Page 4 | to put my mother as a named driver to lower my insurance?

NamelessNancy · 09/09/2025 19:08

I don't see anything fraudulent about it. Being insured to theoretically drive the car eg in an emergency in no way compels the OP's mother to drive it regardless. Obviously as long as all medical information disclosed.

bridgetreilly · 09/09/2025 19:11

HelpMeUnpickThis · 09/09/2025 18:48

@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.

Show quote history

Of course you are. You asked how it could be defended. Because it’s completely legal and there is nothing fraudulent about it. Named drivers can be there for all kinds of reasons which have nothing to do with intent to drive the car.

ClassicalQueen · 09/09/2025 19:22

You are essentially committing fraud if you know your mother never intends to drive the car.

NamelessNancy · 09/09/2025 19:24

ClassicalQueen · 09/09/2025 19:22

You are essentially committing fraud if you know your mother never intends to drive the car.

Is this true though? Is it really illegal to insure someone to drive it in the case of an emergency even if there is no intention to drive it regularly/otherwise? Genuine question, I'm not an insurance expert but it seems like a perfectly legitimate thing to me.

tumblingdowntherabbithole · 09/09/2025 19:31

ClassicalQueen · 09/09/2025 19:22

You are essentially committing fraud if you know your mother never intends to drive the car.

Nope.

tumblingdowntherabbithole · 09/09/2025 19:31

ClassicalQueen · 09/09/2025 19:22

You are essentially committing fraud if you know your mother never intends to drive the car.

Nope.

tumblingdowntherabbithole · 09/09/2025 19:32

NamelessNancy · 09/09/2025 19:24

Is this true though? Is it really illegal to insure someone to drive it in the case of an emergency even if there is no intention to drive it regularly/otherwise? Genuine question, I'm not an insurance expert but it seems like a perfectly legitimate thing to me.

Show quote history

No, it's not illegal :)

It's only illegal if you put someone down as the main driver when they won't be the main driver.

Blondeshavemorefun · 09/09/2025 20:01

GameWheelsAlarm · 09/09/2025 18:17

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,

Show quote history

No as I added my friend. Then tried another relative female. And more money

add a man and lower

LittleYellowQueen · 09/09/2025 20:26

HelpMeUnpickThis · 09/09/2025 17:36

@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.

Show quote history

Well i work in motor insurance fraud and have done for 10 years, and I'm telling you that it's not fraud.

So it would be incredibly easy to defend in court. Because adding someone else to your insurance as a named driver when you're the main user, owner and policyholder Is. Not. Fraud.

Shinysunday · 09/09/2025 20:28

Could you ask your mum to take you to a nearby pub occasionally, maybe at lunchtime when the roads are clear? A glass of tonic water each and straight home? Then she would be an occasional driver.

LittleYellowQueen · 09/09/2025 20:55

Shinysunday · 09/09/2025 20:28

Could you ask your mum to take you to a nearby pub occasionally, maybe at lunchtime when the roads are clear? A glass of tonic water each and straight home? Then she would be an occasional driver.

There's absolutely no need.

sadtimeshardtimes · 09/09/2025 20:57

I work in insurance and I’d always do this. It’s fine and not fronting.

1offnamechange · 09/09/2025 21:03

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ for breaking our Talk Guidelines.

well, it's not though, is it, as it's the complete opposite of what OP is planning on doing 🙄

Why are people so determined to show off their own ignorance and confidently declare it as fraud, despite posters who literally work in motor insurance telling them it's not? You may as well share a link that goes to a gif saying 'I'm a complete idiot.'

Having OP as the main driver on HER MOTHER'S insurance policy to get a cheaper deal would be fraud. Adding secondary drivers who may/may not drive the car is absolutely fine. Both of my parents are secondary drivers on my car despite me not having lived with them for 20 years - it's handy if we occasionally go away together, rather than 1 person doing all the driving, or if they pick my DC up from school to save the hassle of swapping car seats, etc. But there may very well have been whole years when they haven't actually used it.

I've never been queried on it by any insurers in 20 years, including when I've needed to claim.

namechangetheworld · 09/09/2025 21:08

It's fine, and definitely not fraud. I worked in car insurance for yonks, and if you need to claim any questions will be regarding the person who was driving (you), not named drivers on the policy. A named driver doesn't have to be someone who drives the car on a regular basis. DH has been named on mine for years and has never driven it - but in the event of an emergency, he could, legally, which sets my mind at ease.

