Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Driver considered owner of Ltd company car!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
MPRoberts121
My vehicle was taken off the road as the engine needed new valves, I was insured fully comprehensive with Tesco's insurance, which gave me the benefit of 3rd Part cover.
The Ltd company of which I use for contracting purposes and of which I am a director, purchased a cheap car temporarily for my use until the vehicle was fixed.
I was stopped in this temporary car by Police with blue flashing lights.
I was told the car was not registered insured and so I explained that I was covered 3rd party under my Tesco's policy.
The Policeman told me that I am not covered 3rd party if I own the vehicle I am driving.
I told the policeman that the vehicle is owned by a Ltd company.
The policeman checked and said that technically I am the owner because the Ltd company is at my address and that it was a matter of semantics.
I told the policeman that I was driving back from work and that I had shopping in the car that needed putting away, he then allowed me to drive the car to my address where I parked the car on the drive.

1) I thought that in English Law a Ltd company is a separate legal entity - thus I did not own the vehicle - thus I was covered 3rd party.....

2) Since the policeman believed me guilty of a criminal offence - surely he was in the wrong to allow me to do it again by allowing me to drive the car home after he had stopped me!!!

I now have a court summons and they are looking at a big fine and at least 6 points on my license which will mean that I will no longer have access to my children who were abducted to the south of the Netherlands by my ex wife. Planes are not an option.... i drive 1000 miles each month to see them.
My career would also be in ruins if I lose my license.

Any help much appreciated

Regards - Michael
motoring lawyer
Micheal,

I think this is certainly a case worth fighting if you get a Court summons for no insurance. Legally a Limited Company IS a separate legal entity and you are therefore not the owner of the vehicle personally. As such there is certainly a case that you would be insured 3rd party if you can prove that you had consent to drive the vehicle by the owner - ie the Company in question.

Its an issue for a trial Court is my view.
MPRoberts121
I have called a solicitor who is supposedly dedicated to motoring offences online.
He has asked me to send a copy of the court summons to them as it has raised a lot of interest in his company. Apparently the senior partner says that I was legally able to drive the car, but he believed that i was in the wrong as it could be perceived that I had purchased the car on purpose through the Ltd company so that I could drive it.
He then told me that he would represent me in court for a fixed fee of 1500+vat and that the court would not allow me costs in the matter... (think i will represent myself)

Surely if I was correct on the letter of the law and that the summons was wrongly brought about by the police despite my stating clearly at the time that I was not the owner - then my costs for attending including day off work, stress, etc... would be claimable to some extent. Or can the police charge whom ever they want and just get away with it even when they are in the wrong....

Any ideas please
Hotel Oscar 87
You may also wish to check the small print of your Tesco's policy as it is relatively normal for the provision of 3rd party cover on other vehicles to be dependant on the owner of it having full cover.
Pete D
Who is registered on the V5. Who's name is on the Tesco insurance policy and who owns your car that is being repaired V5 Entry. There has been much discussion on this and other forums regarding DOC so I rang numerous insurance companies and quized them on the matter. Some required that the car had to be insured by another party, some did not and to make it worse the wording in the documents they give you did not always reflect that. Write to Tesco and ask them for a written reply and ask specific questions. Pete D
bama
check the wording of the policy carefully. a bod on the phone won't have your policy in front of him/her and will answer 'by rote'. the policy is the legal document.
Glacier2
The problem is that many coppers and even government departments don't understand that Ltd companies are separate legal entities, separate from their owners and directors. Just because a limited company may happen to have its registered office at your home address does not make you the owner of the vehicle. Being a director of a company does not make you the owner, nor does being a shareholder of the same company.

I would fight it tooth and nail in court. You might have to explain it in easy to understand terms to the magistrates.
Pete D
Your right Bama that's why I only dealt with a departmental manager or their underwriter and they sent me the policy wording and it was not always clear or it was contrary to what was said. If I remeber rightly I stressed that each pary shoulf read ther policy and then ask specific questions in writting and ensure they reply in writting. Pete D
FocusESP
Hi. I am pretty sure that if the car is registered to your Ltd Co. you shouldnt have a problem with the DOC cover. There are plenty of rules in tax legislation regarding "Close Companies" of a small number of controlling directors, but I don't see anything in the Road Traffic Acts regarding this.

