Cheaper insurance for young drivers - 'Fronting' - And my opinions in favour of it.. - Page 2 - Saxperience

outrage_uk · 5th December 2010, 16:13

All these links you are sending me are based on 'research' and 'statistics' from insurance companies. Im sure they would try and claim fraud, which is illegal, if they could prove that you were obtaining property by deception (namely a Certificate of Motor Insurance).
However, this is nearly in all circumstances (except as mentioned, University/College CCTV) impossible to prove and if you are asking if you think this is right then in all circumstances - yes I think it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RossDagley

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

^^ So you are disagreeing about obtaining cheap insurance, but you are happy to drive like you want "because your insured?"

devilsadvocate · 5th December 2010, 16:41

Personally I would rather not risk my policy being voided in the event of a claim

Yeah chances are you will get away with it and even if the insurance company thought you were fronting, how would they prove who the 'main driver' is?

However, people have had insurance voided before (people on this forum for one) due to fronting which is fact, almost everything you have stated outrage_uk is based on your opinion as opposed to anything factual

The risk is very very small but it wouldn't be a risk I was willing to take and I think it is very very wrong for you to be advocating it.

IF (and I mean IF) someone on here (a 17 year old) took your advice and decided to front, they then had a crash and (IF) the insurance company did decide to void the policy......how bad would you feel that your 'advice' may have contributed to a £££ bill that they now have to pay or the person they hit?

Even a small risk is still a risk

FACT - People have and will continue to have thier insurance voided for fronting, regardless of your opinion of 'how could they prove the main driver?'. They must be able to prove it otherwise how would people have had thier policies voided before now?

outrage_uk · 5th December 2010, 17:15

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.

ed-bradley · 5th December 2010, 17:25

If your a young driver and want cheaper insurance...Get a moped Lol

Or use that I-kube insurance scheme, or something like that.
you'd be restricted on what you can do etc. But its one of the options to drive, legally and have that bit of freedom in driving.

My quote, when I put my parents on my insurance was only £200 or so cheaper than If I took the policy out on my own. So if thats the case, may aswell take it out on my own..

£2200 later, and im legal.

outrage_uk · 5th December 2010, 17:30

Fair play to you then if you can afford to pay £2200.

Some people simply can not afford to pay that much though, but can pay around £800 which is probably the figure you could have got it for by been a named driver.

TheWorx · 5th December 2010, 17:41

i fronted for my 1st year and a half driving, but didnt know it was illegal, got stopped plenty of times and checked the insurance etc and it was never mentioned. Insured in my own name now to get some ncb

ed-bradley · 5th December 2010, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Fair play to you then if you can afford to pay £2200.

Some people simply can not afford to pay that much though, but can pay around £800 which is probably the figure you could have got it for by been a named driver.

trust me, I looked about everywhere..the majority of my quotes were £3k+
Im still a student baring in mind, I just budget my money and limit myself to what I can and cant spend.

At college for 4days a week, and work the other 3.
Its one way of paying for the things I want. Haha

Ed.

Ross^p · 5th December 2010, 19:30

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

outrage_uk · 5th December 2010, 20:28

The last time I obtained a policy in my dads name, I did it over the internet - infact i've always taken out insurance over the internet - just as most people on here will have done. Therefore there will be no recorded evidence of me or anyone saying who will be or will not be the 'main' driver.

I didn't see any mention of 'the main driver' on there - it must have been well hidden on the 'assumptions' section somewhere... probably.

Don't see what relevance the MIB flow chart has to anything but im sure it has

I saw 'police' in the other link so I immediately disregard anything from that site (police are an income generating 'public service' just as insurance, so it is in their interest to try create an issue)

Once again it comes down to evidence; which there is none.

I don't need luck, you just need to be sensible.

And unfortunately, as annoyed as you are that you have been ripped off paying over-priced insurance for as many years have you have - if you are a named driver on an insurance policy, you are legally allowed to drive.

Ross^p · 5th December 2010, 20:43

Well we'll agree to disagree. You're wrong. You've missed the entire point. As I've explained several times, you've obtained that policy by committing fraud, so you're not insured at all. Good luck using ignorance as your excuse in court. It wont wash.

Oh, and my first years insurance was £310 TPFT. I've never paid more than £600 for my insurance - including when I bought my gti brand new at 24 years old with a book value of £12,500 (£580 FC if I recall correctly).

