Corvid-19, Motorhome Insurance suspension (1 Viewer)

[The Wino]

I run four vehicles and have sorned three of them and reduced the ins to fire and theft.

Did you save much? Last time I looked it was with some insurers less expensive on fully comp

 

[Minxy]

Another anomaly, adding the wife can reduce the premium, even though she no longer has the C1 to drive it!.

I'm wondering if that voids the policy? Surely anyone named on the policy has to have the licence in order to be legally able to drive it ... its certainly not something I'd do as any way the insurer can wriggle out of paying out they will and this is a known 'porky' ... that's possibly why some insurers ask for your driving licence number when you do quotes.

 

[The Wino]

I'm wondering if that voids the policy? Surely anyone named on the policy has to have the licence in order to be legally able to drive it ... its certainly not something I'd do as any way the insurer can wriggle out of paying out they will and this is a known 'porky' ... that's possibly why some insurers ask for your driving licence number when you do quotes.

I'm very sceptical about insurance companies but I don't think even they would try that as a loophole unless there was evidence she had been driving it.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Minxy]

I'm very sceptical about insurance companies but I don't think even they would try that as a loophole unless there was evidence she had been driving it.

Not so sure about that as he's used her to get a lower quote knowing full well that she can't legally drive it ... AFAIK the reason you put people on insurance policies is so that they are legally allowed to drive the vehicle in question, not whether they ever will ... not a risk I'd take.

What's the difference between this and putting someone on who hasn't got a licence at all to get your premium down?

 

[The Wino]

Not so sure about that as he's used her to get a lower quote knowing full well that she can't legally drive it ... AFAIK the reason you put people on insurance policies is so that they are legally allowed to drive the vehicle in question, not whether they ever will ... not a risk I'd take.

What's the difference between this and putting someone on who hasn't got a licence at all to get your premium down?

I think it's different from doing it at the time of renewal. It might be an idea to send an email saying she can't drive until further notice as her C1 has expired and there's no chance of a medical. But you could then argue if someone breaks their leg and can't drive for a while then they ought to notify the insurance I can't believe many do.

 

[Minxy]

I think it's different from doing it at the time of renewal. It might be an idea to send an email saying she can't drive until further notice as her C1 has expired and there's no chance of a medical. But you could then argue if someone breaks their leg and can't drive for a while then they ought to notify the insurance I can't believe many do.

That's not the same though, the 'broken leg' one would be legally able to drive the vehicle normally and that is what the original insurance was based on, once the leg is okay then they could again legally drive, the one without the licence could NEVER legally drive it.

As an aside, if you do have an injury and drive if it means you are in any way impaired, eg a broken arm, even though you may still able to physically drive, it could void your insurance if you do.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Emmit]

I would not cancel my insurance just for a few weeks not worth it financially.

Keep it running.

"A few Weeks" God, (of any persuasion) Loves an optimist.

 

[Spriddler]

….. a partial refund should be available from the insurance company to reflect the non existent road risk which they are currently experiencing and profiteering from.

I'm quite sure they'll all be reducing premiums from their huge profits post-virus to reward customers for their loyalty.

 

[The Wino]

That's not the same though, the 'broken leg' one would be legally able to drive the vehicle normally and that is what the original insurance was based on, once the leg is okay then they could again legally drive, the one without the licence could NEVER legally drive it.

As an aside, if you do have an injury and drive if it means you are in any way impaired, eg a broken arm, even though you may still able to physically drive, it could void your insurance if you do.

And if you have an accident and the police are involved could take some explanation!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[peterc10]

"A few Weeks" God, (of any persuasion) Loves an optimist.

An optimist is what a pessimist calls a realist ................

 

[gus-lopez]

What's the difference between this and putting someone on who hasn't got a licence at all to get your premium down?

So you're saying someone without a licence can't insure a vehicle?

 

[Bailey 15]

So you're saying someone without a licence can't insure a vehicle?

Splitting hairs now
Anybody can insure a vehicle, it’s wether your a named driving on that vehicle which is the question and the point used to reduce the premium

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Pausim]

If they reduce the premium for a second named driver it seems reasonable to expect that person to be able to drive the vehicle. I believe they do it because it reduces the chances of the driver continuing to drive when tired, unwell or unfit to continue.

