DOC extension question.

NUTLEY BOY

I am following a conversation elsewhere about the operation of the DOC.

It has been suggested that operation of the DOC extension is conditional upon there being valid and current motor cover on the "other" car being driven.

1. Could this be correct ?

2. If so, what is the logic behind it ?

I had a look at my motor policy. I am the policyholder. I have DOC. I see nothing that requires any other car I might drive [within the terms of the DOC extension] to also have cover on it.

Marcusm

IIRC there are two insurers with this requirement and you are correct that it is dependent on the terms the policy. In most cases it is not about sharing the costs (e.g. if car has open drive and you have DOC then the insurers may, subject to any exceptions, essentially share the costs of cover). It is effectively to discourage people from regularly driving a second car which is nominally registered in someone else's name but which is not used or driven by them. E.g. you could have a high risk car registered int he name of your infirm, housebound 90 year old parent and drive out purportedly covered. by your DOC cover when that doesn't reflect reality.

About q0 years ago, the uK changed the law to require that all registered cars which were not declared off the road had to have a policy in their own right irrespective of whether DOC cover was being used.

This was stated to both discourage the practice I've described but also to make ANPR usable. If ANPR cannot read direcltly against a motor insurance database which has integrity then it cannot issue automated fines and/or summonses.

mgbgt1978

It is only Aviva and Liberty that insist the 'other car' must have a policy in force on it.
This topic has been done to death here at this stage .