|
More info needed, I think.
Why does she need your driving licence? It doesn't prove anything to your wife or anyone else about her insurance, except that the second driver has a full driving licence.
Is she trying to pin the theft on you in some way?
I can't see that any fraud has been committed. It is true that when I was getting quotes from comparison sites for insurance it was certainly a bit more expensive to be the sole driver covered, but I can't see that naming a second driver constitutes any deception. The insurance company may well assume the other driver will use the car, but there are no restrictions on how much, or how little they will drive. As RT says, if any fraud has been committed, you are not responsible.
However, you do need to know if you are named on another driver's policy, as you will need to inform your insurers of the fact - or at least, that's a question I had to answer when taking out my own insurance recently.
Edited by FocalPoint on 27/06/2011 at 20:17
|
I can't see that any fraud has been committed. It is true that when I was getting quotes from comparison sites for insurance it was certainly a bit more expensive to be the sole driver covered, but I can't see that naming a second driver constitutes any deception. The insurance company may well assume the other driver will use the car, but there are no restrictions on how much, or how little they will drive. As RT says, if any fraud has been committed, you are not responsible.
However, you do need to know if you are named on another driver's policy, as you will need to inform your insurers of the fact - or at least, that's a question I had to answer when taking out my own insurance recently.
As I see it, the fraud isn't adding the husband as named driver but declaring they're still married and living together.
|
|
"...the fraud isn't adding the husband as named driver but declaring they're still married and living together."
Yes, that occurred to me after I had posted, but it was then too late to edit.
If the ex has in fact declared she is still married and her "husband" is living with her then that would get her a bigger discount than simply nominating him as another driver (at a different address) and therefore it is fraudulent.
|
|
All, thanks.
The important bit I missed out is that she's asked for my driving licence as her insurance company has demanded it from her as part of the normal claims process (the bit where they check that she's not made any false declarations - easier & cheaper to do on claim than on quote).
Yep, you're right, the fraud is primarily her falsely claiming that we're married and living together at the nominated address. If it weren't for her car's being stolen I wouldn't have known. I drove her car occasionally for a month or 2 when new 2 years ago (I kept the MPV, she kept the glamour car), but IIRC there's been 2 renewals since divorce and when I asked her to ensure that my name was not used on the insurance.
I'm taking the line that the fraud is her business - I don't know her insurer to complain and she'd stop me from seeing our kids (don't get me started on the treatment of divorced fathers) - but I don't want to end up with a claim against my name (even if there is no cost involved, I'm proud of my 35 years claim-free motoring).
|
|
If your licence is up to date the address will be different from your ex's and her fraud will be exposed.
I can't see that you can be viewed as having done anything wrong.
I do have strong views about children being used in power games by their parents and you have my sympathy.
|
|
And people ask me why i never want to get married?!? I think if i was in that position i'd have run her over with the MPV.
No offence.
|
|
...No offence...
Other than death by dangerous driving. :)
The OP would be foolish to get involved in this, other than by telling the truth.
He mentions the ex having the 'glamour car', so if this is a high-value claim, asking for the licence may be only the start of the insurance company's investigation.
At best, he/she will get away with it, at worst the OP may be charged with a criminal offence.
I think the most likely outcome is the fraud will be detected, the OP will not be charged with anything, but will have a large black mark put on his insurance record, which will have an obvious impact when he comes to renew.
|
|
Avant.
Have sent E Mail re problems I am having. Testing this by typing direct whereas previous
was cut and paste from Wordpa
dvd
Looks like your site will not accept posts from a cut and paste?
dvd
Edited by Dwight Van Driver on 28/06/2011 at 16:07
|
|
I'm a bit surprised no-one has commented on this aspect of the licence issue. It's a legal document (albeit in two parts) and a police officer has a perfect right to ask you to show it. If they basically believe you have one, you get a "producer". If they don't, you walk home and pay them loads for car storage...
So sending it away, other than to a court or DVLC does not seem very sensible to me.
|
|
You dont need to send it anywhere, Police dont need to see your licence to know you have one, its on computer, sent them a photocopy or give them the licence number should be plenty.
|
|
You're assuming it's the police that want to see it. I think it's more likely the insurance company.
