Third party extension

craity

Hello,

I wanted to ask any of you if you have any idea if garda can take my car for it or not. Basically gonna be buying car soon enough and it will have nct and tax on it except nobody is gonna be insured on it which means no disc. My policy allows me to drive all cars that have valid nct and tax on them except I wont have insurance disc. I will have the policy papers on me the whole time. Can garda take my car for it or give any penatly ?

Pete123456

craity wrote: »

Hello,

I wanted to ask any of you if you have any idea if garda can take my car for it or not. Basically gonna be buying car soon enough and it will have nct and tax on it except nobody is gonna be insured on it which means no disc. My policy allows me to drive all cars that have valid nct and tax on them except I wont have insurance disc. I will have the policy papers on me the whole time. Can garda take my car for it or give any penatly ?

With Aviva, the third party extension only applies when there is an active insurance policy in place on the car already and you cannot own the car. The same applies to Liberties third party extension and id imagine it is the same with other insurers.

Basically no, you would not be able to do this, and a guard could do you for having no insurance in place.

bazz26

3rd party extension only covers you to drive other cars that you don't own or rent/hire.

craity

i know, i wouldnt be the owner of that car but there wouldnt be an insurance disc displayed, so basically i could get that car taken?

bazz26

I'm a bit confused. You said in your first post that you will be buying it soon and it will not have insurance on it and you want to drive under your 3rd party extension. As soon as you hand over the money and get the keys then it becomes your property and as such your 3rd party extension doesn't apply to driving that car. Or do you mean something else?

Regarding the Gardai, if they suspect the car is not insured and it cannot be confirmed at the time then they may well impound it.

craity

yeh ill be buying the car but its gonna be registered under someone elses name, so it wont be 'mine'. ill still keep the car i have now and be insured on it, but most of the time drive the one im planning on buying.

bazz26

In that case then you would need to check with your current insurance company and get clarification via email from them.

Cows Go µ

So who is the car going in the name of instead of you?

Special Circumstances

Cows Go µ wrote: »

So who is the car going in the name of instead of you?

Good old Granny Skyline, she's fierce sprightly for her age bless her.

Testacalda

Pete123456 wrote: »

The same applies to Liberties third party extension and id imagine it is the same with other insurers.

My good lady was with liberty until two years ago. I remeber ringing them to enquire about the specific deatils of the 3rd party extension as it wasn't explained very well in her policy handbook.

AT THE TIME, there was no actual rule requiring or the car to have an active policy on it. They also had no written rules regarding the age, type or size of the car as long as it was registered as a private vehicle (not light goods). Verbal explinations mean nothing in insurance, its whats written down (or not) that matters.

Some insurers reuire a policy to be on the car, some have a 20 year age limit on the vehicle to be driven, and some also exclude a vehicle owned by a spouse or family member or by youyr boss or company, as well as rentals

It might be changed now but that was the state of play in 2015

Veloce

Pete123456 wrote: »

With Aviva, the third party extension only applies when there is an active insurance policy in place on the car already and you cannot own the car. The same applies to Liberties third party extension and id imagine it is the same with other insurers.

Basically no, you would not be able to do this, and a guard could do you for having no insurance in place.

With Liberty, there is no requirement for the car to have an insurance policy in place against it to drive the car on the 3rd party extension. I have queried this with them.

As for using your third party extension to drive home in a car you just bought - it does not work and law covers this. As soon as you hand over the cash for the car, the car is effectively owned by you (whether the paperwork has been processed by Shannon is irrelevant).

You will need to 1) take out a new policy 2) see if your insurance company will do a temporary transfer of insurance 3) get someone with trade insurance to drive it for you 4) get it on the back of a low-loader.

goz83

So, you'll be the owner, but the car is going into someone elses name, so that you can drive the car with your third party extension right?

Don't suppose this is because you wouldn't have a hope of getting insured in the car you're buying, or the price is huge?

I smell a touch of fraud.

dar83

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOtkH5amC7s

craity

I talked to liberty they said they never had such a thing as someone getting penalty for driving a car with no insurance disc under third party extension. Obviously you need the policy with you to show garda if you get pull over. And I am not able to get insured on that car. So legally I will be able to drive it.

.G.

Your own insurance policy will usually state that its valid as long as you are the main user of the vehicle insured. You've said you'll be driving this other car mainly so that probably invalidates the whole thing should you have a smash.

emeldc

craity wrote: »

I talked to liberty they said they never had such a thing as someone getting penalty for driving a car with no insurance disc under third party extension. Obviously you need the policy with you to show garda if you get pull over. And I am not able to get insured on that car. So legally I will be able to drive it.

Don't worry about the Guards taking it off you because of no insurance. They'll take it off you anyway because you can't tax it

selectamatic

emeldc wrote: »

Don't worry about the Guards taking it off you because of no insurance. They'll take it off you anyway because you can't tax it

He can get his mother or whoever "owns" it to tax it. So no problem there.

The only thing that the op can be done for is non display re: insurance disc which is either a 60 or 80 euro fine I believe.

emeldc

selectamatic wrote: »

He can get his mother or whoever "owns" it to tax it. So no problem there.

The only thing that the op can be done for is non display re: insurance disc which is either a 60 or 80 euro fine I believe.

Only if they have a policy with the reg number on it

selectamatic

emeldc wrote: »

Only if they have a policy with the reg number on it

No they can tax it online and throw in any aul number. It might not be doing things by the book but it works, lots of people do it and most importantly AGS do not have a problem with people doing it.

emeldc

selectamatic wrote: »

No they can tax it online and throw in any aul number. It might not be doing things by the book but it works, lots of people do it and most importantly AGS do not have a problem with people doing it.

Seriously :eek::eek:

All these departments are fcuked up with no joined up thinking. Sure why would anyone obey the law.

selectamatic

emeldc wrote: »

Seriously :eek::eek:

All these departments are fcuked up with no joined up thinking. Sure why would anyone obey the law.

By taxing a car you are obeying the law.

The details on the disc are irrelevant as long as it is for the correct tax band/bracket.

Insurance and tax cannot realistically be linked as if that were the case no one would be able to buy a used car with a few months tax remaining on it as it wouldn't match their policy number.

In short they are two separate entities one which is tied specifically to an individual the other the car

emeldc

selectamatic wrote: »

By taxing a car you are obeying the law.

The details on the disc are irrelevant as long as it is for the correct tax band/bracket.

Insurance and tax cannot realistically be linked as if that were the case no one would be able to buy a used car with a few months tax remaining on it as it wouldn't match their policy number.

In short they are two separate entities one which is tied specifically to an individual the other the car

So why do they bother asking for insurance details if they can't cross check it. When you used to go to the tax office there is no way they would tax your car without a valid insurance cert. With all our technology have we really gone backwards in that they can't check. It's not that I'm doubting you, you've obviously tried it out but this is all news to me.

selectamatic

emeldc wrote: »

So why do they bother asking for insurance details if they can't cross check it. When you used to go to the tax office there is no way they would tax your car without a valid insurance cert. With all our technology have we really gone backwards in that they can't check. It's not that I'm doubting you, you've obviously tried it out but this is all news to me.

True but since the advent of taxing vehicles online that's the way things are.

With regards to going backwards that's debatable and really depends on what side you come down on things like third party extension etc.

To me while third party extension can be seen as somewhat of a loophole it's still better than nothing and it shows the person using it is unwilling to drive uninsured which is at least something positive.

coylemj

Testacalda wrote: »

My good lady was with liberty until two years ago......

AT THE TIME, there was no actual rule requiring or the car to have an active policy on it.

This topic has been the subject of heated discussion in this and other fora over the past few years. It used to be quoted ad nauseum even though it was a total urban myth and didn't appear in any policy document.

Now it's becoming a fact, probably because of what the OP is planning to do.

To clarify..... some companies are now saying (in the policy document) that in order for your third party extension (aka 'driving other cars') to apply when you are driving a borrowed car, that car must have it's own policy - whether that policy covers you to drive it or not.

