I'm 20 and bought an ae86, what's the best way to insure it?

Johnoae86

Hi all, I've just purchased an ar86 jap 3dr levin, in dire need of help and info as to how I should go about insurance any input would be greatly appreciated, it is my dream car and just can't wait til I am of age to get classic r trade insurance. Thanks.

Needles73

Johnoae86 wrote: »

Hi all, I've just purchased an ar86 jap 3dr levin, in dire need of help and info as to how I should go about insurance any input would be greatly appreciated, it is my dream car and just can't wait til I am of age to get classic r trade insurance. Thanks.

No offence but did you not look into this before you purchased? There is little or no way for you to get insured. Sell it quick !! I'll give you a fair price

ianobrien

Sorry OP, but the wait will be a few years. Don't even think of fronting, etc. If its in good nick, get a Yaris or Micra as a daily driver and in a few years insure in on a classic policy.

grogi

Johnoae86 wrote: »

Hi all, I've just purchased an ar86 jap 3dr levin, in dire need of help and info as to how I should go about insurance any input would be greatly appreciated, it is my dream car and just can't wait til I am of age to get classic r trade insurance. Thanks.

Cheapest and fastest way would be to move to a different country.

Skatedude

You need to be 25 years old to qualify for classic insurance on 15 years or older cars, but i dont know any insurance that will insure jap cars on a classic insurance policy, so you are out of luck there.
I would be very surprised if you can get any form of insurance on it at your age, get enough refusals and i think the onbudsman can then help you get a quote, but it will be a stupid amount just to make you go away.

But let us know if you do have any luck.

sdanseo

If you have 3 written refusals the motor insurance federation can instruct an insurer to quote you - but have many thousands of euro ready.

marklazarcovic

your wait will be long

mgbgt1978

Skatedude wrote: »

You need to be 25 years old to qualify for classic insurance on 15 years or older cars, but i dont know any insurance that will insure jap cars on a classic insurance policy, so you are out of luck there.
I would be very surprised if you can get any form of insurance on it at your age, get enough refusals and i think the onbudsman can then help you get a quote, but it will be a stupid amount just to make you go away.

But let us know if you do have any luck.

A lot of the MX5 Brigade would disagree with that.....currently paying €198 for 1st MX ('91) and an extra €21 for a 2nd one ('90) on a classic policy, fully comp.
Autoline have had no problem insuring them for me for the last few years, despite changing cars almost yearly.

As regards the ombudsman route; if they feel the quote that is eventually forced out of an Insurer is ridiculously high they will force them to bring it down.......not going to really help the OP though, even the Ombudsman would suggest he try insuring something more sensible given his age.

selectamatic

It's really the popular classic or future classic jap cars that insurers refuse to give classic quotes on. Toyota and Honda are the most demonised especially civics and starlets. With nissans it's really down to the model skylines and silvia's are a no no but other less popular models such as the 300zx etc seem to be accepted.
Subaru's and mitsubishi's particularly Evo's are generally refused aswell.
If ya have the cash (surely ya have enough if ya could afford an ae86) force a quote through ombudsman. If ya want to do it cheap go down the root of third party extension and that whole grey area, F all good to ya if anything happens your very valuable car but it will allow you to have the bare minimum of cover to get ya on the road.

nhunter100

Johnoae86 wrote:

Hi all, I've just purchased an ar86 jap 3dr levin, in dire need of help and info as to how I should go about insurance any input would be greatly appreciated, it is my dream car and just can't wait til I am of age to get classic r trade insurance. Thanks.

Mortgage.

peteb2

selectamatic wrote:

It's really the popular classic or future classic jap cars that insurers refuse to give classic quotes on. Toyota and Honda are the most demonised especially civics and starlets. With nissans it's really down to the model skylines and silvia's are a no no but other less popular models such as the 300zx etc seem to be accepted. Subaru's and mitsubishi's particularly Evo's are generally refused aswell. If ya have the cash (surely ya have enough if ya could afford an ae86) force a quote through ombudsman. If ya want to do it cheap go down the root of third party extension and that whole grey area, F all good to ya if anything happens your very valuable car but it will allow you to have the bare minimum of cover to get ya on the road.

