Cheaper insurance for young drivers - 'Fronting' - And my opinions in favour of it..
 

Here's my longgg tale - sorry if you've read it before, but as it took ages to write, I thought its better keeping it in a separate, relevant thread;

New to the driving game, me and my dad tried insurance companies and couldn't believe the quotes - £2000ish - which was ridiculous at the time.
Finally got a quote from Tesco - explained it to us - and told us the only realistic way to insure young drivers is in a parents name, which we did. £642. My dad was still pissed off helping me out with this :)

When I was 18, a silly cow decided to crash my car and write it off.
It was modded abit - exhaust, alloys, K&N, alarm.
The car was in registered in my name.
Policy was in my dads name as a main driver, me as a named driver - he never used it.
^^^
Now devil I know you will have kittens about that, but thats how it was.
Anyway, they took my car, rang me up and complained about the mods, gave me a shit valuation saying scrap value, beyond repair blah blah... i sent off print outs from autotrader of similar cars - sent it back with my V5 and MOT's etc... They rang up complained about the V5 in my name not my dads.. Anyway they paid me out, lower than i wanted - but everything dandy. :) 3 Months later I got a letter from some women saying she had bought my car have I got any spare keys and alarm fobs. I sent her them but said could you kindly let me know how much you paid and where it was from and did you know it was a 'total loss' according to my insurance. Well the bottom line was she paid nearly double what I got paid out and was not aware that it was a Cat C damaged car! :n: So thats the tale on car #1.

3 Years later same kind of set up, but a standard car and 'my dad' had gained 3 years NCD on the policy i was using. Some piss head crashed into back of it. My insurance took it, pissed and moaned about it been registered in my name and said it was modified because of the standard GSI front bumper? Anyway after a shit valuation I had to send off autotrader print outs and proof of value like receipts etc. "Its a total loss blah blah". Getting no where so I was forced to accept £2000 less than it was worth - no doubt they could make another profit. So, even though it was not my fault - I lost out. OK I kept 'my' 3 NCD, but I lost my car and got ripped off.

So as you can see, in my experience, ive broke all the 'fronting' rules and have been paid out because the bastards will always make a profit on you. Maybe I got lucky, I dunno but its paid off for me. I would rather go to Court for driving without insurance than pay these robbing twats more than I feel they deserve.

OK, you say what if some lad at 17 goes hits a £80,000 car, whats 4k to that? Well there are (as of 2003-probably a lot more now) 32 million cars in the UK. If everyone paid a reasonable amount for insurance - as in £400, that would be £12,800,000,000. Lets say there are 100 insurance companies in the UK - there are probably loads more but 100 should be a set limit to where there is competition and choice. That would leave each company an annual income of £128,000,000. So with that £128million they get each year, they could afford to pay for the £80,000 car (and the whiplash claims).

I know its bullshit and will never happen because its worked out on risk factors such as occupation and postcodes, but you get the idea. Some pay £300, some pay £500.

There needs to be a justifiable reason to charge someone 4 thousand pounds for basically piece of mind if you hurt someone (third party). As said - my thoughts on TPF&T and Comprehensive is they're there just to rip you off. Just been young should not be a reason. There are terrible drivers all over (*cough* women, and certainly old people) and these don't pay thousands more. Maybe I shouldn't stereotype - but neither should insurance.

I will try anything to get insurance as cheap as I can - now fortunately I can afford to pay for a policy in my own name because it's a reasonable amount - not thousands - but I would never feel sorry for an insurance company and think "oh if I hit someone and hurt them the poor insurance company will loose out" (obviously id be more concerned about the accident anyway).

As said in my previous post, what you appear to be saying is;

If insurance companies decide they do not want to pay for your claim (which is their legal duty) - they can decide if you are or are not (in their opinion) the 'main driver' (to which, there is no definition) and the only proof they have is by asking your neighbours and/or checking if you have in your possession another car in your household?

So to summarise, I conclude; Insurance is legalised fraud, so the cheaper you can get it the better - if that means 'manipulating' their term of 'main driver' then so be it. It's worked for me and saved thousands.

