Registered Keeper not the main driver

[didds]

Good calls Lootman!

Im still intrigued by the otherwise "normal family" scenario thing ... why would dad be the RK of a son's car which the son is by far and away the main driver and policy holder? I just don't see the benefit - but clearly plenty of possible gotchas surrounding insurance it seems.
didds

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
Discussion better suited to Cars etc...instead of DAK. (chas49)

[PinkDalek]

Im still intrigued by the otherwise "normal family" scenario thing ... why would dad be the RK of a son's car which the son is by far and away the main driver and policy holder?

In our case, assuming we may possibly be described as an otherwise "normal family", I purchased the car and it was simpler at the time to put me down as the RK.

The transfer of ownership and the RK was to be undertaken at a later significant date, when we'd be reasonably certain the responsibilities of car ownership, driving generally and checking tyres etc were evident. Plus, any NIPs would be directed to the RK, so I'd be aware of them. Not that any arrived.

[GoSeigen]

Purely out of curiosity, is there any reason [1] why you wouldn't have the RK as the main driver/insured?

Yes, because someone other than the RK is the main driver of the car.


GS

I'm not sure I understood that answer.

I'll put it another way - why wouldn't the main driver be the RK ? what would be the advantage? The only ones I can think of apart from the VED situation on ownership flip would be nefarious reasons somewhat approaching B movie plot line status. Or front loading (ie another nefarious reason).

didds

Well, in our case, I am the registered keeper but my wife who is a named driver on my policy actually drives our car more than I do, shuttling kids around etc., so she is the main driver. She's quite happy that I own the vehicle and remain RK, so why not?

GS

[ten0rman]

For us, I originally brought the car into the marriage, Mrs T. then learned to drive & gradually over the years she has driven it more than me. I'm still the RK as much as anything for convenience.

In respect of my son, I bought his learn-on car, paid for the insurance and thought I should keep an interest in it. In the event, due to the insurance co's attitude, I effectively gave away a sum of money as I effectively lost control of it. At that time, neither of our other two children had benefited financially from us to that extent so it seemed somewhat unfair. As it happens, since then our daughter has had a serious accident and now is wheelchair bound and does indeed get a lot of financial support from us, so the money our youngest effectively received turned out to be peanuts in comparison.

ten0rman

[Peanutte]

Shortly after my daughter passed her test, I bought her a car. I was the RK. I took the view that if any of her friends tried to persuade her to drive them somewhere she didn't want to go, or possibly to borrow the car - she did not need to argue - just to say "It's my mum's car." End of conversation.

Fast forward to 2017 - she needed a 'new' car so I let her have mine and I bought another one. I remain the RK. I'm not generous enough to give her a car outright.

Only one insurance company ever queried the fact that she is not the RK - she is completely open about it - none of the others are interested.

[ten0rman]

Reading the replies above, it does make me wonder if I was just unlucky with my choice of insurance co in respect of my son. The alternative thought is that maybe they've changed ideas in the intervening seven or so years.

ten0rman