Stupid insurance... (Contains Insurance Fronting Fail)

[GeeWizzle]

Recently I was involved in a crash.. it was my fault and I accepted full liabilty. Gone through insurance.. accepted a price on my car, sent everything off.. no phone call or contact..

ring them up.. apparently.. they arnt going to pay out now because im a named driver on a policy thats held in my name..

My dads the main driver.. I own the policy and Im a named driver.. this is there excuse.

so why the f**k can you use these options on the internet when you get a quote? ring them up and purchase the policy?

Very annoyed atm

 

[StevenMc29]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Is it your car that you drive the most and you put yourself not as the named driver?

 

[Gumby]

Re: Stupid insurance...

owned

 

[Ben.]

Re: Stupid insurance...

do you own the car and is it in your name?

who did you say would be the main driver?

 

[GeeWizzle]

Re: Stupid insurance...

My dad uses the car for work its cheaper.. I use it 3 or 4 times a week when I go out..

 

[Revels]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Insurance fraud FTL TBH IMO IIRC.

 

[StevenMc29]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Who drives it more?

 

[GeeWizzle]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Well my dad uses it for work.. so him. im 18, why would I pay 3000 insurance on a car, when i can use it the same amount as a named driver and pay 900?

 

[StevenMc29]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Because they might actually pay out in an accident?...

 

[Beef-Mc]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Well my dad uses it for work.. so him. im 18, why would I pay 3000 insurance on a car, when i can use it the same amount as a named driver and pay 900?

That's where you fail, your fronting, so insurance is null and void.

 

[GeeWizzle]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Because they might actually pay out in an accident?...

Honestly matey.. there rubbish!

I can see why people drive without insurance.

 

[Beef-Mc]

Re: Stupid insurance...

http://www.cliosport.net/forum/showthread.php?t=131050

 

[Munson]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Well my dad uses it for work.. so him. im 18, why would I pay 3000 insurance on a car, when i can use it the same amount as a named driver and pay 900?

Because if you don't, when you crash it, they don't pay out.

Harsh fella but a life lesson? Clearly they feel that you were the main driver of the car. Also, they accept the policies because if they didn't they'd be throwing business away. Dubious ethics in itself I suppose, but there you go. Pwnt

 

[Revels]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Well my dad uses it for work.. so him. im 18, why would I pay 3000 insurance on a car, when i can use it the same amount as a named driver and pay 900?

Because that is insurance fraud.

Now the 1.2 you had is gone and you have nothing to show for it. Youve lost £900 in insurance and your car.

Imagine the s**t you'd be in if you killed someone..

 

[StevenMc29]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Honestly matey.. there rubbish!

I can see why people drive without insurance.

I was in the same boat as you. Only I worked damn hard to pay for my own insurance. They paid out not a problem. Maybe not as much as the car was worth but a payment none the less.

If you drive without insurance then you my friend are a top class c0ck.

 

[StevenMc29]

ROFL at title change. Loving some of the self-ownage threads on here recently

 

[gaz_5103]

Re: Stupid insurance...

I was in the same boat as you. Only I worked damn hard to pay for my own insurance. They paid out not a problem. Maybe not as much as the car was worth but a payment none the less.

If you drive without insurance then you my friend are a top class c0ck.

Harsh, he didnt know he wasn't insured, And i dont see why they wont pay, if his dad was the one who drove the car the most like he has said, then he had it insured the way it should be.

 

[Jamie]

I can see why this annoys ppl but based on what you have said I believe it to be a harsh decision for the insurance company not to pay out. If your father uses it at least 3/4 times a week and you use it only to go out then substantially all the mileage is not from yourself?

What disclaimers were you sent/told? If you were insured then they should pay out. This information will all be in your terms and conditions.

If you are stuck go and see Citizens Advise as they offer free impartial advice from qualified professionals. A few legal terms and a bit of a fight and I am sure they will pay out. When insurance companies get professionals to look at cases they are usually on top whack so their sunk costs are high and when this is merley from a Clio I would expect a payout to make you go away.

 

[GeeWizzle]

I just dont see how it's illegal? Theres no advice on the website etc about it? My dad used the car for work if he was on the right shift.. I own the car because I brought it.. and its just an independant thing? My mum would use it for work if my dad was on a different shift and I'd use my bike to stay fit and avoid parking tickets. If I could be bothered to go anywhere after work I'd use the car, but I was always round my mates on my bike so i didnt bother.

 

[StevenMc29]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Harsh, he didnt know he wasn't insured, And i dont see why they wont pay, if his dad was the one who drove the car the most like he has said, then he had it insured the way it should be.

That was for the "I can see why people drive without insurance" comment

 

[StevenMc29]

I just dont see how it's illegal? Theres no advice on the website etc about it? My dad used the car for work if he was on the right shift.. I own the car because I brought it.. and its just an independant thing? My mum would use it for work if my dad was on a different shift and I'd use my bike to stay fit and avoid parking tickets. If I could be bothered to go anywhere after work I'd use the car, but I was always round my mates on my bike so i didnt bother.

I think you putting your self in a hole. You own your own car. Pay 900 quid for insurance. And cycle...

 

[GeeWizzle]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Harsh, he didnt know he wasn't insured, And i dont see why they wont pay, if his dad was the one who drove the car the most like he has said, then he had it insured the way it should be.

Id had a licence since mid 2008 and no car untill january.. i saved my ass off and brought the car as my own.. my dad had a car and so did my mum. I could insure the car in my own name for 3000. Which I can no way afford, and use it the same as I did neway, or I could be a named driver pay less.

What makes more sense?

 

[gaz_5103]

Re: Stupid insurance...