 

[Dorset Diver]

Hello Jim

My motorhome is located in a substantial building beside our house, in a remote rural situation. The likelihood of theft or fire is highly unlikely as the very securely locked and alarmed building is constructed of stone concrete and steel. The MH batteries have been removed from the vehicle and the building. The vehicle itself has one entrance door with two high quality deadlocks, is alarmed and live tracked. My risk is therefore as minimal as it is possible to be.
My original post was highlighting the stance of the insurance companies, I understand that this is a uniform response from most UK insurance companies. I believe the option to suspend insurance in such times as these should be available. Alternatively a partial refund should be available from the insurance company to reflect the non existent road risk which they are currently experiencing and profiteering from. They are usually quite happy to charge you extra if you wish to increase your stated mileage or add further to their risk by other means, so what is wrong with a refund for reduced risk? Some American insurance companies are presently partly repaying premiums to their clients.

Best regards

Keith. Stay Safe!

Err..., where exactly is it located?

 

[TheBig1]

The big risk of adding a partner as second driver who is unable to drive the motorhome comes if the main driver is incapacitated and the insurance company expect the other named driver to repatriate the vehicle, not them

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[peterc10]

Splitting hairs now
Anybody can insure a vehicle, it’s wether your a named driving on that vehicle which is the question and the point used to reduce the premium

Just checked my Comfort policy. Your insurance is invalid if the person driving the motorhome or in charge of it does not have a valid and current licence to drive it.

 

[Dorset Diver]

The big risk of adding a partner as second driver who is unable to drive the motorhome comes if the main driver is incapacitated and the insurance company expect the other named driver to repatriate the vehicle, not them

That is a good point. Dorset Lady is currently on our insurance, has more than half a century of driving experience and the right licence, but would not drive the MH for love nor money (I've tried both, money was the front runner ?) but she stays on the policy as NFU Mutual would put up the premium by about £60 p.a. if she was removed.

 

[Minxy]

That is a good point. Dorset Lady is currently on our insurance, has more than half a century of driving experience and the right licence, but would not drive the MH for love nor money (I've tried both, money was the front runner ?) but she stays on the policy as NFU Mutual would put up the premium by about £60 p.a. if she was removed.

In which case, knowing what you know, putting her on the policy is 'deceptive' so could void it ...

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Minxy]

So you're saying someone without a licence can't insure a vehicle?

No, as others have said, there's nothing to stop you insuring it but you shouldn't declare yourself as a 'named driver' if legally you are not able to drive it, as this is normally done to get the policy cost down, it is, IMV, fraudulent.

 

[Dorset Diver]

In which case, knowing what you know, putting her on the policy is 'deceptive' so could void it ...

I also know that if push came to shove she would drive it. I also discussed it with NFU M when I spoke to them about removing her from cover and was given the quote, so they are aware and not concerned. In addition I have ADAC Plus so the question of vehicle repatriation is covered.

 

[Minxy]

That is a good point. Dorset Lady is currently on our insurance, has more than half a century of driving experience and the right licence, but would not drive the MH for love nor money (I've tried both, money was the front runner ?) but she stays on the policy as NFU Mutual would put up the premium by about £60 p.a. if she was removed.

I also know that if push came to shove she would drive it. I also discussed it with NFU M when I spoke to them about removing her from cover and was given the quote, so they are aware and not concerned. In addition I have ADAC Plus so the question of vehicle repatriation is covered.

So which is it? ?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[JJ]

"Insurance Companies", "Refunds" and "Reducing costs to clients" are words that my brain cannot process...

..."Insurance companies" "maximising profits" and "reducing payouts" are words my brain processes with no problems at all.



JJ

 

[Dorset Diver]

So which is it? ?

I hope I never need to find out. She did drive a similar sized van in NZ and I still suffer PTSD from the experience .

 

[PeteH]

It would only be any issue. IF she was to drive it, As she no longer is on the Motorhome Insurance anyway. It`s the toad that she is "insured to drive", She has never driven the Toad, as it is manual and she prefers Auto`s. She did however drive the R-V, in the USA and that one was a 9tonne wide-body Winnebago. V10 Auto, and full power everything.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}