Though some people mention insurers are now trying to demand that third party cars driven using the policyholders DOC cover have to somehow have their "own policy" on them by another policyholder, I have never witnessed this, save for terms saying such should be used when picking up such a car from a compound. This seems fair to stop the no-tax no-insurance scum, and yet allowing the rest of us to e.g. drive a car to an MOT before taxing and insuring it. If I ever got an insurance policy limiting my DOC cover then I will refuse it under the 14 days cooling off.

However, what you should be worried about, and what the copper really should have focused on, is that your normal car is now laid-up / being repaired.

Every DOC cover I have had expressly forbids cover if the policyholders car is off the road or being fixed. You better hope the copper / CPS focus on the none issue of it being a company car. Don't offer them the information your own car is off the road - you will deffo be comitting insurance fraud then!
Glacier2
QUOTE
Every DOC cover I have had expressly forbids cover if the policyholders car is off the road or being fixed.

I have never seen such a restriction before. Personally I don't see an issue if your own car is ill in the garage and the garage give you a loaner.
FocusESP
QUOTE
I was insured fully comprehensive with Tesco's insurance, which gave me the benefit of 3rd Part cover


ALL insurance gives you third party cover by law. Indeed thats why the bare minimum is called 3rd party only.

There is a common misconception the Fully Comp gives 3rd party DOC (Driving Other Cars) cover, and the rest do not. This is not true. I have been 3rd Party Fire & Theft with various insurers over the years and have had full DOC cover on those policies.

Whether you have DOC is not down to Fully Comp / TPFT / TP. The insurer will normally allow it so long as you are over 25 years old, and have some claim free years (not sure how many - guess it differs).

If you are Fully Comp and only 17 then you probably won't get DOC.

The terms are fairly consistent - you are not allowed cover if the car is under hire, or if it belongs to you. The cover is also void if your own car under the policy is off the road.

There is an insidious agenda behind the scenes from the government trying to get insurers to dump DOC as its inconsistent with the ANPR system the Nazis are trying to implement. However, if everybody checks their renewal and finds their new policy has "silently" dropped DOC cover then kick up a stink and threaten to move to another insurer!

We can't let the scum win! As above, the best terms I have found that accomodate the police purely exclude cover if the car being picked up is from a police compound for no insurance/tax/MOT etc. That seems fair to me.

QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Fri, 16 Jan 2009 - 23:59) *
QUOTE
Every DOC cover I have had expressly forbids cover if the policyholders car is off the road or being fixed.

I have never seen such a restriction before. Personally I don't see an issue if your own car is ill in the garage and the garage give you a loaner.

Not so - The hire car carries its own insurance. DOC cover also prohibits hire cars for this reason! Check your policy!

Many garages will not loan a car unless you are over 25 for this reason - their insurance co's don't cover it.
southpaw82
My DOC cover does not (and never has) made reference to the state of the car described in the policy. Just so long as the DOC is not used to drive a car owned or hired to me I'm fine. It's pointless giving "hard and fast" rules about DOC because it will always depend on the wording of the policy.
Glacier2
The last time I got a loaner, I had to transfer my cover from my car onto theirs. No option at all. They even do the ringing up your insurance co to do the transfer.

I don't have DOC on my policy.
slowerdriver
OP: cast from your mind even the slightest suspicion that the controlling director of a close (i.e., closely owned) company, be the latter limited liability or not, limited by shares or not, private or public, can possibly be viewed as being the same, for any conceivable motoring purpose, as that company.

It is wholly irrelevant if the director and the company share an address, a bed or a spouse.

The cop was talking torofex.

The crux of the issue is whether 3rd party cover is obtained for the driver (in possession of valid comprehensive insurance in respect of another vehicle) if the vehicle itself is not insured by its owner. While this is 100% down to the wording of the policy, I speculate that it may not be. Insurers are not known for their generosity.

Pardon me if others have said the same thing.
FocusESP
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 17 Jan 2009 - 00:10) *
My DOC cover does not (and never has) made reference to the state of the car described in the policy. Just so long as the DOC is not used to drive a car owned or hired to me I'm fine. It's pointless giving "hard and fast" rules about DOC because it will always depend on the wording of the policy.


I am pretty sure all my DOC clauses have included reference to the state of the car...

