We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

temporary insurance for "accompanied" young driver

the insurance companies are missing a trick here - there must be loads of people out there in the same situation as us
We drive a people carrier and drive to France on holiday - it would be great if my 19 year old son could share the driving

He would have both his parents in the car and would therefore drive carefully. He is a good driver but it is impossible to find anyone who will insure him for this trip.

I know in Germany there is a category called "accompanies driver" with a limit on the number of older teenagers in the car, a person over 35 with a driving licence for more than 4 years in the passenger seat and hey presto the young person can drive any car for a reasonable sum of money!

Why is there no such thing here? Either temporary or all year when "accompanied"

Comments

  • The problem is UK legislation, not the insurers.

    Let's say that you insure your son to drive your car only when accompanied. What the insurance company do is they place an endorsement on the schedule that says they will only cover him "when he is accompanied by another named driver". The certificate, however, has to be issued showing your son as entitled to drive. The law won't allow them to limit it in the way you propose.

    This means that if your son were to "borrow" the car and hit a child, the insurance company would be required to pay the claim because your son was "on the certificate".

    So until the law changes, I'm afraid it's just not going to happen.
    In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and was widely regarded as a bad move.
    The late, great, Douglas Adams.
  • I assume Oscar is completely correct, but I do share your sentiment that it is strange moppy.

    Let's forget France for now and assume UK only. Before the son passes his test he can get insurance that does exactly what you want (except for motorways) based on the condition he must be accompanied when driving - and as you probably know, if you search for "Quinn" on this forum you'll see it is in fact cheaper. But he passes his test, and he can no longer do such a thing?

    Not that I'm suggesting anyone do this, but I wonder what'd happen if you just lie when getting insurance and say you have a provisional license, and only drive as if you're a provisional driver. Forgetting the offence you're probably committing, could the insurer really argue that your policy is void if they discovered your lie? Imagine them justifying that to the ombudsman. "He was in an accident fully complying with the conditions of a provisional license...but he has a full one".
  • dacouch
    dacouch Posts: 21,637 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    DrScotsman wrote: »
    I assume Oscar is completely correct, but I do share your sentiment that it is strange moppy.

    Let's forget France for now and assume UK only. Before the son passes his test he can get insurance that does exactly what you want (except for motorways) based on the condition he must be accompanied when driving - and as you probably know, if you search for "Quinn" on this forum you'll see it is in fact cheaper. But he passes his test, and he can no longer do such a thing?

    Not that I'm suggesting anyone do this, but I wonder what'd happen if you just lie when getting insurance and say you have a provisional license, and only drive as if you're a provisional driver. Forgetting the offence you're probably committing, could the insurer really argue that your policy is void if they discovered your lie? Imagine them justifying that to the ombudsman. "He was in an accident fully complying with the conditions of a provisional license...but he has a full one".

    They could avoid the policy as you would have intentionally miss lead the Insurers.

    P.S Insurance in Germany is completely different than in the UK, the vehicle is insured on a "Greencard" that covers anywhere in Europe and covers the vehicle for any driver
  • dacouch wrote: »
    They could avoid the policy as you would have intentionally miss lead the Insurers.

    My point is misled them in what way? Misled them into thinking you're a worse driver than you actually are? Tesco aren't liable to you if you buy 2.5kg of potatoes and it turns out they gave you 3kg. Surely someone would only be responsible if they misled them to their detriment?

    (Just to reiterate that I know doing this would be a bad idea, but I do think I have a point. Shows a bit of a hole in the Road Traffic Act et al)
  • raskazz
    raskazz Posts: 2,877 Forumite
    DrScotsman wrote: »
    My point is misled them in what way? Misled them into thinking you're a worse driver than you actually are?

    Misled them as a driver with a Full licence obtained, say, less than 12 months ago is more of a risk then a driver with a Provisional licence, as he or she is able to drive unsupervised. There is clear statistical evidence of this so the insurer would have an incredibly simple task in terms of satisfying the Ombudsman.
  • DrScotsman
    DrScotsman Posts: 996 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    edited 23 February 2010 at 9:18PM
    raskazz wrote: »
    Misled them as a driver with a Full licence obtained, say, less than 12 months ago is more of a risk then a driver with a Provisional licence, as he or she is able to drive unsupervised. There is clear statistical evidence of this so the insurer would have an incredibly simple task in terms of satisfying the Ombudsman.

    But that's my point - the insured has told the insurer they have a provisional license then surely they have no obligation (by the road traffic act or otherwise) to insure the driver driving whilst unsupervised? And hence as they are uninsured when driving alone, it is not to their detriment that they hold a full license when driving accompanied.

    I mean I assume someone who actually holds a provisional license is uninsured when not accompanied, and the same applies to someone who's simply SAID they only hold a provisional. Or is a provisional driver who drives unaccompanied actually insured?
  • raskazz
    raskazz Posts: 2,877 Forumite
    edited 23 February 2010 at 9:24PM
    DrScotsman wrote: »
    I mean I assume someone who actually holds a provisional license is uninsured when not accompanied, and the same applies to someone who's simply SAID they only hold a provisional. Or is a provisional driver who drives unaccompanied actually insured?

    This discussion is getting a little silly if you don't mind me saying so.

    In your examples, neither driver is insured in contractual terms. The insurer may incur a Road Traffic Act liability, but would be entitled to recover from the driver or the policyholder any costs incurred which they would not have been liable for under the contract.
  • raskazz wrote: »
    This discussion is getting a little silly if you don't mind me saying so.

    No, it's not getting silly. It was silly the moment I first posted in this thread :)
    Neither driver is insured in contractual terms. The insurer may incur a Road Traffic Act liability, but would be entitled to recover from the driver or the policyholder any costs incurred which they would not have been liable for under the contract.

    With regards to someone actually holding a provisional license I find that strange and daft, and I'm now wondering what part of a provisional insurance premium is built in to cover provisional drivers who drive alone.
  • Quote
    Quote Posts: 8,042 Forumite
    the insurance companies are missing a trick here - there must be loads of people out there in the same situation as us
    We drive a people carrier and drive to France on holiday - it would be great if my 19 year old son could share the driving.
    I'm confused. Exactly what trick are the insurance companies "missing out" on?

    I'm guessing that insuring young inexperienced males drivers abroad isn't very profitable, probably because hardly anyone needs the cover that you imagine loads of people need.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 346.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 251.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 451.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 238.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 614.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 174.8K Life & Family
  • 252.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.