Removing named driver from policy question.
Discussion
O/H has given up driving voluntarily and withdrawn a request to the DVLA Drivers Medical Group to get her licence back following a medical assessment yet to be determined.
She has been a named driver on policies for two of our cars and has received a letter from the DVLA stating, "As your application has been withdrawn, you no longer have entitlement to drive any vehicle."
I realise this changes the policies' conditions but do I need to advise insurers of this now or at renewal time; I'd prefer not to have to pay two 'changes to policy conditions' fees.
She has been a named driver on policies for two of our cars and has received a letter from the DVLA stating, "As your application has been withdrawn, you no longer have entitlement to drive any vehicle."
I realise this changes the policies' conditions but do I need to advise insurers of this now or at renewal time; I'd prefer not to have to pay two 'changes to policy conditions' fees.
If they're never going to be driving the car again, why would you ever be in a position where anything could happen which the insurers would have to know about?
They're simply never driving it again.
Take them off at next renewal.
(Unless they're expensive then you might get something back if it's a long and expensive policy, even with admin charges??)
They're simply never driving it again.
Take them off at next renewal.
(Unless they're expensive then you might get something back if it's a long and expensive policy, even with admin charges??)
dundarach said:
If they're never going to be driving the car again, why would you ever be in a position where anything could happen which the insurers would have to know about?
They're simply never driving it again.
Take them off at next renewal.
(Unless they're expensive then you might get something back if it's a long and expensive policy, even with admin charges??)
unless....They're simply never driving it again.
Take them off at next renewal.
(Unless they're expensive then you might get something back if it's a long and expensive policy, even with admin charges??)
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
I think you should tell them - whenever I have insured a new-to-me car, I have got a cheaper price by adding SWMBO as a named driver, even though her driving record was worse than mine most of the time..
So unfortunately you may have to pay a little more premium. God knows why it is like this.
So unfortunately you may have to pay a little more premium. God knows why it is like this.
Riley Blue said:
O/H has given up driving voluntarily and withdrawn a request to the DVLA Drivers Medical Group to get her licence back following a medical assessment yet to be determined.
She has been a named driver on policies for two of our cars and has received a letter from the DVLA stating, "As your application has been withdrawn, you no longer have entitlement to drive any vehicle."
I realise this changes the policies' conditions but do I need to advise insurers of this now or at renewal time; I'd prefer not to have to pay two 'changes to policy conditions' fees.
I don't think you will have to pay a change to policy conditions fee at renewal, as it will be a new policy.She has been a named driver on policies for two of our cars and has received a letter from the DVLA stating, "As your application has been withdrawn, you no longer have entitlement to drive any vehicle."
I realise this changes the policies' conditions but do I need to advise insurers of this now or at renewal time; I'd prefer not to have to pay two 'changes to policy conditions' fees.
QBee said:
I think you should tell them - whenever I have insured a new-to-me car, I have got a cheaper price by adding SWMBO as a named driver, even though her driving record was worse than mine most of the time..
So unfortunately you may have to pay a little more premium. God knows why it is like this.
Oooo, ooo, I know this one.......because their stats show that policies where a spouse/additional driver is added cost them less in claims than policies with just the one driver.So unfortunately you may have to pay a little more premium. God knows why it is like this.
Is there a prize?
As you may well have received a discount when your Partner was added as a ND if you then remove them as such you might well expect an additional premium and I guess perfectly possible for an admin fee to also be added.
On the other hand you may also not have received a discount when they were added - problem will be you won’t know until you make said call !
But it is a change in circumstances so I would err on the side of caution and make that call.
Waiting until renewal could be an issue if something else entirely unconnected occurs and they dig into the policy.
On the other hand you may also not have received a discount when they were added - problem will be you won’t know until you make said call !
But it is a change in circumstances so I would err on the side of caution and make that call.
Waiting until renewal could be an issue if something else entirely unconnected occurs and they dig into the policy.
alscar said:
As you may well have received a discount when your Partner was added as a ND if you then remove them as such you might well expect an additional premium and I guess perfectly possible for an admin fee to also be added.
Hadn't thought of that.My advice is completely wrong, ring them!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
QBee said:
I think you should tell them - whenever I have insured a new-to-me car, I have got a cheaper price by adding SWMBO as a named driver, even though her driving record was worse than mine most of the time..
So unfortunately you may have to pay a little more premium. God knows why it is like this.
