2 drivers, 1 car - how does it work?

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't insured for commuting.
But they aren't insured for being a MAIN driver if not declared as such.

But if she's not down as the MAIN driver, then she's not insured to be the MAIN driver.
This isn't about commuting it's about who is the main driver.

The OP hasn't mentioned commuting, but has said that the OH would use it the most.

Shall we agree to disagree?

lisyloo wrote: »

If they did an investigation and found out that the named driver was commuting then a claim could be turned down.
If they found out you drove more than usual when you were on holiday or when your wife had a migraine then that isn't the same.
One is regular travel, one isn't. I'm afraid I do see a difference.

I think we'll agree to disagree.

lisyloo

If they did an investigation and found out that the named driver was commuting then a claim could be turned down.

What I meant was.........on the basis that they were using the car as the MAIN driver. Sorry if that wasn't 100% clear.

lisyloo

Was it not you who brought up the subject of commuting.

Yes it was (and I'm genuinely apologetic if that's confused matters).
I added it in, in the anticpation of the next quesiton that would be "how will they ever find out I'm driving more than my wife".
So regular commuting is the method of dscovering the OH is using the car more than the OP.
The reason for being unsinsured is not being the MAIN driver.
I hope that's now cleared up.

I wouldn't want to scaremonger but we quite often get folks on her who've inadvertantly been uninsured, had claims turned down, had to declare cancelled insurance forever and sometimes get a 5 figure bill.

mikey72

But so far it's only you that thinks the op isn't the main driver on this policy, so as you say, we'll agree to disagree.
I doubt many people would change the insurance if their partner drove the car for a few weeks out of the year.

lisyloo

But so far it's only you that thinks the op isn't the main driver on this policy

Yes and it's only you that has disagreed, hence why I was looking for comment from the industry insiders.

Given your highly cynical attitude to insurance companies, I'm suprised you aren't of the opinion that they'd use something like that to get out of paying a claim.

mikey72

I'm sure if an insurer decided not to pay as the partner was driving for a few weeks, the FOS could make a decision.

Like any normal person, if my wife used my car for commuting for a few weeks, say if she was on a course and needed a motorway cruiser rather than a little car, we wouldn't change both policies over, and I doubt the FOS would agree we should have done.

lisyloo

I'm sure if an insurer decided not to pay as the partner was driving for a few weeks, the FOS could make a decision.

This is a terrible argument, to wait 6 months (or more) for the FOS to intervene, whilst possibly off the road.

say if she was on a course

I honestly think you've slipped up there.
Generally going on a course (which you imply is a different location) does not fit under the normal definition of commuting (to a permanent place of work).
So most people would in fact need to add buisiness onto their insurance if they use their car for a course or risk going uninsured.
So I'm afraid your example shows the exact opposite of what you intended.
Of course you could argue that they don't know your wife is on a course and they would never find out, but that isn't the point we are debating.

Can any of the regulars settle this? (pm sent)
If your circumstances change but it's only 6 weeks, does that mean you can forego declaring material facts on the basis that it's no different to a temporary change of cirucumstances such as a (rather long) holiday or illness.

lovinituk

emma-uk wrote: »

2 drivers, 1 car - how does it work?

one does the pedals, the other leans over and steers?!

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

This is a terrible argument, to wait 6 months (or more) for the FOS to intervene, whilst possibly off the road.

I honestly think you've slipped up there.
Generally going on a course (which you imply is a different location) does not fit under the normal definition of commuting (to a permanent place of work).
So most people would in fact need to add buisiness onto their insurance if they use their car for a course or risk going uninsured.
So I'm afraid your example shows the exact opposite of what you intended.
Of course you could argue that they don't know your wife is on a course and they would never find out, but that isn't the point we are debating.

Can any of the regulars settle this? (pm sent)
If your circumstances change but it's only 6 weeks, does that mean you can forego declaring material facts on the basis that it's no different to a temporary change of cirucumstances such as a (rather long) holiday or illness.

I told you that earlier as well.

mikey72 wrote: »

If the car insured for commuting, I have never seen any policy that doesn't include the same level for named drivers.
In fact my wife is a named driver on my insurance. Not only is she insured to commute, she is insured to use the car for her business, and travel to different places of work, as am I as a named driver on her insurance.

But I still wouldn't change the main driver.

lisyloo

I told you that earlier as well.

What did you tell me?
That you wife can drive on business?
That's exactly why I said MOST people (emphasised in bold in post #18).
If you mean something else then you'll have to be specific.
MOST people would have to change their insurance for that specific event even if it's a one-off (driving to a different business location other than their permanent place of work).

The fact is that you and I are not going to solve this by arguing.
I believe that material facts and changes in circumstances need to declared and you think that if it's 6 weeks then you're exempt on the basis that a (very long) holiday or temporary illness could be as long as that.
We aren't going to be able to settle this genuinely held difference of views until someone with more knowledge/experience intervenes, so there is really no point going over the same ground, slthough I accept your views are genuinely held.