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

Johnoae86 · 21-07-2016 11:35pm

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Age limits are not for you to decide OP.

Never said they were but just starring it would be great if they rethink it a little and give younger people interested in the classic car scene a chance as well

FortySeven · 21-07-2016 11:38pm

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Age limits are not for you to decide OP.

No. They're for the previous generation who pulled the ladder up behind them in every way.

Not least when they got on the horse.

Henry Ford III · 21-07-2016 11:43pm

FortySeven wrote: »

No. They're for the previous generation who pulled the ladder up behind them in every way.

Not least when they got on the horse.

Has it not always been thus?

ianobrien · 21-07-2016 11:43pm

OP, the tin can is a typical boy racer machine, along with the Altezza.. All you have to do is look at the knuckledraggers and their antics at the Rally of the Lakes and Donegal Rally. I should know as I've organised enough motorsport events to see the negative image they spread among the residents along the rally route. Basically, as a rally organiser, don't bother coming to a rally in one of them, we don't want them due to the idiots the tin cans attract.

Sure they are a few enthusiasts who I know have them (totally stock and fast road) but they are show queens rather then for "spirited" driving. They are also insured properly. Face the facts that what you are doing is not "utmost good faith" with regards to insurance and could be regarded as on very shaky ground.

Also, you'll have no comprehensive on the car when you are driving it. You say you have worked hard for the car. Wouldn't you then want comprehensive insurance on it.

Don't take it the wrong way OP but please use paragraphs and punctuation in your posts. All I see is a wall of text that's hard to read & comprehend.

alias no.9 · 21-07-2016 11:48pm

If you're confident that your insurer would be happy to issue a policy to you with a third party extension through which you intend to drive this other car that they know that you own but you have registered in your mother's name, then it's all above board.

If you think that knowing your game, they would make a different decision about insuring you, maybe refuse you a third party extension, increase your premium or refuse you insurance outright, you have not acted in good faith. In the event of a claim, they may pay out to a third party but they will be within their rights to recover their costs from you.

There's a marginal additional protection for any third party in your choice of action but for yourself, what you're planning to do is little different to taking a copy of another insurance policy, editing the details and printing it out along with a disc to put in the window. It may get you through a lax checkpoint, but it won't stand up to any serious scrutiny.

FortySeven · 22-07-2016 12:06am

alias no.9 wrote: »

If you're confident that your insurer would be happy to issue a policy to you with a third party extension through which you intend to drive this other car that they know that you own but you have registered in your mother's name, then it's all above board.

If you think that knowing your game, they would make a different decision about insuring you, maybe refuse you a third party extension, increase your premium or refuse you insurance outright, you have not acted in good faith. In the event of a claim, they may pay out to a third party but they will be within their rights to recover their costs from you.

There's a marginal additional protection for any third party in your choice of action but for yourself, what you're planning to do is little different to taking a copy of another insurance policy, editing the details and printing it out along with a disc to put in the window. It may get you through a lax checkpoint, but it won't stand up to any serious scrutiny.

It will stand the scrutiny of the law. Not just checkpoints. It is legal. No court can convict him of any crime.

We get it's not fully moral. It is however, perfectly legal and cannot be subject to conviction. The insurance company cannot sue for acummulated costs because the car legally belongs to someone else. (The legal ownership is determined from registration) and under his policy he is covered to drive.

It's contract law and the contract is paramount. Morality doesn't come into it.

foggy_lad · 22-07-2016 12:23am

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.

To tax a car Don't you need to show it is insured?

Timmyr wrote: »

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

It can't be Taxed without proof of insurance?

FortySeven · 22-07-2016 12:57am

foggy_lad wrote: »

To tax a car Don't you need to show it is insured?

It can't be Taxed without proof of insurance?

The third party extension is proof of insurance.

HE is insured. There is not a single car in Ireland that is insured. Drivers are insured. Its legal.

selectamatic · 22-07-2016 1:59am

ianobrien wrote: »

OP, the tin can is a typical boy racer machine, along with the Altezza.. All you have to do is look at the knuckledraggers and their antics at the Rally of the Lakes and Donegal Rally. I should know as I've organised enough motorsport events to see the negative image they spread among the residents along the rally route. Basically, as a rally organiser, don't bother coming to a rally in one of them, we don't want them due to the idiots the tin cans attract.

