How much can a named driver actually drive?

lisyloo

And there is no danger of me driving anywhere as near as he does, I might have the car one full day, or a couple of trips in the week to the supermarket and kids swimming!

I think your case is pretty clear. If one is commuting and the other is doing short social local trips then there is no issue.
I'm just not sure about post #7 that claims a named driver can drive as much as they want.
Material facts have to be diclosed married or not and that applies to mid-year changes too.

In reply to post #8

There is no realistic way to check anyway

Insurers can refuse to pay out if they think you have lied (or got it wrong).
I think it's hard to prove but not impossible (for example your car might be on works CCTV every day).
If the insurer choose not to pay out then the onus is then on you to prove your case.
That means if you were lying you'd have to commit purjury to win your case (and risk them comming up with the CCTV evidence).
I would agree it's not likely in most small claims, but if it looks fishy they have the power to simply say no and put the ball back in your court, which isn't a good place to be if you lied (or innocently inadvertently got it wrong).
I'm not saying this is likey jsut that you cannot rely on "they will never find out".

c-m

Except it would be a civil case so would be based on the balance-of-probabilities meaning you only have to convince the judge that your case is slightly more plausible than the opposition. As oppose to criminal cases where it's Beyond all reasonable doubt.

lisyloo

Except it would be a civil case so would be based on the balance-of-probabilities

Agreed, but it still costs money, you need to take time off work and potentially face the other sides legal costs.
So not a risk-free or cost free operation at all.

you only have to convince the judge that your case is slightly more plausible than the opposition

Correct.
But that's not a great position to be in if you are actually in the wrong and you know there is hard evidence out there against you (for example CCTV of your car in the works car park everyday).
The balance of probability works both ways.

I don't see anyway that people should be led to believe there is no issue in getting it wrong as "they won't find out".
If insurers think something is fishy, they don't look for evidence, they simply refuse to pay and make it your problem.
Who wants to spend their paid time off in court? and bear in mind you will possibly have no transport whilst you are waiting for the court hearing. A big problem for most people.

We hear so many cases on these boards usually where people have inadvertantly got it wrong and it leads them to BIG problems.
There was one case where someone was being pursued for a 5 figure sum by the MIB who had paid out to a 3rd party and they weren't insured.
This came about 5 years later out of the blue.
I don't think any service is being done to anyone to imply that it's no problem not getting it right.
We hear problems on hear everyday (some of them major) where people have got it wrong.
Most often it's inadvertant, forgetflness etc. rather than people deliberately lying.
But it's not doing anyone a service to imply getting it wrong is not an issue.

Annisele

HappyMJ wrote: »

There is no limit. You could drive every day as a named driver. He's the "main driver" as it's his car and he decides whether you can use it or not. I used to be a named driver on my mum's car she drove it to work in the day and I drove it to my evening job. I drove her to the supermarket as well so technically I was the main driver as I drove more often and more miles but it was definitely her car. I had to ask to use it other than those times so it was OK to be the named driver.

You're right that there's no limit, but wrong that somebody is the "main driver" because the car belongs to them. The main driver is the person who drives the car the most - regardless of who it belongs to or who has to get permission for it to be driven.

If, for example, a registered blind grandfather were to purchase a car from his grandson, then allow the grandson to drive it on an occasional basis as a named driver, the insurance company wouldn't be too impressed with the argument "I own it, so I must be the main driver". (I don't know the end result of this case though).

OP - if you're worried, write to the insurer and let them know how much you each intend to drive. Get them to write back to you to say whether or not it's OK. (My parents did that because they drive their car pretty much equally often. The insurance company wrote back along the lines of "thank you for letting us know, you both have a pretty similar risk profile, in your specific circumstances we don't really care which of you is the named driver" - they've filed that letter very carefully).

6am

Annisele wrote: »

You're right that there's no limit, but wrong that somebody is the "main driver" because the car belongs to them. The main driver is the person who drives the car the most - regardless of who it belongs to or who has to get permission for it to be driven.

What is the "main driver" should be defined in the policy. It there is a definition of the "main driver" in the policy then there is no argument. However if policy omits the definition then the meaning is open to interpretations.

HappyMJ

Annisele wrote: »

You're right that there's no limit, but wrong that somebody is the "main driver" because the car belongs to them. The main driver is the person who drives the car the most - regardless of who it belongs to or who has to get permission for it to be driven.

Not according to the insurance company in my case. They said the "main driver" was the one who was in charge of the vehicle most often. As I returned the car every night then my mother was in charge of the vehicle more than me even though I drove it more. My mother was the one who sorted the repairs, the MOT, the insurance, paid the finance and drove it to/from her full time job(which is probably the most important bit). I just happened to put a few more miles on the car than she did. It was all checked with the insurance at the time.

stugib

HappyMJ wrote: »

Not according to the insurance company in my case. They said the "main driver" was the one who was in charge of the vehicle most often. As I returned the car every night then my mother was in charge of the vehicle more than me even though I drove it more. My mother was the one who sorted the repairs, the MOT, the insurance, paid the finance and drove it to/from her full time job(which is probably the most important bit). I just happened to put a few more miles on the car than she did. It was all checked with the insurance at the time.

That's an odd definition, who gave you that? I imagine by 'in charge' they meant 'whilst the car's being used', i.e. driven. It's main driver, not main keeper. Otherwise there'd be nothing to stop a parent paying for all the running costs of a vehicle and letting their child drive it 90% of the time.

In practice, if there's debate over who's using the car the most (i.e. ~50/50), it's unlikely to be that much of an issue.

agrinnall

lisyloo wrote: »

But that's not a great position to be in if you are actually in the wrong and you know there is hard evidence out there against you (for example CCTV of your car in the works car park everyday).
The balance of probability works both ways.

While I'm sure that your overall argument is probably right this isn't a great example, how would an insurance company be able to obtain CCTV evidence in a civil case? They could send out an investigator with a video camera to collect evidence but the chances of that actually happening must be very remote.

cajef

HappyMJ wrote: »

They said the "main driver" was the one who was in charge of the vehicle most often.

That means the person who drives the car most often.

HappyMJ wrote: »

As I returned the car every night then my mother was in charge of the vehicle more than me even though I drove it more.

Irrelevant, in that case you were the main driver.

HappyMJ wrote: »

My mother was the one who sorted the repairs, the MOT, the insurance, paid the finance and drove it to/from her full time job(which is probably the most important bit).

Of no importance at all and nothing to do with who was the main driver, if you drove it more than her then you should have been declared as the main driver otherwise you were 'fronting'.

Annisele

HappyMJ wrote: »

Not according to the insurance company in my case. They said the "main driver" was the one who was in charge of the vehicle most often. As I returned the car every night then my mother was in charge of the vehicle more than me even though I drove it more. My mother was the one who sorted the repairs, the MOT, the insurance, paid the finance and drove it to/from her full time job(which is probably the most important bit). I just happened to put a few more miles on the car than she did. It was all checked with the insurance at the time.

That's a seriously odd definition, but so long as the insurance company was aware and has agreed there's no problem - it can hardly accuse you of fronting if you fully disclosed the circumstances!