Hmm... just checked with my current insurer Prudential - "You still have the insured car and it has not been damaged beyond cost-effective repair. ", so I guess I was being a bit too hasty... If the valve job is cost effective then it should be OK (who determines this though?). See section 1b here http://www.pru.co.uk/content/acrobat/car_08_2008.pdf
southpaw82
It seems you've entirely missed my point. It's irrelevant what your policy says because it is likely that the policy in question is different to yours. So what's the point ion having a look at your policy documents?
FocusESP
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 17 Jan 2009 - 01:07) *
It seems you've entirely missed my point. It's irrelevant what your policy says because it is likely that the policy in question is different to yours. So what's the point ion having a look at your policy documents?

Indeed - however, I am stating that ALL my previous insurers of over 12 years have had a wording on the state of the car in the DOC clauses. In fact others have been far harsher than my present. Perhaps I'm jinxed.

Pray tell, just who are you insured with? I would like to check the policy wording and maybe consider them in future.
southpaw82
I'm not in the UK so it's unlikely to be the same I'm afraid. While I was in the UK both Swiftcover and Privilege did the deal for me.
FocusESP
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 17 Jan 2009 - 01:16) *
I'm not in the UK so it's unlikely to be the same I'm afraid. While I was in the UK both Swiftcover and Privilege did the deal for me.


Privelige: http://www.privilege.com/motor/Privilege_c...icy_booklet.pdf

QUOTE
If your Certificate of Motor Insurance says so, this policy
provides the same cover as above in 1a when you are
driving any other motor car as long as you do not own it
and it is not hired to you under a hire purchase or leasing
agreement. This cover only applies if:

• There is no other insurance in force which covers the
same claim;

• You have the owner’s permission to drive the car;

• The car is registered in and being driven in Great
Britain, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the
Isle of Man or the Channel Islands; and

• You still have your car and it has not been damaged
beyond cost-effective repair.

If you drive another car under this section, there is no
cover for damage, fire or theft to the car you are driving.


Swiftcover: http://www.swiftcover.com/carinsurance/policy/liability/

QUOTE
any car driven by You, with the owner's express consent, within the Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or Channel Islands as long as:
that car does not belong to You;
the car is insured by the car owner and You are entitled by the Certificate to drive such a car;
is not hired to You under a hire purchase agreement;
You are permitted by the car owner to drive the car.


So it does appear some insurers do not insist on this clause. I noticed More Than (RSA) don't have it in their wording either. The majority do though and so its something for the OP to bear in mind.

PS. Just spotted that nasty about the car being insured by the car owner! Thats just the kind of clause we can do without. They give with one hand (allow the state of the policyholders car to be ignored) - and take with the other (make it near impossible to drive a mates SORN car to an MOT station in order to tax and insure it for example).

Indeed, the copper could be correct if the OP has this kind of clause and the "owner" ie. LTD Company does not have a policy out on its banger. Just goes to show how evil this invisible cloak of ANPR / Big Brother is out to get you unawares.
fred2
I've just renewed mine with Direct Line. Allows DOC and nothing in the contract to say the other car must be insured. It does state that I must still own the car I'm insured for and that it's not damaged beyond economical repair. However I notice they now include a clause on the certificate to say the DOC cover does not allow for the release of another vehicle that's been seized by a government body.
bluegolfboy
I've just checked my Policy for the bike. I am entitled to ride ANY bike not belonging to ME. I have TPF&T as the bike simply ain't worth fully comp...

One question though... Is it implied ownership through the V5 Registered Keeper form or is it the actual owner. Say you had a car on higher purchase, it is stated in the T&Cs that you do not own the vehicle until it is fully paid for. Surely then although you are the RK you are NOT the owner and so could drive the vehicle on a policy which covers you to drive other vehicles??? wink.gif

Sorry...

"You are permitted to ride a motorcycle with the owners permission which is NOT owned, hired, leased or rented to you. Cover does not include damage to or loss of the motorcycle you are riding and is not operative outside the UK or when you no longer own your own motorcycle." sad.gif
Pete D
Many of the insurers have an age clause and many will not provide DOC cover unless you are older than 25 years of age ( it varies ) This is to cut down on the DOC being abused. As I have detailed earlier and in a previous thread Ensure you read your policy and also make a direct check in writing to your insurer that DOC is valid and any requirement to have the other car already insured in it's own right. Several companies I contacted even at higher levels referred to the fact that the vehicle has to be insured in it's own right as if you used a DOC with no cover then if you step out of the car on the road or a public place then the car is no longer insured. It is a complex area and we all tend to rely on the policy documentation and the T & C's but check it out before you use it and do not reply on the call centre, get through to a departmental head and then follow it up in writing to that person. Don't bother asking this question on a Saturday or Sunday as the departments are not and the request for them to call you rarely comes to fruition. Pete D

