Car Insurance

jimmy2pens

Hi l'm looking for advice/help, my mother has being driving on a provisional licence, she is in her mid 60's, she only started driving late in life, she drives about 10-15 miles in the week, down to the village for mass (6 miles round trip) and into town for shopping on friday another 6 mile round trip, collects grandchildern an odd day from school, all local short distance driving, although she's not a bad driver by any means, no big revving or not out in the middle of the road, she hasn't a hope of passing a test, reading, writing and understanding would not be great for the theory test, and she would not be able for the pressure of the test, she has taken lessons in the past but unfortunately has never suceeded in passing the test. I have just found out that her provisional licence has expired a couple of years ago, she just kept renewing her insurance policy, now her insurance company want a copy of her licence!!!! She is now very worried that she will have to give up driving.
If anyone has had a similiar situation can you please let me know what you did, or what our options are? thanks

MugMugs

Has she had a claim to prompt this request? Odds are without a full licence they will refuse to renew. The fact that her licence expired isn't a big deal. Generally Insurers say "holds a valid licence or is not prohibited from holding....."


On another note, did she tell them she had a full licence?

CiniO

If she already has a driving permit (provisional licence) then there is no need for theory test.
Just pass the practical driving test.
If she really can drive, there shouldn't be a problem with passing it.
If she can't, she shouldn't be driving.

Jimdagym

CiniO wrote: »

If she already has a driving permit (provisional licence) then there is no need for theory test.
Just pass the practical driving test.
If she really can drive, there shouldn't be a problem with passing it.
If she can't, she shouldn't be driving.

A woman in her 60's that would get extremely nervous for the test, wont have a great chance of passing. You want to take her off the road?

testicle

Jimdagym wrote: »

A woman in her 60's that would get extremely nervous for the test, wont have a great chance of passing. You want to take her off the road?

Yes. It appears she shouldn't be on it in the first place.

CiniO

Jimdagym wrote: »

A woman in her 60's that would get extremely nervous for the test, wont have a great chance of passing. You want to take her off the road?

She is on the road few times a week. She doesn't travel much distance, but anyway - she is there together with other road users. She carries her grandchildren. She controls a machine weighting most likely over 1000kg and single mistake on her side can cause that someone will be killed or injured.
I'm absolutely not saying she is not a good driver. OP said she was. But if she is not able to prove in front of examiner, that she really can drive, then YES - I want to take her off the road, for her and everyones else safety.

Jimdagym

You are entitled to your view, but I dont think its as cut and dry as that.

Seth Brundle

Jimdagym wrote: »

A woman in her 60's that would get extremely nervous for the test, wont have a great chance of passing. You want to take her off the road?

If she cannot drive then she shouldn't. The rules are there for us all, not just those who feel like doing a test.

Jimdagym wrote: »

You are entitled to your view, but I dont think its as cut and dry as that.

Actually, it is!

dr.fuzzenstein

Any other country:
If you don't hold a license or aren't fit to drive, you don't drive, simple as.
Ireland:
Ah sure, she'll be grand, sure isn't auld (Mary, Seamus, John-Joe, etc...) only goin' down the shops for a packet a' fags, sure she/he's been driving for 40 years, never done a bit 'a harm, sure how else is he/she getting down the shops.

How anyone in their 60's can hold a provisional license beggars belief.
Also, is there a full license holder in the car with her when she drives down to the shops?
What if there had been an accident? Insurance? Yes. Licence? Errrm, no. Which means Insurance nil and void and we all get to pay out a little more on our insurance for people who think that licence and insurance are optional.
The driving test is not an entrance exam into Mensa or a thesis for a PhD on nuclear physics, as can be seen daily on our roads almost every idiot and lunatic can pass it and people STILL think it's too much to ask for.
The one belief people in this country need to get over, is that driving a car is not a God given right that every single person is being given by default on being born.
Some (and I have to say very minimal and shoddy) standards and practices are expected of road users.
And if anyone thinks that is too much to ask, fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to drive.

CiniO

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The driving test is not an entrance exam into Mensa or a thesis for a PhD on nuclear physics

Hehehehehe you made me greatly laught, because I actually know a person, who is a member of Mensa and holds PhD in physics, but he never managed to pass his driving test, even though he tried several times.
After few fails, he just decided it's not for him. Bus or taxi must suffice.

dr.fuzzenstein

CiniO wrote: »

Hehehehehe you made me greatly laught, because I actually know a person, who is a member of Mensa and holds PhD in physics, but he never managed to pass his driving test, even though he tried several times.
After few fails, he just decided it's not for him. Bus or taxi must suffice.

