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

[outrage_uk]

Hmm well that's strange, my two previous insurance companies must disagree with you - I got paid out... twice... thats probably something to do with been a named driver is perfectly legal!

[Rossp]

And we're back at the beginning... Sigh.

I've never said being a named driver is illegal. I said being a named driver and driving the vehicle more than who's been declared as the MAIN driver is illegal... And (as posted above) I've posted links demonstrating that from the Motor Insurers, and the Police, quoting Road Traffic Law as required...

You've posted your ... experience. However, as you said above, you were are not the main driver, so your claims would be valid wouldn't they.

I'm not sure you even know why you're arguing any more. Do you? You're confusing the two aspects. It's perfectly legal to be a named driver and (gosh!) drive the car. It's NOT legal to drive that vehicle more than the "main" driver - main being that defined on the policy document(s).

I think we're done here. You're unfortunately not willing to accept the overwhelming evidence that fronting is illegal, even when given facts and law quoted to you. Instead, relying on your experience of "getting away with it".

As insurance companies clamp down on fronting, more and more people will come unstuck. You should be grateful you've got away with it when you could. I think it's going to be much harder for people in the future - and rightly so.

As I said several hours ago - I can post countless countless posts, topics and articles from other forums (including legal orientated, or police orientated forums), and quote the law on the situation. Please find me some valid legal argument FOR fronting being legal. I'd sincerely like to read it.

[outrage_uk]

You just don't listen my 'friend'. I suspect the only reason is because you don't like to think of yourself been ripped off over the years.

You can not say who drives the car more than the 'main' driver, and it would be virtually impossible for a 3rd party to gather evidence of such. (A recorded admission or CCTV over a period of months maybe).

You are not quoting Law, which you couldn't because it doesn't exist, on the legal definition of a 'main driver' and even if it said 'used the car more than a named driver - in hours and minutes' ; once again: This. Could. (Almost) Never. Be. Proven.

Therefore we must agree on what you say - "It's perfectly legal to be a named driver and drive the car."

That is - the bottom line.

[Rossp]

Ok you win. You've worn me down and I can't be bothered to argue with your ignorance any longer. Unsubbing. You'll make a nice defence lawyer for someone I'm sure when it comes to trial. Good luck.

[outrage_uk]

I just don't like people getting ripped off, and maybe if ive saved someone money it's been worth spending hours debating it with you and devil..

At very least ive got my point across, just as you have given yours.

Peace x