SunnyD4ys · 09/09/2025 21:13

Blondeshavemorefun · 09/09/2025 20:01

No as I added my friend. Then tried another relative female. And more money

add a man and lower

Show quote history

You're not adding a man or a woman you're adding a specific person whose full details you have to provide. It's not some kind of generic reduction in premium

SunnyD4ys · 09/09/2025 21:15

Shinysunday · 09/09/2025 20:28

Could you ask your mum to take you to a nearby pub occasionally, maybe at lunchtime when the roads are clear? A glass of tonic water each and straight home? Then she would be an occasional driver.

Why, no one's checking if named drivers ever driven the car, why add extra risk with unnecessary driving , that's just daft

TheSwarm · 09/09/2025 21:36

It would be fraud if OP put her mother as the main driver and herself as a named driver to get lower premiums.

Putting someone down as a named driver who may or may not ever actually drive the car is perfectly fine - it just means that if they do, they are covered.

GloryFades · 09/09/2025 21:40

Renamedyetagain · 09/09/2025 04:51

Fraud

Not really… it’s actually good practice in case of emergency. A close colleague of mine is named on my insurance. I hadn’t expected it to reduce the premiums but it did. He remains on the insurance now, he has driven my car once in 3 years. But we travel a lot together and if I ever got too tired he could take over driving. As it happens I’m yet to be too tired.

I think it’s always sensible to have a second named driver on your insurance just in case. You never know when you might break your leg and need to be driven to the hospital. I see a lot of no insurance cases in my line of work and so many of them are when an “emergency” happens and they didn’t have time to insure someone else on the car.

Sundaymorningcalla · 09/09/2025 22:04

NamelessNancy · 09/09/2025 19:24

Is this true though? Is it really illegal to insure someone to drive it in the case of an emergency even if there is no intention to drive it regularly/otherwise? Genuine question, I'm not an insurance expert but it seems like a perfectly legitimate thing to me.

Show quote history

If I insured myself on my car and chose not to drive it for the duration of the policy is that fraud too? If course it isn't.

What the OP is proposing is perfectly legal.

Keepingittogetherstepbystep · 09/09/2025 22:21

I had my mum as a named driver on my insurance for years until the price started rising.

She had a restricted driving licence due to disability but the restrictions were daft and eventually removed by DVLA. The restriction was that the must she be able to drive in accordance with the driving licence rules, so no different to anyone else.

She drove my car once but it was a back up as I'd fallen and ended up 10 miles away in hospital and no-one could move the car.

RoseAlone · 09/09/2025 22:27

Doesn't everyone do this?

NamelessNancy · 09/09/2025 22:39

Sundaymorningcalla · 09/09/2025 22:04

If I insured myself on my car and chose not to drive it for the duration of the policy is that fraud too? If course it isn't.

What the OP is proposing is perfectly legal.

Show quote history

Thanks. It's logically nonsensical for it to be anything other than legal but several PPs seemed so confident it was fraudulent I thought I'd check.

BogRollBOGOF · 09/09/2025 22:41

GloryFades · 09/09/2025 21:40

Not really… it’s actually good practice in case of emergency. A close colleague of mine is named on my insurance. I hadn’t expected it to reduce the premiums but it did. He remains on the insurance now, he has driven my car once in 3 years. But we travel a lot together and if I ever got too tired he could take over driving. As it happens I’m yet to be too tired.

I think it’s always sensible to have a second named driver on your insurance just in case. You never know when you might break your leg and need to be driven to the hospital. I see a lot of no insurance cases in my line of work and so many of them are when an “emergency” happens and they didn’t have time to insure someone else on the car.

Show quote history

Due to ergonomics DH and I rarely swap cars. He can easily go a year without driving mine as there is so very rarely a need/ benefit to it. The only time I "regularly" drive DH's is on a long drive to UK holiday destinations where I'll take over for the middle leg of the journey.

A few months back DH fainted at the gym. Fortunately I was there with him so able to drive him home; better than him driving while not 100%.

There have been years where he hasn't driven my car at all. We weren't suddenly breaking random laws and committing fraud just because we haven't had cause to swap cars within the term of an insurance policy.

Biskieboo · 09/09/2025 22:42

Add me to the list of lawyers who think this is perfectly OK.

TreeGrass · 09/09/2025 22:53

With epilepsy you MUST tell the DVLA.
and in some cases you can reapply for your licence, but…
Until you hear from them you must stop driving.

has your mum done this? Doesn’t sound like it from your OP.

https://www.gov.uk/epilepsy-and-driving

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