active insurance policy on it. Your "driving other cars" extension does not cover this, as that only protects you against accidents while driving. In other words, your policy only covers the car while you're in it. Once you park it, the owner's insurance takes over.
So, if you drive your grandfather to the shops and go into the shop with him, the car is in the car park uninsured, and your grandfather could be charged.

For the purposes of ferrying him around, there is nothing to prevent you getting a third-party only policy on your grandfather's car. This will cover all angles, but your no claims bonus will not apply. So depending on a load of factors, it will cost at least €300 if not more. You might be able to get a special quote on it from a broker, as mentioned in an earlier post.

Clearlier

I knew a blind woman who had her own car and her own insurance (I was a bit disbelieving but she was very clear and was in the middle of dealing with an accident where someone had crashed into her car) to allow her Dad to drive the car. This was about 7 years ago and I'm not in touch with her anymore I'm afraid but I'm sure that it's possible and I'd suggest a good broker would be the best way forward for you.

Carawaystick

coylemj wrote: »

To clarify the issue of whether a car needs to have a policy of it's own in order for a person borrowing the car to be covered under the 'driving other cars' clause of his own policy......

This comes up time and again on this forum and is just not true. It is a complete urban myth and nobody when challenged on boards.ie has ever managed to produce a paragraph from an Irish motor policy which states it. Often it is said by call agents but they are told to err on the side of caution and in any event, nothing they say has any meaning because the contract of insurance you have is dictated by what is in the policy document so it doesn't matter what a call agent tells you.

Most policies state that if you have driving other cars cover, it only applies if the car's own policy doesn't cover you. What this means is that if I borrow my neighbour's car and have a crash as a result of which there is a 3rd party claim, I must first attempt to have the claim settled by the owner's insurance and only if his policy doesn't cover me will my insurance step in.

What this means in practice is that the 'driving other cars' clause in your policy only covers you if the other car you borrow has no insurance to cover you which ironically is the direct opposite of what is claimed as fact here.

S.I. No. 355/1984 section 5. (1) When a vehicle is used in a public place the insurance disc for the vehicle shall be carried on the vehicle at all times after the expiry of 10 days from the date of authentication of the certificate of insurance.

Ammended in

SI 227/1986


"5. (1) A person shall not use a vehicle in a public place, after the expiration of a period of ten days commencing on the date of authentication of the certificate of insurance, unless the vehicle carries an insurance disc in the manner specified in sub-article (2) of this article.

4. The following article is hereby substituted for article 5 of the Principal Regulations— ( i.e. SI 355/1984)
(4) Where a person who contravenes sub-article (1) of this article is not the owner of the vehicle and the owner is charged with an offence under this article, it shall be a good defence to the charge for such owner to show that the use of the vehicle on the occasion in question was unauthorised."



So the other driver might be insured, in that their own policy will pay out for claims, but the other driver or the Grandfather will be guilty of an offence. So you need a policy on the car, to not be convicted.

coylemj

Carawaystick wrote: »

So the other driver might be insured, in that their own policy will pay out for claims, but the other driver or the Grandfather will be guilty of an offence. So you need a policy on the car, to not be convicted.

Red herring. Insurance cover is all that this thread is about, non-display of a disc is another matter entirely.

CiniO

Carawaystick wrote: »

S.I. No. 355/1984 section 5. (1) When a vehicle is used in a public place the insurance disc for the vehicle shall be carried on the vehicle at all times after the expiry of 10 days from the date of authentication of the certificate of insurance.

Ammended in

SI 227/1986


"5. (1) A person shall not use a vehicle in a public place, after the expiration of a period of ten days commencing on the date of authentication of the certificate of insurance, unless the vehicle carries an insurance disc in the manner specified in sub-article (2) of this article.

4. The following article is hereby substituted for article 5 of the Principal Regulations— ( i.e. SI 355/1984)
(4) Where a person who contravenes sub-article (1) of this article is not the owner of the vehicle and the owner is charged with an offence under this article, it shall be a good defence to the charge for such owner to show that the use of the vehicle on the occasion in question was unauthorised."



So the other driver might be insured, in that their own policy will pay out for claims, but the other driver or the Grandfather will be guilty of an offence. So you need a policy on the car, to not be convicted.

That is true obviously, but considering non-display of disc is not really any serious offence I wouldn't hesitate to commit it, and I wouldn't be too worried if I was prosecuted for it.

Carawaystick

coylemj wrote: »

Red herring. Insurance cover is all that this thread is about, non-display of a disc is another matter entirely.

Sorry, I just assumed when the op said

flyingsnail wrote: »

The thing is he wants to keep the car fully road legal (Tax insurance, NCT ect)

that he wanted to keep the car fully road legal.

flyingsnail

I thought I should post an update to this, and thanks to everyone again for the advice.

Axa have agreed to insure the car for the year with my grandfather as the named owner and beneficiary and adding the other family members as named drivers. They are to send him out paperwork and insurance cert stating that even though he is the policy holder he is not permitted to drive the vehicle but that the policy does remain in force and may be driven by the named drivers on the policy.
The policy will be about €475 which is not bad considering it was about €450 last year.

wonski

Swanner wrote:

Always better to err on the side of caution with insurance. They will find any way possible not to pay out.

They better have it in writing before they do.
I always go by what I sign.