Jaysus that a bit rough isn't it? and it the OP's dream car and all

Ya do tend to go on these rants every so often when you address area's of car enthusiasm that you aren't fond of (yet Ireland's car scene including the 1st gear crossroad warriors is still one of the most law abiding in the world).

Ya shot down some young fella that wanted to lower a caddy van there a few months ago as well for pretty much no reason either other than that it wasn't to your taste.

The op is looking for advice on how to insure himself on a car. He has been advised on several options available to him it's up to him to pick which one he wants. At least he's actively trying to get insurance and not driving uninsured, even the bare bare minimum is better than nothing.

And I know you acknowledged that some worthy (in your eyes) enthusiasts own ae86 corolla's but I'm pretty sure none of them would approve of ya calling their classic iconic pride and joy a "tin can" or fans of their cars idiots.
Do ye try ye're best to turn The Butcher Boyle or kevin Eves or the McGettigan's away from the various tarmac rally events around the country for fear their cars may attract a few "knuckle draggers" :rolleyes:

the_syco · 22-07-2016 2:02am

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Let's recap here...
1/. Young chap buys high performance car.
2/. Discovers it's uninsurable.
3/. Schemes to retain ownership but put parents name on the log book with the sole purpose of using 3rd party extension from a policy on another car to enable him be the sole driver of the car mentioned at 1/. above.

It's a nonsense. It's deception and arguably fraudulant.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't an asterisk stopping the OP from driving certain cars.

Sue Pa Key Pa · 22-07-2016 6:46am

FortySeven wrote: »

He can also request a second disc for the other car. Claim the first didn't arrive if you want it for free or pay for a duplicate of you suffer from morality.

This way a guard can't charge you 60 Euro. You're displaying your insurance. Perfectly legal

I thought it was illegal to display an insurance disc on a vehicle that it didn't belong to?

Henry Ford III · 22-07-2016 7:13am

His plan is to put his Mum down as the "owner" on the log book. By doing so he's trying to disguise the true ownership of the car.

That is an attempt at deception, and can void any cover, as he has not disclosed a very material fact.

A second problem is the lack of a valid insurance disc on the windscreen.

A third problem is that any tax on the vehicle would have been obtained with an invalid motor policy number.

A forth issue is that the OPs name would be on record as a previous owner.

While it's possible that he might get through a Garda checkpoint it'd be pretty obvious what's going on here to anyone (Gardai or insurance investigator). It wouldn't be difficult to put the pieces together.

That would result in a conviction for no insurance, and record of having tried to get cover by deception.

I realise it sucks OP but you can't drive your AE86 legally.

Henry Ford III · 22-07-2016 7:23am

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote:

I thought it was illegal to display an insurance disc on a vehicle that it didn't belong to?

Possibly. The point is though that the disc and the AE86 will obviously have different registration numbers.

Timmyr · 22-07-2016 7:29am

Henry Ford III wrote: »

His plan is to put his Mum down as the "owner" on the log book. By doing so he's trying to disguise the true ownership of the car. No hes not, his mother will be the true owner, whos to say otherwise? Opinions and hearsay are irrelevant

That is an attempt at deception, and can void any cover, as he has not disclosed a very material fact. How could it possibly void any cover? He is doing exactly what the insurance policy states he can do

A second problem is the lack of a valid insurance disc on the windscreen. I have never had any issues with that

A third problem is that any tax on the vehicle would have been obtained with an invalid motor policy number. You dont need a motor policy number on thae car, you need a policy for the driver, as Fortyseven has already stated

A forth issue is that the OPs name would be on record as a previous owner. and? whats the problem with that?

While it's possible that he might get through a Garda checkpoint it'd be pretty obvious what's going on here to anyone (Gardai or insurance investigator). It wouldn't be difficult to put the pieces together. He is in no way breaking the law

That would result in a conviction for no insurance, and record of having tried to get cover by deception. How could he be convicted for no insurance when he does in fact have insurance?

I realise it sucks OP but you can't drive your AE86 legally.

