Fictitious named drivers.....

Spiderham

To add to previous comments, you will be asked about the fictional person's licence status as part of the quote process (a rating factor for most insurers). Now this fictional person doesn't have a licence (what with them being fictional) meaning no insurer would insure them to drive the vehicle. Hence by "lying" about their licence you are making a fundamental non-disclosure which would give them every right to cancel as you have knowingly "lied" hence technically fraudulently filled in the form.

Strong words I know, and it is all a bit head-twisty but in short my point is that isn't worth it. Insurers are getting keener on checking licences and I think a couple credit check and check whether people exist and when it throws up a questionable result, checks are more likely to be made, so you could find yourself being bit on the proverbial.

mcjordi

Its purely not worth it incase of a serious claim.

Sally_A

Yes Scheming Gypsy, a spouse (or long term co-habiting partner that contributes to the households finances - in this politically correct world), would help with costs, as you would now be seen to be a settled down, sensible sort of chap - all Val Doonican jumpers and comfy slippers.

Personally I think the more relevant question is "Will the Mother in Law ever be sitting in the back", as the distraction from a nagging back seat driver should push the premium up by at least 50%, similarly with uncontrolled, undisciplined brats.

tahrey

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

as i've never been asked to prove the details of any named drivers and if they're never going to drive it, technically they'd never have to prove they even have a license. I've got plenty of people i could put down as a named driver but when it rejected family it was easier to just change the age and relationship status of my mum than to type somebody elses name.... and it got me thinking.

Until they have a random audit, find that they can't find that person on the electoral register... DVLA system... any easily searched register of births, deaths, tax, national insurance, benefits, etc, and come asking if you can provide any other proof of their existence / personal details / ability to drive. These days the first part of that chain of pain may even kick off automatically as it'd just be one computer talking to another.

I've never been asked to prove the details either, but as mine were genuine I can't be sure that isn't just because one of these audits took place and they found my mum's driver number and other relevant details quite easily...

and yep Tahrey, Quinten is correct... It's just to get cheap insurance on a car i'll never claim on. A £500 car will get written off regardless, so i'd have to pay £150+ in excess to get £350 back for a car and have a claim to my name whereas I could scrap it or sell as spares / repair and get about the same.

That's fair enough and pretty much what I'll be doing anyway ... but I hope you have a grand knocking around in a slush fund, because doesn't that excess also apply to any third party liability?

I could be entirely wrong, I leave that option open as I've not yet been in a situation where I've had an at-fault accident my own insurance has had to pay out for! When I scraped along someone's door in my dad's van he didn't come asking me for a contribution, but he might just have been being forgiving...?