This topic is for discussing childcare options. If you want to advertise, please use your Local site.
Insuring nanny to drive your car(25 Posts)
Has anyone done this?
If so who with and did it cost you much more?
My insurance company - e-sure- have just refused to add my nanny to our insurance so I've got to shop around for a new insurer. Grrrr.
One of their grounds was her age (she's 28 ffs).
Sponge, we've done this for current and last nanny - dh arranged it so I will ask him tonight.
The usual test I think is how long the nanny has held her licence for - 3 years being the important one - could it be that yours passed her test not so long ago?
No she's had a licence for 10 years. She's Polish but has been over here for 3 years and is used to driving in London. She has an EC not a UK driving licence but theoretically they can't discriminate on that basis. I think they're just being bloody awkward .
The problem seems to be that they regard a nanny using your car to collect your children from school as business use, although they don't if she uses her own car. How absurd is that?
That's what we found too Sponge - the insurer regards the nanny as driving the car for her business purposes, ie being a nanny. We use Admiral and have not had a problem insuring our nannies.
I'm with Direct Line and our nanny's on my insurance as second named driver. They were quite happy to put her on.
Thank you guys.
Both Direct Line and Admiral will insure her although at about twice the premium we currently pay for the two of us.
Still I don't really feel I can ask her to take 6 month old ds on the bus to pick dd up from school - about 1.5 hours round trip on the bus, about 25 mins in the car.
Interesting point that that is business use for her, but if you were to make that same trip it is just picking up the kids. What if you add her to your insurance and say it's so she can use the car for personal use (errands, weekends, etc.). Okay, not entirely truthful. But you lose if you give her the car as well. If it is her car for her own exclusive use then it's a taxable benefit. But, it's not a taxable benefit if you share the car.
Interesting. My nanny will probably need to drive a car in the next year or two. So I'll watch this thread with interest.
Does anyone know, if a nanny holds a license from an EU country other than the UK, can she be panalised for that?
We had to shop around for this and ended up with Direct Line - just make sure you are open with what she is using it for as they will try to wriggle out of a claim if not - our nanny is 28 and they added about 25% to the premium for her (as we are both 39). Just one of those costs, I guess.......
My car insurance (through work so I don't have details but could probably find out) covers any driver with my permission. This works very well for us as I give my nanny permission to use the car during the week for driving my children around. It means that she can also use the car at weekends but only with permission which enables us to blame the insurance company for her needing to ask us each time she wants the car.
I know Uwila but I'd rather be honest about the use of the car - as beacyhead says I don't want them causing trouble about paying up if she has an accident whilst driving the kids.
MrsWobble, company insurance is almost always like this I think - they'll buy a group policy to have any authorised driver on any car - but they will cover business use anyway so the nanny won't be an issue. For me to get any authorised driver cover would be much more expensive.
Direct Line have said they will provide cover and didn't seem bothered about usage. Likewise Admiral and they were slightly cheaper.
Uwila they're not exactly penalising the EU licence but they are in effect as they're charging more for the fact that they have no history on the driver and they are not necessarily familiar with our roads.
You can't lie to an insurer Uwila! It will negate your insurance! God, can't believe that.
I've insured plenty of nannies on our car - mostly australian and kiwi. Never had a problem - used Tesco, Admiral, and Elephant from memory. Costs a hundred or so, maybe less. They were all over 23 and all had their licences for more than 3 years.
Elephant refused to insure mine pph and she's 28.
Perhaps becasue although she's had a licence more than 3 years it's not a UK one.
But Admiral, which is the same group as Elephant, will insure her.
Doesn't seem to be any consistency of approach but the cheaper online insurers are the ones saying no.
I'm sure elephant did - I know one of the cars was insured with them but it is possible we didn't put the nanny on that one.
tesco and admiral definitely, they insured the car the nannies always used.