Hahaha, what are the odds?:D

Lon Dubh

To be honest she doesn't sound like she should be driving until she improves her attitude to the whole thing. Anyone knows they are not supposed to drive without a valid licence, it would invalidate the insurance if nothing else. [Edit. Apparently I seem to be wrong, she might still be insured for 3rd party claims. see posts below.]

She may have put herself in a difficult spot now as well as she might now have to sit the theory test to get her provisional (you will need to check this, as she might not have to. Edit: I think it might depend on how long the licence has lapsed).

I was very nervous to start off, and I'm sure I will be shaking like a leaf for the exam, but I don't consider myself exempt from the rules because of this. I also have a disablity (being in her 60's is not old by the way) but this is also not a reason to be exempt from the rules. I also won't be driving much but this is also no excuse for not having a licence and passing the test.

But I might be able to suggest an instructor depending on where you are. Mine has had a lot of nervous, elderly (including a lot older than your mother), and disabled drivers and also drivers other instructors gave up, on so it is possible. He won't take her out without a licence though so she needs to sort that out first.

I think it is likely your mother has a hang-up because of a poor experience with an instructor. It is possible for her to pass it, it is just a question of good instruction and practice and a bit of self-belief which mostly comes with practice (I had almost none by the way when I started off, so no matter how little she thinks she can do it she probably can). I think it would help her if you encourage her that she can do it, and that she needs to do it, so she will just knuckle down and do it. Or if she won't she just needs to stop driving alltogether. And to be honest I don't think she shouldn't be driving the children at the moment until she sorts herself out a bit.

coylemj

Haven't seen any recent data but the last time the RSA published statistics, there was a huge number of older people around the country driving on provisional licences.

jimmy2pens

Lon Dubh wrote: »

To be honest she doesn't sound like she should be driving until she improves her attitude to the whole thing. Anyone knows they are not supposed to drive without a valid licence, it would invalidate the insurance if nothing else.

She may have put herself in a difficult spot now as well as she might now have to sit the theory test to get her provisional (you will need to check this, as she might not have to).

I was very nervous to start off, and I'm sure I will be shaking like a leaf for the exam, but I don't consider myself exempt from the rules because of this. I also have a disablity (being in her 60's is not old by the way) but this is also not a reason to be exempt from the rules. I also won't be driving much but this is also no excuse for not having a licence and passing the test.

But I might be able to suggest an instructor depending on where you are. Mine has had a lot of nervous, elderly (including a lot older than your mother), and disabled drivers and also drivers other instructors gave up, on so it is possible. He won't take her out without a licence though so she needs to sort that out first.

I think it is likely your mother has a hang-up because of a poor experience with an instructor. It is possible for her to pass it, it is just a question of good instruction and practice and a bit of self-belief which mostly comes with practice (I had almost none by the way when I started off, so no matter how little she thinks she can do it she probably can). I think it would help her if you encourage her that she can do it, and that she needs to do it, so she will just knuckle down and do it. Or if she won't she just needs to stop driving alltogether. And to be honest I don't think she shouldn't be driving the children at the moment until she sorts herself out a bit.

Thanks for your help and advice,

Our man in Havana

Anyone knows they are not supposed to drive without a valid licence, it would invalidate the insurance if nothing else.

This ****e again. Yawn. Change the record.

Drummerboy08

Our man in Havana wrote: »

This ****e again. Yawn. Change the record.

Is it not kinda relevant to this thread though?

Bohrio

Wow what are the chances.. today i was down in arklow, i had rented a van for the weekend as i needed to move a lot of stuff, big joke, bigger than than average van, anyway i spent the last 2 miles of my journey behind a very slow driver with an L on the rear window, your woman kept trying to move to the hardshoulder trying too let me and the others pass, of course there was barely any space on the hardshoulder for her to move so we couldnt overtake, this person obviously couldnt understand this so she decided to slow down even more, after she almost knoced off a cyclist she then take an ecit, unfortunatley it was the same exit as me, then she stops in the side of the road and gets out of the car, the road was very narrow so i couldnt overtake so i beep and wave at her, the woman turns around, she was probably somewhere on her 70s, walks to the side of my van and says: oh you wouldnt mind, i need to buy some eggs and bread, sure it will only be a minute, i am going to be late for mass!... and then she left... bought her stuff and left; adorable old lady... shouldnt be on the road though

Our man in Havana

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Is it not kinda relevant to this thread though?

If a person has held a licence is not disqualified from holding one they are covered.

MugMugs

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Is it not kinda relevant to this thread though?

If a person has held a licence is not disqualified from holding one they are covered.

Not if they told the Insurer they had a pink when they only had a green though...

Lon Dubh

Our man in Havana wrote: »

If a person has held a licence is not disqualified from holding one they are covered.