For example, Aviva says that the 'driving other cars cover' only applies if:

• a current certificate of insurance has been issued and remains in force on the Private car being driven under the Driving other cars cover

The answer (as with most questions about motor insurance) is this: download and read the current policy document on the company's website to see if what you are proposing to do is legit or not.

emeldc

selectamatic wrote: »

True but since the advent of taxing vehicles online that's the way things are.

With regards to going backwards that's debatable and really depends on what side you come down on things like third party extension etc.

To me while third party extension can be seen as somewhat of a loophole it's still better than nothing and it shows the person using it is unwilling to drive uninsured which is at least something positive.

I've used my own TP EX plenty of times but for legitimate reasons like taking a car from A to B. But the OP obviously wants to drive some 'monster' that he wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting his own policy on. To think he can tax it as well by getting his 'mother' to tax it on line by making up an insurance number just makes a joke of the whole thing IMO.

goz83

selectamatic wrote: »

To me while third party extension can be seen as somewhat of a loophole it's still better than nothing and it shows the person using it is unwilling to drive uninsured which is at least something positive.

It's people like the OP who is ruining it for everyone else. While he may be able to technically drive the car that he can't afford to insure, he will be in breach of the terms of his insurance policy if he is driving the new car more than the car which he has a policy on. So, he's not really insured.

Sure lets all insure a Fiesta and go drive Scoobies.......and I am sure that's not far from the situation the OP is describing.

coylemj

Even if the OP's insurance doesn't require the 'borrowed' car to have it's own policy, they will expect (and probably say in the policy) that he is not the principal driver of that car. I'm going to assume that the OP's Ma is the registered owner.

So if there's a crash and a big claim, his insurance can legitimately ask....

1. Who is the principal driver of that car?

2. Why didn't she have a policy - was it because she never actually drives the car so didn't need one - because her 'ownership' is just a sham to cover the fact that you can't afford that car on your own policy?

JC01

No they won't take it off you however you can be fined 80e for non display of a valid insurance disc.

Taxing the car is a non-issue, you can make up any number you want for the insurance policy on the tax form.

I'm not gonna get into the morals of it since it normally goes down like a lead balloon on here, but when I was younger I did it for a long time so I could drive performance cars I couldn't have insured myself due to our backwards insurance system. Went through loads of checkpoints etc and never an issue, plenty of gaurds knew the crac straight up but by the letter of the law I was covered and I always had tax and test so they understood I wasn't taking the ****

I will say though that I'm far far happier now I can have my cars "properly" insured as it was never comfortable having expensive rare cars sitting anywhere with no comeback if anything happened then e.g being stolen.

On a side note the amount of misinformation regarding insurance, tax and general rules of the road on this forum is staggering sometimes.

mgbgt1978

JC01 wrote: »

Taxing the car is a non-issue, you can make up any number you want for the insurance policy on the tax form.

On a side note the amount of misinformation regarding insurance,tax and general rules of the road on this forum is staggering sometimes.

You can but it's illegal.
You should read the Back of an RF100 form sometime......I am not going to hold your hand and and post a link, but any misinformation on a Tax Renewal is considered fraudulent and can be punished in Court. Not saying they chase everyone obviously, but the option is there for them if they want.


BTW it's Section D, and the Big Warning Panel at the Bottom of the Page.


On a side note, etc, etc......;)

extra-ordinary_

craity wrote: »

Hello,

I wanted to ask any of you if you have any idea if garda can take my car for it or not. Basically gonna be buying car soon enough and it will have nct and tax on it except nobody is gonna be insured on it which means no disc. My policy allows me to drive all cars that have valid nct and tax on them except I wont have insurance disc. I will have the policy papers on me the whole time. Can garda take my car for it or give any penatly ?

They will not take the vehicle off you for non-display of insurance cert, and once you're taxed and carrying your licence you will be asked to produce proof of insurance if they have any doubts. This is on the basis that you're whole setup isn't ridiculously suspicious to start with - e.g. 18 year old driving a skyline etc

Likes been said, now taxing online is a joke compared to the old way in the tax office and has no oversight by anyone, the state says - just pay money, we don't care about anything else.

