I will be selling my Tiger very soon, the MOT runs out this month but is being renewed tomorrow, the insurance also runs out this month. I don't really want to renew the insurance for a whole year when I may only need it to test drive potential buyers over a few weeks period.
I am covered 3rd party only to drive other cars on my tin top insurance, but am I still covered to drive it when the Tiger has no insurance itself?
I ask because I think generally when you drive another car 3rd party only, it belongs to a friend/family member or it's on sale and the owner will have some kind of insurance on it themselves.
If I am covered under my tin top insurance, then other than the fact the kit car would be only covered 3rd party, what is the point of insuring it at all for the small amount of very safe and careful miles we do in them? :)
I think your tintop insurance may give you 3rd party cover, but only for a car not owned by you. They have all possibilities covered to make sure you don't get something for nothing. :(
Quote from: benchmark51 on 04, May, 2016, 06:24:52 PM
I think your tintop insurance may give you 3rd party cover, but only for a car not owned by you. They have all possibilities covered to make sure you don't get something for nothing. :(
Yep, they could teach Robin Hood a thing or two!
Wont be covered mate. :( Still cant see why insurance companies cant insure just us as a person..
I agree. We as drivers earn NCB not the cars we drive. Good behaviour on our part should be reflected in the premiums we pay on all vehicles we own. Wish some legal eagle would lock horns with these insurance companies. Also short term insurance should be available and affordable.
Partly it's reflected in the potential cost of repairs as much as the driver I suspect. Same driver has a prang in a Fiat Panda aint gonna be in as much sh*t as if he had a prang in a Lambo for example. At least that's what the insurance co would tell us I'm sure.
Used to work for bikes - when I was a lad bike policies were often "rider policies" with a CC limit i.e. the insurance would say "any bike being driven by your name up to a maximum of 599cc" or similar. Used to allow you to have a go on your mates bikes on your own insurance too. I guess the principle was that you can only be riding one at a time.
Quote from: Facial Hair Optional on 04, May, 2016, 09:47:56 PM
Partly it's reflected in the potential cost of repairs as much as the driver I suspect. Same driver has a prang in a Fiat Panda aint gonna be in as much sh*t as if he had a prang in a Lambo for example. At least that's what the insurance co would tell us I'm sure.
Except if he pranged the panda into the lambo
Quote from: sanzomat on 05, May, 2016, 01:36:42 PM
Used to work for bikes - when I was a lad bike policies were often "rider policies" with a CC limit i.e. the insurance would say "any bike being driven by your name up to a maximum of 599cc" or similar. Used to allow you to have a go on your mates bikes on your own insurance too. I guess the principle was that you can only be riding one at a time.
Thats fairer. My moan is if you use your NCB on one vehicle, it should still be applicable to other vehicles too. A second vehicle isn't going to turn you into a high risk, inexperienced nut case. So why do they imply that you are? Simply to screw more money out of us.
If you did insure 2 vehicles, do you build a NCB on both? Would the second vehicle have NCB applied to the next years premium?
'when I was a lad', how's that for a feat of memory!lol
All true Dave but we alll know they'd just find another way to get the money out of us, higher base premiums for one so the NCB would be negated most likely. A con in other words!!
Quote from: benchmark51 on 05, May, 2016, 02:55:44 PM
Quote from: sanzomat on 05, May, 2016, 01:36:42 PM
Used to work for bikes - when I was a lad bike policies were often "rider policies" with a CC limit i.e. the insurance would say "any bike being driven by your name up to a maximum of 599cc" or similar. Used to allow you to have a go on your mates bikes on your own insurance too. I guess the principle was that you can only be riding one at a time.
Thats fairer. My moan is if you use your NCB on one vehicle, it should still be applicable to other vehicles too. A second vehicle isn't going to turn you into a high risk, inexperienced nut case. So why do they imply that you are? Simply to screw more money out of us.
If you did insure 2 vehicles, do you build a NCB on both? Would the second vehicle have NCB applied to the next years premium?
'when I was a lad', how's that for a feat of memory!lol
And if you lost NCB due to claims on one policy, I bet you'd lose NCB on both as well....the irony is they'd claim increased risk due to claims !
Following on from that. If I have a bump in the works truck, I'd be told I need to inform my insurance company! Even though I'm covered by the company insurance. >:(
8)
Yeah you have to declare any accidents in the last 5 years I think Bri, no matter what car/vehicle you were driving. Sucks dunnit!!!
Not car insurance but it does show the logic in insurance. I have a rental property in hull, and when the insurance came up for renewal I had to declare that I had recently had a flood claim on my home in Taunton. Apparently my house in Taunton flooding some how increased the risk of me putting in a flood claim on a property that is on top of a hill 250 miles away and the premium doubled!!!! :o >:(.
Quote from: jmad on 06, May, 2016, 08:31:29 PM
Not car insurance but it does show the logic in insurance. I have a rental property in hull, and when the insurance came up for renewal I had to declare that I had recently had a flood claim on my home in Taunton. Apparently my house in Taunton flooding some how increased the risk of me putting in a flood claim on a property that is on top of a hill 250 miles away and the premium doubled!!!! :o >:(.
That is bloody outrageous