Car Insurance question? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Car Insurance question?

bluebindy123 Avatar
suspended5y, 7m agoPosted 5 years, 7 months ago
I have added my daughter on my insurance as it is cheaper as she has just passed her driving test. My son in law has now given me his car. How do I go about getting insurance. Will my insurance company think it strange I am now the main driver on two cars. Or will they presume I am fronting for my daughter on one of the cars.

If anyone knows anything to help please let me know as I only have a week to things out.
bluebindy123 Avatar
suspended5y, 7m agoPosted 5 years, 7 months ago
Options

All Comments

(22) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
1 Like #1
Insurance companies can’t prove that you are fronting for your daughter. Just say you’re the main driver on both cars and that’s the end of it, if they have a problem with it they can try their best to prove it which is impossible.
banned 1 Like #2
Fronting problems
Fronting can be an issue between husband and wife, however, if there is a difference in risk profiles - perhaps because one person has multiple motoring convictions which would make him/her a greater risk. In this case, the higher risk person should be classed as the main driver - if he/she isn't, this would be seen as fronting and if you had to make a claim, it's likely it would be turned down.

Similarly, in the case of parent and child, if you're using the car equally, it's always safest to name the riskiest driver - typically the younger driver - as the main driver.

However, if the car belonged to the parent and the younger driver was only using the car from time to time, it would fine to name the younger driver as an additional driver on a parent's policy. In fact, if you do this with Direct Line, it can work out to be beneficial because the younger driver can earn his own named driver No Claims Discount to apply to his own policy when he has his a car.

On the other hand, another insurer, esure, operates slightly differently as it won't ask who uses the car more frequently, but will simply look at the riskiest driver named on the policy and base the premium on this - whether or not the riskiest driver is the main driver or an additional driver.

Fronting can also be a big issue if you've got a son or daughter taking your car off to university on a regular basis. For example, if you share your car with your son and he leaves it parked on the road outside his university accommodation, but you've stated on your policy that the car is always parked in your garage at home, your policy is likely to be invalidated when you come to make a claim.

They'll never find out
Some readers also wondered how insurers would be able to prove fronting. According to Admiral, if an insurer suspects fronting it will examine the evidence available from the police report and the claim form.

This can involve looking at whether the accident happened on a regular route for the secondary driver (who is in fact the main driver) - such as on the way to work. The ownership and usage of other cars in the household would also be investigated.

For very large claims, the insurer can justify spending more time and money on these investigations and can look into things such as statements from neighbours/friends/colleagues regarding the vehicle usage. CCTV footage might also be examined.

http://www.lovemoney.com/news/insurance/insurance/4217/this-lie-could-cost-you-thousands



Edited By: slamdunkin on Apr 11, 2011 00:28
1 Like #3
As above. Beware! Insurance companies aren't daft, and are pretty good at sniffing out fronting. Usually after the event of an accident once a payout is in store. Until then they will take your premiums happily.
1 Like #4
yea im on my nans insurance but im down as the main driver , saved me over 1400 quid the first yea i was driving and someone hit me and ive had no problems claiming , i think the problems arise when you put yourself down as the main driver but really its your daughter

the police pick up on it , she will lose her licence and if she has a crash they will look for any rwason not to pay out , end of the day i say put her on your insurance but put her down as the main driver

also if your going to put her down on your insurance , how sure are you she wont have an accident ? because if she does , next year your insurance will be twice as much and hers will be the same as this year
1 Like #5
ps it didnt matter me using my nans as she had given up driving but her licence was valid , so if i had crashed and it was my fault , it wouldn't have effected her
banned 2 Likes #6
CollateralDamage
Insurance companies can’t prove that you are fronting for your daughter. Just say you’re the main driver on both cars and that’s the end of it, if they have a problem with it they can try their best to prove it which is impossible.

really bad advice

they can quite easily prove who the main driver is in the event of a claim

thats what claims investigators do!
banned#7
They don't need to prove anything....the onus is on the person making the claim to prove they are not fronting if the insurer decides not to pay out because they suspect someone is fronting
#8
csiman
CollateralDamage
Insurance companies can’t prove that you are fronting for your daughter. Just say you’re the main driver on both cars and that’s the end of it, if they have a problem with it they can try their best to prove it which is impossible.

really bad advice

they can quite easily prove who the main driver is in the event of a claim

thats what claims investigators do!