CiniO

emeldc wrote: »

I've used my own TP EX plenty of times but for legitimate reasons like taking a car from A to B. But the OP obviously wants to drive some 'monster' that he wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting his own policy on.

And fair play to him, for standing against this mad insurance market....
If your reason for driving other car from A to B is legitimate, the same OP's driving of his mother's car is legitimate.

goz83 wrote: »

It's people like the OP who is ruining it for everyone else. While he may be able to technically drive the car that he can't afford to insure, he will be in breach of the terms of his insurance policy if he is driving the new car more than the car which he has a policy on. So, he's not really insured.
.

I've never seen any condition on any insurance policy stating that other cars can't be driven more often than car insured under the policy.

coylemj wrote: »

Even if the OP's insurance doesn't require the 'borrowed' car to have it's own policy, they will expect (and probably say in the policy) that he is not the principal driver of that car. I'm going to assume that the OP's Ma is the registered owner.

So if there's a crash and a big claim, his insurance can legitimately ask....

1. Who is the principal driver of that car?

2. Why didn't she have a policy - was it because she never actually drives the car so didn't need one - because her 'ownership' is just a sham to cover the fact that you can't afford that car on your own policy?

I also never seen anything like that in any of the policy documents...

coylemj

CiniO wrote: »

I've never seen any condition on any insurance policy stating that other cars can't be driven more often than car insured under the policy.

I also never seen anything like that in any of the policy documents...

Axa 'Driving other cars' cover only applies if:

• you do not regularly use or drive the car
  
• you have the owner's permission to drive the car and have been driving it for less than 30 days

Meaning that they will cover bona fide borrowing of someone else's car but not the sham arrangement the OP is proposing.

Special Circumstances

coylemj wrote: »

Axa 'Driving other cars' cover only applies if:

• you do not regularly use or drive the car
  
• you have the owner's permission to drive the car and have been driving it for less than 30 days

Meaning that they will cover bona fide borrowing of someone else's car but not the sham arrangement the OP is proposing.

Sensible but vague.

CiniO

coylemj wrote: »

Axa 'Driving other cars' cover only applies if:

• you do not regularly use or drive the car
  
• you have the owner's permission to drive the car and have been driving it for less than 30 days

Meaning that they will cover bona fide borrowing of someone else's car but not the sham arrangement the OP is proposing.

That's not true.

Here's what are conditions of third party cover for driving other cars from mose recent axa policy document:

1b Driving other cars
This cover will also apply if you are driving any other car which your certificate of insurance
covers you to drive. If you are covered to drive other cars, it will be shown in section 5(b)
of your certificate of insurance.
This cover only applies if:
„ you do not own the car or you have not hired the car under a hire-purchase agreement;
„ it is shown that this cover applies under section 5(b) of your certificate of insurance;
„ you still own and insure your car under this policy and it hasn’t been damaged beyond
economical repair
„ you have the owner’s permission to drive the car; and
„ the vehicle is being used within the ‘limits for use’ shown in your current certificate
of motor insurance.
This cover applies to damage or injury happening in Ireland and the UK only.
This extension applies only to private passenger vehicles. It does not include vans,
car-vans, jeeps with no seats in the back or vans adapted to carry passengers.

No limitations like you indicated.

https://www.axa.ie/download/axa-car-insurance-policy-011016.pdf

Del2005

emeldc wrote: »

So why do they bother asking for insurance details if they can't cross check it. When you used to go to the tax office there is no way they would tax your car without a valid insurance cert. With all our technology have we really gone backwards in that they can't check. It's not that I'm doubting you, you've obviously tried it out but this is all news to me.

They used to look at the cert but had no way of verifying if it was valid, similar to the online system.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

You can but it's illegal.
You should read the Back of an RF100 form sometime......I am not going to hold your hand and and post a link, but any misinformation on a Tax Renewal is considered fraudulent and can be punished in Court. Not saying they chase everyone obviously, but the option is there for them if they want.