People need to make up their own mind, but im afraid, just as insurance will continue to rip young drivers off, young drivers will manipulate the system to get a realistic insurance premium. :y:

^^^^^^

^^^^^^

If they were that concerned about 'fronting' then this is what they would do.

The fact young named drivers are allowed surely says; "we will let you do it - take your £1200 but if you try to claim, we will make it as hard as we can and try avoid paying".

I have been stopped well over 50+ times over the years, mainly because of the times I drive (ive been nocturnal since i was about 14). They have never once questioned the legality of the named drivers. They run an MID check and 'pass named drivers' over the radio, your on the list, so your free to carry on. Like myself and others keep pointing out, what an insurance company defines as a 'main driver' is definitely a black hole. They could try and gather some proof of you breaking the terms and conditions of what they class as a 'main driver' but as in my policy documents, there is no definition, so they could say what they like, it could never be proven. In any case, this would constitute a Civil, not a Criminal Case. Therefore unless you would admit to, or the police gather real evidence such as a recorded conversation between you and your parents saying "dad, im getting the insurance in your name with me as a named driver but you wont ever drive it". - there would never be a Criminal offence such as; "Obtaining property by deception - namely a Certificate of Motor Insurance." or; "Driving without insurance against third party contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988." - mealy a civil case of insurance company vs you.

I still find this hard to believe. When your 25+ you can get insured on a 'proper car' (Group 14+) with 0 years NCD in your own name for less than £500 - then just build your NCD up from there. So your talking maybe a £100 difference than with 6 years NCD - but its not £1000+! Whats the rush from when your 17? The ridiculous cost of insurance from a young age far out weighs the saving you make from your NCD. Remember that after 9 years NCD you dont get a bigger discount anyway, infact some companies its only 5 years.

I think we both agree, in an ideal world car insurance should be in your own name out right (as is mine now) but in reality, it just can not happen with prices as they are, and until the FSA step in, or insurance companies stop offering polices allowing young named drivers - 'fronting' is here to stay, and I for one, im afraid, are all in favour of it. :y:

I still don't see why younger lads on their mum and dads policies would make a difference to us (outright policy holders).

Lets not forget insurance companies are a massive industry. Not because they rip young drivers off, but the volume of customers. I wont drone on about it cos ive mentioned it above, but millions of customers paying an average of a few hundred quid is the bread and butter of the revenue, the odd young driver is the Christmas pudding.

I would personally be happy to pay an extra 10% on my policy to ensure that my son (hopefully... one day :) ) is not priced out of driving, because I (as a parent) would end up fitting the bill for it anyway. And 10% off everyone would be more than enough to cut young drivers premiums.

The whole thing pisses me off to be honest, its all driven off greed because they get away with it, its all too easy.

One day some rich kid with a rich parent will get the ball rolling to get things changed. I hope so anyway :y:

Fair play for putting this together mate, always good to have a balanced opinion from both sides of the coin.

The way I look at it is that when I took out my quote, if i edited the quote and removed the 3 years no claims, it shot up to £1056 and with the 3 years no claims I pay £440 so I am glad that I didnt front otherwise I would be paying more now and for the next few years

Where'd you get that figure from? I had to work to get my insurance on my gti (group 13) DOWN to under £500. And thats with 5+ years NCB, and at the age of 30+.

Below is a 25 year old, good postcode (AL7), zero NCB, group 13 (106 gti) car valued at £2000, no mods, parked on driveway, no accidents or convictions, 12,000 miles a year, SDP+C policy, TPF&T, £250 excess. Paying annually.



I can totally see why people do it - but it's illegal. End of. You've proved you haven't got caught, but if you ARE caught, you're up on a criminal charge of driving without insurance, points, fine and 5 years minimum of your insurance premiums going up 50%. You'll find getting a job in certain fields (everything from a taxi driver to a fireman) impossible. Is it really worth the risk?

It's not just the legal aspect - you're also driving WITHOUT insurance, meaning you affect other innocent drivers because you're uninsured. I take the same view as someone driving without undeclared modifications - it's illegal. You don't think it's serious, but I do because it affects me.

