Car insurance: Top up for learner driver over 26?

dutchcloggie

Hello,

My fiancee is learning to drive. She is 27 and would like to go on my car insurance.

Most learner driver policies are for young drivers.

We were thinking of a separate top-up insurance for her, as opposed to just adding her to my existing policy because that way my 9 years no-claim discount would be protected, but am so confused by all the different options that I don't know what is best. As I said, most learner driver policies are for young people only.

I cannot have a black box in the car as I use it to commute to work and I work night shifts etc.

Anyone have any suggestions what the best thing would be?

Thanks.

ps: to make things more difficult, she is a semi-professional musician which apparently makes her uninsurable. Would she still be covered if she simply never drove home from a gig but always let me drive?

Quentin

dutchcloggie wrote: »

..... to make things more difficult, she is a semi-professional musician which apparently makes her uninsurable. Would she still be covered if she simply never drove home from a gig but always let me drive?

No. That won't change her occupation.

See if a local broker (not swinton) can help get her cover

dutchcloggie

I don't understand the bit about her not driving to gigs. If she gets separate top up insurance, then surely that insurance only applies when she is driving? If I am driving, it is my insurance that is 'active'? If she is a passenger then surely it has nothing to do with her insurance where I take her?

I understand that it would apply if added her to my existing insurance policy, which I am not prepared to do, really.

Quentin

Irrespective of what journeys done, the occupation is material to acceptability.

But a local broker should know of insurers happy to take on musicians.

dutchcloggie

Meh. It looks like she is spending lots of money on learning to drive so that I no longer have to come to all her gigs, only for her not to be able to either be accepted for insurance, or find the premiums unacceptably high.

This whole industry is a shambles and it is things like this that drive people to be less than honest on their applications. Which then gives the industry the chance to say: "look at how many people are dishonest, we are forced to put our premiums up....."

Aretnap

Insurers base their decision on whether to insure someone (partly) on their occupation. If her occupation is musician, then she's still a musician whether or not she actually drives to gigs.

The problem with musicians from an insurers perspective isn't that driving to a gig is inherently more dangerous than driving anywhere else. It's that they tend to hang around with (and share lifts with) other musicians, and that can mean a lot of uncertainty about the potential risks. If I give my friend from accounts a lift somewhere, crash the car and break his hand, my insurer might be looking at a payout of a couple of thousand pounds. But if I break my friend the guitarist's hand, I've potentially ruined his career. If he's just been offered a job as session musician on the Rolling Stones' latest world tour then the end of his career could cost my insurer many hundreds of thousands of pounds. If he's IN the Rolling Stones it will be millions.

So a lot of mainstream insurers choose not to cover musicians (and other people in the film/TV/entertainment industries) - she may have to look for specialist insurers, which means a broker is likely to be more use than a comparison site.

dutchcloggie

Or I could just tell her to stop gigging for a few months. It just feels unfair that she will have to pay a lot more money just because she plays 1 gig in the local pub every month for a tiny fee. I mean, she is not officially self-employed or anything or has a tax status etc. She gets a few quid here and there for playing to cover petrol costs. So perhaps that does not even count as semi-professional? I am not looking to break the law. If it is the only option, so be it. But I don't want her to say she is a semi-professional when it turns out she would be classified as having a hobby....

SuperHan

If she doesn't declare the income (which I am not condoning. If she is earning anything, she should be doing a tax return, but that's not the point here), then I'd put her down as unemployed - at least that's consistent with her HMRC status etc. This probably won't help premiums though, as unemployed is another status that is notoriously expensive to insure...

dutchcloggie

No no. She has a normal full time job. She just plays a couple of gigs every month. For petrol money and beer vouchers etc.

SuperHan

dutchcloggie wrote: »

No no. She has a normal full time job. She just plays a couple of gigs every month. For petrol money and beer vouchers etc.

Oh, just put the full time job down. That's her occupation, the music is just a hobby that brings in a little income, I doubt it will have any implications on the insurance

dacouch

SuperHan wrote: »

If she doesn't declare the income (which I am not condoning. If she is earning anything, she should be doing a tax return, but that's not the point here), then I'd put her down as unemployed - at least that's consistent with her HMRC status etc. This probably won't help premiums though, as unemployed is another status that is notoriously expensive to insure...

Do you realise that Insurers have access to google?

Are you aware of the implications for the OP if he lies about his partners occupation and is discovered following an accident?

If you throw into the mix that I assume he's either asked his current Insurers about adding his semi pro girlfriend to his policy and / or been on comparison sites and inputted her occupation so the information is out there