. We still await the OP's details of the name on the V5 and the company status.
Fredd
QUOTE (Pete D @ Sat, 17 Jan 2009 - 13:07) *
we all tend to rely on the policy documentation and the T & C's

Of course we do - what else do you suggest relying on as the basis of the contract? The private views of some manager within the company?
Pete D
I agree Fredd but two of the insurers I spoke to even admitted that they had not made it clear in the policy wording and were going to change it. I'm just trying to save people from 3 points if the use DOC on occasions. Pete D
southpaw82
Six points. If the policy is unclear then it must be interpreted in favour of the accused.
FocusESP
Just checked out Tescos Comp Policy online regarding 3rd party cover (legal minimum)
http://www.tescofinance.com/personal/finan...policy-doc.html

QUOTE

  1. Indemnity to the Policyholder
  2. We will indemnify You against legal liability for damages, claimants costs and expenses in the event of an accident
  3. Involving:
  4. Your Car.
  5. The driving by You, with the owner's permission, of any motor Car not belonging to You and not hired to You under a hire purchase agreement provided that:
    1. You are entitled by Your effective Certificate of Motor Insurance to drive such Car.
    2. You observe the licence conditions applicable.
    3. There is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim.
    4. The Car is being driven in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
    In respect of:

    1. Death of or bodily injury to any person.
    2. Damage to property up to a maximum of twenty million pounds subject to General Exception 5.

  6. Commentary
  7. This Section shows the cover provided for claims made by other parties for bodily injury or damage to their property.
  8. This part covers claims made against You.
  9. Cover operates for accidents involving Your Car or (if You are permitted in the Certificate) while You are driving someone else's Car.
  10. If your Certificate permits You to drive someone else's Car then it should only be in the event of an emergency.
  11. THIS SECTION DOES NOT COVER ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE TO Your Car OR THE CAR YOU ARE DRIVING.


So providing the OP has the DOC on his certificate then I am pretty sure he is in the clear. No mention of the state of the policyholders vehicle, or whether the 3rd party vehicle has its own "insurance" (despite the fact that its Policyholders, not vehicles, that carry insurance).

Quite what the "emergency" clause is I don't know - am pretty sure its not been tested in court and is not at all mentioned in the Road Traffic Acts. Perhaps the OP considers his car being in for a valve job is an emergency, and he is forced to use another persons car, with permission? seems fair enough to me. smile.gif
clean for20years
The OP is lucky the nice policeman did not decide to impound the car as happened in our case !!
TheGeek
I'd be surprised if there wasn't some case law on this. I would be an enormous and useful loophole, wouldn't it? Buy a banger, insure it cheaply and then buy the car you really want to drive through a company. You could set up the company for the purpose: a hundred quid would be a small price to pay in order to drive a Porsche on a Mini's insurance.

That said, the OP has a very easy route out of this. All he has to do is write to Tesco Insurance, explain the facts and get a letter from them confirming that he was insured when stopped. Of course he ha a bit of a problem if they won't provide that confirmation, particularly if the police or CPS ask them the same question.
nimh999
QUOTE (Pete D @ Fri, 16 Jan 2009 - 15:59) *
so I rang numerous insurance companies and quized them on the matter. Some required that the car had to be insured by another party, some did not and to make it worse the wording in the documents they give you did not always reflect that.
It is totally irrelevant what someone from the insurance company says on the phone after you have takent the policy out.

And it is totally irrelevant what your insurance company have put in your policy documents. Your policy documents and your insurance company terms and conditions are or may not be the same as the OP's or mine.

It's what is in the policy document and Certificate of Insurance of the OP that matters.


QUOTE (FocusESP @ Fri, 16 Jan 2009 - 23:51) *
Don't offer them the information your own car is off the road - you will deffo be comitting insurance fraud then!
Only if it is in the policy documents or on the Certificate of Insurance. Have you seen the policy documents of the OP?

Even if you are both insured with the same company, doesn't meant to say you both have the same policy terms and conditions of insurance.
Cricketer
Working for an insurance broker/intermediary dealing with technical qeueries, in my experience it will vary from policy to policy, whether you have TPO cover to drive other vehicles. The normal exclusions are

A. If you own or the vehicle is hired to you
B. If the vehicle itself is not insured

Personally i've never known for an exclusion if a vehicle is beyond repair, because it would restrict the Policy Holder to not test drive a replacement car for example (assuming its a private purchase).

