Young Drivers Car Insurance (2004-2005)

zzzLazyDaisy

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

The son cannot insure the car himself as Dad is the registered owner, and therefore the car must be insured in his name with the son as named driver (this is according to the insurance company).

Dad doesn't particularly want to put car in son's name, only to have to transfer it back later (and what is to stop son selling it, not that he would, but it would then legally be his car to do as he likes with).

Still thinking about this one.

Bossyboots

MarkyMarkD wrote:

I almost agree with bossy, but obviously it would be necessary to disclose the change of main driver to the insurers and they would likely increase the premium substantially as a result.

And you'd also have to disclose the fact that the father had been banned.

On second thoughts, I would suggest throwing in the towel on the father's insurance policy once he gets banned (assuming that is the case) and then the son insuring the car in his own name from that point onwards. That wouldn't stop the father then starting insurance in the father's name once he regains his licence (but doubtless at a stonking premium) and the son would have the benefit of a period of no claims discount built up.

It's probably worth talking to the father's insurer about the situation, but having already found out how much the son would pay to insure the vehicle in his own name. It clearly isn't worth paying an extra £1,000 on the father's policy, if the son could insure it for £900 in his own right AND earn a year's NCD.

Yes, you are right about the change in main driver. I took it as read that they would declare the ban, that was why I suggested that they might try a company that specialises in convicted drivers at the outset.

I think that whatever way this is done it is going to cost a packet. I agree with you that the cheapest option would be to transfer the car to the son but I fully understand where zzzLazyDaisy is coming from with this. I wouldn't take the risk either.

Midget_Karen

Perhaps you could look at a different insurer? I'm sure they don't all need the registered owner to be the main driver.

MarkyMarkD

The "having to be registered in the right name" thing is not strictly true, at least not for all insurers.

Your father could provide documentation that he was giving you the car, but keep the registration document in his name, and MANY insurers (but clearly not all) would accept that in the circumstances. It's about having an insurable interest - which you wouldn't have unless you owned the vehicle.

djohn2002uk

Not totally correct about a" Stonking rise in premium" either. I lost my licence for 2 weeks for speeding at 96mph on a 60mph road and the insurance company were informed and it made no difference to my premium. Also i have been asked to supply any motoring convictions when applying for insurance and told "speeding doesn't count". So it depends what the ban is for and that hasn't been disclosed.

boots_babe

I'm sure it varies by insurer, but they definitely don't all require the main named driver to also be the registered keeper.

For the last few years, my partner has been the main named driver, and I've been the 2nd named driver, but car registered in my name. Elephant, Admiral and Privilege have all insured us with no problems.

I know some insurers specify on their web site that the main driver must also be the registered keeper, but if you ring them up they will usually say that it isn't a problem.

MarkyMarkD

@DJ

Your insurer is unusual if they state that "speeding doesn't count". I would certainly always disclose ANY convictions to a prospective insurer and demand that they record any convictions disclosed (including anything they say "doesn't count" on the policy, as otherwise you will be stuffed when you claim and they state that your policy is invalid for failure to disclose convictions.

If they fail to include them on the policy confirmation or whatever they send out to you, write it on by hand and send it back to them.

zzzLazyDaisy

Thanks for your comments.

He has now spoken to the insurer and explained the situation. They have agreed to put son on as named driver, and, if Dad does lose his licence they won't alter son's insurance until the current term expires in November.

djohn2002uk

MarkyMarkD wrote:

@DJ

Your insurer is unusual if they state that "speeding doesn't count". I would certainly always disclose ANY convictions to a prospective insurer and demand that they record any convictions disclosed (including anything they say "doesn't count" on the policy, as otherwise you will be stuffed when you claim and they state that your policy is invalid for failure to disclose convictions.

If they fail to include them on the policy confirmation or whatever they send out to you, write it on by hand and send it back to them.

I have made claims since the ban and there has not been a problem.

Bossyboots

boots_babe wrote:

I'm sure it varies by insurer, but they definitely don't all require the main named driver to also be the registered keeper.

For the last few years, my partner has been the main named driver, and I've been the 2nd named driver, but car registered in my name. Elephant, Admiral and Privilege have all insured us with no problems.

I know some insurers specify on their web site that the main driver must also be the registered keeper, but if you ring them up they will usually say that it isn't a problem.

That is exactly how we have both our cars insured with Churchill. Technically I drive my husband's car and he drives mine (long story).