When you phone an insurance company and they ask who the main driver is, and you lie and say you, you obtain a quote based on that risk. Would the price be higher to better reflect the increased risk if a young driver was the main driver? of course. Thereby, you're committing fraud. I really don't see how you're trying to tell it any other way.
If you genuinely believe that it's perfectly legal, I wish you the best of luck. You'll need it.
Quote:
It is a Criminal offence under Section 143 to use a vehicle on a road without this minimum level of insurance cover and it would be a Criminal Offence under Section 145 for an Insurance Company to issue a policy of insurance which didn't satisfy these minimum requirements.
However, when an Authorised Insurer (an Insurance Company) makes an offer (insurance quote) to an applicant for motor insurance they do so knowingly accepting the risk that should the applicant accept the offer, then they ( the Company) are entering into a legal Civil contract with the applicant (the insured) which obliges them, at the very minimum, to indemnify the user of the vehicle against third party risks as required by the law. If the applicant desires optional levels of cover, ie Third Party, Fire and Theft, or Comprehensive, or business use, then the Insurance Company takes this into account by increasing the quote accordingly.
Should an applicant makes a false statement or withhold any material information for the purpose of obtaining the issue of a certificate of insurance or certificate of security under Part VI of this Act, he would commit a criminal offence under Section 174(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
In the case of 'fronting', the parents are clearly committing a criminal offence under Section 174(5) because they know at the time of application that the main user of the car is going to be their offspring and not themselves. Proving this might be difficult but it is not impossible. Asking the driver pertinent questions at the roadside about his use of the vehicle and the nature of his journey would be a start. Obtaining documentation or statements from the Insurance Company would next.
I would suggest however that an Insurance company would act on any information they receive from the Police and would void the policy on the 'balance of probability' standard of proof rather than the criminal 'beyond all reasonable doubt' standard of proof.
|
http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/fo...561&PID=421093
Alternatively, look at the MIB interpretation:
http://www.mib.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8...Issue92006.pdf (page 4, there's a nice flow chart).
That quote is from a police discussion forum. You're welcome to argue your case as I say, but I suspect you'll be doing it in front of a judge, not on an internet forum