BTW it's Section D, and the Big Warning Panel at the Bottom of the Page.


On a side note, etc, etc......;)

Plenty of people made statutory declarations to the Gardaí that they weren't driving the car when they where, so that's how worried people are of breaking the law.

Then there's the case of taxing my car today and renewing my insurance tomorrow, the details for my insurance on the tax database will be invalid but I've no method of updating them. Having a user based system isn't the solution it should be a feed from the insurance companies, which apparently will take 2 years!!

goz83

CiniO wrote: »

That's not true.

Here's what are conditions of third party cover for driving other cars from mose recent axa policy document:


No limitations like you indicated.

https://www.axa.ie/download/axa-car-insurance-policy-011016.pdf

Yeah, I would love to see what happens when the OP smashes into someone and then tries to claim that he borrowed his mothers high performance car, which she has never herself insured.

I'm no fan of insurance companies and i'm flexible in my opinion and use of the TP extension, but it's clearly an abuse in the OP scenario.

I wonder if the OP might let us know what car he has insured and what car he will be driving?

emeldc

Del2005 wrote: »

They used to look at the cert but had no way of verifying if it was valid, similar to the online system.

But you still had to have an insurance cert with a specific reg number on it. You couldn't just make up your own.

coylemj

CiniO wrote: »

That's not true.

Here's what are conditions of third party cover for driving other cars from mose recent axa policy document:


No limitations like you indicated.

https://www.axa.ie/download/axa-car-insurance-policy-011016.pdf

My bad. You are correct Cinio, I copied the terms from the section dealing with fully comp. cover for a borrowed car which they give to policyholders with a good record. Those conditions do not apply to TP cover when driving other cars.

Del2005

emeldc wrote: »

But you still had to have an insurance cert with a specific reg number on it. You couldn't just make up your own.

I taxed my parents cars with a garage policy cert, not much checking the reg there.

Why couldn't I make up my own? A piece of paper with a green line and a printer is all that's needed.

emeldc

Del2005 wrote: »

I taxed my parents cars with a garage policy cert, not much checking the reg there.

Why couldn't I make up my own? A piece of paper with a green line and a printer is all that's needed.

Of course you did. Like we all have garage policys. You know full well they're different.
Good luck with the fraudulent printing.

Del2005

emeldc wrote: »

Of course you did. Like we all have garage policys. You know full well they're different.
Good luck with the fraudulent printing.

I was pointing out that the check in the tax office was as bad as the online system, they are both useless. The system should be live and easily accessible to the Gardaí on the road, where insurance is needed, not in an office where I can have a different policy the day after I buy tax.

Plenty of people are doing insurance fraud, it's what the OP intends to do.

ironclaw

I'd recommend anyone who regularly borrows a car or drives under a TP extension to check the extent of your coverage. A few months ago my car was in the garage but my friend was also away, so we thought, no problem I'll drive it under the TP extension. I rang my insurer (FBD) just to double check and was told that the TP extension only covered 50% of any damages, the friends insurance made up the other 50%. It made more sense to transfer my cover for the period I'd be driving and then I would be fully comp, 100% with FBD.

I'm not sure how common this is but don't take TP extensions (or fully comp) as carte blanche that the car you are driving will be looked after entirely by your insurance. There are caveats and technicalities in the background.

M7roadrunner

ironclaw wrote: »

It made more sense to transfer my cover for the period I'd be driving and then I would be fully comp, 100% with FBD.

Were you allowed to temporarily transfer insurance to someone else's car with FBD?
I didn't think that was allowed, insurable interest and all that.

ironclaw

M7roadrunner wrote: »

Were you allowed to temporarily transfer insurance to someone else's car with FBD?
I didn't think that was allowed, insurable interest and all that.

Temporary swaps are allowed under most policies. Some firms will charge you, others allow it on a once off, blue moon basis but its definitely possible.

ironclaw

ironclaw wrote: »

I'd recommend anyone who regularly borrows a car or drives under a TP extension to check the extent of your coverage. A few months ago my car was in the garage but my friend was also away, so we thought, no problem I'll drive it under the TP extension. I rang my insurer (FBD) just to double check and was told that the TP extension only covered 50% of any damages, the friends insurance made up the other 50%. It made more sense to transfer my cover for the period I'd be driving and then I would be fully comp, 100% with FBD.