OP please ignore this, of course you can drive it legally

alias no.9 · 22-07-2016 7:30am

FortySeven wrote: »

It will stand the scrutiny of the law. Not just checkpoints. It is legal. No court can convict him of any crime.

We get it's not fully moral. It is however, perfectly legal and cannot be subject to conviction. The insurance company cannot sue for acummulated costs because the car legally belongs to someone else. (The legal ownership is determined from registration) and under his policy he is covered to drive.

It's contract law and the contract is paramount. Morality doesn't come into it.

Utmost Good Faith

Timmyr · 22-07-2016 7:31am

FortySeven wrote: »

It will stand the scrutiny of the law. Not just checkpoints. It is legal. No court can convict him of any crime.

We get it's not fully moral. It is however, perfectly legal and cannot be subject to conviction. The insurance company cannot sue for acummulated costs because the car legally belongs to someone else. (The legal ownership is determined from registration) and under his policy he is covered to drive.

It's contract law and the contract is paramount. Morality doesn't come into it.

I think we are fighting a losing battle trying to explain it on here

Henry Ford III · 22-07-2016 7:37am

Ownership is key here. We know that the OP bought the car. His Mums name on the logbook is just that. It's a name. It's not the true owner. That's a deception. The whole thing falls apart from that point.

Timmyr · 22-07-2016 7:41am

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Ownership is key here. We know that the OP bought the car. His Mums name on the logbook is just that. It's a name. It's not the true owner. That's a deception. The whole thing falls apart from that point.

No it doesnt! you dont know he owns the car, you assume he does, but your assumptions arent worth anything (no offence intended).

Henry Ford III · 22-07-2016 7:48am

We all know he owns the car. He's said so on here already. He's taking steps to disguise that. That's deception.

The name on a logbook isn't prima facie proof of ownership btw.

millington · 22-07-2016 7:48am

the_syco wrote: »

I'd be surprised if there wasn't an asterisk stopping the OP from driving certain cars.

Yea most policies do say "No Twincams unless you're 50" :rolleyes::rolleyes:

OP when are you going to show us the car

Timmyr · 22-07-2016 7:49am

millington wrote: »

OP when are you going to show us the car

X2

shietpilot · 22-07-2016 7:53am

Shtandard twincam driver

ianobrien · 22-07-2016 8:32am

So, as far as I can see it. The OP buys dream car but:

Realises he can't get insurance (comprehensive or Third Party) under his own name.

Realises he can't get insurance (comprehensive or Third Party) as a named driver on the car if someone else insures it (Fronting)

Cops on to the third party extension given to policy holders (but some have age limits, I remember I didn't get it on my insurance until I was 25).

No mention of if he was planning on mentioning the mods to the insurance company (a LOT of companies run when they hear that word)

Thinks that if he "sells" the car to a family member, they insure it and he uses his third party extension to drive, all's hunky dory.

Now, whenever he drives the car he worked hard for, it has no comprehensive insurance and is on shaky ground with Utmost Good Faith. He also hasn't checked if the insurance company will give him third party extension.

OP, it's time you realise at best you won't have fully comp when you drive the car, at worst it's insurance fraud (You won't find out unless you have an accident, even one that's not your fault). What I'd be doing if the tin can is as good as you say is put it in storage and begin a mild restoration. That will take a few years, the years you can't get insurance, and at the end you have a much better car you can drive 100℅ legally. If you turn the car back to 100% stock, it'll be worth more. If your boodlit is solid and rust free, you struck it lucky

millington · 22-07-2016 8:41am

ianobrien wrote: »

If you turn the car back to 100% stock, it'll be worth more.

Definitely not true when it comes to Jap 86s unless you go to concours original condition which would cost more than the proposed increase in value.

Also, he has checked and knows Aviva & Liberty both offer third party extension.

peteb2 · 22-07-2016 9:16am

Timmyr you are 100 percent wrong! The subject matter of the insurance policy is the vehicle! No car = no insurance policy.

You can't take out a motor policy in someone's name with no car covered. Therefore you do not insure the driver. You insure his use of the insured vehicle.

Mycroft H · 22-07-2016 9:18am

See this is the issue. While it's technically legal and all that, it wouldn't take much for a competent claims investigator to put two and two together. They could either void the policy or put restrictions on it. Legal or not legal.