That's not a grey area. If the car is yours it don't be covered by a driving other cars extension from your own policy.

And OP the days of trade insurance for non traders is long gone

alastair

The five years will fly. Garage it.

Johnoae86

Thanks all for the reply but car will be kept, took a lot of work to get the car I always wanted, third party extension sounds like the best route for me as its not a car I wish to drive 24/7 it would only see road once a week if anything, any more information anybody has to offer would be great, considering Ireland has became ae86 central in recent years with so many people owning them I'm sure there's some company out there willing to deal with you to some degree, thanks for all the posts, great to get some input, I had looked into it a few months back and knew it wouldn't be easy but figured there must be a way

shietpilot

Talk to these people:
https://www.facebook.com/events/238765389790646/?active_tab=highlights

You'll get some advice for sure

colm_mcm

Find this all a bit hard to believe TBH.

Needles73

colm_mcm wrote: »

Find this all a bit hard to believe TBH.

I'm inclined to agree but good luck to op if he had bought his dream car. I'm 40 plus and haven't bought dream car yet but sure if you haven't been dreaming about it for 20years it might only be a passing fad!!

Timmyr

Some insurers offer 3rd party extension (driving of other cars) provided the car is taxed and tested, and not in your name.
I have been doing this for years with Liberty without issue, put the car in your mothers name and buy a 1litre to insure and for daily driving.

shietpilot

Timmyr wrote: »

Some insurers offer 3rd party extension (driving of other cars) provided the car is taxed and tested, and not in your name.
I have been doing this for years with Liberty without issue, put the car in your mothers name and buy a 1litre to insure and for daily driving.

Not a very good solution in fairness. He will not have fire & theft cover on a car that has security as good as a shed and is a wanted car by any youngster.

It also doesn't help abusing things like third party extension because insurance companies will just stop providing this kind of cover to people who genuinely need it!

Cienciano

shietpilot wrote: »

Not a very good solution in fairness. He will not have fire & theft cover on a car that has security as good as a shed and is a wanted car by any youngster.

It also doesn't help abusing things like third party extension because insurance companies will just stop providing this kind of cover to people who genuinely need it!

As long as he's legally covered the basic 3rd party that's all that matters.

millington

You won't get a classic policy at 20, especially not on a Jap car.

Stick it in a parents name and get them to put a classic policy on it to cover the car. Then get insurance on a daily with third party extension. Liberty are the best value at the minute usually! This way you're covered to drive it and the cars covered for fire & theft too.

Not an ideal situation, but it works.


Any pics?

shietpilot

Cienciano wrote: »

As long as he's legally covered the basic 3rd party that's all that matters.

Putting his car in his mother's name (his. HIS car) is not "legally covered". It's insurance fraud. Insurance won't cover him on such cars for a good reason. Look at any backroad with a decent road surface and you'll see why.

millington

shietpilot wrote: »

Putting his car in his mother's name (his. HIS car) is not "legally covered". It's insurance fraud. Insurance won't cover him on such cars for a good reason. Look at any backroad with a decent road surface and you'll see why.

And how do you prove who owns the car?

If his mother is the registered owner and says she owns the car, theres nobody to prove otherwise.

shietpilot

millington wrote: »

And how do you prove who owns the car?

If his mother is the registered owner and says she owns the car, theres nobody to prove otherwise.

I would have a hard time believing his mother owns a 1980s Toyota Corolla lowered (probably) on aftermarket wheels (probably). I know what you're saying but it's not right and not safe not insuring a car that could cost around €10k and has little security features.

millington

shietpilot wrote: »

I would have a hard time believing his mother owns a 1980s Toyota Corolla lowered (probably) on aftermarket wheels (probably). I know what you're saying but it's not right and not safe not insuring a car that could cost around €10k and has little security features.

It's a good thing you're not the law so

Anyway, that can be solved by putting it into a mans name instead. More "believable" then.

Also, like I said, put a classic policy on it in the registered owners name and it's covered for theft.

Kimbot

millington wrote: »

It's a good thing you're not the law so

Anyway, that can be solved by putting it into a mans name instead. More "believable" then.