No mate they can’t, just say i’m main driver and my son is 2nd driver all i have to say is i drive the vehicle more than my son but the one day he did take the vehicle out he had an accident. Unless the insurance company has been following the vehicle for the last how ever many months and recording who had been driving it more they have no legal grounds to stand on.
banned#9
In one recent claim the insurance company simply went to neighbours and asked them who drove the car the most. With a loud exhaust, music blaring and tinted windows - revenge is sweet. In this case the insurance company rejected the comprehensive claim, paid out the 3rd party liability and is now in the process of legal action to recover the amount paid to the 3rd party from the policyholder (a parent).

The policyholder, who may never have been in front of the court before, cannot really defend in the face of carefully amassed evidence. This can all be done through the County Courts to keep it out of the Press but it could easily escalate to the Criminal Courts, as this is insurance fraud. The insurance company will win judgement for the 3rd party liability and to recover this, it will simply seek a charging order on the parent's house or an attachment of earnings order
#10
slamdunkin
In one recent claim the insurance company simply went to neighbours and asked them who drove the car the most. With a loud exhaust, music blaring and tinted windows - revenge is sweet. In this case the insurance company rejected the comprehensive claim, paid out the 3rd party liability and is now in the process of legal action to recover the amount paid to the 3rd party from the policyholder (a parent).

The policyholder, who may never have been in front of the court before, cannot really defend in the face of carefully amassed evidence. This can all be done through the County Courts to keep it out of the Press but it could easily escalate to the Criminal Courts, as this is insurance fraud. The insurance company will win judgement for the 3rd party liability and to recover this, it will simply seek a charging order on the parent's house or an attachment of earnings order


I have studied law asking the neighbours who drives the car the most in not permissible in court. The insurance company must have evidence since the start of the policy showing that the main driver has not driven more than the second driver.

"With a loud exhaust, music blaring and tinted windows"

So you’re telling me if someone is fronting for their kid and they have a loud exhaust, music blaring and tinted windows that is enough evidence? Absurd. Even if the police pull you over check the insurance and its puts you as second driver but it is clear by the 'look' of the car a parent would clearly not drive it as their main car they can’t do anything as they have no solid proof since the start of the policy who has driven it the most.
banned 2 Likes #11
So the insurance company get a sworn statement of the neighbours then. CCTV footage from the collage car park or an accident occurs while little Johnny is at uni 140 miles away we all know it's hard to prove but in certain circumstances insurance co's will prove it, if the insurer pays out a claim and they suspect fronting they can and will amass evidence and sue the policy holder for their losses. the onus is on the fronter to prove they were not fronting and in a civil court you only really need to show probability (tort)

So if the OP's kid seriously injures someone and is sued for over a million pound to pay for the care and expenses caused by the accident are you going to pay for it instead of OP having an order put on her wages or her house sold from under her.


Edited By: slamdunkin on Apr 11, 2011 21:04: .
suspended#12
Thank you for your answers. Still confused as I just presume that when I phone them to add the other car they will presume that one car will be solely used by my daughter. The car that I will be adding won't be used by my daughter at all.
#13
CollateralDamage
slamdunkin
In one recent claim the insurance company simply went to neighbours and asked them who drove the car the most. With a loud exhaust, music blaring and tinted windows - revenge is sweet. In this case the insurance company rejected the comprehensive claim, paid out the 3rd party liability and is now in the process of legal action to recover the amount paid to the 3rd party from the policyholder (a parent).

You're missing the point CD. The insurance firm, given enough grounds to doubt the honesty of the insured, will simply refuse to pay out. And the larger the claim, the more evidence they will amass in the event of a court case you may wish to pursue as a means of recompense. IMHO, it simply isn't worth ghe worry and the risk. Remember, you are only insured if your insurer accepts liability on the basis that all the facts you have supplied are true and correct.



The policyholder, who may never have been in front of the court before, cannot really defend in the face of carefully amassed evidence. This can all be done through the County Courts to keep it out of the Press but it could easily escalate to the Criminal Courts, as this is insurance fraud. The insurance company will win judgement for the 3rd party liability and to recover this, it will simply seek a charging order on the parent's house or an attachment of earnings order


I have studied law asking the neighbours who drives the car the most in not permissible in court. The insurance company must have evidence since the start of the policy showing that the main driver has not driven more than the second driver.

