Driving someone elses car on your insurance

[Konan555]

My google powers are non existant when it comes to this stuff....

I've always known the rule of thumb is that drivers with Fully Comp insurance over 25 can drive someone else's car and have 3rd party cover.

Recently, I've been told that the age restriction has been removed on this. Anyone know if this is correct?

I'll be checking specifics with the policy document, but I'd like to know if there is some kind of blanket rule now.

Ta

[megah0]

You'd have to check your documents, my policy states that this is the case, however my sister had to pay an additional (albeit nominal fee, around £20iirc) to get this added to her policy.

[GoNz0]

yep, its on your insurance cert if you can.

[Saracen]

My google powers are non existant when it comes to this stuff....

I've always known the rule of thumb is that drivers with Fully Comp insurance over 25 can drive someone else's car and have 3rd party cover.

Recently, I've been told that the age restriction has been removed on this. Anyone know if this is correct?

I'll be checking specifics with the policy document, but I'd like to know if there is some kind of blanket rule now.

Ta

I'd say you have to do what you said at the end ... check the individual policy.

It used to be so commonplace that that I took it for granted, but then I had an example or two pointed out to me (that I had trouble believing) that not all policies offer this cover. It seems to have been quietly removed, so I think nobody can now afford to take this, or any other non-mandatory cover, for granted. If you're likely to rely on something, check your own policy carefully to make sure you have it.

[Konan555]

Ta,

The reason I was wondering about a blanket rule is trying to cut the insurance shopping time down. One more specific item to check on each policy considered!

But yes, you can't beat a good read of the smallprint.

[Saracen]

Ta,

The reason I was wondering about a blanket rule is trying to cut the insurance shopping time down. One more specific item to check on each policy considered!

But yes, you can't beat a good read of the smallprint.

I'm a bit of a cynic, but I suspect that that is precisely what some insurance companies rely on. And not just insurance companies.

I know small print is boring as hell, but it has to be said that when you sign a contract, the odds are pretty good that you can be held to it.

Ever watch "Don't get done, get Dom"? BBC, with Dominic Littlewood.

He did a test a while ago, and I don't remember the exact details but it involved offering people a "deal" in a shopping centre. It went something like "Sign our petition for a free chocolate bar". Loads of people signed up, only to find out that :-

1) They'd also signed a 5-year direct-debit mandate for £50 a month.
2) They'd agreed to strip off and dance naked down the shopping centre, singing an Abba song.

It was astonishing how many people signed without reading, and rather amusing watching their faces when they realised what they'd agreed to.

Dom's point, of course, was to never sign anything without reading what you've signed. The situation he set up was, of course, fictional and the mandates were destroyed, but the cases that had prompted the lesson about reading what you sign, including small print, before signing were very far from funny, and cost a number of people a lot of money .... such as accepting a "free trial" of a weight loss treatment, without realising that you're signing up for £80 a month of tablets, unless you cancel with 28 days (or whatever).

Other examples .... don't sign up for a gym membership without reading what you're signing, specifically, the minimum duration. Don't sign up for broadband or cable services without realising that you've a commitment for a minimum period, and in the case of Sky, to keep the phone line plugged in for a minimum period. Don't buy a contract mobile phone without checking whether it's 12months, 18 months .... or longer.And those are examples from fairly respectable and very mainstream companies.

I hear you about keeping the shopping time down. Really I do. I have the same issue once a year. at least. But .... in the case of coverage like this on car insurance, it's more than just getting caught for monthly payments, it's possible ending up with a conviction because you didn't realise you weren't covered for something you genuinely and honestly just assumed you were. That's why I had trouble believing it when a friend pointed this out to me. I could so easily have just assumed I was covered. After all, for decades, I had been, automatically.

[jim]

Other examples .... don't sign up for a gym membership without reading what you're signing, specifically, the minimum duration. Don't sign up for broadband or cable services without realising that you've a commitment for a minimum period, and in the case of Sky, to keep the phone line plugged in for a minimum period. Don't buy a contract mobile phone without checking whether it's 12months, 18 months .... or longer.And those are examples from fairly respectable and very mainstream companies.

Out of interest Saracen: I know you have mentioned before that with regard to the SOGA if you ask about certain characteristics, you can hold them to it. For instance, if you buy a shredder and ask "Can this shred staples?" and the sales assistant says "Yes it can", then if you later discover that it does not do that, you can return it on the basis that it's not fit for purpose - i.e. the purpose that you specifically stipulated.

Does the same apply for contracts?

For instance, if you go to a gym, and they say the contract has a 12 month minimum term, then you sign it and the small print specifies a 24 month minimum term, do you have any right to recourse?

Obviously you should always read them through - and then the issue never arises in the first place, just wondering what the situation is, since you specifically warn of the risks involved.