So surely the policy can be explained piece by piece in court, along with the legal standing of which entity actually owns the vehicle, therefore validating the TPO on other vehicles cover?

A specific statement from whoever is in charge of underwriting at your insurers would be most useful I assume?



QUOTE (TheGeek @ Sun, 18 Jan 2009 - 13:13) *
I'd be surprised if there wasn't some case law on this. I would be an enormous and useful loophole, wouldn't it? Buy a banger, insure it cheaply and then buy the car you really want to drive through a company. You could set up the company for the purpose: a hundred quid would be a small price to pay in order to drive a Porsche on a Mini's insurance.


The Porsche, or any other vehicle would normally need to be insured itself anyway, through the company or whoever is legally responsible for it.
JagDriver
Firstly all the advice about contacting Tescos is correct. Surprised the plod didn't do this for you just to be sure of their own ground.

As an owner of a Ltd (also so I can Contract), I can tell you why you don't own the vehicle. If your ltd co were to be wound up for any reason then ALL of the co assests go to pay your creditors (Tax Man first), this is the default situation, and would require little legal work on your creditors behalf to get at their money. Personnaly I never have my vehicles in the co name for this reason, if I were to go bust then atleast I'd still be mobile to get myself out of a hole, you might want to treat that as a lesson learnt!

If you can pursade Tesco to put it in writting I can't see the CPS going further when presented with it.
PS I'm not a solicitor.
Glacier2
I would agree 100% with you. The OP does not own the car.

The problem is that plod seems to think otherwise and the CPS are clueless in matters of company law. I would not be surprised if the CPS run with it.
TheGeek
QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Mon, 19 Jan 2009 - 11:59) *
I would agree 100% with you. The OP does not own the car.


He does though, does he not, wholly own the company which wholly owns the car?

OP, have you tried asking Tesco's to confirm that you were covered?
Glacier2
QUOTE
He does though, does he not, wholly own the company which wholly owns the car?

Nope that will hold no water in court.
Fredd
QUOTE (TheGeek @ Mon, 19 Jan 2009 - 15:46) *
He does though, does he not, wholly own the company which wholly owns the car?

Yet another one who doesn't understand the key point - the company and its owners are separate legal entities.
TheGeek
QUOTE (Fredd @ Mon, 19 Jan 2009 - 16:16) *
QUOTE (TheGeek @ Mon, 19 Jan 2009 - 15:46) *
He does though, does he not, wholly own the company which wholly owns the car?

Yet another one who doesn't understand the key point - the company and its owners are separate legal entities.

Of course they are. However, as I wrote before, this would be such an obvious loophole if open that I find it hard to believe there is not some case law on the matter. If he wholly owns the legal entity which wholly owns the car, I think it very likely that a court, and his insurers, would take the view that he owned the car. Case law or precise definitions will help here a lot more than pious hopes.

If he turns out not to be covered can he, as sole owner of the company, be prosecuted for permitting himself to drive without insurance?

QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Mon, 19 Jan 2009 - 16:14) *
QUOTE
He does though, does he not, wholly own the company which wholly owns the car?

Nope that will hold no water in court.

And the case on which you base that confident claim is ...?
jobo
the limited bit of a ltd company is that it limits the liability of the directors for the legal liabilities of the company

so if my limited company owed you one million pounds, i could wind the company up and you couldn't touch me for a penny

thats how the dodgy builderS get away with it

the car insurance issue is just a SIDE ISSUE
southpaw82
QUOTE (TheGeek @ Mon, 19 Jan 2009 - 22:29) *
Of course they are. However, as I wrote before, this would be such an obvious loophole if open that I find it hard to believe there is not some case law on the matter. If he wholly owns the legal entity which wholly owns the car, I think it very likely that a court, and his insurers, would take the view that he owned the car. Case law or precise definitions will help here a lot more than pious hopes.

If he turns out not to be covered can he, as sole owner of the company, be prosecuted for permitting himself to drive without insurance?


QUOTE
And the case on which you base that confident claim is ...?


And the basis for your own claim is what?

An incorporated body is a separate legal entity to its members (shareholders or partners). The "corporate veil" can only be pierced in certain, very limited, circumstances - mainly involving the company being used as a vehicle for fraud.

I must admit that I get pretty sick of people simply disagreeing with a generally held position without having the common courtesy to explain why they disagree and providing a cogent argument in support of their disagreement. A simple explanation of "it doesn't sound right" doesn't really cut it, does it?

QUOTE
Case law or precise definitions will help here


Provide them then!
TheGeek
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 19 Jan 2009 - 23:23) *
I must admit that I get pretty sick of people simply disagreeing with a generally held position without having the common courtesy to explain why they disagree and providing a cogent argument in support of their disagreement.


That translates doesn't it, as "I must first admit that I get pretty sick of people disagreeing with me, or asking me to support my uncorroborated assertions"

Look, this isn't. Lots and lots and lots of people are single owners of companies which own cars. The position of insurance companies on covering these cars must be very well established. So, rather than making wild guesses and bold claims, would it not just be easier to find out what that established position is? In this case. by asking the insurance company.
southpaw82
QUOTE (TheGeek @ Tue, 20 Jan 2009 - 15:39) *
That translates doesn't it, as "I must first admit that I get pretty sick of people disagreeing with me, or asking me to support my uncorroborated assertions"


If that's how you choose to interpret what I said then that's fine by me. However, I seem to remember you're the one making uncorroborated and sweeping assumptions. You've made the assertion - go and prove it. At the moment the default position is that a company is a separate legal entity to its chareholders and directors. That is a general expression of the law relating to companies. It's well known enough that it doesn't require any specific corroboration but I'm sure you could find it quite easily by looking on google rolleyes.gif

If you don't like being challenged (by someone properly legally qualified) then perhaps you ought not to make such statements.
Fredd
And if their call centre gives you a different answer than what's written in black and white in the policy/schedule/certificate?
Neil B
QUOTE (TheGeek @ Tue, 20 Jan 2009 - 15:39) *
So, rather than making wild guesses and bold claims, would it not just be easier to find out what that established position is?


nobody has. Your question has been answered by several people.


getting down to nitty gritty. In general terms, what is your issue? You seem to have a problem with advice given here generally?

Be honest and state your real point.
TheGeek
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 20 Jan 2009 - 15:53) *
QUOTE (TheGeek @ Tue, 20 Jan 2009 - 15:39) *
So, rather than making wild guesses and bold claims, would it not just be easier to find out what that established position is?


nobody has. Your question has been answered by several people.


getting down to nitty gritty. In general terms, what is your issue? You seem to have a problem with advice given here generally?

Be honest and state your real point.


My question hasn't been answered. Lots have people have said "a company is a separate legal entity". Well, that's fine. No argument there. Of course it is. My question, though is simply "Has it been established that insurance companies and/or the courts, interpret a car belonging to a company to an individual as a car not belonging to that individual for the purposes of driving-other-cars cover. Somewhere in law there will be appropriate definitions.

My point is that too many people here seem only too happy to egg others on with advice which they cannot substantiate. In this case, all it need is for someone to say "I checked with my insurance company and they were perfectly happy with this" or "it was established in whoever vs whomever (2006)" and I shall be entirely happy. And so, of course, should the OP be.

For people who are facing prosecution there are real issues, real dangers and real penalties. For those giving unsupported advice there are none. Many are, of course, doing an excellent job out of the goodness of their hearts, and that's highly commendable. But when someone gets increasingly strident about refusing to substantiate claims - well, then you have to wonder, don't you ...

regards,

A geek
Pete D
It's about time MPRoberts121 addressed this issue and tells us what name is on the V5. Pete D
Glacier2
Indeed.
Fredd
Perhaps I'm missing something, but how's that relevant? The V5 doesn't record the owner, but the keeper.
southpaw82
QUOTE (TheGeek @ Wed, 21 Jan 2009 - 09:27) *
My point is that too many people here seem only too happy to egg others on with advice which they cannot substantiate. In this case, all it need is for someone to say "I checked with my insurance company and they were perfectly happy with this" or "it was established in whoever vs whomever (2006)" and I shall be entirely happy. And so, of course, should the OP be.


So far as I know the issue has not been determined by a court. So to say that the definite answer is out there is not necessarily correct. Unless and until the issue is determined by a court the answer remains one of (educated) opinion. And that's exactly what I've given - educated opinion based on first principles.

It is absolutely no good ringing up an insurance company and asking them - the answer is not relevant unless it is derived from the exact same terms and conditions as are attached to the policy in question.

I note that all you do is whinge about advice given but never actually give any (useful) advice yourself. Not terribly constructive. The OP is free to take my advice or leave it - thankfully I don't have to satisfy you as to its applicability.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.