Here is a cautionary tale. We bought a new car when we had DS as we needed one with 4 doors - our previous hatch only had 2. It was only a Polo, although it was a GTI one. We subsequently got a nanny and she passed her driving test after she had been with us a couple of months. She was 22 at the time and we simply could not get any insurer to add her to our insurance - I thought it might be expensive for a year or so till she had a no claims history or she was 25 but literally no one would insure her on a GTI. Since when has a Polo been a luxury car FFS??? We ended up having to sell the car and buy another one at a lower spec. (DH thought it might be cheaper getting a new nanny!) You know how they always say it cost you £1000 when you drive a new car off the forecourt - well, I think it cost us a lot more than that. I am STILL gutted about this as it was a really nice nippy little silver car . When we got the new car (lower spec polo, slightly annoying colour, no air con), it was no hassle at all to add her to the insurance, although I think due to her age we had to pay a bit, but not a lot.
We've insured our nannies through Direct Line. The previous one was from Australia and the current one from New Zealand. They are both over 25 and have been driving for some time. The car is shared with us - we use it but it's also available for them to use for taking the kids around and personal stuff.
One note on Direct Line - when the s**t hit the fan and our previous nanny got drunk and drove the car into a lamp-post (see threads passim), Direct Line coughed up the entire cost (less excess) without a mummur, despite our nanny's arrest and conviction! I wonder if a cheaper car insurance company would have been so accommodating.
Settle down, peahead. No need for the exclamations. I'm just trying to help someone in need -- someone who might not have the funds for the moral high ground, which frankly seems a bit out of place in the insurance world.
And she has already expressed that she prefers to be up front and honest.
You're right Anchovy. I think some of the problem is our car which although getting on a bit is an Audi A3 T Sport and therefore quite a high insurance bracket.
Issymum, you were v lucky. Every insurer I've spoken to recently has specifically said that if an accident happens whilst the driver is over the limit or under the influence of drugs they will "obviously" not pay. This must be a legal requirement they're now obliged to state as I've never had it before but it's been universal.
I've got it sorted now with Admiral. A lot more than insuring just the two of us old buggers but much cheaper than buying a new car!
Trouble is Uwila, it's not the insurance company that suffers. If your insurance is invalid and you have an accident the third party wont be able to claim from anyone unless they are fully comp. If your own child is injured in an accident and there was no one else involved or it was your fault then you will get no help. Heaven forbid you kill or seriously injure someone and that person cant get any compensation.
Call me what you like, I think there are some things far more important than saving a few quid. If that makes me part of the moral police then fine.
Part of the reason that insurance policies are so expensive is because so many people defraud insurers with dodgy claims and lies.
Also, if she is technically uninsured due to a lie, it is YOU not she who has told the lie and you as the employer will be vicariously liable. If for eg she runs over someone who then gets brain damaged or killed, you could be sued for millions if they have lots of dependents and a good job.
Not worth the risk for a few quid IMO.
so hercules it is us honest types who suffer through higher premiums.
CD and HErc, I take both your points. You are right. The risk wouldn't be worth a couple quid. My response was direct specifically at peahead's choice of syntax. Seemed a bit unnecessary.
But, definitely I didn't really think through the consequences.
In case you are wondering, my nanny doesn't drive so I haven't really any experience. In fact, as I am American, and my husband takes out the car insurance, I suppose I'm not exactly an expert on UK insurance.
Anyway, it was bad advice. Sorry about that.
Sorry Uwila - my exclamations were because of the consequences of invalidating your policy, which CD and Herc have spelt out. Just thought it seemed a bit of a mad suggestion. Didn't realise you hadn't thought that bit through - as someone who was nearly killed by a drunk driver whose insurance did pay for putting my teeth back, resewing up my badly sewn back face etc I can't really countenance uninsured drivers!
sorry to hear that peahead. That must have been horrible. In fact, that last sentance probably doesn't really do the the experience justice. Suppose I've been lucky in that I've never been in a major accident.
Anyway, suppose I shouldn't come on here and give people stupid advice, anyway.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.