Stupid insurance... (Contains Insurance Fronting Fail)

[Munson]

To court?

 

[Justin]

I understand how its all happened, but surely they should still pay out? After all he is insured, all be it as a named driver...

 

[Chili Red]

^^ no they shouldn't, because he lied to the insurance company. He owns the car but his dad's listed as the main driver. He was trying to get away with paying less = no payout.

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.

He's also perfectly demonstrated why he should have been paying the sky-high 3k insurance, because he wrote the car off!

 

[Deeg]

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.

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.

Does it not ask you if the policy holder is the registered keeper of the car when you're doing the quotes though?

Pretty clear if they do, granted it's been 11 months since I had anything to do with insurance, so it might not be that clear.

TBH, I think it's good that insurance companies are gonna crack down on this.

Harsh way to learn mate, but I find it hard to believe you weren't fully aware that what you were doing wasn't right?

 

[Vish]

Sounds like you got owned for trying to take the insurance company on.

Although it may be true that your Dad used the car more, you've set yourself by buying a car you couldn't really afford to insure properly, and by buying a car that you barely use and your dad will use more even though he has his own car. Surely if you're dad used the car regularly and you didn't, it'd have made sense to be a named driver on his policy on his car. Why save for and buy a car you claim to barely drive.

Even if you are telling the truth about it all, its make no logical sense to do it all in this way, so you're either stupid for insurance fronting or stupid to do such a set up.

 

[Gumby]

To court?

Not unless the cat is looking at a court...

 

[Deeg]

I understand how its all happened, but surely they should still pay out? After all he is insured, all be it as a named driver...

Not really, he was insured fradulently (sp?), so as with anything illegal, it voids it.

I guess they will have paid out for the other person if someone else was involved.

I've said this thousands of times on here, insurance companies generally won't look into things for minor claims, but you rear end a Harley St surgeon, and he starts sticking in claims for £XXX,XXX for loss of earnings etc, then the insurance company will be looking for every way they can to avoid paying.

 

[Munson]

Not unless the cat is looking at a court...

It could be in a court.

 

[Brett]

Fronting is tempting. I did it for my first years driving but realised that it is not a good idea and wanted my own ncb so I could get a decent car in the future in my own name.

This should be stickied to show people that it actually does happen where they won't pay out, tbh everybody thinks including me, that it will not actually happen and you'll be ok.

 

[Gumby]

It could be in a court.

It could also be a naughty cat at school

 

[Munson]

It could also be a naughty cat at school

Looks more like a court to me.

 

[geordieracer]

Its a bit confusing this. Some places it's implied that he is the policy holder, with dad as main driver and him as a named driver.

Lets clear some things up.

On insurance:

1.Registered keeper:

2.Policy Holder:

3.Main Driver:

4. Named Driver:

I am not an insurance expert, but can you not insure a car the follwing way:

I buy and own car so I am the registered keeper. However, I no longer need to use it very much due to walking to work.

I insure the car in my name, but I put my wife as main driver, as she now drives to and from work everyday in it. I put myself as named driver, so I can use it on weekend.

Would the above scenario not be legal?

I am not sure as I dont need to do that etc, but I am sure I have seen options like that when i did my insurance 10 months ago.

 

[AK]

Its a bit confusing this. Some places it's implied that he is the policy holder, with dad as main driver and him as a named driver.

Lets clear some things up.

On insurance:

1.Registered keeper:

2.Policy Holder:

3.Main Driver:

4. Named Driver:

I am not an insurance expert, but can you not insure a car the follwing way:

I buy and own car so I am the registered keeper. However, I no longer need to use it very much due to walking to work.

I insure the car in my name, but I put my wife as main driver, as she now drives to and from work everyday in it. I put myself as named driver, so I can use it on weekend.

Would the above scenario not be legal?

I am not sure as I dont need to do that etc, but I am sure I have seen options like that when i did my insurance 10 months ago.

i believe the above is legal because u are the registered owner and keeper therefore the policy is in your name, but your missus is the main driver..

But the OP has his dad as the policy holder whilst him himself is the owner/reg keeper and a named driver...

 

[Kneel]

Its a bit confusing this. Some places it's implied that he is the policy holder, with dad as main driver and him as a named driver.

Lets clear some things up.