I don't feel I've been ripped off at all. Quite the contrary. I've had good, legal cover

You're the ONLY person that seem to think it's legal and not fraudulent. You've tried to dispute legitimate links I've posted by statements like "they're an income generating service" referring to the police. After all - what do the police know. They're only responsible for interpreting the laws we have to abide by...

When you post credible links yourself saying where it's legal to drive with a fraudulently obtained certificate of insurance, I'll take your side of the argument with more seriousness. Until then your comments are baseless, whilst mine are backed with the thoughts of the insurance companies and the police, and make reference to the appropriate laws in question.

Again, good luck with your defence!

devilsadvocate · 5th December 2010, 20:48

Ross, give up buddy he won't get it
I have had this arguement with him on another thread:
http://www.saxperience.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=348350

Ross^p · 5th December 2010, 20:51

outrage_uk · 5th December 2010, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by RossDagley

Well we'll agree to disagree. You're wrong. You've missed the entire point. As I've explained several times, you've obtained that policy by committing fraud, so you're not insured at all. Good luck using ignorance as your excuse in court. It wont wash.

No no no no. Sorry buddy but like I say, which you don't seem to understand, is been a named driver on a Certificate of Motor Insurance entitles you to drive legally. There is no definition of a 'main driver' so you can not be convicted of fraud or driving with no insurance. Insurance companies can try scare you into thinking that been a named driver will not give you adequate cover, and obviously it works with some people like yourself and devil boy, but not with others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RossDagley

You're the ONLY person that seem to think it's legal and not fraudulent. You've tried to dispute legitimate links I've posted by statements like "they're an income generating service" referring to the police. After all - what do the police know. They're only responsible for interpreting the laws we have to abide by...

I know at least 10 of my mates that also understand that been a named driver on an insurance policy is fully legal (I know that your basis of your argument is the 'main driver', but as there is no definition, our parents are 'main drivers' because they are older and wiser).

As for the police, they are there to generate income and uphold the law (priority in that order). Uphold the law means you have to break it (in their opinion, after gathering evidence) before they can bring a charge to take you to court. As you are breaking no offence by been a 'named driver' - you can not be charged (with the exception of clear deception, such as examples in the insurance run 'scarey' links).

Quote:

Originally Posted by RossDagley

When you post credible links yourself saying where it's legal to drive with a fraudulently obtained certificate of insurance

It is legal to drive a vehicle if you are a named driver on the policy and named on the 'Certificate of Motor Insurance' - even you arn't disputing this surely?? As for the 'main' or 'secondary' driver, there is no definition, so it is impossible to say who is who. Therefore, the cover is perfectly legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Ross, give up buddy he won't get it
I have had this arguement with him on another thread:
http://www.saxperience.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=348350

Never posted in that thread pal - must be other people that don't appreciate getting ripped off.

Like you say - we will agree to disagree. Let people make up their own mind

Ross^p · 5th December 2010, 21:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

<stuff>

Here's mine. Suggest you check yours. You've lied on yours, thereby invalidating it.

I've highlighted in red in case you're struggling to grasp the important bits...

Game over.

Of course, your mates do it, so it must be fine... right? Don't be naive.

outrage_uk · 5th December 2010, 21:34

... And what is 'the main user' ??????

I say my dad.. because he did the shopping in it at the weekend.

Legally, there is no definition to 'the main user'. Therefore my interpretation is as above.

Ross^p · 5th December 2010, 21:37

Who drives it more?

outrage_uk · 5th December 2010, 21:42

Well... we didn't happen to have a clocking in and out machine built in, but id say given the long distance driving - 51% to my dad, 49% to me..

Ross^p · 5th December 2010, 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Well... we didn't happen to have a clocking in and out machine built in, but id say given the long distance driving - 51% to my dad, 49% to me..

Then you're not fronting are you. Thanks for wasting my evening

outrage_uk · 5th December 2010, 22:22

As ive already said, Im not a named driver anymore anyway. Ive got my own policy in my own name - but that's not to make an insurance company happy, its because I wanted the Driving Other Cars extension so I could drive proper cars.. otherwise I would have happily let me and my dad build up the NCD on 'his' policy till i was 25+.

I don't think its a waste of your evening mate, I think you've helped alot of people make a judgement and see how angry/passionate you are that you have wasted so much extra money on insurance.

Ross^p · 5th December 2010, 22:39

lol yeah. I sure regret not having to pray every day that I didn't crash my uninsured car! Thank god I paid through the nose for legal cover!