[Saracen]

Out of interest Saracen: I know you have mentioned before that with regard to the SOGA if you ask about certain characteristics, you can hold them to it. For instance, if you buy a shredder and ask "Can this shred staples?" and the sales assistant says "Yes it can", then if you later discover that it does not do that, you can return it on the basis that it's not fit for purpose - i.e. the purpose that you specifically stipulated.

Does the same apply for contracts?

For instance, if you go to a gym, and they say the contract has a 12 month minimum term, then you sign it and the small print specifies a 24 month minimum term, do you have any right to recourse?

Obviously you should always read them through - and then the issue never arises in the first place, just wondering what the situation is, since you specifically warn of the risks involved.

Yes, but the issue will be proving it.

If you say "12 months" and the assistant says "yup", prove they said it! It'll be hard to do, if the contract says otherwise.

But, if you read the contract and it says 24 months, then you can ask why the contract and the assistant don't agree. Modify the contract before signing it. And, by and large, you'll see terms that stipulate that staff do not have the authority to change contract terms unless agreed in writing by the company. So it should be no problem for the manager to do you a letter, on headed notepaper, varying the contract to 12 months ..... if you read it, spot the issue and they are sincere about the change to 12 months.

Ultimately, if you sign up and then find out it's 24 months, and can't agree with the gym, the only ultimate arbiter of the situation is going to be a court, and if you signed, unmodified, a contract saying 24 months, it's going to be quite hard to convince the judge to overturn that, especially if the assistant denies saying 12 months, or perhaps no longer even works there.


In any event, on something that important, I'd say you STILL read the contract, and if it and the assistant say something different, assume you'll be held to the written version. After all, if the gym agree to abide by what you say the assistant told you, there's no problem, but if they don't and you didn't read the contract, then you have a problem. Reading it, and getting it changed, doesn't have a downside in my view, whereas not reading it does, if you come unstuck.

The advice, therefore, remains ... never sign before reading, and I mean read, not quickly skim.

All IMHO and IANAL, of course.

[Konan555]

Yes, but the issue will be proving it.

My ISP offered free migration if I signed up online. Unfortunately, the site wouldn't take my phone number so I phoned. The operator agreed to waive the setup fee in my circumstances.

I got charged. Strangely, there's 'no record' of the operator agreeing to remove the charge.

What am I going to do? Cancel the direct debit and end up cut off and getting harassed by debt collection agencies? No, I'm going to get angry and move on. They win again.

[jim]

The advice, therefore, remains ... never sign before reading, and I mean read, not quickly skim.

Oh absolutely, it's amazing how "improper" that seems though. I recently signed a tenancy agreement on a rental property and the estate agent (I know, I know ) got incredibly shirty when I began asking her various questions to confirm I had understood the terms of the agreement correctly, and even more so when my girlfriend requested a copy of the gas safety certificate.

Anyway, I shall cease my attempt to drag the thread off-topic!

[Saracen]

My ISP offered free migration if I signed up online. Unfortunately, the site wouldn't take my phone number so I phoned. The operator agreed to waive the setup fee in my circumstances.

I got charged. Strangely, there's 'no record' of the operator agreeing to remove the charge.

What am I going to do? Cancel the direct debit and end up cut off and getting harassed by debt collection agencies? No, I'm going to get angry and move on. They win again.

Sadly, there's more than a grain of truth in the old Goldwyn-ism about a verbal contract not being worth the paper it's written on.

[Barakka]

Insurance companies started removing this entitlement a few years ago when everything started becoming extra to make their costs seem cheaper.

Also don't forget its 3rd party cover providing the car is covered by a separate policy.

[Rave]

Sadly, there's more than a grain of truth in the old Goldwyn-ism about a verbal contract not being worth the paper it's written on.

I'm sure I was taught at university that a verbal contract is legally enforceable under UK law?

Re: the original question, I'm 95% sure that my TPFT cover provides me with TPO cover to drive other people's cars with their permission, though I will check if I ever actually need to do that. So you don't necessarily need Fully Comp.

[roachcoach]

Don't some companies exclude spouses vehicles from this too? Just in case that was the plan


Also: Re the ISP - do they not record calls?

[HSK]

Make sure you read those conditions. mine states I can drive another persons car (it will be 3rd party coverage) as long as, that car is also under some kind of insurance...I and have permission.

Also, I think if they are covered by company insurance (someone else company car etc), then I can't drive em.

And I'm guessing they'll be some performance / spec / value conditions. I'm pretty sure I can't just jump in my best mates Veyron (wow, if my best mate had one) and expect to be instantly covered! Albeit on 3rd party.

[Spud1]

I nearly fell into this "trap" myself a few years ago - I had my insurance with Swiftcover at the time, and when I turned 25 I thought that I would be able to driver other vehicles (Specifically I wanted to borrow my Dad's MX-5 for the weekend).

Couldn't find any mention of the entitlement on my policy documents so I phoned them up - and they said I was not covered until my renewal, and that when I renewed they would add it to my policy FOC.

My current insurance through first direct offers me it though, again at no extra cost.

So check with your insurer, they will clear it up in moments if you give them a call