However, whether it's wise to hand it to the ex is another matter altogether.
|
|
If the insurance company has contacted the gentleman then the gentleman should deal direct with the insurance company, cut the ex wife out entirely. Of course the insurance company thinks he lives at home so wouldnt think to contact him directly.
|
|
>>You're assuming it's the police that want to see it. I think it's more likely the insurance company
Nope, the ex wife 'says' it's the insurance company. As the request has not been seen, we only have her word for it. Since she may have lied about other matters, I'd not trust her.
Jamie has it right if we assume what we're being told is near the truth. I think the OP has to ask for the request letter as to be honest, complying with such a request in that form would make it impossible to hire a car etc. I've known insurers ask for the date a full licence has been held from, and permutations of that, but never to ask for the original licence.
To put none to fine a point on it, the request as put, smells a bit fishy.
Edited by SlidingPillar on 28/06/2011 at 21:06
|
|
Surely another point which has to be taken into account is that currently her insurer believes the gentleman posting here is still her husband and still lives with her, hence the request would never of been sent to a different address because...well why would they? I would say if the OP does as she asks and provides her with these details then he is then actively partaking in her fraud, fraud which up till now he had no knowledge of, now he has knowledge surely to now "help her out" as it were makes him just as guilty?
|
|
The key point here might be what address is shown on the OP's driving licence. If it's not the same as his ex's that in itself should make it clear he isn't part of the fraud.
If it is the same he would have to justify why he hadn't changed it.
|
|
But if he's been named on an insurance policy against his will or knowledge then surely he has every right to ring up the insurance company and point this out.
|
|
|
Testing to see if the site will accept a Word doc cut and paste.
Yes it did. There's nowt so queer as software. Maybe it's just Wordpad.
Edited by Avant on 30/06/2011 at 01:31
|
|
I cut and paste from Word. The site used to re-format the text to suit the font used, regardless of the font you composed in. Since the re-launch or thereabouts this doesn’t happen and it will appear on the forum with a different typeface. I cut and past information from program to program in the course of my work and Notepad and Wordpad can give odd results…something to do with the way the line breaks are worked out within the program, I believe. This may be the reason for DVD’s problem.
Use Arial font (Normal) at size 12
Hope this helps.
Edited by dereckr on 30/06/2011 at 23:47
|
|
Thanks everyone.
In the end, I spoke to the insurance company about seeing my licence. They didn't want it (my ex-wife got that wrong); instead, they wanted me to approve DVLA to let them have my details, which I did and upped my new record for time spent on 'For x press 1,..' questions. They didn't ask me about the details that she declared even though I told them the address on my licence was not my current address (been lazy in changing but am doing so now).
As for her car, the Police recovered it and her keys a week later. It was pretty well intact (dirty and with a damaged wing mirror) so she'll be keeping it, which was a disappointment to her as she'd enjoyed swanning around showrooms looking at new cars.
|
As for her car, the Police recovered it and her keys a week later.
So presumably it's now with the plod, she'll have to collect it and one of the things she will have to prove in order to do so will be that it is insured.
Getting ones own back for all the hassle and worry caused here would involve an anonymous tip-off to the Police, the subsequent invalidation of a policy when it's checked and the crushing of an uninsured vehicle.
Yes that probably is rather nasty, but less so than driving around on a policy that's quite likely to become invalid in the event of a claim and the investigations arising IMHO.
|
|
"...that probably is rather nasty, but less so than driving around on a policy that's quite likely to become invalid in the event of a claim and the investigations arising IMHO."
Let me get this straight. You're suggesting the OP "anonymously" (yeah, right) tips off the police about the "invalid" insurance and gets his ex's car crushed?
So - we are certain that the "anonymous" tip-off stays anonymous? (Remember what the OP said about access to his children.) And we are certain the insurance policy would be invalid?
I don't think the OP himself has anything to fear from the insurance world now he's been in contact with them. Any further action on his part along the lines you suggest benefits no-one and would be sheer vindictiveness, along the lines of "getting ones own back for all the hassle and worry caused", as you put it.
I really hope the OP can think of something less petty to do.
|
|
To put a cap on the above, as far as I'm concerned it's all over. She's got her car back so no longer needs to borrow mine (for the benefit of our children, not her) and I don't want my ex-wife to suffer for her 'oversight' as any action would indirectly harm our children, she'd punish me for her hurt regardless of whether I had a hand in it or not and, in context, it's pretty small beer compared to other things she's done (not for discussion here other than to advise you to never, ever, lend her anything or share your chocolate bar with her).
|
|
|
|
