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

[PyongyangKipperbang]

She is now legally allowed to drive but doesnt as she wasnt allowed to (and didnt) due to a dx of epilepsy two years ago. Epilepsy is now controlled, no seizures in well over a year but she doesnt want to drive anymore and sold her car. She is 75.

She wasnt legally required to surrender her license so she didnt as it was her ID. I am naming her on my insurance as it lowers my premium, no idea why as she is well into her 70's and would be a bad liability! A colleague said that I shouldnt do it and that it is "dodgy" and could lead to my insurance being invalid.

Why? Is it not ok? She will never drive it, has no access to the keys even if she wanted to (she doesnt) so what is the problem. Am I missing something important?

I had my mother-in-law on my insurance for years just in case she ever needed to drive my car but I think she only drove it on one occasion.

my dd has just taken out her first insurance.
She is named as main driver
dh and I are both on the policy as named drivers as it massively brought her quote down.

I may never drive her car. That is OK. No fraud or laws being broken,

ds did this too.This year adding me to his policy made it MORE expensive, so I am no longer on it!

I have my son on my insurance as a 'named driver' - I did it so that if I was incapacitated and unable to drive - he could drive the car. You never know it life what will happen. What I did think a bit strange is that having him on my insurance as the 'named driver ' did lower it!

I put DH on the insurance for my little car, and I am on the insurance for his. We don't drive each other's cars, he is too tall for mine, and the visibility in his is appalling for me. Its just there if we had to drive the other one in an emergency. It lowers both our insurance, so win win.

It's not fraud, but don't name her as the main driver. Don't be scaremongered into thinking you'll get a knock on the door. She'll never drive it, but in an emergency she could drive it so all good. Naming her as primary driver isn't worth it.

Having almost any second person as a named driver lowers the insurance premium, unless that person is actively dangerous behind the wheel. This is simply for statistical reasons, perhaps because people who don't have anyone in their lives who they would trust behind the wheel of their car are statistically more likely to have a crash than people who have relationships that are sufficiently trusting for them to make that step.

Could you link to this law please?
Not just your opinion, an actual link.

Just being curious how old are you, how old is he?

Because they must see him as lower risk than you. Adding a parent works if they are lower risk than you.
But over 70s start to become higher risk.

I am 61 and his 30. I started doing this a couple of years ago. I don't think insurance companies like divorced women!

Yep, which is perfectly legal as long as she's added as a named driver rather than the main driver.

Fronting is when you put someone as the main driver when they're not.

I am named driver on DH's car. I have never driven it but would in an emergency or if my car was unavailable. In OP's case she is saying her mum would never drive it, so the purpose of putting her name on the policy is simply to reduce the premium, no other reason.

No issues whatsoever as long as you’re not lying about anything.

My mum has always been on my insurance, from when I lived at home right til present day. She always reduces my premiums, and I’ve also had my dad on there if it reduced it further.

I am policyholder and main driver. They are named drivers.

Do they drive my car? Well, only my mum is currently on my cover, and generally no, she doesn’t. But, she actually needed to drive it just last week to rescue me when I developed an ocular migraine whilst out in the car!! So without that cover I’d have struggled.

I don't lie about anything on my cover, she’s not a daily user of my car, but occasionally does drive it and I benefit from a lower premium.

In fact, at one renewal the insurer even helped me do this! Tried it out with my mum and dad on/off the policy to see the premiums 🤣 we removed my dad as he put it up ever so slightly that year.

It doesn’t work like that. It’s about the risk being spread more than each individual’s risk.

Having named drivers on your insurance is not “fraud”, otherwise it wouldn’t be an option.

Fraud requires some kind of misrepresentation, lying or deceit. That is not what OP is doing.

Maybe its different insurance companies work differently.

For a long time it made no difference to mine if my Dad was on my insurance or not. It started to increase when he was in early 70s.

It's not fronting.

Fronting is misrepresentation of who the main user of the vehicle is to achieve a cheaper premium.

I think it’s fine. Adding my DH used to knock off £100 off the annual price, even though he never drove my car.

@LittleYellowQueen

From the OP:

”I am naming her on my insurance as it lowers my premium”

Please, tell me, how would you defend this in court? The mother doesn’t even want to drive the car.

This is fraud. The intent is fraudulent.

Does your mother still actually have a valid driving licence? I believe in the UK, driving licences need to be renewed at 70 and every 3 years after that, so has your mother been renewing her licence and will she continue to do so?

My kids put me and DH on their insurance to lower it. We both have our own cars, so wouldn't take be driving their cars, but we can if needs be.

DH has me on his insurance, as it lowers it too.

I found after my dh died my insurance went up so I added another male to my insurance and went down ffs

esp as all the time we were married he never drove my car as had his own van

totally sexist

they didn’t ask how often he would drive the car so he was just a named driver

No, you are fundamentally misunderstanding.

You can name whoever you like on your car insurance. They don't have to live with you or have any intention of ever driving your car.

What you can't do is put someone down as the main driver when they won't be.

It's not sexist, because the same is true for men who add a 2nd driver, and it lowers the premium whether the 2nd driver is a man or a woman, and it doesn't matter how often they drive the car. Any car is cheaper to insure with pretty much any two named drivers than it would be with only one,

@tumblingdowntherabbithole

No I am not "fundamentally misunderstanding" anything, thank you.

Just because something is legal in terms of the Ts and Cs does not mean that it is morally correct.

OP is putting her mother on her insurance for no other reason than to lower her premium. The mother has not driven the car recently, is not likely to drive the car and this is purely something she is doing to lower her premium.

We will have to disagree but to me that might be legal but it is fraudulent in intent. I am not going to go back and forth with you about it. It's my view. If the mother was (like others have said) an equal user of the car etc fine. This is not the situation described. It's in the OP. The intent is clear.

The morals are irrelevant - you are claiming it's fraud. It is not. HTH.