Ah thanks I didn't know that. It seems a bit crazy (unless the lapse of licence was very recent, which in this case it isn't), though it makes sense for third party coverage. Would the insurance company try to claim back from the person with the policy if they turned out not to have a current licence? Maybe that is too off topic for this thread.

MugMugs

Lon Dubh wrote: »

Our man in Havana wrote: »

If a person has held a licence is not disqualified from holding one they are covered.

Ah thanks I didn't know that. It seems a bit crazy (unless the lapse of licence was very recent, which in this case it isn't), though it makes sense for third party coverage. Would the insurance company try to claim back from the person with the policy if they turned out not to have a current licence? Maybe that is too off topic for this thread.

No... If you're not disqualified and have held a licence and can freely obtain another then insurers generally don't discriminate. Theirs a "bit" of leeway given under the circumstances.

Lon Dubh

MugMugs wrote: »

No... If you're not disqualified and have held a licence and can freely obtain another then insurers generally don't discriminate. Theirs a "bit" of leeway given under the circumstances.

That's interesting, so the OP's mother might be able to stay insured, or be able to sort it out at least.

Edit: OP your mother might feel more comfortable driving an automatic, or the test might be easier for her in an automatc (no worries about gear changes, cutting out, or difficult hill-starts). Might be worth considering at some point.

cruizer101

Our man in Havana wrote: »

If a person has held a licence is not disqualified from holding one they are covered.

Covered third party yeah but don't the insurance company have the right to then take them to court for the payout

whomitconcerns

you think its ok for your unlicenced mother (no offence) to drive her grandchildren around???? Secondly when she got her insurance last time she had to say what licence she had, so if she has none for a few years she lied? So whos going to pay when she crashes (hopefully not obviously) and the insurance company sues her for recovery of monies paid? You?

Our man in Havana

cruizer101 wrote: »

Covered third party yeah but don't the insurance company have the right to then take them to court for the payout

Why? It says on every insurance cert that this is the case.

djimi

MugMugs wrote: »

No... If you're not disqualified and have held a licence and can freely obtain another then insurers generally don't discriminate. Theirs a "bit" of leeway given under the circumstances.

But she doesnt/didnt hold a license; she had a learners permit, which then expired. Its one thing letting a full license lapse; the driver is still fully licensed and only needs to pay a fee to get a new piece of paper with an updated photo on it. But I dont see how someone who has a lapsed learners permit is any differnt to someone who has never held a learners permit at all?

Tbh Im not arguing with you; I just want to vent about this. Ive heard of this situation too many times and I think its utterly ridiculous that insurers allow people who have no right to be on the road to do so without penalty. Change the law so that learners driving unaccompanied/learners with expired permits etc are driving uninsured and prosecute them as such, and the attitude of learners would change fairly rapidly in this country.

MugMugs

djimi wrote: »

But she doesnt/didnt hold a license; she had a learners permit, which then expired. Its one thing letting a full license lapse; the driver is still fully licensed and only needs to pay a fee to get a new piece of paper with an updated photo on it. But I dont see how someone who has a lapsed learners permit is any differnt to someone who has never held a learners permit at all?

Tbh Im not arguing with you; I just want to vent about this. Ive heard of this situation too many times and I think its utterly ridiculous that insurers allow people who have no right to be on the road to do so without penalty. Change the law so that learners driving unaccompanied/learners with expired permits etc are driving uninsured and prosecute them as such, and the attitude of learners would change fairly rapidly in this country.

My understanding from the OP was that she had a Provisional Licence.

To be honest, I understand your frustration but you must remember, Insurer's aren't the Gardai. They are highly regulated financial services.

djimi

MugMugs wrote: »

My understanding from the OP was that she had a Provisional Licence.

To be honest, I understand your frustration but you must remember, Insurer's aren't the Gardai. They are highly regulated financial services.

She had a provisional which expired two years ago.

I would just have thought that from an insurers point of view a person who filled in a form maybe a decade ago to get a provisional license which has now expired is no different from someone who has never sat behind the wheel of car before, and as such should be regarded as a higher risk than they would be willing to take on? Im not really sure why an insurer would want to have anything to do with such a person, and likewise an unaccompanied learner, and why they dont write into policies that a learner driving unaccompanied or with an expired provisional/learners permit is not covered by the policy, and would be deemed to be driving without insurance. To me it makes logical sense and would be a quick and easy way to sort what is a pretty big problem in this country.

whomitconcerns

But dmi, the problem is then that someone can still claim...only diff is that you and me pay for it through MIBI...so better to allow people to be insured..The recourse is that teh insurance company take her for personal liability, so better someone is insured.

djimi wrote: »

She had a provisional which expired two years ago.

