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

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?

kirving

The last thing you want to be doing is arguing the toss with the insurance company after an accident, to be honest I can see them fighting the case.

The dogs on the street know that the mother hasn't lent the car to him as a favour, and the insurance company do too.

hardCopy

Third Party Extension on my policy only covered cars that were owned, taxed and insured by someone else. So if your mother owned it she would have to also have a policy of her own on the AE86. The vehicle also couldn't be owned by my employer and couldn't be a "Jeep type vehicle". I was with Quinn and then Liberty. The finer details of TPE probably vary by insurer so make sure you read the policy booklet carefully.

Timmyr

hardCopy wrote: »

Third Party Extension on my policy only covered cars that were owned, taxed and insured by someone else. So if your mother owned it she would have to also have a policy of her own on the AE86. The vehicle also couldn't be owned by my employer and couldn't be a "Jeep type vehicle". I was with Quinn and then Liberty. The finer details of TPE probably vary by insurer so make sure you read the policy booklet carefully.

Mostly correct, except the car does not have to be insured.

mgbgt1978

Especially true with Quinn/Liberty. They do not require the other car to be insured by the owner.

Arcade_Tryer

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.

This is correct.

Insurance companies don't like it though, and as others have said will investigate it given half a chance. And others don't like it also because you're finding a way around the system and "pulling a fast one."

When I was a named driver on my father's car years ago, I drove the car far more than he did for a year or two. It was essentially my car. Luckily I had no claims and no questions asked. Just be smart and weight up the risks to yourself.

Henry Ford III

Timmyr wrote: »

Mostly correct, except the car does not have to be insured.

What insurance disc would you have in the window then?

If it emerged that the AE86 had not had cover in years it's pretty obvious that the "owner" hadn't been driving it.

From there the whole thing unravels.

grogi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

What insurance disc would you have in the window then?

If it emerged that the AE86 had not had cover in years it's pretty obvious that the "owner" hadn't been driving it.

From there the whole thing unravels.

Unravels what?

The burden of proof will be on the insurance company - and it is hell difficult to proof thing like that...

Timmyr

Henry Ford III wrote: »

What insurance disc would you have in the window then?

If it emerged that the AE86 had not had cover in years it's pretty obvious that the "owner" hadn't been driving it.

From there the whole thing unravels.

How are people not understanding this? It doesnt matter if the owner is not driving it!
and you dont need to have an insurance disc on the window, just carry a copy of your policy

grogi

Timmyr wrote: »

How are people not understanding this? It doesnt matter if the owner is not driving it!
and you dont need to have an insurance disc on the window, just carry a copy of your policy

Actually it is an offence not to display a disc...

S.I. No. 227/1986, section 4.

mgbgt1978

It's a €60 FCP and No Points. Not going to put many young guys off the idea of using DOC (Driving Other Cars).