Car Insurance renewal

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by wraymond

What YHT has questioned does not necessarily constitute a fraud. YHT’s words were:
Has the time come for us to transfer our cars to the kids and get us as additional drivers on their Insurance???
To take, as written, there is nothing wrong with the proposal if the younger completed the proposal, named any additional driver with details of age/experience and signed their own name. At inception there is neither expectation nor statement concerning guarantee or expectation of ‘main driver’ status (generally). In YHT’s post there is no indication of anything approaching fraud. I would expect, supposedly with the same insurer, that all details would be checkable anyway.

Good idea YHT, why not do us all a favour and try it. Just a quote would serve the purpose. Make sure you give your current details, and ask the same insurer, in full.

If a fraud were discovered or suspected, your own, and the third party’s, damage would be an invalid claim.
In this case, prosecution might well not be a consequence.

Against my advice my daughter persuaded her mother to put her on her insurance on her first car as a named driver and registered the car in her mothers name. My Father bought full AA recovery for my daughter as a B/day present and had to give the car reg when he bought the cover which the insurance company picked up on and then queried this with my daughter and warned both my daughter and her mother that if, in fact, my daughter was found to be the main driver of the vehicle they would cancel the insurance and report them both for fraud to the police and insurance cover would likely be declined in future!
https://www.confused.com/car-insuran...at-is-fronting

[MSS]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Against my advice my daughter persuaded her mother to put her on her insurance on her first car as a named driver and registered the car in her mothers name. My Father bought full AA recovery for my daughter as a B/day present and had to give the car reg when he bought the cover which the insurance company picked up on and then queried this with my daughter and warned both my daughter and her mother that if, in fact, my daughter was found to be the main driver of the vehicle they would cancel the insurance and report them both for fraud to the police and insurance cover would likely be declined in future!
https://www.confused.com/car-insuran...at-is-fronting

Thank you. I don't think people realise how sophisticated insurers are, and should be, at detecting anything out of the ordinary, particularly at payout time.

Here are other similar links.

https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car...ance-fronting/

https://www.comparethemarket.com/car...tent/fronting/

https://www.moneyexpert.com/car-insu...rove-fronting/

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/l...car-insurance/

https://www.insurancefraudbureau.org...-car-insurance

https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/a-z-of-fraud/fronting

In my household we take the view that if we are paying for insurance, we owe it to ourselves to be absolutely clean so that we are in fact covered. When our young daughter moved out to take up a new job, she decided not to take her Twintop to the city as there was no need. As she had been using the car to get to/from work, the insurance was in her name with her as the main driver and myself and the wife as named drivers. As soon as the daughter left home, the wife and I stopped driving the car until her insurance ran out and the car was then insured in my name with the wife and daughter as named drivers.

[wraymond]

No 'ifs' or 'buts', semantics are just that, a nursery for nonsense. I refer to YHT's post no. 26. Absolutely nothing untoward or illegal there. In the event of a claim, the only consideration would be one of liability surrounding the incident. Driver/s history and driving frequency compared with each other's usage would be extremely unlikely to be an issue.

The insurer could, but would not, ask pre-cover for any proposed 'sharing duties' unless there were previous experiences in that particular case.

Further, oblique references and guesses regarding pre- and post- on line are unhelpful. Unless, of course, precise personal experience/knowledge is available?

[MSS]

Originally Posted by wraymond

No 'ifs' or 'buts', semantics are just that, a nursery for nonsense. I refer to YHT's post no. 26. Absolutely nothing untoward or illegal there. In the event of a claim, the only consideration would be one of liability surrounding the incident. Driver/s history and driving frequency compared with each other's usage would be extremely unlikely to be an issue.

The insurer could, but would not, ask pre-cover for any proposed 'sharing duties' unless there were previous experiences in that particular case.

Further, oblique references and guesses regarding pre- and post- on line are unhelpful. Unless, of course, precise personal experience/knowledge is available?

It seems you just cannot accept that you are wrong on this and are in danger of misleading others from your position of self-declared insider knowledge. As the post at the top of this page has mentioned Confused.com, why not get a quote and see?

Confused.com is one of the comparison sites that I use and they most cetrainly do ask the proposer to confirm the "main user" and on the side of the question they describe exactly what the term means. The premium changes based on the "main driver" selection. The same applies to the other comparison sites that I use.

Try it and you will see!

YHT asking the question in his post was obviously not fraud, but putting that concept into practice certainly would be. I thought that was perfectly clear from my response!

Please, as a self-declared insurance "insider", stop giving people misleading information that could leave them without insurance cover. You may care to see a leading insurer's standard pre-quote question set here file:///E:/Downloads/car-insurance-question-set-1.pdf

and a driver's experience following a claim here (posts 4 and 5) https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...ver-versus-NCD

[wraymond]

Well, there's none so blind as those who refuse to see! Or is it just antagonistic.

Either also-named drivers are allowed to be covered whilst driving or they are not! In the event of a claim, who was driving would be established immediately and the truth would be told!

Your personal attacks are reprehensible and I will play no further part.

[MSS]

Originally Posted by wraymond

............Either also-named drivers are allowed to be covered whilst driving or they are not! In the event of a claim, who was driving would be established immediately and the truth would be told!

........

What?

What you say makes no sense. Read what happened to the claim in the link I posted above.

Named drivers are only covered to drive the car when the insurance cover is operative. Cover can be void if the policy has been obtained by providing a factually incorrect response to a materially important question such as who is the "main driver". Therefore in such a case following an event and claim a person may discover that he/she did not have insurance cover.

We'll leave it there as most people will be able to look at what has been posted and make up their own minds.