my mum has been advised by her doctor to send her licence to DVLA.
she has to pack in driving on medical grounds. that’s no problem i said, we can take you wherever you need to go.
but she wants to keep the car, just in case someone needs to borrow it. 
the thing is, if she can’t drive it (licence revoked on medical grounds), but the insurance is in her name, and there are people named on the insurance. are they covered?
Best thing to do is ask the insurance scum (sorry, company). If ANYTHING changes with the policy holder or named drivers they will use it to wriggle out of any payments. If they throw a wobbly, there may be ways around it, so then you can ask an independent broker.
First, she would not be able to get insurance in her name so she could not be the main driver. Secondly, if the one of the other named drivers had to claim during the balance of the existing policy then the insurance company would probably get out of paying by saying that she was no longer the main driver.
The Sarge:
Best thing to do is ask the insurance scum (sorry, company). If ANYTHING changes with the policy holder or named drivers they will use it to wriggle out of any payments. If they throw a wobbly, there may be ways around it, so then you can ask an independent broker.
my sister in law owns a brokers. and that’s how i know that asking a broker wouldn’t get me a truthful answer. it would probably be more like a political answer.
tallyman:
First, she would not be able to get insurance in her name so she could not be the main driver. Secondly, if the one of the other named drivers had to claim during the balance of the existing policy then the insurance company would probably get out of paying by saying that she was no longer the main driver.
she paid up front a couple of months ago, so the existing policy will still run for about another 9 months.
i was expecting the answers to come back with what you said.
i was thinking of contacting her insurance company, but i just know they will just try to make money out of the situation.
Mmm-i’m in the middle of a similar problem.I phoned the brokers to explain.They phoned me back after contacting the insurance company,and said that company is aware and willing to allow named drivers etc.After reading these comments,I think the next step is to get documentary proof! Thanks.
Sir +:
Mmm-i’m in the middle of a similar problem.I phoned the brokers to explain.They phoned me back after contacting the insurance company,and said that company is aware and willing to allow named drivers etc.After reading these comments,I think the next step is to get documentary proof! Thanks.
let me know how you get on.
cheers.
If your correct, then it means that if you buy a car,insure it, but dont want to drive it, but someone else is a named driver on the policy, the insurance co would/could refuse to pay out.
I can see the point though as the main driver has lost her licence through ill health/fitness to hold such a licence. I would contact the insurance co, tell them the truth and see what they say, on the other hand, why not pay a bit extra, and put the insurance in the named drivers name anyway…job done.
To be perfectly honest, your best bet is to sit down with her and explain that she cannot drive any more and so the correct decision is to get rid of the car. I know this may be difficult, my Mum is daft as a brush too and would try to keep the car even if she lost her licence but the simple fact is that with the insurance, MOT and tax, it is going to cost a minimum of £1000 a year to sit there and it would be better if she cut the heartstrings.
Reverse the scenario, if your wife insures a car for your 17 year old daughter to drive is known as “Fronting” if the 17 year old is the main driver.
although,
Your Mother could insure the car for you to drive with any driver older than 25.
I am a named driver on a motobility car although I am not the owner. I am a named driver, along with the owners partner, the owner doesn’t even have a driving licence and hopefully never will!
One of the questions on the application form would be ‘how long have you held a licence?’ B phrasing it like that the implication would be that a licence is still being held - if it has been removed then the applicant does not hold a licence, simple as that. Together with the bit that says you must inform your insurance company of any material changes that may affect the policy then it’s a safe bet that if a claim was to be made the insurance company would refuse to pay out, so essentially you are not insured, in which case I hope I’m not in the car you have an accident with 
Harry Monk:
To be perfectly honest, your best bet is to sit down with her and explain that she cannot drive any more and so the correct decision is to get rid of the car. I know this may be difficult, my Mum is daft as a brush too and would try to keep the car even if she lost her licence but the simple fact is that with the insurance, MOT and tax, it is going to cost a minimum of £1000 a year to sit there and it would be better if she cut the heartstrings.
the first thing i told her was to sell it, but she thinks she has a duty to help out everyone else.
my main worry is, she might forget she hasn’t got a licence, and just nip down the shops. she wasn’t a very good driver before she lost her marbles.
Wheel Nut:
Reverse the scenario, if your wife insures a car for your 17 year old daughter to drive is known as “Fronting” if the 17 year old is the main driver.although,
Your Mother could insure the car for you to drive with any driver older than 25.
I am a named driver on a motobility car although I am not the owner. I am a named driver, along with the owners partner, the owner doesn’t even have a driving licence and hopefully never will!
I think motability is a bit different as i was involved in an accident with a motobilaty car. They reversed out of a parking space in to the side of my car. The disabled guy couldn’t drive but his son was his designated driver so was insured and motobilaty deal with it all. They were very good and had it sorted in no time.
Yes, motability is very different. They cover their own insurance, RSA Motability, so it’s covered by the tax-payer, hence they are less likely to try & wangle out of paying up…
get a sec on opinion mate,
my wife has a c section, and when i called our insurance, to see what i had to do,
after every one told me, you can’t drive after a c section,
they said, its up to her, if she feels fine to drive, thats ok for us… lol
You can ask the insurance company (not the broker) about the situation, and you may be pleasantly surprised at their response, but personally, I agree with Harry Monk’s statement; she would be better off getting rid and having the money in her pocket. If she really needs some independance then she could put the money she got for it towards a mobility scooter. If I have interpreted a later comment you made about ‘losing her marbles’ and ‘she may forget she hasn’t got a licence’ correctly, I think she does have a duty to consider other people’s safety, as opposed to helping out everyone else, and the only sure way is to get rid. Sorry if my thoughts seem a bit harsh.
tallyman:
Yes, motability is very different. They cover their own insurance, RSA Motability, so it’s covered by the tax-payer, hence they are less likely to try & wangle out of paying up…
RSA simply means Royal & Sun Alliance and is no more covered by the tax payer than Volvo Insurance
luckytruck:
get a sec on opinion mate,
my wife has a c section, and when i called our insurance, to see what i had to do,
after every one told me, you can’t drive after a c section,
they said, its up to her, if she feels fine to drive, thats ok for us… lol
If that was the case, that would take 25% of the women off the road immediately and mainly to do with due dates and vanity, well that is how it sounds round here. I am hoping for a C section so I can get into my wedding dress
Wheel Nut:
tallyman:
Yes, motability is very different. They cover their own insurance, RSA Motability, so it’s covered by the tax-payer, hence they are less likely to try & wangle out of paying up…RSA simply means Royal & Sun Alliance and is no more covered by the tax payer than Volvo Insurance
I stand corrected, I had assumed that the insurance would be the same as the cars themselves - heavily backed by the taxpayer. Local Ford agent was quoted as saying that they rely on Motability to make a profit…
tallyman:
Wheel Nut:
tallyman:
Yes, motability is very different. They cover their own insurance, RSA Motability, so it’s covered by the tax-payer, hence they are less likely to try & wangle out of paying up…RSA simply means Royal & Sun Alliance and is no more covered by the tax payer than Volvo Insurance
I stand corrected, I had assumed that the insurance would be the same as the cars themselves - heavily backed by the taxpayer. Local Ford agent was quoted as saying that they rely on Motability to make a profit……
A lot of car dealers do - in fact they wouldn’t survive without the motability scheme