"With a loud exhaust, music blaring and tinted windows"

So you’re telling me if someone is fronting for their kid and they have a loud exhaust, music blaring and tinted windows that is enough evidence? Absurd. Even if the police pull you over check the insurance and its puts you as second driver but it is clear by the 'look' of the car a parent would clearly not drive it as their main car they can’t do anything as they have no solid proof since the start of the policy who has driven it the most.
#14
slamdunkin
So the insurance company get a sworn statement of the neighbours then. CCTV footage from the collage car park or an accident occurs while little Johnny is at uni 140 miles away we all know it's hard to prove but in certain circumstances insurance co's will prove it, if the insurer pays out a claim and they suspect fronting they can and will amass evidence and sue the policy holder for their losses. the onus is on the fronter to prove they were not fronting and in a civil court you only really need to show probability (tort)

So if the OP's kid seriously injures someone and is sued for over a million pound to pay for the care and expenses caused by the accident are you going to pay for it instead of OP having an order put on her wages or her house sold from under her.



"So the insurance company get a sworn statement of the neighbours then. "

And the neighbours who live across the street have a different opinion and then the neighbours on the other side of the house have a different opinion. Just because one neighbour thinks one person drives it more than the other is not permissible in court even if they have a sworn statement.

"CCTV footage from the collage car park"

Well obviously the 2nd driver is paying to drive the car so at certain points the child might have taken the car to college.

It is near impossible for insurance companies to prove fronting and that’s the simple fact of it, in the end they will pay out or you can just take them to court and as they have no solid proof you will win.
banned#15
And the neighbours who live across the street have a different opinion and then the neighbours on the other side of the house have a different opinion. Just because one neighbour thinks one person drives it more than the other is not permissible in court even if they have a sworn statement

You seem to be getting criminal and civil court rules mixed up....as I said earlier in the civil court one only needs to show probability (Tort) if the policy holder has their own car why would they need to be primary driver of another car. and CC footage from the collage car park would prove the point if they could show that the car was driven their by the named driver every week day.
banned#16
It is near impossible for insurance companies to prove fronting and that’s the simple fact of it, in the end they will pay out or you can just take them to court and as they have no solid proof you will win.

small claimss may be easy.....but taking an insurance company to the high court for larger sums of money will cost the claiment many thousands upfront.
#17
slamdunkin
And the neighbours who live across the street have a different opinion and then the neighbours on the other side of the house have a different opinion. Just because one neighbour thinks one person drives it more than the other is not permissible in court even if they have a sworn statement


You seem to be getting criminal and civil court rules mixed up....as I said earlier in the civil court one only needs to show probability (Tort) if the policy holder has their own car why would they need to be primary driver of another car. and CC footage from the collage car park would prove the point if they could show that the car was driven their by the named driver every week day.



By fronting insurance you are committing fraud which is a crime so it is criminal law not the law of tort.

And say the child didn’t go to college or it didn’t have cctv?
banned#18
The fraud is a different matter and as such any case would be bought by the Police or private criminal prosacution if the CPS decided not to prosacute for fraud....the civil proceedings I am refuring to would be taken out by the insurance company to recover any payment they make to a claiment and would be covered by the rule of tort / probability.

Shhheeeeeessshhhhh....and you said you studied law.....lol
#19
slamdunkin
The fraud is a different matter and as such any case would be bought by the Police or private criminal prosacution if the CPS decided not to prosacute for fraud....the civil proceedings I am refuring to would be taken out by the insurance company to recover any payment they make to a claiment and would be covered by the rule of tort / probability.

Shhheeeeeessshhhhh....and you said you studied law.....lol


What i am saying is 9/10 times insurance companies know fronting is going on but they have no solid proof so they can’t do anything about it. ;)
1 Like #20
If you took your insurers to court, you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that you were not the main driver. The onus would be on you, not the insurer. It would be very easy for the insurer to get evidence to contradict your argument (especially if, as you are recommending, the plaintiff is commiting insurace fraud.

An insurer will simply not pay out if there is significant evidence to suggest dishonesty. You are getting your courts mixed up.

Edited By: Lefty on Apr 11, 2011 22:54
banned#21
Lefty
If you took your insurers to court, you would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that you were not the main driver. The onus would be on you, not the insurer. It would be very easy for the insurer to get evidence to contradict your argument (especially if, as you are recommending, the plaintiff is commiting insurace fraud.

An insurer will simply not pay out if there is significant evidence to suggest dishonesty. You are getting your courts mixed up.

+1

OP, just ignore collateraldamage as she hasnt got a clue!
#22
collateraldamage what world you live in ?

end of the day insurance companys are there to make money , they will look for every reason not to pay out, so if they decide you have lied , which is on ALL there terms and conditions , they dont have to pay out and have you really got that much money you can take them on in court because im pretty sure if you had that money you would have enough to pay the proper insurance

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!