I'm not sure how common this is but don't take TP extensions (or fully comp) as carte blanche that the car you are driving will be looked after entirely by your insurance. There are caveats and technicalities in the background.

As a general rule TP extensions do not cover damage the car you are driving, hence the name 3rd party extension. I think most people know this.

ironclaw

Vihaan Immense Windowpane wrote: »

As a general rule TP extensions do not cover damage the car you are driving, hence the name 3rd party extension. I think most people know this.

I know

I mean 50% of the damage you do to everything else will come off your insurance and the other 50% off the person's car you are drivings insurance. So basically the damages are split between the relevant insurers, the car you are driving isn't covered obviously if you are under TP and the policy on the car isn't open drive. At least that was in my case, hence my post.

Cheensbo

ironclaw wrote: »

I know

I mean 50% of the damage you do to everything else will come off your insurance and the other 50% off the person's car you are drivings insurance. So basically the damages are split between the relevant insurers, the car you are driving isn't covered obviously if you are under TP and the policy on the car isn't open drive. At least that was in my case, hence my post.

What about when the other car has no policy on it? Who covers the 50% in that case?

CiniO

ironclaw wrote: »

I know

I mean 50% of the damage you do to everything else will come off your insurance and the other 50% off the person's car you are drivings insurance. So basically the damages are split between the relevant insurers, the car you are driving isn't covered obviously if you are under TP and the policy on the car isn't open drive. At least that was in my case, hence my post.

They can only do it, if you were covered by both policies.
I.e. you have your third party extension which covers you to drive you friend's car.
And your friend has a policy on that car which is open drive policy allowing anyone to drive that car, or you are a named driver on his policy.

Otherwise, if you are not covered under your friend's policy, then your policy will have to pay 100%.
So what FBD told you was misleading.

Cheensbo

CiniO wrote: »

They can only do it, if you were covered by both policies.
I.e. you have your third party extension which covers you to drive you friend's car.
And your friend has a policy on that car which is open drive policy allowing anyone to drive that car, or you are a named driver on his policy.

Otherwise, if you are not covered under your friend's policy, then your policy will have to pay 100%.
So what FBD told you was misleading.

Another hypothetical - I'm currently covered to drive other cars by 2 seperste policies I am holding - if I were in an accident while driving an "other car" do both insurance companies have to step in - or just 1?

If so is it the one of my choosing?

Do I have to notify 1 company of the others existence?

Why, when we are forced by law to have insurance on a motor vehicle in a public place - must we have 'insurable interest' - beyond the fact that the law states we must have it..

Driving without insurance means running the risk of losing my licence and getting a big fat fine, surely this counts as a potential loss - therefore - an insurable interest?

ironclaw

Cheensbo wrote: »

What about when the other car has no policy on it? Who covers the 50% in that case?

No idea. For the given scenario that was the answer I was given.

They can only do it, if you were covered by both policies.
I.e. you have your third party extension which covers you to drive you friend's car.
And your friend has a policy on that car which is open drive policy allowing anyone to drive that car, or you are a named driver on his policy.
Otherwise, if you are not covered under your friend's policy, then your policy will have to pay 100%.

The scenario in question, both cars had valid insurance from different underwriters, one my own with TP extension cover, but the car I was going to drive did not cover me in any way, shape or form. I can't recall, as I've subsequently changed insurers, if the FBD third party extension requires the other car to have a valid policy. I pressed them for about 5 mins on it, as I was trying to decide whether to put my policy on the car temporily, and in the end thats what I did.

So what FBD told you was misleading.

Coming from their senior advisor in Tullamore, I'm going to take their word for it. Zero advantage to lying and its a recorded phone call, so why mislead me? Zero benefit to anyone and it didn't cost anyone a cent. Both cars in play were high performance cars.