And then you'll find it hard to get insurance again

the_syco · 22-07-2016 12:51pm

Timmyr wrote: »

A second problem is the lack of a valid insurance disc on the windscreen. I have never had any issues with that

OP please ignore this, of course you can drive it legally

If he hits anyone, no matter how small a scratch, they'll look at his insurance disc, see it's invalid, and the OP suddenly has hell to pay.

If it goes to court, the judge will not only see that he has no insurance displayed on a high risk 1.6 rwd, but that he's actively trying to deceive the system.

OP; you have insurance with another car, yeah? Then get someone to insure the ae86, and drive it 3rd party with the correct disk.

=-=

Have you seen the Initial D anime? If not, watch it! :cool:

Johnoae86 · 22-07-2016 1:00pm

the_syco wrote: »

If he hits anyone, no matter how small a scratch, they'll look at his insurance disc, see it's invalid, and the OP suddenly has hell to pay.

If it goes to court, the judge will not only see that he has no insurance displayed on a high risk 1.6 rwd, but that he's actively trying to deceive the system.

OP; you have insurance with another car, yeah? Then get someone to insure the ae86, and drive it 3rd party with the correct disk.

=-=

Have you seen the Initial D anime? If not, watch it! :cool:

That currently is my plan as I have stated I want to have as much cover as possible even though it will always be risky but car will only be driven once a week so I'm just going to have to be cautious, I'm not left with any other options other than this one so no hate please, I can accept peoples opinion whilst agreeing its not the right way but unfortunately the only option I have, and to be quite honest at 20 years old I could be spending my money in many worse ways, or breaking laws for extreme of fences which I'm not, bottom line is there's plenty of people in this country willing to commit crimes, fraud, robbery etc.. On a daily basis, what I am doing here is simply trying to do what I'm into, its my lively hood, I love cars love working on them day to day as a mechanic is my profession, and follow all motorsports greatly, if its what makes you happy do it, chase your dream, at the end of the day all this insurance business is a money racket in this country and everybody on here that is a car insurer will agree, but we all pay what we owe and are willing to, this situation is just one that unfortunately doesn't allow me to legitimately insure a car I love so I have to take a different route

Kimbot · 22-07-2016 1:02pm

Johnoae86 wrote: »

That currently is my plan as I have stated I want to have as much cover as possible even though it will always be risky but car will only be driven once a week so I'm just going to have to be cautious, I'm not left with any other options other than this one so no hate please, I can accept peoples opinion whilst agreeing its not the right way but unfortunately the only option I have, and to be quite honest at 20 years old I could be spending my money in many worse ways, or breaking laws for extreme of fences which I'm not, bottom line is there's plenty of people in this country willing to commit crimes, fraud, robbery etc.. On a daily basis, what I am doing here is simply trying to do what I'm into, its my lively hood, I love cars love working on them day to day as a mechanic is my profession, and follow all motorsports greatly, if its what makes you happy do it, chase your dream, at the end of the day all this insurance business is a money racket in this country and everybody on here that is a car insurer will agree, but we all pay what we owe and are willing to, this situation is just one that unfortunately doesn't allow me to legitimately insure a car I love so I have to take a different route

If you are a mechanic can you not avail of trade insurance?

Johnoae86 · 22-07-2016 1:03pm

jonnycivic wrote: »

If you are a mechanic can you not avail of trade insurance?

Trade insurance is 25 unfortunately

FortySeven · 22-07-2016 1:07pm

the_syco wrote: »

If he hits anyone, no matter how small a scratch, they'll look at his insurance disc, see it's invalid, and the OP suddenly has hell to pay.

If it goes to court, the judge will not only see that he has no insurance displayed on a high risk 1.6 rwd, but that he's actively trying to deceive the system.

OP; you have insurance with another car, yeah? Then get someone to insure the ae86, and drive it 3rd party with the correct disk.

=-=

Have you seen the Initial D anime? If not, watch it! :cool:

A judge would see that he is insured. It wouldn't even get to court. The other driver looking at his disc might wonder until he points out he's driving third party extension.

