Motorhome Insurance.....I didn't know that! (1 Viewer)

[Imbiber]

Today, I had reason to call Caravan Guard to check an aspect of our insurance cover with regard to named drivers on the policy.

The interesting fact that came to light through the discussion was that our motorhome policy is a 'leisure vehicle policy' and as such does not provide any form of third-party cover for any other vehicle for the policy holder or named drivers.

I had wrongly assumed, that as a holder of fully comprehensive vehicle insurance on the motorhome, I would automatically have third party cover to drive another vehicle.......not so!

Whilst, on this occasion it is thankfully of no consequence to us, I just thought this insight may be of use to those who do rely on their motorhome vehicle insurance as a means of driving other vehicles occasionally on a third-party basis.

So, if you are unsure please check the type of motorhome insurance you have and the additional third-party (if any) it provides.

Sorry to those who think I'm teaching them to 'suck eggs' ...but surely I cannot be the only one who was oblivious to this aspect of motorhome insurance?

 

[CWH]

I think we realised something was 'different' when we couldn't use the car NCD on the motorhome. Being the other way around it just happened not to matter, but if we'd been hoping the MH would provide for a car then we also wouldn't have had any idea.
A useful warning @Imbiber

 

[denisejoe]

A lot of car insurance policies no longer offer this cover.

So check both car and motorhome insurances! If your policy doesn't give 3rd party cover on another car and you're caught driving the car will be sent to the pound and you'll be done for driving with no insurance.

Denise

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[tonka]

As @denisejoe states... Many now remove it altogether from car policies, so always check when you renew even an old policy you may have had for years.
Especially seems to happen on young drivers who insure a banger and then drive their mates fast motor..

 

[Just smiffy]

Phew...... I just checked mine as I borrow a relatives car sometimes and my comfort ins does cover me, thanks for the heads up..... people need to check...

 

[Silver-Fox]

You will probably find if you insure a classic car the same applies, the discount just mirrors what you have on another car. You can't build NCD on classic cars or it cover you for driving others not belonging to you.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[chaser]

Its nearly allways only in an emergency anyway , just to get someone home in a breakdown or injury or something similar , not for extended riding about.

 

[Lenny HB]

Looking at my Comfort policy it gives full cover to any vehicle loaned by a garage, motor engineer or vehicle repairer for 7 while my vehicle is being repaired or having an MOT.

Also gives 3rd party cover to any motor car not belonging to me.
Note: Specifically says Motor Car.

 

[Minxy]

This has been happening for a long time, if you think of it another way why would you want it INCLUDE as standard in an insurance policy on the chance you may wish to use it one day? I'd rather not pay for it in the first place.

Another thing to remember is that if you damage the 'not owned' etc car, say reversed into something, you will have no cover for the cost of repairs so you really need to consider how you'd pay to rectify that if it ever happened.

Personally I'd rather NOT drive anyone else's car/vehicle unless I was included on their comprehensive insurance or was covered comprehensively on my own to drive their car. Third party cover, IMV, is very risky and is only there so you are 'legal' to drive it but that's all and should really only be used in an emergency when there is no other option.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Landy lover]

NFU have not automatically offered Third party cover for other vehicle for a while now - if you ask for it it will be given. As there are 4 possible drivers of 4 possible vehicles we have organised so that each person has that cover for emergency purposes. We do have to check each renewal to ensure it is still in place as it is often dropped which could lead to embarrassment and fines.

I would never advocate driving on this insurance concession as it literally covers for basic third party - if anything happens the driver is leaving themselves open to action to recover damages. Such cover is literally legal cover for emergency movement of vehicles.

 

[Minxy]

Phew...... I just checked mine as I borrow a relatives car sometimes and my comfort ins does cover me, thanks for the heads up..... people need to check...

As you use it more than just in an emergency you'd be better to get them to put you as a named driver on their policy so you are fully covered.

 

[chaser]

As you use it more than just in an emergency you'd be better to get them to put you as a named driver on their policy so you are fully covered.

In fact believe it or not a named driver can bring the insurance premium down

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Imbiber]

In fact believe it or not a named driver can bring the insurance premium down

Yes that was explained by Caravan Guard. Apparently a named driver on your motorhome insurance will attract a discount; the reasoning being that as couples often tour on holiday's together they may well share the driving, thus cutting out the possibility of fatigue etc.

 

[Lenny HB]

A few years ago when my daughter bought a new car IIsorted out the insurance each time I added a named drive it went down by £10, max out at 4 then started increasing at 5.

 

[mitzimad]

i very nearly fell foul of this when i took a policy with tescos luckily i saw it was missing and as the couldnt include tp cover for other vehicles i cancelled within the time limit i personally think they shouldnt be allowed to call those policies fully comprehensive as they are obviously not

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[gus-lopez]

This has been happening for a long time, if you think of it another way why would you want it INCLUDE as standard in an insurance policy on the chance you may wish to use it one day? I'd rather not pay for it in the first place.

Another thing to remember is that if you damage the 'not owned' etc car, say reversed into something, you will have no cover for the cost of repairs so you really need to consider how you'd pay to rectify that if it ever happened.

Personally I'd rather NOT drive anyone else's car/vehicle unless I was included on their comprehensive insurance or was covered comprehensively on my own to drive their car. Third party cover, IMV, is very risky and is only there so you are 'legal' to drive it but that's all and should really only be used in an emergency when there is no other option.

There really wasn't anything wrong with the
"any vehicle owned by the policyholder"
policies.........Except there wasn't any money making in it for them.
As regards to full comp, here when it gets to 10-12 years old it will not be offered . Most will be TPF&t., regardless of what the vehicle is.