I would just have thought that from an insurers point of view a person who filled in a form maybe a decade ago to get a provisional license which has now expired is no different from someone who has never sat behind the wheel of car before, and as such should be regarded as a higher risk than they would be willing to take on? Im not really sure why an insurer would want to have anything to do with such a person, and likewise an unaccompanied learner, and why they dont write into policies that a learner driving unaccompanied or with an expired provisional/learners permit is not covered by the policy, and would be deemed to be driving without insurance. To me it makes logical sense and would be a quick and easy way to sort what is a pretty big problem in this country.

djimi

whomitconcerns wrote: »

But dmi, the problem is then that someone can still claim...only diff is that you and me pay for it through MIBI...so better to allow people to be insured..The recourse is that teh insurance company take her for personal liability, so better someone is insured.

Im only talking about it from an insurers point of view; I dont understand why they want to get involved with people who are a ridiculously high risk on the road. Its better for you and I if the insurers cover them, but if the insurers wash their hands of them and the consequences of driving unaccompanied/on an expired learners permit are that you are deemed to be uninsured then a whole lot less people will be so flippant about the laws of learning to drive, and the roads will be safer overall.

MugMugs

djimi wrote: »

She had a provisional which expired two years ago.

I would just have thought that from an insurers point of view a person who filled in a form maybe a decade ago to get a provisional license which has now expired is no different from someone who has never sat behind the wheel of car before, and as such should be regarded as a higher risk than they would be willing to take on? Im not really sure why an insurer would want to have anything to do with such a person, and likewise an unaccompanied learner, and why they dont write into policies that a learner driving unaccompanied or with an expired provisional/learners permit is not covered by the policy, and would be deemed to be driving without insurance. To me it makes logical sense and would be a quick and easy way to sort what is a pretty big problem in this country.

I see what you mean.

To be honest, we don't know the circumstances here. I'd assume that it has gone one of two ways.

1. OP's Mother declared a full licence years back in which case she could be cancelled back to inception for "Non Disclosure" which means the insurer will treat the policy as never existing.

2. OP's mother declared a provisional licence when she took out her policy and her insurer have never batted an eye lid over it. I'd be quite surprised over this but if it is the case, one would assume that the insurer has made the assumption that the OP's Mother is always supervised when driving by a full licence holder.

The whole

What is not covered under this section of the policy.

Anyone driving your car who is disqualified from driving or has never held a driving licence, or is prevented by law from holding a licence.

Is there mainly to protect individuals who have had a lapsed licences. An Insurer can't hit somebody for having an expired licence if there's no reason that their renewal wouldn't have gone through. Fair is fair to be honest.

whomitconcerns wrote: »

But dmi, the problem is then that someone can still claim...only diff is that you and me pay for it through MIBI...so better to allow people to be insured..The recourse is that teh insurance company take her for personal liability, so better someone is insured.

You my friend are talking utter jibberish and clearly don't know what you're on about.

IF this lady had an accident god forbid then her insurer regardless of their issues with the disclosure of the licence or the material facts, would be forced to pay any third party claims under whats called "Insurer Concerned" The MIBI don't come anywhere near it.

Her Insurer can then attempt to recover their outlay through her if they are forced to indemnify.

Edit: In case the high horse brigade come along here and attempt to slam me for anything I've said, I am trying to help the OP's Mother with some advice. I haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other on the matter. It's not relevant to the OP's question. Mugs

whomitconcerns

Just to be clear, I was referring to the previous post where it was suggested that the insurance be invalidated and the person be counted as uninsured..then the MIBI is involved as per my understanding...your below point is dependent on someone having insurance, and on that your are 100% correct, but that is a different situation than I was referring to.. I was merely commenting on the suggestion, not the actual way it works, which I am familiar with, thanks

As regards the OP's post, as I pointed out earlier, if my friend she will have her grandchildren in the car, she really should be licensed to drive..if i had kids..sorry granny but they arent travelling with you...sorry

MugMugs wrote: »

You my friend are talking utter jibberish and clearly don't know what you're on about.

IF this lady had an accident god forbid then her insurer regardless of their issues with the disclosure of the licence or the material facts, would be forced to pay any third party claims under whats called "Insurer Concerned" The MIBI don't come anywhere near it.

Her Insurer can then attempt to recover their outlay through her if they are forced to indemnify.

Edit: In case the high horse brigade come along here and attempt to slam me for anything I've said, I am trying to help the OP's Mother with some advice. I haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other on the matter. It's not relevant to the OP's question. Mugs

Lon Dubh

OP your mother may not have to sit the theory test. See last 2 messages in this thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74665103

corktina

OP, for the sake of your Mothers well-being and the lifes of her GrandChildren, you should persuade her NOT to drive.

I don't want to go into details, but there was a case only just last week that underlines this.