Both of you can not find the Act that states been a named driver and the 'main' driver is illegal - as in against the law - because no such one exists.
Even on the BBC site, the word "illegal" is quite rightly in quotation marks - meaning that it is in the opinion of the insurance company what they are defining illegal, just as I would claim it is illegal for them to refuse to pay for any claim for a named driver under the Trade Descriptions Act.
Obviously it is in the insurance companies interest to not pay out - so they will try make it as hard as they can.
As for me holding it on my head for any young driver choosing to been a named driver on a parents policy - im just trying to save them from paying shit loads of money unnecessary. Clearly I see it as a complete waste of money, but if they want to do that then that is up to them.
I have already said, ideally you should get insurance in your own name if you can afford it, however because insurance companies are so greedy and the market isnt strictly regulated for what they can charge - I am very pleased me and my mates have saved thousands over the years, and feel sorry for those who chose to pay out.
I am just saying there is another option (in my opinion, a legal option (which I don't have to prove) - in the insurers opinion, illegal (which they do have to prove)) to have realistic insurance if you simply can not afford to pay thousands of pounds.
Driving / Insurance is always a risk - they will always try swindle their way out of paying, that's why a big chunk of your premium goes on dedicated claims assessors. Maybe if you ever have a running with them you would understand.
End of the day its alot of money people are talking about so ive put this up so people can look at it from both sides of the story and then make up their own mind.
|