Also, like I said, put a classic policy on it in the registered owners name and it's covered for theft.

Not really cos the guards arent stupid. They see a 20 year old young fella driving a twincam then he is going to be heavily scrutinised by them and they will see through the insurance fraud straight away.

shietpilot

millington wrote: »

It's a good thing you're not the law so

Anyway, that can be solved by putting it into a mans name instead. More "believable" then.

Also, like I said, put a classic policy on it in the registered owners name and it's covered for theft.

Oh dear... and I always wonder why most insurance companies don't provide third party extension to under 25s...

I'm not saying it won't work, I'm just saying it's not right.

weekaizer

Timmyr wrote: »

Some insurers offer 3rd party extension (driving of other cars) provided the car is taxed and tested, and not in your name.
I have been doing this for years with Liberty without issue, put the car in your mothers name and buy a 1litre to insure and for daily driving.

Does the car your driving third party have an insurance disc displayed?

millington

shietpilot wrote: »

Oh dear... and I always wonder why most insurance companies don't provide third party extension to under 25s...

I'm not saying it won't work, I'm just saying it's not right.

What does it matter if it's right? Whats not right is the fact the car is almost uninsurable in this country. I guarantee you any other 20 year old who got Mammy to pay €500 to get insured on her Corsa is far more likely to cause an accident than one who worked his arse off to get his "dream" car.

weekaizer wrote: »

Does the car your driving third party have an insurance disc displayed?

Doesn't have to have one to be covered but you can be fined by Gardaí for not displaying one. Another strange law I think

peteb2

Doesn't make an ounce of difference as pointed out previously, most insurers won't give him driving other cars extension under his policy as he's under 25.

peteb2

You are also suggesting that the OP buys another car and takes out an insurance policy on it. By the time he does that he's halfway to just paying legit insurance on the original car.

He can't just buy a corsa for 500 quid and then look to insure it. Because anything over 12 years will be a problem. Not to mention he'd probably still end up paying 2k for insurance anyway.

millington

peteb2 wrote: »

Doesn't make an ounce of difference as pointed out previously, most insurers won't give him driving other cars extension under his policy as he's under 25.

peteb2 wrote: »

You are also suggesting that the OP buys another car and takes out an insurance policy on it. By the time he does that he's halfway to just paying legit insurance on the original car.

He can't just buy a corsa for 500 quid and then look to insure it. Because anything over 12 years will be a problem. Not to mention he'd probably still end up paying 2k for insurance anyway.

Liberty & Aviva both do it for under 25s and as he stated the car will be driven once a week it's not a daily car. Liberty also have no problem insuring most cars up to 20 years old although it does get more expensive the older you go.

I don't know of any insurers that will do an ordinary policy on a classic car at any price although a friend of mine transferred on to an AE86 with his ordinary policy last year after a lot of arguing.

Henry Ford III

I can't see any way of insuring this car legally and honestly.

The 3rd party extension thing is ropey, and fundamentally dishonest.

mgbgt1978

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The 3rd party extension thing is ropey, and fundamentally dishonest.

You're surely not calling Motor Insurers ropey and dishonest ?
Only joking HF III....
....having said that I have a classic mini and two MX5's all insured on the one classic policy. My 24 year old son (who owns a 530D, taxed and insured by himself) sometimes takes one of the MX's for a spin. Is that dishonest and/or ropey ?

Cienciano

shietpilot wrote: »

Putting his car in his mother's name (his. HIS car) is not "legally covered". It's insurance fraud. Insurance won't cover him on such cars for a good reason. Look at any backroad with a decent road surface and you'll see why.

It's a loophole, but it's legal.
Its his mothers car. If the gardai call to his mothers house and she says it's her car and it's in her name, he's covered and it's legal. Unless when the mother is getting insured and they specificly ask her "are you the main driver of this vehicle" and she says "yes" when the son does more miles, then it's fraud. But if he's only taking it out the odd day, the mother uses it once or twice they she can be considered the main user. Or if they don't ask that question.