Judges don't solve crimes. They sentence. They can only sentence people who break the law. Utilising a loophole is not breaking the law.

Henry Ford III · 22-07-2016 1:53pm

FortySeven wrote: »

A judge would see that he is insured. It wouldn't even get to court. The other driver looking at his disc might wonder until he points out he's driving third party extension.

Judges don't solve crimes. They sentence. They can only sentence people who break the law. Utilising a loophole is not breaking the law.

It'd get to court if the insurer sued. They would easily see that the OP was the owner of the car and then used his mothers name on the log book with the sole intention of using a 3rd party extension.

As I said earlier the name on the log book isn't prima facie proof of ownership.

It's a pretty clearcut deception and a savvy insurer will see through it imho.

millington · 22-07-2016 2:34pm

Henry Ford III wrote: »

They would easily see that the OP was the owner of the car

How? If I told you someone I was related to owned a car I was driving, you instantly wouldn't believe me?

Henry Ford III · 22-07-2016 2:50pm

millington wrote: »

How? If I told you someone I was related to owned a car I was driving, you instantly wouldn't believe me?

If,

1/. OP was on the log book as a previous owner.
2/. Mother's name was put on log book to enable 3rd party extension be used.
3/. Mother never insured car. A "non matching" reg no disc (or perhaps no disc) was on the windscreen.

Then any competant Garda or insurance investigator would easily see through the scheme of deception. It's pretty clearcut.

They also most likely know that a 20 year old would not be able to insure that car. They are quite likely be suspicious.

p.s. If someone else proposed for cover on the AE86 (doesn't really matter whom) then they'd be asked were they the owner and main driver. Answering this deliberately incorrectly could/would make that policies status and cover very shaky.

Needles73 · 22-07-2016 2:52pm

millington wrote: »

How? If I told you someone I was related to owned a car I was driving, you instantly wouldn't believe me?

If the op was in an accident and the insurance company was financially exposed to any great degree...what do you think will happen ? They will look for a loop hole not to pay out (if it's a twin cam belonging to your mother, then I wouldn't believe you)

shietpilot · 22-07-2016 2:57pm

Imagine the situation for example at the next NCT on the 1 litre Corsa/Micra you insure in the event of the crash. The NCT certificates now show mileage for the previous years, they will see you drove 10 miles in the whole year with the main car on the policy and it will be obvious you're using the small car for the TPE.

Henry Ford III · 22-07-2016 2:59pm

Think of it another way:-

If OP's Mum proposed to insure the car and answered the following questions honestly and fully (as they are required to - uberrima fides):-

1/. Q. Are you the owner of this car? A. My name is on the logbook but my son really owns the car. He bought it and paid for it. He is also a previous owner on the logbook.

2/. Q. Are you the main driver of this car? No. My son is.

What would a reasonable insurer do in those circumstances?

selectamatic · 22-07-2016 3:01pm

shietpilot wrote: »

Imagine the situation for example at the next NCT on the 1 litre Corsa/Micra you insure in the event of the crash. The NCT certificates now show mileage for the previous years, they will see you drove 10 miles in the whole year with the main car on the policy and it will be obvious you're using the small car for the TPE.

I really don't think anyone will drive an ae86 as their daily driver in Ireland especially as we move towards the seasons of autumn and winter, most if not all are used as weekend cars.

Henry Ford III · 22-07-2016 3:02pm

Another thought.

Would any insurer offer named driver or open driving on such a car?

If not why not?

millington · 22-07-2016 3:02pm

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If,

1/. OP was on the log book as a previous owner.And what about it? I've bought and sold cars to family
2/. Mother's name was put on log book to enable 3rd party extension be used. Unless a letter is attached to the logbook when it's sent off to say hes doing this, then how can this be proven?
3/. Mother never insured car. A "non matching" reg no disc (or perhaps no disc) was on the windscreen. Insurance or lack thereof does not prove or disprove ownership

Then any competant Garda or insurance investigator would easily see through the scheme of deception. It's pretty clearcut.

They also most likely know that a 20 year old would not be able to insure that car. They are quite likely be suspicious.

p.s. If someone else proposed for cover on the AE86 (doesn't really matter whom) then they'd be asked were they the owner and main driver. Answering this deliberately incorrectly could/would make that policies status and cover very shaky.