Ive tried the "fronting" side of things, with my step dad on the policy as the main driver who has over 12years experiance driving, 8years NCB, No points, Self employed, didnt even touch my claim, it put it up by few Hundred, so surley insurance companys are catching on to this now

^^
This is exactly my point. If you shopped around then you could have got that policy for £845 (25 year old, goodish group C postcode (AL7), 0 years NCB, group 13 (106 gti) car valued at £2000, no accidents or convictions, 12,000 miles a year, SDP+C policy, TPF&T, £250 excess. Paying annually.)



So, if as you say you have got your policy now for under £500 - thats a £300 difference to someone with 0 years NCD.

So you pay £300 extra now when you can afford it, which is better than paying £1000+ per year extra when your 17/18.

And for every year that goes by now, the difference will get smaller and smaller until you pay the same. Using basic maths you could work out that paying £300 extra in year 1, £250 extra year 2, £200 extra year 3, £150 year 4, £100 year 5, £50 year 6, £20 extra year 7, same £~ year 8+ = £1070 = the total amount extra you've been ripped off by.

Now in your own name, if you say that you have paid £1000 extra in year 1, £800 extra in year 2, £600 in year 3, £400 in year 4, £200 in year 5 = £3000 = the total amount extra you've been ripped off by.

As you can see, however you try and word it - paying more to insurance companies in your own name does not work out cheaper in the long run. At all.

As already said - if insurance companies where that concerned and voided every claim by named drivers, why wouldn't they just not allow them?

Still got to disagree on the word 'illegal'. Adding your self as a named driver when you are the 'main' driver may be dishonest but how can it be illegal when there is no definition of 'main'?

As I say - insurance companies can say what they like and try win a Civil case if they wish (which would cost thousands - possibly more than the claim its self.)

This is like saying if you drive with any defect on your car, such as no MOT, you will be also convicted of driving with no insurance because your policy will say in the small print that your vehicle must be kept in 'roadworthy condition' - the difference is the definition of 'roadworthy condition' is defined in the terms.

got to admiral for me 19 no noclaims bonus no cnvictions not crashes fully comp on a 1.4 furio £850 on my own policy if i paid in full unfortuantly i couldn't aford that so i'm having to swallow £1000 on my mum's policy BUT she uses the car more than me so we share the price. and is alll legal but it shot up £46 a month form my mk2 fiesta wich was £40 a month when i got the saxo and the saox is an ins group lower lol main problem is the saxo is a high risk car even tho its in a low ins group cause so many of them get crashed.

Given you're saying you've used the same details, on the same website as I have in the above example, what differences did you make to the policy to get the reduction in the premium?

Insurers don't have to "win" a civil case - they just wont pay out. They allow us the convenience of having named drivers for the same reasons they allow driving other vehicles cover. Would you presume it's acceptable to buy a 1 litre metro and insure it with a "driving other vehicles" policy and drive your mates Gallardo every day to work? Socially or legally acceptable? People do it but it doesn't make it right.

Young drivers pay a higher premium as they're the highest risk group on the road - thats not in dispute. You're confusing a moral belief that it's OK because it's a loophole in the law, whereas your insurance company would see it differently, and it's their opinion that matters, not yours.

A quote from the below sums up my thoughts on it:
IE, ME. The honest customer, paying for the young driver who statistically is far more likely to be involved in an accident.

http://www.easier.com/66846-drivers-...-fronting.html

Oh, and my insurance is in fact £460 fully comp - with a 300bhp roll-caged HEAVILY modified road legal track car. Thats with 6 points too. But then again, I've a proven history of good motoring, driving modified cars - on policies in my own name.

By telling the insurance company you're the main driver but allowing someone else to drive it more than you - I would suggest 51% or more of the time would be a good example, I haven't bothered to look up the definition of "main" that insurance companies use - you're committing fraud.

http://www.moneyhighstreet.com/finan...ng-is-illegal/

http://www.insurancedaily.co.uk/2010...young-drivers/

I would also disagree that a young driver with zero convictions against your 6 points is a clear black / white case of high risk / low risk. If anything your clear disregard for the law either seriously once or less seriously twice, shows that you are a high risk driver and should be charged at least the going rate for a young driver that has no points.

Everyone is an individual and just because your a young driver it does not make it right to charge you 20x more than someone older - if and when you make a claim or get a conviction then, yes, they should be be able to re-evaluate on a risk basis.