It's up to the insurance company to close this loophole. I dislike my high insurance premium I paid this year as much as the next guy, but if there's insurance loophole that can get you legal cover, I see no reason to go for it.

shietpilot

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

....having said that I have a classic mini and two MX5's all insured on the one classic policy. My 24 year old son (who owns a 530D, taxed and insured by himself) sometimes takes one of the MX's for a spin. Is that dishonest and/or ropey ?

No because it's your car. In OP's case the car is his but would be registered in one of his parents' name which is dishonest, ropey and fraudulent.

millington

shietpilot wrote: »

No because it's your car. In OP's case the car is his but would be registered in one of his parents' name which is dishonest, ropey and fraudulent.

But will work perfectly fine as long as you don't have the morals of Jesus himself

shietpilot

millington wrote: »

But will work perfectly fine as long as you don't have the morals of Jesus himself

It's not about morals, it's about protecting third party extension which is VERY VERY useful from the people who abuse it who could potentially make insurance companies stop providing it.

Timmyr

I don't see where any of you are getting the idea that this is illegal or even questionable!

This is a quote from Liberty
"The policyholder will have third party cover to drive other private motor cars that are borrowed, under the following conditions:

the vehicle is not owned by you or your employer or hired to you or them under a hire-purchase or lease agreement;
you currently hold a full European Union (EU) licence;
the use of the vehicle is covered in the Certificate of Insurance;
cover is not provided by any other insurance;
you have the owner’s permission to drive the vehicle;
the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition;
you still have your vehicle and it has not been damaged beyond cost-effective repair; and
your occupation is not restricted by our acceptance criteria.
This extension applies while being driven in Ireland or the UK, and only to private passenger vehicles."

If the car is in his mothers name , then in the eyes of the law, it is his mothers cars. Anybody elses opinion of who owns it is irrelevant.

I have been pulled over numerous times in cars that belonged to my 10 year old sister!

Timmyr

shietpilot wrote: »

It's not about morals, it's about protecting third party extension which is VERY VERY useful from the people who abuse it who could potentially make insurance companies stop providing it.

Why would they stop providing it?!

FortySeven

Timmyr wrote: »

Why would they stop providing it?!

Because they can't gouge.

shietpilot

Timmyr wrote: »

Why would they stop providing it?!

If the majority of TPE users begin driving cars they otherwise wouldn't get insured on because of the car being considered a high risk car the rate of claims from TPE will rise up.

Timmyr wrote: »

I have been pulled over numerous times in cars that belonged to my 10 year old sister!

One day you'll meet a Garda who doesn't believe you are covered and impound your car. You can then get your 10 year old sister to collect it from the Garda station! I've heard of this happening to a guy on the Toyota Ireland owners club.

Timmyr

shietpilot wrote: »

If the majority of TPE users begin driving cars they otherwise wouldn't get insured on because of the car being considered a high risk car the rate of claims from TPE will rise up.

TPE has been in use for a very long time, there is no reason they would decide to stop it now.

shietpilot

Timmyr wrote: »

TPE has been in use for a very long time, there is no reason they would decide to stop it now.

There is no reason why insurance companies would increase premiums / stop covering cars over 15 years old either, but they did it.
There is no reason why insurance companies would not cover a 20 year old with a 1.6 Corolla from the 80's, but they don't cover them.

Timmyr

shietpilot wrote: »

One day you'll meet a Garda who doesn't believe you are covered and impound your car. You can then get your 10 year old sister to collect it from the Garda station! I've heard of this happening to a guy on the Toyota Ireland owners club.

I think you're over estimating a Guards power, and the value of their opinion.
Always carry a copy of youre insurance cert, on which it states the driving of other cars is covered, regardless of who owns it, as long as you have their permission.
And even if they do impound the car (which they cant) my sister could still pick it up, she just has to be present, nothing says she has to be the one to drive it out of the impound.

millington

shietpilot wrote: »

One day you'll meet a Garda who doesn't believe you are covered and impound your car. You can then get your 10 year old sister to collect it from the Garda station! I've heard of this happening to a guy on the Toyota Ireland owners club.

I've been stopped at least 10 times in this situation and never once had a car lifted. Bring your own policy with you and there will be absolutely no problem.

By this logic, the Guard won't believe your insured no matter who else owns the car so what difference does this situation make?

thebiglad

millington wrote: »

And how do you prove who owns the car?