On insurance:

1.Registered keeper:

2.Policy Holder:

3.Main Driver:

4. Named Driver:

I am not an insurance expert, but can you not insure a car the follwing way:

I buy and own car so I am the registered keeper. However, I no longer need to use it very much due to walking to work.

I insure the car in my name, but I put my wife as main driver, as she now drives to and from work everyday in it. I put myself as named driver, so I can use it on weekend.

Would the above scenario not be legal?

I am not sure as I dont need to do that etc, but I am sure I have seen options like that when i did my insurance 10 months ago.

The way I see it is thats the right way to do it. The main driver is the person who uses the car the most or the person who mainly drives it, not the owner of the car. This guys scenario is perfectly believable imo, he buys a 1.2 clio because he's done his test and he wants a car. He goes to insure it the way every1 says he should by puttin himself down as the only driver and it comes to £3k. Then he speaks to his dad who's keen to use the nice economic 1.2 clio through the week for his commute because his son travels via bus/tram/train/bike/walking etc etc. This would make his dad the main driver as he uses the car the most, he goes to the insurance for this quote and it comes out at £900. Bonus, the insurance is cheaper and its not lying to the insurace as his dad does uses the car more than he does?

If the OP is telling the truth about this then his insurance company are being a bunch of c*nts, however its understandable that they would jump to this conclusion because this country is full of people who front for their insurance so they can get faster 1st cars. If the OP is lying and was fronting and uses the car more than his dad does then he deserves having to pay his own costs.

 

[Deeg]

The way I see it is thats the right way to do it. The main driver is the person who uses the car the most or the person who mainly drives it, not the owner of the car. This guys scenario is perfectly believable imo, he buys a 1.2 clio because he's done his test and he wants a car. He goes to insure it the way every1 says he should by puttin himself down as the only driver and it comes to £3k. Then he speaks to his dad who's keen to use the nice economic 1.2 clio through the week for his commute because his son travels via bus/tram/train/bike/walking etc etc. This would make his dad the main driver as he uses the car the most, he goes to the insurance for this quote and it comes out at £900. Bonus, the insurance is cheaper and its not lying to the insurace as his dad does uses the car more than he does?

If the OP is telling the truth about this then his insurance company are being a bunch of c*nts, however its understandable that they would jump to this conclusion because this country is full of people who front for their insurance so they can get faster 1st cars. If the OP is lying and was fronting and uses the car more than his dad does then he deserves having to pay his own costs.

If all that is the case, then why not just have his Dad on the log-book?

All hassle saved.

 

[Kneel]

When you had just passed your test did you not want your own car? I did, and I wanted it to be mine completely so my name on the books the lot.

 

[Deeg]

When you had just passed your test did you not want your own car?

Yep, I certainly did and it cost me £1300 to insure it in my own name.

In this case, I don't see how it mattered about having his name of the log book, as he wasn't the main driver (by the sounds of it?), so a lot of hassle could have been saved with some common sense, IMO.

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

Yep.

Whoever is the registered keeper of the car should be the main driver unless it's a case of someone's parents buying them a car, in which case they'd be the main driver.

However if you'd had your dad as the main driver at least you could have argued tbh.

 

[AK]

Yep.

Whoever is the registered keeper of the car should be the main driver unless it's a case of someone's parents buying them a car, in which case they'd be the main driver.

However if you'd had your dad as the main driver at least you could have argued tbh.

i was under the impression that whoever was on the log book should be the policy holder .. or is that what u were getting at...

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

Yep, I certainly did and it cost me £1300 to insure it in my own name.

In this case, I don't see how it mattered about having his name of the log book, as he wasn't the main driver (by the sounds of it?), so a lot of hassle could have been saved with some common sense, IMO.

Times change though.

£1300 to insure your first car isn't THAT bad. Mine was similar at £1600 with me being the only named driver. But by the sounds of it, today they're even worse. £3000?! How are most people even meant to get their first premium ffs.

If an insurance company came out and offered a premium of £500 to someone insuring their first car, with the catch being a £2000 deposit that you get back if you don't claim. I think I would've been a bit more careful on the road at the time if I knew I'd get £2000 back at the end of my policy.

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

i was under the impression that whoever was on the log book should be the policy holder .. or is that what u were getting at...

Essentially yes.

