to put my mother as a named driver to lower my insurance?

He mainly gets her to do it when it needs petrol 🤣

Whats the purpose of driving round the block?

I think they just do it to be safe, but the savings are insane

But isn't the OP asking about a different situation? There's no suggestion that the Mum is going to be the main driver.

Do you have a link that says adding an additional driver who may not actually need to drive the car isnt allowed?

My husband found it in equal parts annoying and amusing when adding me as a PROVISIONAL DRIVER as a 30 something woman made it cheaper. Yep, adding someone the can't even drive somehow made it safer 😂😂

They don't need to do that for the insurance to be valid, as long as he's the main driver.

I'm a named driver on DS's car. The insurance is his, but I'm named as a 2nd driver. It reduces the premium and is completely valid and genuine. I hope never to need to drive it but it is useful to have access to another car in an emergency or e.g. to be able to drive it home if he were taken ill, or even to be able to move it when he's out.

I don't know why adding your elderly mother woukd reduce the premium though. Does anyone else? I added DP, who doesn't live with me, to mine so we could share the driving on a trip. I expected it to go up becuase of his collection of points, but it didn't, it went down too.

Why is everyone going on about fraud?

You can add anyone you like as a named driver - they don’t need to ever drive your car. I have my mum on my insurance just in case there’s ever an issue and we’re out together in my vehicle.

The likelihood of her ever driving my car is tiny but I’d rather have her on there just in case.

The only illegal part is if you put someone as the main driver when they’re not. Oh, and not declaring the epilepsy, though it shouldn’t make a difference to insurance premiums.

My mum and dad are listed on my brother’s policy as named drivers.

It brings his insurance down by about £3k a year. It’s a no brainer. They take his car out once every two weeks each - my dad uses it to go to golf and my mum will drive it round the block a couple of times.

So, since that is not whst OP is proposing (she specifically said mother would be a named driver) it's fine. But thanks for warning OP about an offence she's not planning to commit.

I tried to add my friend to my insurance for one day and the insurance said it was cheaper to add her for the year. She had no intention of driving my car ever again. Insurance were fine with this.

As long as the DVLA is aware of her epilepsy and is updated if there are any changes throughout the length of the policy, and you are adhering to any other conditions it’s fine.

I am a named driver for both of my parents. I’ve never driven either of their cars but they like the idea in case something happens to them and I need to drive their cars because for some reason they can’t.

DH is tall and dislikes driving the kind of car I have. I think he has driven my current car once, which was to tell me he didn’t like the car and wouldn’t be driving it unless their was an emergency again, but he’s insured as a named driver and always will be. I am a named driver on his car and probably drive it almost as often as he does.

You can add her as a named driver, of course that's not fraud.

however, you must inform the insurance company of her epilepsy. Failure to do this invalidates the policy. She absolutely MUST inform DVLA

(insurance underwriter here)

If she’s a named second driver (definitely NOT the main driver) it’s fine.

It’s cheaper because insurers (for whatever reason) consider it as spreading the risk.

Just do it. It’s perfectly normal. No biggy if she doesn’t drive it!

Why?

All everybody is advising is that she play it by the rules, as tempting as it is to "stick it to the big companies - they can afford it!".

Your comment might hold water if it was just a single agency (Tesco) for £17, but it's not.

One wrong move here and you potentially have multiple agencies on your back which can have much more serious implications in future.

Don't declare Epilepsy to DVLA - Mother's licence technically becomes invalid...

Mother's licence invalid means 2nd Named Driver is not legally permitted to drive, contrary to what was declared on the insurance application form, resulting in insurance policy potentially being deemed invalid as OP has lied to her insurance company...

OP then drives without realising the insurance has been cancelled - risks getting prosecuted for driving with no insurance - 6 points, a hefty fine & the car impounded.

Meanwhile, the insurance company logs the OP's "mistruths" on the central Insurance Fraud Database which all UK insurers have access to...

OP Struggles then to get any form of insurance (Car, Home, Life, etc.) in future, or at massively inflated prices, due to the black marks on the Insurance Fraud database.

Just so she could save £20 per year on her car insurance...

I used to be on my dad's car and vice versa when I lived at home as sometimes they needed to be moved to get yours out so we'd both just take whichever one was easiest (for quick trips not to work etc), I am still on his insurance after an incident where he drove himself to hospital and was then admitted (why he didn't wake my mum is another matter) no one was insured to drive it and I have an automatic licence and his car is automatic so he has at times loaned it to me when mine's in the garage etc and gone to collect mine for me when I'm at work. He used to make my insurance cheaper, he now makes mine more expensive and I make his cheaper. I'm now 40 and he's 72. I'd be surprised with those medical conditions and her age that it actually makes it cheaper also technically as you've no intention of her driving it, it's dishonest

I was thinking exactly the same!

These responses remind me of the answers you see on ‘Tesco accidentally refunded me £17’ and posters are insisting OP walks across hot coals to return it.

The only fraud I see committed is by the insurance companies that hike prices up every year even if you’ve not done anything wrong and all this while your car is worth less than the year before.

The thing I’d be worried about is her epilepsy but I’d have no moral worries at all because they don’t care about how we can afford to pay for our insurance.

Just call and ask the insurance company. If they say it is fine then it is!

My DH is now 72 with no additional health issues and adding him to my son's insurance now increases rather than reducing the premium. No fronting here - they drive one anothers vehicle fairly regularly depending who needs to use the larger estate car.

If she’s 75 and has epilepsy, I’d doubt it would reduce the cost. I’d expect it to increase, plus I know from experience, many insurance companies get you to jump through hoops with doctors notes, access to medical records etc. to consider insuring you.
It’s not illegal to have her as a second driver (as long as you’ve declared medical history) but as many have said, it’s illegal if she were be listed as the main driver and wasn’t.

I don’t think it is fraud unless you are planning to not disclose that she has epilepsy? There will be a medical conditions section which you can’t lie on or that will be fraud and could invalidate your insurance. Also surprised that adding a 75 year old with epilepsy lowers your premium?!

She is legally allowed to drive though so nobody can prove she has no intention of driving your car, adding her as “just in case I want to share driving when we take longer journeys together” is perfectly fine reasoning even if you have no intention of doing that.

I am the second driver on our car insurance. We both drive the car; DH more than me.

When it was time to renew, the insurance company we’d been with for a year or too, increased the premium massively for no reason. I asked what might reduce it and was told adding another driver would. The only person I could have added was our son, who lives some distance away and would not have a reason to drive the car. Is that getting cheaper insurance fraudulently then, because it was suggested by the insurer?

As it transpired, it was reduced by £1, so a pointless exercise anyway.