 

[chaser]

There really wasn't anything wrong with the
"any vehicle owned by the policyholder"
policies.........Except there wasn't any money making in it for them.
As regards to full comp, here when it gets to 10-12 years old it will not be offered . Most will be TPF&t., regardless of what the vehicle is.

Third party fire and theft, is almost none existent here now, and can be dearer than comprehensive.

 

[pappajohn]

Third party, fire and theft was a luxury I couldn't afford as a young lad......3rd party only and hope it didn't spontaneously combust.
Nobody would want to Nick my motors of the day anyway.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[rod_vw]

There really wasn't anything wrong with the
"any vehicle owned by the policyholder"
policies.........Except there wasn't any money making in it for them.
As regards to full comp, here when it gets to 10-12 years old it will not be offered . Most will be TPF&t., regardless of what the vehicle is.

I think "any vehicle owned by the policy holder" was removed because it was difficult or impossible for the Police / DVLA to verify if a vehicle was insured.

 

[Kingham]

Its nearly allways only in an emergency anyway , just to get someone home in a breakdown or injury or something similar , not for extended riding about.

An example of this came up last year when an acquaintance was stopped by Police after the car he was driving flagged up on their ANPR system as not being insured.
He was in his mate's spare car after his mate's Range Rover had broken down, just before a family weekend away. He'd loaned his mate his own Rangie, rather than cancel their weekend away and was driving his mate's Audi.
Each of them was driving on 3rd party cover on their own fully comprehensive policies.
The Police rang the insurance company direct and they confirmed that the person was allowed to drive other vehicles on 3rd party cover, BUT as it was a planned swap and not an emergency, they declined cover under the circumstances.

 

[sedge]

Assume nothing - check everything. At least twice. If the person you ask waffles or declines to put it in writing then their agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on - so walk away immediately and don't look back.

Yours etc

A retired insurance broker

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[sedge]

OH PS - there's never been 'Fully' comprehensive cover anywhere anyway. Even Comp policies have exclusions, even if it's only War, insurrection and all that particular jazz.

Incidentally - Pete took me off his policy last year as I absolutely don't want to drive the Moho and I've said for years I shouldn't be on there - as driving it anywhere - especially abroad, in an EMERGENCY would be my worst nightmare. Made absolutely no difference whatsoever to the premium anyway! I think, that a lot of what we'd all got in the 'comfort zone' about and had been taking for granted for yonks, has gone down the plughole with the bath water.

Which is why I gave my original advice to Check, Check, Check.

 

[Just smiffy]

An example of this came up last year when an acquaintance was stopped by Police after the car he was driving flagged up on their ANPR system as not being insured.
He was in his mate's spare car after his mate's Range Rover had broken down, just before a family weekend away. He'd loaned his mate his own Rangie, rather than cancel their weekend away and was driving his mate's Audi.
Each of them was driving on 3rd party cover on their own fully comprehensive policies.
The Police rang the insurance company direct and they confirmed that the person was allowed to drive other vehicles on 3rd party cover, BUT as it was a planned swap and not an emergency, they declined cover under the circumstances.

If the car came up on anpr then nobody can drive it....? Even the owner... As it had no insurance...?

 

[Kingham]

If the car came up on anpr then nobody can drive it....? Even the owner... As it had no insurance...?

No, the system isn't fail safe. An ANPR alert for no insurance is not absolute proof of there being no insurance, it is down to the officers to make suitable enquiries.


For example, you could insure your car at midday and an hour later, drive past an ANPR equipped car, which would cause a no insurance alert. Enquiries via the MIB or directly with the Insurer would confirm cover in your case and it could be a few more days before your details are added to the database and stop the alerts.

There are other reasons why a correctly insured car may still cause alerts.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[JockandRita]

Incidentally - Pete took me off his policy last year as I absolutely don't want to drive the Moho and I've said for years I shouldn't be on there - as driving it anywhere - especially abroad, in an EMERGENCY would be my worst nightmare.

And it's for the very same reasons I took Rita off our MH insurance. Whilst there is A N Other qualified driver onboard, the insurers will cover them to drive, rather than recover the vehicle, or send out a replacement driver. No good to us, as Rita just wouldn't/couldn't drive the MH. (This was discussed at length between us, before purchasing the MH. )

Cheers,

Jock.

 

[TJBi]

An example of this came up last year when an acquaintance was stopped by Police after the car he was driving flagged up on their ANPR system as not being insured.
He was in his mate's spare car after his mate's Range Rover had broken down, just before a family weekend away. He'd loaned his mate his own Rangie, rather than cancel their weekend away and was driving his mate's Audi.
Each of them was driving on 3rd party cover on their own fully comprehensive policies.
The Police rang the insurance company direct and they confirmed that the person was allowed to drive other vehicles on 3rd party cover, BUT as it was a planned swap and not an emergency, they declined cover under the circumstances.

Interesting, because if his mate did not have the Audi insured, then DVLA would surely have been on his case if he had not SORNd it?

 

[Kingham]

Interesting, because if his mate did not have the Audi insured, then DVLA would surely have been on his case if he had not SORNd it?

I can't remember the reason that it wasn't on the database, but it was insured. It was the use that it was being put to (swapping cars for the weekend) that caused the issue with the Insurer.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Minxy]

As I mentioned before, the ability to drive someone else's car on third party only insurance (assuming you have this with your policy) is only meant to be used in an emergency AFAIK so swapping cars for a trip wouldn't come under this, hence the lack of the correct insurance 'level'.