sgbolt

HI there does anyone know the rules about a canadian resident from the UK returning to uk for a holiday and getting insured on parents car for a couple of weeks. Both my wife and I had to surrender our uk licences to get our ontario ones. Thanks

JonboyE

You can drive with you provincial license in the UK as a visitor. No problem. Lots of us have done that. Getting insurance cover on your parents' car is a different matter. They will need to speak to their insurers. Some will, some will not, cover drivers who are not resident in the UK.

wolstie

You're probably better off with a short term policy.

Aviva offer this:

http://www.aviva.co.uk/short-term-car-insurance/

Now, it says it is only valid for UK, EU, Oz or NZ drivers. You may want to phone them and enquire as to why they don't offer it to Canadian residents. Maybe they do, but not online. You never know, they may be able to point you in the right direction.

Dashie

They can't take out their own policy - it's not their car, and they have no legal insurable interest. The parents likely can't take out a short term policy without cancelling their own because they would then have a dual insurance situation, and that gets very messy in the event of a claim, and could result in either or both insurers cancelling on them for having dual cover if they were to find out, even without making a claim.

Best for the parents to talk to their insurer, some will, some won't. Interestingly though, when I worked in insurance in the UK we would not cover a temporary foreign licence, but we would add them on permanently then take them off when the need passed. Also, some policies will state 'a driver who has held and is not excluded from holding a full British licence', which in theory covers someone who exchanged their licence when they moved abroad, as they could regain their licence at any time if they were to come home (assuming there have been no disqualifications, or licences being removed for health etc.).

Jerseygirl

Depends what insurance company your parents are using. Most won't cover you...but some will. My sister added me to her policy for a month..cost about £70.

wolstie

That's not true.

When borrowing cars in the past, I have taken out my own short term policy, using Aviva. The short term policy had absolutely no connection to the main insurance policy on the car.

Dashie

Well it's against the FSA, so I'm not sure which loophole they're using, although most laws probably have one if you look hard enough. One of the fundamental principles of insurance is that you have a legal insurable interest in the item being insured, ie ownership.

Dashie

This one?

http://www.aviva.co.uk/short-term-ca...formation.html

They likely don't cover Canadians because we drive on the right, and a Canadian licence could only be exchanged for an automatic, and chances are the car you'd be driving won't be (although for some reason you can rent a manual), so you're a much higher risk. 'Starting from 10GBP a day'???? That's a lot! We used to charge 15-25 per week, and it was usually still cheaper to add someone on and then take them off again.

From the legal side, I have no idea. It really doesn't make sense next to what we were always bound by. If the car is owned and insured by someone else, there would be dual insurance in place for a lot of what they seem to cover, so it could still get very messy, they would likely argue it with each other. I'm having a read of the policy wording.

Almost Canadian

So please explain to me how the driver of a car purchased on HP is able to insure it as, in such a scenario, title to the vehicle remains with the "dealer" until some time as the full amount is paid? If your answer is "the driver has a licence from the dealer to use it" the same would apply in the example given above.

dbd33

I think that's a fallacy. I learned all about the need for an insurable interest when taking the ACII exams but then found that it's commonplace to issue policies where no such interest exists. I suspect it's a cloak to try and make insurance companies seem more respectable than other kinds of bookmakers.

In any case, in the specific case of driving someone else's car, such an interest does exist, what's being insured is third party liability risk born by the driver. If the visitor were to try to take out a policy covering the car for theft then there'd be no interest but companies being what they are, I expect one of them would write it anyway.

Dashie

General Exceptions #6

Other insurance
If any incident leading to a claim under this policy is covered under any other insurance policy, we will not be liable under this policy.

That means they will refuse to pay anything that is covered under the main policy. You might want to check whether the main policy has the same wording, because that could be a huge sticking point. In reality, someone would likely pay it, but not without a fight.

All of the wording I can see is based on the assumption that you also own the car you are insuring. I'm guessing that ownership etc. would be established in the quote/on the certificate, even if the policy is technically taken out by the driver, not the owner, the owner would be noted as the one with the insurable interest, not the driver and it would be treated like a very limited extension. Likely much cheaper and a lot less hassle in the event of a claim to just go to their existing insurer.

I also went part way through a dummy quote, until it asked for my licence number, which I can't give. 20 quid a day for a basic old Rover??? No thanks.

Dashie

The vehicle is registered to the owner/person paying for the car. The car is used as security against that loan, they no longer own it by law, they are just owed the money.

If a car is leased, then liability is built in to the contract so that although ownership remains with the leasing company, liability falls to the person leasing the vehicle. Insuring the vehicle is also part of the contract.

If there was a contract in place, then the above would apply to any borrowing of car I would assume.

Dashie

Fallacy maybe, but insurance companies will also try and get out of anything that they can, something else that's commonplace. Same applies to your second paragraph. The temporary policy by Aviva pretends to cover theft etc. (which it would if you were insuring a second car of your own for example). In reality, for someone driving someone else's car, they would not as it should be covered by the owner's existing insurance. My guess is that their premiums are so high to cover those that aren't and the litigation involving such claims. Cover for third party liability doesn't usually cover the vehicle, as the third party is considered to be independent and in the case of borrowing a car that's pretty grey. An extended driver would essentially be looking for/given third party and that's all. The Aviva policy isn't selling itself as that.

Like I say, just call the existing insurer. If they won't cover one way or the other, ask them how they would feel about there being a separate policy just to cover additional drivers.

Almost Canadian

Are you talking about Canada or the UK? I believe the OP was talking about the UK and, if so, in the UK the "dealer" owns the vehicle until such time as it is paid for. That is why the driver is not able to sell it to another.

If you are talking about Canada, registration does not make one bit of difference to legal ownership. I would be very interested to see any legal authority you can provide to support the bit in your post I have highlighted in red.

withabix

It may be more cost-effective to hire a car than change the insurance, particularly if you have a credit card that covers the insurances.

On the other topic vein discussed, the V5 (Registration Document) in the UK only shows who is the REGISTERED KEEPER.

REGISTERED KEEPER is the person responsible for paying RFL and making sure that the vehicle is insured.

It is not proof of OWNERSHIP.

V5 for vehicles on HP in the UK show the buyer as the Registered Keeper. They don't show anything else.