Every argument you use to prove the registered owner doesn't own it, is even more shaky than the reasons used to prove they do.

shietpilot wrote: »

Imagine the situation for example at the next NCT on the 1 litre Corsa/Micra you insure in the event of the crash. The NCT certificates now show mileage for the previous years, they will see you drove 10 miles in the whole year with the main car on the policy and it will be obvious you're using the small car for the TPE.

Irrelevant since as the OP stated, the AE86 is a weekend car and will rarely be driven. Slightly off topic but the odometer also doesn't work in my AE86 which means the milage hasn't changed on NCT certs in years. Must fix that lol

Cienciano · 22-07-2016 4:10pm

I bought my car off my father, thats illegal according to some people here.

the_syco · 22-07-2016 4:11pm

FortySeven wrote: »

A judge would see that he is insured. It wouldn't even get to court. The other driver looking at his disc might wonder until he points out he's driving third party extension.

If a Garda saw it, and they'd send the OP a notice for non-display of an insurance disc. Don't think traffic wardens can do anything.

As for the other driver, the other driver would see that the insurance is not for this car, and assume that there the person who hit their car is uninsured. The OP saying that his mammy is insured, and he has 3rd party insurance wouldn't mean squat on the spot.

Personally, if someone crashed into me and the insurance disc details didn't match up with their reg plate, I'd ensure the person would be unable to leave the scene of the crash before the Gardai came.

millington · 22-07-2016 4:16pm

the_syco wrote: »

Personally, if someone crashed into me and the insurance disc details didn't match up with their reg plate, I'd ensure the person would be unable to leave the scene of the crash before the Gardai came.

To be fair I'd do that even if the disc was correct. As said before on here, disc has no bearing to whether the person is insured.

Liam McPoyle · 22-07-2016 4:41pm

Cienciano wrote: »

I bought my car off my father, thats illegal according to some people here.

Of course its not illegal!

What people mean is that something out of the ordinary tends to raise alarm bells with insurers.

Whether it's profiling or not, a housewife / older woman suddenly taking out a policy of the type of car the OP has bought is not typical, not by a long shot.

If a claim occurs and something looks a bit suspect you can bet your life they insurer will investigate the ownership as much as is feasible.

If they suspect shenanigans they will withold payment. What the OP has decided to do is something that regularly comes up.

He should be fine so long as he doesn't have to make a claim.

Its dishonest and contravenes utmost good faith but its not illegal as such.

millington · 23-07-2016 8:39am

Anyway it wasn't even the OP that suggested to put it in his mothers name in particular which caused all this rigmarole:D

Johnoae86 · 23-07-2016 9:33am

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If,

1/. OP was on the log book as a previous owner.
2/. Mother's name was put on log book to enable 3rd party extension be used.
3/. Mother never insured car. A "non matching" reg no disc (or perhaps no disc) was on the windscreen.

Then any competant Garda or insurance investigator would easily see through the scheme of deception. It's pretty clearcut.

They also most likely know that a 20 year old would not be able to insure that car. They are quite likely be suspicious.

p.s. If someone else proposed for cover on the AE86 (doesn't really matter whom) then they'd be asked were they the owner and main driver. Answering this deliberately incorrectly could/would make that policies status and cover very shaky.

Quite easily to clock the car if required to bring milage back down

peteb2 · 23-07-2016 12:41pm

Johnoae86 wrote: »

Quite easily to clock the car if required to bring milage back down

And BOOM! now you know why people of your age cant insure their dream cars!

Henry Ford III · 23-07-2016 2:35pm

Johnoae86 wrote:

Quite easily to clock the car if required to bring milage back down

Deception after deception.

shietpilot · 23-07-2016 6:39pm

Anyone who thinks they can beat an insurance company has obviously never dealt with an insurance company during a claim. Good luck.

Arcade_Tryer · 23-07-2016 10:53pm

shietpilot wrote: »

Anyone who thinks they can beat an insurance company has obviously never dealt with an insurance company during a claim. Good luck.

Easy solution to that.

Drive carefully and don't make any claims or have any made against you. Many people have managed to do it their whole lives.

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

Comments