The insurance companies have nicely got them selves into a win - win situation, you have it as a named driver - they will try void the policy (which they could never prove unless you are silly enough to make an admission), or pay the ridiculous going rate for a 'young driver'.

And you say they "just wont pay out". This isn't strictly true. Insurance companies are under a legal obligation to cover you against third party liability when you are paying for the cover. If they choose to void your policy proceeding a claim, they will need a very good reason backed up by very good evidence.

My insurance is inflated because of those two speeding convictions. Absolutely. Statistically however, I'm a FAR better risk than a 17/18 year old. Surely you're not attempting to contradict that? If so - you might want to have a word with the researchers ;)

Insurance companies have to profile people - to give an individual quote would be not only cost probibitive but tantamount to saying "pretty please, I promise not to have an accident, even though every statistic says I'm likely too". Of course they have a right to charge more for a higher risk. Would you consider it unjust that a house in a flood risk area should pay the same as a house on a hill for the same level of flood cover? Of course not. Statistically the house thats likely to flood should pay more for its cover, as it's more likely to be required.

They don't have an obligation to pay out at all if you've obtained that insurance by fraud. Which fronting is.

You're fighting a losing battle. As much as you may think you have the moral high ground by finding what you consider to be a loophole in the system, the law says otherwise. If I drive drunk and don't get caught, it doesn't make it any less illegal.

On that basis - women drivers insurance should be 20x as much because they are terrible drivers? Or Asian drivers because they break most laws? What would happen if insurance companies said that? Do you think they would get away with it?

You have the choice to buy a house in a flood risk area - you have no choice in declaring your age.

If this was a legal loophole - it would and could easily be stopped if it was illegal. As I say, there is no definition of a "main" driver, and been a named driver on a policy means that you are, by law, legally insured to drive.


Drink Driving is a Criminal offence (contrary to Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) therefore it is illegal.

That said, in an ideal world, with realistically priced insurance everyone should have a policy in their own name. If the FSA stepped in and did something about it, im sure everyone would.

Women are safer drivers than men. Where did you get the statistic that Asian drivers "break most laws"?

You have a choice not to drive until you're older however.

It's not a loophole - it IS illegal. I posted you the links earlier for reference.

As driving without insurance. Tell you what - phone up an insurance company and tell them that you wish to insure a car, but you'll be driving it less than a 17 year old you'd like on the policy. See what they tell you. I suspect they'll tell you to jog on - and if they don't, you'll be paying the premium for that additional risk, as you rightly should be.

Of course, if you DON'T tell them, and do it anyway, then you've just invalidated your insurance - which is the crux of the argument. Fronting is illegal. Whether it's moral or socially acceptable is of course your personal interpretation. But it's still illegal.

I can only leave you with a couple of quotes that sum it up:

http://www.insurancedaily.co.uk/2010...y-on-fronting/
And:
http://www.noclaimsdiscount.co.uk/ne...show=200804031
Regardless of your opinion, the law is clear. Fronting is illegal. If caught, both the front-er and front-ee are in serious trouble. If you feel thats worth the risk, thats your call.

But please - on a final note, stay away from me when I'm driving please, as I don't much want to be hit by an uninsured driver... ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ox/7052569.stm

Statistically yes, in reality no. Does the statistics show how many accidents women actually cause (similarly old people)?

Bradford Court Files - person for person 82% IIRC

Websites run by insurance companies - with the exception of the BBC.

Me and my dad where advised by two companies when I was 17 (Tesco + Direct Line) that the only realistic way to have affordable insurance is to add me as a named driver on my dads policy.

I think until you show me the legal meaning by your definition of 'illegal' we will have to agree to disagree on this. We are going around in circles. You have your thoughts, I have mine.

Links from insurance run website's are do not justify as 'law'.

Just for the record, now I can afford realistic insurance, I am insured in my own name, but to be honest, that is only because I enjoy the Driving Other Cars extension.

Please, on a final note don't be speeding in my area and risking my family or dogs health with your "300bhp roll-caged HEAVILY modified road legal track car" and your clear disregard for the law. Twice. ;)

When I do hit your dog/cat/house/family, I'll at least be insured so don't worry about it ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10241769