If his mother is the registered owner and says she owns the car, theres nobody to prove otherwise.

Registered owner is not the same the 'owner' - does his mother already have another car in her name, if so why did she purchase this one and when does she drive it.

Does she park the car at work? If so can the company where she works confirm the vehicle she has registered with them.

Show the purchase document (or transfer of funds at point of purchase).

Whenever the car needs a service/parts/tyres where and by whom are they purchased, can you show receipts in her name or credit card payments etc to support.

There are many more but if the insurer is suspicious (and they will be) a half decent claims investigator will get the claim thrown out and then you will have a voided policy against your name (and your mothers) to add to all of the other problems.

You are not smarter than the insurer, they do this all the time, you are trying to pull it off once.

millington

thebiglad wrote: »

Registered owner is not the same the 'owner' - does his mother already have another car in her name, if so why did she purchase this one and when does she drive it. Why the hell not? I know any amount of people with multiple cars. I have 4, my uncle has 3, my grandfather has 5, plenty of friends have 2/3 aswell

Does she park the car at work? If so can the company where she works confirm the vehicle she has registered with them.Why would she park a classic car at work when she would have a daily car?

Show the purchase document (or transfer of funds at point of purchase). I also have never paid for a car with anything but cash and have never gotten any sort of a written receipt after 20+ cars.

Whenever the car needs a service/parts/tyres where and by whom are they purchased, can you show receipts in her name or credit card payments etc to support. I never get my name on any receipts for parts I get, in fact I rarely get receipts.

There are many more but if the insurer is suspicious (and they will be) a half decent claims investigator will get the claim thrown out and then you will have a voided policy against your name (and your mothers) to add to all of the other problems.

You are not smarter than the insurer, they do this all the time, you are trying to pull it off once.

By the sounds of all this logic, I couldn't prove I've ever owned a car

Timmyr

thebiglad wrote: »

Registered owner is not the same the 'owner' - does his mother already have another car in her name, if so why did she purchase this one and when does she drive it.

Does she park the car at work? If so can the company where she works confirm the vehicle she has registered with them.

Show the purchase document (or transfer of funds at point of purchase).

Whenever the car needs a service/parts/tyres where and by whom are they purchased, can you show receipts in her name or credit card payments etc to support.

There are many more but if the insurer is suspicious (and they will be) a half decent claims investigator will get the claim thrown out and then you will have a voided policy against your name (and your mothers) to add to all of the other problems.

You are not smarter than the insurer, they do this all the time, you are trying to pull it off once.

I think people are just not getting this, if the car is in her name then it is her car!
An insurance companies judgement, or anybodys for that matter, does not supersede the law.

Del2005

Timmyr wrote: »

I think people are just not getting this, if the car is in her name then it is her car!
An insurance companies judgement, or anybodys for that matter, does not supersede the law.

The insurance company will investigate if there's a claim and since its a civil matter the balance of probably is used, then they'll void the policy of the mother so it'll be nearly impossible for her to drive again. A 20 year old driving their mothers "boy racer" car will definitely be investigated.

millington

Del2005 wrote: »

The insurance company will investigate if there's a claim and since its a civil matter the balance of probably is used, then they'll void the policy of the mother so it'll be nearly impossible for her to drive again. A 20 year old driving their mothers "boy racer" car will definitely be investigated.

Yea I would say if you really want to do it that way, put it in a mans name or someone who has an interest in cars so it has some credence.

I know a few people who've used their mothers name and it does end in some funny Garda reactions but doesn't help matters

Timmyr

Del2005 wrote: »

The insurance company will investigate if there's a claim and since its a civil matter the balance of probably is used, then they'll void the policy of the mother so it'll be nearly impossible for her to drive again. A 20 year old driving their mothers "boy racer" car will definitely be investigated.

You are definitely not understanding it, this would have nothing to do with the mothers policy, how could her policy be affected?
As I have stated anybody can own a car!
Also its called the balance of probabilities, which implies there is more than a 50% chance she doesnt own the car, The car being in her name would weigh heavily towards her owning it, the only thing on the side of her not owning the car is that her son drove it once?