That was for the "I can see why people drive without insurance" comment

It wasnt just meant for you, meant for all the posts' on the thread.

 

[Jamie]

This is just turning into a load of b****cks.

See my previous post with respect to what to do.

 

[Munson]

Re: Stupid insurance...

if his dad was the one who drove the car the most like he has said, then he had it insured the way it should be.

I don't think that's true at all, is it? The owner and keeper of the car will be considered the main driver and therefore should be the policy holder. Using an older relative as the policy holder on a car owned by the named driver is pretty obviously fronting, and I'm not surprised they will not pay out.

Of course, there's the question of why was such a policy granted in the first place? Techically one could could argue that the insurance company is (knowingly?) offering void insurance from the start, simply to take the premiums with no risk attached. Dubious ethics IMO, especially in a business which sells a service which is a legal requirement. I imagine there will be disclaimers galore somewhere in the small print.

 

[Gumby]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Id had a licence since mid 2008 and no car untill january.. i saved my ass off and brought the car as my own.. my dad had a car and so did my mum. I could insure the car in my own name for 3000. Which I can no way afford, and use it the same as I did neway, or I could be a named driver pay less.

What makes more sense?

The 3k. Or shop around for a better quote.

 

[Chili Red]

Re: Stupid insurance...

I don't think that's true at all, is it? The owner and keeper of the car will be considered the main driver and therefore should be the policy holder. Using an older relative as the policy holder on a car owned by the named driver is pretty obviously fronting, and I'm not surprised they will not pay out.

^^ yup!

It's your car, so putting your dad as the main driver is a big mistake.

I was initially wondering why they wouldn't pay out, because it sounded like it was your dad's car which he drove to work, and you used it less. However that's obviously not the case at all. Especially as your dad's got his own car, how stupid do you think insurance companies are?

Pwnt. You'll know better next time (hopefully)

 

[Revels]

Re: Stupid insurance...

Id had a licence since mid 2008 and no car untill january.. i saved my ass off and brought the car as my own.. my dad had a car and so did my mum. I could insure the car in my own name for 3000. Which I can no way afford, and use it the same as I did neway, or I could be a named driver pay less.

What makes more sense?

It makes more sense to be legal.

My first car cost me £500, plus the money I had to spend to get it through its MOT etc. Then it cost me over £800 to insure it. Which I saved and paid for it all. Whilst still at college.

Does it make sense to pay more than the cars worth on insurance? No. But thats the legal way and now I have no claims and can drive faster cars and not pay the world in insurance.

Im sure that sounds condescending, but its kinda intended.

 

[Paddy_g46]

his dad si the main driver and he has said that his dad uses the car the most? Surely he is in the right?

 

[Munson]

his dad si the main driver and he has said that his dad uses the car the most? Surely he is in the right?

No. If he's the owner and registered keeper of the car, yet an older, lower risk relative is the poilcy holder, then it's text book insurance fronting.

EDIT: The guy even openly claims that this was done to reduce premiums. It's fronting, and there's no chance of them paying out a single dime. Hrash but there you have it. People want something for nothing these days.

 

[Jamie]

Well as far as I am aware the main driver is the one that does substantially all the driving.

This is why when asking who the owner of the vehicle the only boxes you may generally tick are parent/spouse so I do not believe that, that is the case.

I dont think the lad has done himself any favours but if his father and mother do drive the vehicle the majority of the time then he has commited no offence. Its not uncommon for someone to buy a car and have it in there name for someone else to drive, this could be due to affordability and all sorts of issues.

 

[Paddy_g46]

No. If he's the owner and registered keeper of the car, yet an older, lower risk relative is the poilcy holder, then it's text book insurance fronting.

ah ok, theres the fail!

 

[gaz_5103]

If his dad drives the car most of the time, he needs to be the main driver, regardless of who is the registered keeper of the vehicle. If Gaz was to insure the vehicle as him as the main driver, and have his dad as a named driver when his dad actually done the majority of the driving, this would be insurance fronting.

 

[Munson]

^^The problem must surely be that they don't believe him? Would you?

 

[Munson]

Any act of deception to try to get a lower insurance premium... is tantamount to fraud
Adrian Webb, esure

Done.

 

[Revels]

They define the main driver as the one that drives it the most. So Daddy using it 5times a week for the work commute might only be a few miles.

Then along comes Mr Insurance Pikey and drives it for hours at night ragging it around with his mates.

Although all of us speculating on the facts is largely pointless when hes admitted it was done to get a cheaper premium. Its expensive for a reason. Because you're a high risk as youve proved..

 

[gaz_5103]

He had the car insured the way it should be as his dad drove the car the majority of the time, if this subsequently reduced premium so be it.

 

[Revels]

Id had a licence since mid 2008 and no car untill january.. i saved my ass off and brought the car as my own.. my dad had a car and so did my mum. I could insure the car in my own name for 3000. Which I can no way afford, and use it the same as I did neway, or I could be a named driver pay less.

What makes more sense?

He had the car insured the way it should be as his dad drove the car the majority of the time, if this subsequently reduced premium so be it.

Try READING! Its not the way it should be. At the very least the car should be registered to his Dad.

Id like to know how many miles the OP does in the car on a weekly basis and how many his Dad does..

 

[Munson]

He had the car insured the way it should be as his dad drove the car the majority of the time, if this subsequently reduced premium so be it.

Roffle, yeah ok. The guy only uses his own car once a week while his dad uses it all the time. Even if this was the case, proving it is going to be near impossible. He failed by being the owner of the car but not the policy holder. A klaxon must have gone off in the claims department when they filed the form.

 

[Gumby]