Most insurers actually have on their front form that you must be the registered keeper of the car to open a policy with it. That's probably where this one got out of paying. Bullshit, but they've just made £900 for doing nothing... c***s the lot of them.

 

[Kneel]

Yep, I certainly did and it cost me £1300 to insure it in my own name.

In this case, I don't see how it mattered about having his name of the log book, as he wasn't the main driver (by the sounds of it?), so a lot of hassle could have been saved with some common sense, IMO.

I paid a feckin fortune for my 1st car because i bought a car, then checked the insurance quotes. Young new drivers occasionally make stupid decisions when it comes to their 1st car so yes maybe registering the car as his dads would have been easier but the point is if he's telling the truth he shouldnt have had to? When the policy was taken out the insurance company would have seen that the main driver wasn't the registered keeper and could have questioned it before it was an issue. A friend of mine got refused a quote on my car because she wasn't the registered keeper of the car, if this guys insurance company would have done the same problem solved.

Dont get me wrong, if he purposefully lied about who's using the car to bring his quote down then I have no sympathy he's part of the reason I'm still paying a small fortune for car insurance, however if he's being honest theres no real reason for everyone to start telling him he deserved it?

 

[Deeg]

Times change though.

£1300 to insure your first car isn't THAT bad. Mine was similar at £1600 with me being the only named driver. But by the sounds of it, today they're even worse. £3000?! How are most people even meant to get their first premium ffs.

If an insurance company came out and offered a premium of £500 to someone insuring their first car, with the catch being a £2000 deposit that you get back if you don't claim. I think I would've been a bit more careful on the road at the time if I knew I'd get £2000 back at the end of my policy.

That was £1300 with £300 discount for Pass Plus.

I don't think times are vastly different from 7 years ago (maybe I'm wrong, obviously I've not done a quote for an 18 year old with 0NCB for 7 years). I used to spend hours and hours on web sites and phoning people, with every legal trick in the book to bring down the premium.

I don't dispute that what happened was harsh, but as I said, a bit (not even a lot) of common sense could have avoided everything. All he had to do was change the name on the log book? Unless I'm missing something?

 

[Peperami]

Insurance, its a bugger eh.

 

[Adamhodg]

You owned yourself tbh.
If the car had been registered in your dads name fair play
but as it wasnt i can see where the insurance company would be coming from.
Lesson learnt here i think.....

 

[Nick_P]

Im trying to get my woman to realise that insurance fronting it BAD. and she just cant get her head around it. Stupid women.

 

[Chili Red]

Try getting her to read this topic, maybe she'll understand then.


Also didn't the OP say his dad has his own car, what insurance company is going to believe he's the main driver of the Clio as well?

 

[Ex-User (19928)]

...part of the reason I'm still paying a small fortune for car insurance...

TBH dude, do you really think insurance companies are struggling to make ends meat?

Or even that they increase premiums because of uninsured drivers?

IMO it's just because they can. People will pay silly money to insure cars, and they know it because people want to stay legal and above board. £3000 for insurance? If he doesn't crash, they've just made £3000. If he does, and the claim costs £5000. They've lost £2000, but then they'll make up for it by charging him another £3000 come the next renewal.

Not many people I know crash over and over. I've totalled 1 car which didn't involve anyone but me, the car and a fence. I crashed into a Clio who's bumper was basically dented. Boot still opened and closed so nothing big imo. Would've cost about £500-1000 depending on where they went to repair it.

That went through insurers and cost £3000 apparently (or at least that's what I'd have had to pay to get it exponged from my record). I doubt the car was worth that much at the time.

Anyway, my point is, I've cost insurers £3000, but since driving, I must've paid about £7000 in insurance premiums so far. I imagine the majority of people go their first 5 years of driving without claiming, but still lining the pockets of insurers with thousands of pounds for 'the risk'.

 

[Macester]

Can't believe all the tits on this site giving the lad a hard time. he's just had some bad news and all you do is try to knock him while hes down. think you need to get off your high horses TBH

 

[JCC]

I'd have refused to payout purely for the fact you keep saying brought instead of bought.

However, it is a bit harsh if the guy is telling the truth and the only thing he did wrong was have it registered to the wrong person, making the insurance company think he's telling lies about his dad being the main driver.

 

[Gumby]

Looks more like a court to me.

Not sure on the décor though