The Lemon Fool

My OH insured a car on a three year fixed rate deal which could save us quite a bit given the way insurance costs have gone. I’m a named driver on the policy. OH has let her driving licence lapse so I just wondered if this affects the insurance in any way. Can we just leave things and enjoy a couple of year relatively cheap insurance?

I tend to think that we would be alright as OH will never drive the car in question (not even with a licence!).

I suspect that quite a few non-drivers are owners of cars, and will either have any driver or named drivers on their insurance. You do not have to be a driver to own a car.

TJH

It could well be a condition of her insurance policy that she has a valid licence, even if she's not driving the car.

Scott.

there is only one source for a definitive answer, her insurers.

It could well be a condition of her insurance policy that she has a valid licence, even if she's not driving the car.

Scott.

I've already checked and couldn't find anything regarding this. I'm also down as the main driver.

Nemo wrote:

It could well be a condition of her insurance policy that she has a valid licence, even if she's not driving the car.

I've already checked and couldn't find anything regarding this. I'm also down as the main driver.

AFAIK a blind person can own a vehicle and very obviously cannot drive. So yes, it has to be the case that the driving status of the keeper of a vehicle is irrelevant.

Lootman wrote:AFAIK a blind person can own a vehicle and very obviously cannot drive. So yes, it has to be the case that the driving status of the keeper of a vehicle is irrelevant.

that's just generics versus specifics.

Nemo wrote:My OH insured a car on a three year fixed rate deal ... I’m a named driver on the policy. ...
I tend to think that we would be alright as OH will never drive the car in question (not even with a licence!).

If you are a named driver, you are surely not the main driver. Who is?

Lootman wrote:

Nemo wrote:I've already checked and couldn't find anything regarding this. I'm also down as the main driver.

AFAIK a blind person can own a vehicle and very obviously cannot drive. So yes, it has to be the case that the driving status of the keeper of a vehicle is irrelevant.

It may be irrelevant as to the ownership or keepership of the vehicle. But the question is regarding an insurance policyholder who doesn't have a licence.

Scott.

swill453 wrote:

Lootman wrote:AFAIK a blind person can own a vehicle and very obviously cannot drive. So yes, it has to be the case that the driving status of the keeper of a vehicle is irrelevant.

It may be irrelevant as to the ownership or keepership of the vehicle. But the question is regarding an insurance policyholder who doesn't have a licence.

To validly carry insurance you have to have what is called an "insurable interest". So I cannot insure your car and you cannot insure mine.

But in this case an owner with an insurable interest can carry coverage regardless of whether they hold a driving license. Think about those who buy and own a vehicle but employ a chauffeur. Business owners who run a fleet of cars. A blind person with a driver. And so on.

Lootman wrote:But in this case an owner with an insurable interest can carry coverage regardless of whether they hold a driving license.

That may of course be a true statement.

But in this particular case we have the owner, with a valid licence, taking out an insurance policy. I'm 100% sure she will have stated this fact during the application process.

Now during the course of the policy her licence has lapsed. Nobody here can state with confidence that this hasn't affected the validity of the policy.

Scott.

If you are a named driver, you are surely not the main driver. Who is?

Sorry, typo. I'm down as the main driver.

swill453 wrote:

Lootman wrote:But in this case an owner with an insurable interest can carry coverage regardless of whether they hold a driving license.

That may of course be a true statement. But in this particular case we have the owner, with a valid licence, taking out an insurance policy. I'm 100% sure she will have stated this fact during the application process.

Now during the course of the policy her licence has lapsed. Nobody here can state with confidence that this hasn't affected the validity of the policy.

And "Nobody here can state with confidence that this has affected the validity of the policy" either.

Underwriters are concerned with risk and that risk may not increase if an owner who does not drive anyway loses the right to drive. In fact I could construct a reasonable argument that a vehicle that can no longer be driven by a driver whose license has been lost is in fact a lower risk.

Lootman wrote:

swill453 wrote:Nobody here can state with confidence that this hasn't affected the validity of the policy.

And "Nobody here can state with confidence that this has affected the validity of the policy" either.

Of course.

Underwriters are concerned with risk and that risk may not increase if an owner who does not drive anyway loses the right to drive. In fact I could construct a reasonable argument that a vehicle that can no longer be driven by a driver whose license has been lost is in fact a lower risk.

And your "constructed argument" would be of no help whatsoever in answering the OP's question.

Scott.

Nemo wrote:

If you are a named driver, you are surely not the main driver. Who is?

Sorry, typo. I'm down as the main driver.

So nothing has changed in my view. The insurers may have a view on you going from main driver to only driver, as that is not the risk they insured.

genou wrote:

Nemo wrote:Sorry, typo. I'm down as the main driver.

So nothing has changed in my view. The insurers may have a view on you going from main driver to only driver, as that is not the risk they insured.

If "nothing has changed" then neither has the risk that was insured.

If anything, having only one driver should be seen as less risk than having 2 drivers, since the vehicle will be used less. Just as if there had been an increase to 3 drivers, the risk could be seen as higher.

If there is any doubt, your OH should inform the insurance company, otherwise you may find out (when you least want to) that the insurance is invalid.

Insurance can cost more with only one driver. I do not see that additional drivers necessarily increase the risk for any specific declared mileage. A husband and wife can share driving, or one can take over if the other feels ill, thus increasing safety. This will all be factored into the mystical algorhythm used by the statistical engine that calculates the average expected claim.

Only your OH's insurance company can give a difinitive answer. Keep a copy of the reply.


Julian F. G. W.

A simpler answer may be to renew the license. If it has lapsed due to reaching 70 years renewing is a trivial exercise

Rob

jfgw wrote: I do not see that additional drivers necessarily increase the risk for any specific declared mileage.

But surely the point is that the mileage will be more with more drivers!

robbelg wrote:A simpler answer may be to renew the license. If it has lapsed due to reaching 70 years renewing is a trivial exercise

I can confirm this, having recently turned 70. I renewed online and it only took a few minutes. They ask for passport and NI number, so presumably they cross-check other government files to determine much of your information.

Other than that it is just a matter of ticking "No" to a long list of ailments.

Lootman wrote:If anything, having only one driver should be seen as less risk than having 2 drivers, since the vehicle will be used less..

not if the new non driver is now driven by the sole driver instead.