Oooo, ooo, I know this one.......because their stats show that policies where a spouse/additional driver is added cost them less in claims than policies with just the one driver.So unfortunately you may have to pay a little more premium. God knows why it is like this.
Is there a prize?
CarlosSainz100 said:
My sister lives in Turkey and there you insure the car not the driver. Once the car is covered literally anyone can drive it. Seems to work...
That can only mean people who have high risk additional drivers (teenage kids, family members with a poor claims or conviction record etc.) pay far less than they should do, whereas someone like me aged 60 where only my wife (also 60) and I drive the car, pay far more. Why should i pay for insurance that covers any driver when I don't need it?It's a bit like saying all restaurants must be "eat as much as you like". Great news for greedy fat pigs, bad news for sensible eaters.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CarlosSainz100 said:
My sister lives in Turkey and there you insure the car not the driver. Once the car is covered literally anyone can drive it. Seems to work...
That can only mean people who have high risk additional drivers (teenage kids, family members with a poor claims or conviction record etc.) pay far less than they should do, whereas someone like me aged 60 where only my wife (also 60) and I drive the car, pay far more. Why should i pay for insurance that covers any driver when I don't need it?It's a bit like saying all restaurants must be "eat as much as you like". Great news for greedy fat pigs, bad news for sensible eaters.
Every eat as much as you want place I've been to you pay the same price as if you'd gone to any other restaurant of similar quality and ordered a sensible amount of food.
Seems like everyone still gets to pay the premium for uninsured drivers anyway... just some 'high risk' drivers get to pay for the bonuses and dividends.
QBee said:
I think you should tell them - whenever I have insured a new-to-me car, I have got a cheaper price by adding SWMBO as a named driver, even though her driving record was worse than mine most of the time..
So unfortunately you may have to pay a little more premium. God knows why it is like this.
Years ago, Owner Only Driving was the cheapest option. Obviously the computer now decides otherwise.So unfortunately you may have to pay a little more premium. God knows why it is like this.
Rivenink said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CarlosSainz100 said:
My sister lives in Turkey and there you insure the car not the driver. Once the car is covered literally anyone can drive it. Seems to work...
That can only mean people who have high risk additional drivers (teenage kids, family members with a poor claims or conviction record etc.) pay far less than they should do, whereas someone like me aged 60 where only my wife (also 60) and I drive the car, pay far more. Why should i pay for insurance that covers any driver when I don't need it?It's a bit like saying all restaurants must be "eat as much as you like". Great news for greedy fat pigs, bad news for sensible eaters.
Every eat as much as you want place I've been to you pay the same price as if you'd gone to any other restaurant of similar quality and ordered a sensible amount of food.
Having an insurance system where you insure the car and anyone can drive it, removes the penalty high risk drivers pay for insurance, and hat's not a good thing.
Super Sonic said:
I don't think you will have to pay a change to policy conditions fee at renewal, as it will be a new policy.
That's well understood. What isn't as well understood is whether you should declare a material change in your policy circumstances mid policy - which is the question here.
Someone has already posted a link to the other current thread about named drivers- an insurance company is investigating a named driver who is no longer an "active" driver, yet on the policy still. They are threatening to refuse the claim and potentially could void the policy.
CarlosSainz100 said:
OP I'd just leave it alone till renewal.
See above. Ignoring changes is fine - until it isn't. Glosphil said:
My wife & I have always been NDs on each other's car insurance policies & it certainly reduces the costs, although not by much.
In the past 10 years she has driven my car once.
And isn't this "fronting"? In the past 10 years she has driven my car once.
Whilst they have the potential to driv, if there's no realistic proposition they will drive the car, then the policy is based on incorrect information. It seems a grey area.
What we need is someone familiar with the car insurance industry to advise perhaps.
I know the companies are not charities, but they do seem to have pioneered the "heads we win, tails you lose" approach. If car insurance wasn't statutory, I wonder how long their business model would survive?
Ian Geary said:
Glosphil said:
My wife & I have always been NDs on each other's car insurance policies & it certainly reduces the costs, although not by much.
In the past 10 years she has driven my car once.
And isn't this "fronting"? In the past 10 years she has driven my car once.
Fronting is where the named driver is the main driver, the one doing the most miles in the vehicle.
This is usually where a young inexperienced driver is listed as a named driver on a parent's policy.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff