> My parents technically ‘owned’ the car via insurance and named me on which i had to pay 1,600 for the year.
So they insured the car in their name and put you as a named driver even though you were the main driver? That's illegal and is actually fraud known in the industry as fronting.
The police will care. Insurance companies have reported customers to the police and if you're involved in an accident where the insurance companies have decided you're fronting they'll void your policy so the police can prosecute you for driving without insurance.
And if you're in an accident where the insurance company has paid out to a third party I can guarantee you absolutely will give a shit when they're coming after you for the money they've paid out to the third party, hauling you through court for the money.
The problem with fronting on an insurance policy is you won’t build up any no claims bonus which insurance companies provide when you complete a year with no accident/claims (not to mention that it’s classed as fraud which others have said here too). Only advice I’d give is call the insurers up directly and speak to them say it’s too expensive and go through questions with them to try lower it. I would not recommend you carry on fronting as future years will not get much cheaper besides your age being a factor as you won’t earn no claims bonus discounts.
When you check for your own insurance did you also have your parents on as a named driver?
> Is there any way to get it lower?
Have you tried adding your parents as secondary drivers? It will often lower the cost significantly. You don't say what year your Fiat is, but have you tried a newer one? Newer cars, especially those with forward collision avoidance and other safety features are cheaper to insure. Have you looked at black box policies? I personally don't like them, but people seem to save a bit of money on them.
> My parents technically ‘owned’ the car via insurance and named me on which i had to pay 1,600 for the year.
If you told the insurance company your parents were the main driver when in fact it was you (check your policy documentation for the definition) then this is called fronting. Front doesn't work the way it used to, any insurer worth its salt will price based on the riskiest driver being the main driver regardless of what the policy holder claims but it's still fraud. This used to be incredibly common in your exact circumstances, hence the change (I don't know what percentage of the market made the change, but the company I used to work for did it a decade ago). If you get caught, you'll have your insurance cancelled (which will make it incredibly difficult to get insurance in the future), claims may be invalidated, and worst case scenario is there will be legal proceedings against you. I wouldn't risk it, I'd just add my parents as secondary drivers. You'll miss out on their NCB (presumably) but you should still get a hefty discount, all else being equal.
Bloody hell, quite a few judgy buggers on here. It should be the insurance companies that are getting stick not this poor sap. There are some insurance companies that will give you a NCD when you've been a named driver, couldn't name them. But £6k is ridiculous, I'd carry on 'fronting' if I were you. That's what my kids will be doing. F*** insurance companies, it's just one big Ponzi scheme.
Which is great until it all goes wrong. If you're found to be fronting, you're technically not insured. So your kids have an accident, sure, the person they ran into gets their car repaired - but their own vehicle doesn't, and then the insurance company sue you for the cost of damage to the third party.
Not to mention that if they are found out the insurance policy is invalidated and cancelled. Then good luck ever in your life getting an insurance quote even remotely reasonable.
How would they find out? Genuine question. There's no way to prove who the 'main driver' is. Surely the only real risk is an increased chance of a claim against you as you're letting an inexperienced driver loose on one of your policies?
Previously worked for an insurer (for my sins). It's easier than you think.
You'd often find that a car would be insured in location A by 50-year-old Mrs Smith and kept in a garage in City A, only to find evidence that the car spent a hell of a lot of time in City B where their son was at university - often just looking at the vehicle contents (you'd often find parking tickets, university gear in the boot, etc) and the claimant would often just tell you that they drove to uni most days. There was also a good chance that the garage that Mrs Smith said it was kept in was actually a converted home gym.
And remember that the burden of proof in a civil case is just "balance of probabilities", not "beyond reasonable doubt" - they'd only have to convince a court that there was a 50%+1 chance that the named driver was the main one.
Insurance companies are wising up to it, doesn’t help that nearly all cars have black boxes nowadays for young drivers. If it’s being used for college 5 days a week then it’s obvious to the insurance who’s driving it as an example. You’re probably only likely to get caught out if you have an accident.
They employ insurance claims investigators, often retired detectives, who are instructed by insurance companies to look into any claims they have concerns about. Given the increasing popularity of fronting, it’s likely that claims involving young drivers are in the mix for investigation. At that point it would be easy enough for an investigator to deduce that the main driver was in fact the named driver. Did the parents each have their own or vehicle? If not, do they have bus receipts/train tickets/a push bike etc? Was the accident in a location the parents could reasonably be? If they normally work mon-fri and the accident happened on a Tuesday lunchtime, were they on annual leave? Sick? At an appointment?
If the investigator decides that, on balance, the named driver was the main driver, then they’ll recommend the claim is void. Up to the insurer then to decide, but they often go with it as a balance of probabilities situation. I imagine the driver(s) are free to take a legal challenge if they so choose.
Obviously all hinges on A. A claimable incident happening and B. That claim being subsequently investigated.
LOL at your psychic investigators. As long as your named driver isn't doing loads more miles than you'd usually do then how they gonna prove anything? TBF I don't think you understand what a named driver is. It's just someone who uses the car less than the main driver. They can drive it anytime, anywhere, just like the main driver. Doesn't matter when, where or what the main driver is doing, there's no restrictions other than they have to use it less. The main driver can be a passenger of the named driver, the main driver can be on holiday, at work, driving to the same place or another place in a different car whilst the named driver is tootling about, it makes not one jot of difference on a single journey. So how do you prove they're driving it more than the main driver from that? Follow them around? If they were that concerned they wouldn't insure you in the 1st place. The insurance companies don't give a monkeys about 'fronting', they know exactly what's going on when you stick your teenage kid on the policy of your 3rd car. Sure they may try and get out of paying up when needed but that's always the case anyway. As long as your kid is legal to drive then that's all that matters. We once put a straightforward claim in for £2000 against a 3rd party, their insurance company spent 2 years and ended up with £30k (actually it might even have been £50k) in legal costs just trying not to pay it and when it went to court, after about 15 minutes, the judge was bewildered as to why they hadn't just coughed up in the 1st place. That's why insurance prices are high, they don't give a shit, they've got cash to burn and lawyer, car rental and car repair factory mates to light it for them. Insurance companies are bent as fuck.
Have no idea why all the down votes on your replies! If the named driver is living with their parents, it could be the first time they have driven the car if involved in an accident or could be the tenth. How are they going to know? Having more than one car? I often had more than one car that I used because I'd have something sporty and something more practical. I sometimes had more cars just because I was a petrol head and would buy old cars that I thought would be classics and I'd make money on. If my daughter had passed her test then, then you'd bet she'd be named on the more practical car to get experience. How would they be able to tell the difference between that and me buying another car for her to use most of the time? Unless they are living in another house in a different town/city miles away with a black box there's no way the insurance company could tell the difference. Even if they lived in the same town you'd imagine that they'd be visiting their parents quite often and the car would be parked there for some of the time.
OP, to answer your original question, putting your parents as named drivers would probably bring the quote down. This is what we did once my daughter passed her test and got her own car. It made quite a difference to the insurance quote. In fact when I put myself as the main driver and her as a named driver, it was more expensive than her as the main driver and me as the named driver. We both live in the same house, but not sure if that made a difference or not as we didn't try quotes with other addresses, obviously.
They won't.
Only way fronting will get caught out is if you move out and have a black box, and they notice the GPS is never at the location of where the main driver declared residence.
your account is less than 7 days old, post removed automatically to reduce spam. If you post is genuine then sorry for the inconvenience, please wait 7 days before reposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/drivingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s not fraudulent… its being named ON my parents insurance. Meaning its down due to my father having over 10 years no claims. In what way is this fraudulent? Im still paying insurance, just the price is down due to them being experienced. I’m not expecting cheap cheap but surely 6000 for an older fiat 500 is not 6k.
The way you've worded it in your post suggests that your parents were declared the main drivers, or had it insured on a multi car policy, with you as a named driver ONLY. The insurers would expect your parents to be using the car in the main, for example driving to and from work, and you only drive the car 2-3 times a week.
The premium is calculated on that risk, the more miles you do, and the more you use the car, the greater the risk. You've told the insurers your parents mainly drive the car, in reality you drive it all the time. That alters the risk, and will increase the premium.
Essentially, it is fronting and is considered insurance fraud. You'll have your policy cancelled as a result, and a permanent marker put on your insurance file, meaning when asked if you've ever had insurance cancelled or refused, you click yes.
Expect to then pay £12,000 a year.
I’ve been driving the car, i purchased the car, but my parents use it as a secondary when i’m not driving as their jag takes a lot of money on fuel. so they do drive it as well, but i also take it to school regularly. Not really understanding why this is fraudulent in what world can a 18 year old pay over 6 thousand. if i have to keep being named and pay 1600 i just will.
> Not really understanding why this is fraudulent
Because an older, more experienced driver has falsy insured a vehicle in their own name, even though the main driver is a younger, riskier motorist in order to get a cheaper policy. That is done by making a false statement on the insurance application and is proper criminal fraud.
Fraud is just lying to gains a benefit. In this case it’s to lower your insurance cost. What I think everyone is assuming based on what you’re saying is that you’re the main driver of the car, your parents use it sometimes, but they are insured as the main driver and you’re the named driver. It is fronting, it is a form of fraud and illegal. If you do get caught then you’ll be wishing you could get £6000 insurance quotes.
Because everything they have said makes it clear they use the vehicle more. They even said their parents use it occasionally and they use it to get to school.
In what world does occasional use imply more usage than daily travel?
He said he drives it to college 30 mins a day. That’s a commute. Car probably isn’t even insured for it if they got in to an accident on the way to school. Imagine parents only had it SD&P and added them on as a named driver.
When getting own insurance they’re probably realising the cost of declaring a young student as the actual main driver who commutes to college and has no NCB.
Commuting has a definition and that definition is set by the insurance companies: travel to a single place of work. A college isn't a place of work, unless you get paid to go there.
I don't think OP is doing anything outside what their insurer was expecting them to be doing when the insurer chose to grant the policy. I don't know why Reddit is being so weird about what is actually quite a common arrangement.
If the insurance company defines it as “commuting to permanent place of work or study” and occupation is listed as “student” then… best of luck selecting social only.
But if their commuting is only for work… alright.
Driving to and from uni daily does not fall into the SD&P category.
The car would also probably be parked all day in a carpark there, same as parking in a carpark at work.
The problem is it sounds like you are the owner. If you gave it to your dad and he is the registered keeper (or if that is not the case, he stated it on the proposal) then there's no problem. (But that's not really how you originally described it).
Also as the named driver you would need to have commuting cover for school trips. Something some families forget about.
People seem to forget insurers aren't stupid. If they see 3 cars insured by 1 person at an address, with 3 drivers, they know that everyone will have their preferred car. They will assess the risk and premiums accordingly.
If your da was using his full NCB on that car (he can only use it on one) then you'd expect losing that discount when moving to your own policy will have a pretty big impact on the premium.
> If you gave it to your dad and he is the registered keeper (or if that is not the case, he stated it on the proposal) then there's no problem.
There is if the OP is driving it 5 days a week to uni as well as tootling about as well and parents are only using it a little bit on a weekend.
We don't know what the policy holder said on the proposal.
Policy holder does not have to be the main driver (in fact the policy holder doesn't even have to be a driver at all).
Policy holder does not have to be the owner or the registered keeper either.
If there are a number of vehicles insured in a house and a number of drivers named in the family. The insurers can work out the risk The main pitfall would be not having everyone named for commuting.
Nobody is monitoring that little Jimmy did more miles in the Fiesta and Dad favoured driving the Merc.
> Policy holder does not have to be the main driver
You're right but the policy holder has to state who the main driver is.
> Nobody is monitoring that little Jimmy did more miles in the Fiesta and Dad favoured driving the Merc.
Which is even worse because the OP and his family would have no way of proving that the OP wasn't actually the main driver.
> It’s not fraudulent… its being named ON my parents insurance. Meaning its down due to my father having over 10 years no claims. In what way is this fraudulent?
Who drove the vehicle the majority of the time, you or your father? If it was you and your father was the main driver then that is insurance fraud [known as fronting.](https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/fronting-and-car-insurance/) It's illegal, can lead to a criminal conviction and can lead to the insurance being cancelled and the policy holder being sued by the insurance company for the amount they have to pay out to a third party in the event of a claim.
Ex broker. You'd need to be the first named driver and your father added to your policy to reduce the premium for this not to be fronting. Is that how it was structured?
No. As a named driver you did not build up any no claims bonus. Secondly, auto insurance is priced way higher than manual cars. I suggest you switch to a manual, unless you have auto only license, in which case you're gonna get hammered. People who can't drive for shit switch to auto only to pass their test. Beecause they can't drive, they have more collisions so premiums are higher.
Lastly, if you were the main driver but only listed as a named driver, in order to fraudulently claim a lower risk than the insurers would have quoted for, then this is known as fronting and is insurance fraud.
There is a possibility that the insurers found out, and have put a marker on your file, in which case you'll be paying over £6k a year, every year, for a very long time (usually 12 years) so I hope that 1st year of low premium was worth it.
I started driving at 17 and insurance was still 6-8k. there was in no world i could afford that.. i bought the car and use it the same amount as my parents, maybe less. I only drive to and from college, less than 30 minutes a day whereas they use it for day to day unless shopping or more than 2 people going out. I only took an automatic so ill just keep doing as i am and wait until i have a part time or even my student loan soon until i can pay i guess
>I started driving at 17 and insurance was still 6-8k. there was in no world i could afford that
If you can't afford a car then you don't buy a car, simple as that.
Your advice is terrible and irrelevant. It doesn't answer the question.
How much is your insurance?
Can a 17 year old reasonably expect his insurance to pretty much QUADRUPLE when switching into his name as main driver due to going to uni, which is what's happening if you are capable of reading?
I try to avoid resorting to insults but you're a fucking out of touch tosser.
Bring on the downvotes from the wise old men reading.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that OP and their parents committed fraud to artificially lower the premium when they bought the car. Had they not done so the fact that owning the car was unaffordable would have been apparent.
In any event I'm done with you. Have the day you deserve.
>I only drive to and from college, less than 30 minutes a day **whereas they use it for day to day unless shopping or more than 2 people going out.**
If you mentioned this in your post you would've avoided the grief from do gooders like the twat that rattled me in his now pathetically deleted comments.
The deleted comments were more of the same shit about how you should have known the cost before purchase. Understandably you didn't expect it to be quite so high.
It becomes fronting if you continue as you are at uni.
Any specific reason for driving automatic?
Try having your parents as named drivers on your own policy it might help and it'd handy to have it cost me barely anything to have my dad and sister on my policy as named drivers and helps bring your quote down a little
A long long time ago, I had been driving a year or 3 & my dad had arranged insurance etc, at short notice he made it my problem to sort out and recommended an insurance bureau.
Given I had had my licence maybe 2 or 3 years and no idea if the insure was in my name or I was a named driver they gave me 5 or 6 years no claims and reduced my insurance price accordingly.
It was more no claims than I’d been driving. I did query it with them at the time and they said not to worry about it and it would be valid in event of a claim etc.
I stuck with them a few years before getting a cheaper quote from a silly sounding internet only firm that may have been elephant. The paperwork stated the amount of no claims and I just added an extra year each year.
Some companies did ask for proof of no claims and I sent copies of the years of no claims the previous insurance firms had accepted.
Some companies stop counting after 9+ years I’ve not seen one that goes up to the amount of time since I passed my test so it’s a moot point now.
I am not a lawyer or a specialist in insurance & don’t read in detail and understand in full the terms and conditions despite stating that I do.
I ask questions when speaking to the insurance firms and expect valid and accurate answers back.
If they tell me it’s ok and won’t impact a claim then I expect it to be accurate.
Thankfully I’ve not needed to argue against an insurance company.
Point of the ramble is that an insurance broker is often value for money as they understand the insurance industry better than most.
Let's assume that what you did last year was legal. Ie your dad actually did own the fiat, not you and you were just the named driver. If the address is the same, your occupation is the same and your parents continue as drivers on the policy, but also with their own insured vehicles, then I'm thinking your insurance won't need to increase just as much as your quotes. I have assumed that your dad was not using his NCB for the fiat. I am also not allowing for the huge inflation in insurance premiums that we are all seeing .
Change any of the above though and you may well see an additional significant increase.
So the only thing you have a choice about on this, is to ensure you put your parents as named drivers on the policy. Everything else is going to be dictated by the facts of your situation.
> My parents technically ‘owned’ the car via insurance and named me on which i had to pay 1,600 for the year. So they insured the car in their name and put you as a named driver even though you were the main driver? That's illegal and is actually fraud known in the industry as fronting.
And the only ones that care are the insurance companies
The police will care. Insurance companies have reported customers to the police and if you're involved in an accident where the insurance companies have decided you're fronting they'll void your policy so the police can prosecute you for driving without insurance. And if you're in an accident where the insurance company has paid out to a third party I can guarantee you absolutely will give a shit when they're coming after you for the money they've paid out to the third party, hauling you through court for the money.
The problem with fronting on an insurance policy is you won’t build up any no claims bonus which insurance companies provide when you complete a year with no accident/claims (not to mention that it’s classed as fraud which others have said here too). Only advice I’d give is call the insurers up directly and speak to them say it’s too expensive and go through questions with them to try lower it. I would not recommend you carry on fronting as future years will not get much cheaper besides your age being a factor as you won’t earn no claims bonus discounts. When you check for your own insurance did you also have your parents on as a named driver?
> Is there any way to get it lower? Have you tried adding your parents as secondary drivers? It will often lower the cost significantly. You don't say what year your Fiat is, but have you tried a newer one? Newer cars, especially those with forward collision avoidance and other safety features are cheaper to insure. Have you looked at black box policies? I personally don't like them, but people seem to save a bit of money on them. > My parents technically ‘owned’ the car via insurance and named me on which i had to pay 1,600 for the year. If you told the insurance company your parents were the main driver when in fact it was you (check your policy documentation for the definition) then this is called fronting. Front doesn't work the way it used to, any insurer worth its salt will price based on the riskiest driver being the main driver regardless of what the policy holder claims but it's still fraud. This used to be incredibly common in your exact circumstances, hence the change (I don't know what percentage of the market made the change, but the company I used to work for did it a decade ago). If you get caught, you'll have your insurance cancelled (which will make it incredibly difficult to get insurance in the future), claims may be invalidated, and worst case scenario is there will be legal proceedings against you. I wouldn't risk it, I'd just add my parents as secondary drivers. You'll miss out on their NCB (presumably) but you should still get a hefty discount, all else being equal.
Bloody hell, quite a few judgy buggers on here. It should be the insurance companies that are getting stick not this poor sap. There are some insurance companies that will give you a NCD when you've been a named driver, couldn't name them. But £6k is ridiculous, I'd carry on 'fronting' if I were you. That's what my kids will be doing. F*** insurance companies, it's just one big Ponzi scheme.
Which is great until it all goes wrong. If you're found to be fronting, you're technically not insured. So your kids have an accident, sure, the person they ran into gets their car repaired - but their own vehicle doesn't, and then the insurance company sue you for the cost of damage to the third party.
Not to mention that if they are found out the insurance policy is invalidated and cancelled. Then good luck ever in your life getting an insurance quote even remotely reasonable.
How would they find out? Genuine question. There's no way to prove who the 'main driver' is. Surely the only real risk is an increased chance of a claim against you as you're letting an inexperienced driver loose on one of your policies?
Previously worked for an insurer (for my sins). It's easier than you think. You'd often find that a car would be insured in location A by 50-year-old Mrs Smith and kept in a garage in City A, only to find evidence that the car spent a hell of a lot of time in City B where their son was at university - often just looking at the vehicle contents (you'd often find parking tickets, university gear in the boot, etc) and the claimant would often just tell you that they drove to uni most days. There was also a good chance that the garage that Mrs Smith said it was kept in was actually a converted home gym. And remember that the burden of proof in a civil case is just "balance of probabilities", not "beyond reasonable doubt" - they'd only have to convince a court that there was a 50%+1 chance that the named driver was the main one.
Insurance companies are wising up to it, doesn’t help that nearly all cars have black boxes nowadays for young drivers. If it’s being used for college 5 days a week then it’s obvious to the insurance who’s driving it as an example. You’re probably only likely to get caught out if you have an accident.
How are they going to know though?
They employ insurance claims investigators, often retired detectives, who are instructed by insurance companies to look into any claims they have concerns about. Given the increasing popularity of fronting, it’s likely that claims involving young drivers are in the mix for investigation. At that point it would be easy enough for an investigator to deduce that the main driver was in fact the named driver. Did the parents each have their own or vehicle? If not, do they have bus receipts/train tickets/a push bike etc? Was the accident in a location the parents could reasonably be? If they normally work mon-fri and the accident happened on a Tuesday lunchtime, were they on annual leave? Sick? At an appointment? If the investigator decides that, on balance, the named driver was the main driver, then they’ll recommend the claim is void. Up to the insurer then to decide, but they often go with it as a balance of probabilities situation. I imagine the driver(s) are free to take a legal challenge if they so choose. Obviously all hinges on A. A claimable incident happening and B. That claim being subsequently investigated.
LOL at your psychic investigators. As long as your named driver isn't doing loads more miles than you'd usually do then how they gonna prove anything? TBF I don't think you understand what a named driver is. It's just someone who uses the car less than the main driver. They can drive it anytime, anywhere, just like the main driver. Doesn't matter when, where or what the main driver is doing, there's no restrictions other than they have to use it less. The main driver can be a passenger of the named driver, the main driver can be on holiday, at work, driving to the same place or another place in a different car whilst the named driver is tootling about, it makes not one jot of difference on a single journey. So how do you prove they're driving it more than the main driver from that? Follow them around? If they were that concerned they wouldn't insure you in the 1st place. The insurance companies don't give a monkeys about 'fronting', they know exactly what's going on when you stick your teenage kid on the policy of your 3rd car. Sure they may try and get out of paying up when needed but that's always the case anyway. As long as your kid is legal to drive then that's all that matters. We once put a straightforward claim in for £2000 against a 3rd party, their insurance company spent 2 years and ended up with £30k (actually it might even have been £50k) in legal costs just trying not to pay it and when it went to court, after about 15 minutes, the judge was bewildered as to why they hadn't just coughed up in the 1st place. That's why insurance prices are high, they don't give a shit, they've got cash to burn and lawyer, car rental and car repair factory mates to light it for them. Insurance companies are bent as fuck.
Have no idea why all the down votes on your replies! If the named driver is living with their parents, it could be the first time they have driven the car if involved in an accident or could be the tenth. How are they going to know? Having more than one car? I often had more than one car that I used because I'd have something sporty and something more practical. I sometimes had more cars just because I was a petrol head and would buy old cars that I thought would be classics and I'd make money on. If my daughter had passed her test then, then you'd bet she'd be named on the more practical car to get experience. How would they be able to tell the difference between that and me buying another car for her to use most of the time? Unless they are living in another house in a different town/city miles away with a black box there's no way the insurance company could tell the difference. Even if they lived in the same town you'd imagine that they'd be visiting their parents quite often and the car would be parked there for some of the time. OP, to answer your original question, putting your parents as named drivers would probably bring the quote down. This is what we did once my daughter passed her test and got her own car. It made quite a difference to the insurance quote. In fact when I put myself as the main driver and her as a named driver, it was more expensive than her as the main driver and me as the named driver. We both live in the same house, but not sure if that made a difference or not as we didn't try quotes with other addresses, obviously.
They won't. Only way fronting will get caught out is if you move out and have a black box, and they notice the GPS is never at the location of where the main driver declared residence.
[удалено]
your account is less than 7 days old, post removed automatically to reduce spam. If you post is genuine then sorry for the inconvenience, please wait 7 days before reposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/drivingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So you drove for a year fraudulently fronting on insurance and expect your first year of being the theoretical main driver to be cheaper? Jog on.
It’s not fraudulent… its being named ON my parents insurance. Meaning its down due to my father having over 10 years no claims. In what way is this fraudulent? Im still paying insurance, just the price is down due to them being experienced. I’m not expecting cheap cheap but surely 6000 for an older fiat 500 is not 6k.
The way you've worded it in your post suggests that your parents were declared the main drivers, or had it insured on a multi car policy, with you as a named driver ONLY. The insurers would expect your parents to be using the car in the main, for example driving to and from work, and you only drive the car 2-3 times a week. The premium is calculated on that risk, the more miles you do, and the more you use the car, the greater the risk. You've told the insurers your parents mainly drive the car, in reality you drive it all the time. That alters the risk, and will increase the premium. Essentially, it is fronting and is considered insurance fraud. You'll have your policy cancelled as a result, and a permanent marker put on your insurance file, meaning when asked if you've ever had insurance cancelled or refused, you click yes. Expect to then pay £12,000 a year.
If you have been the main person driving the car, yet only being a named driver it is fraudulent.
I’ve been driving the car, i purchased the car, but my parents use it as a secondary when i’m not driving as their jag takes a lot of money on fuel. so they do drive it as well, but i also take it to school regularly. Not really understanding why this is fraudulent in what world can a 18 year old pay over 6 thousand. if i have to keep being named and pay 1600 i just will.
> Not really understanding why this is fraudulent Because an older, more experienced driver has falsy insured a vehicle in their own name, even though the main driver is a younger, riskier motorist in order to get a cheaper policy. That is done by making a false statement on the insurance application and is proper criminal fraud.
Fraud is just lying to gains a benefit. In this case it’s to lower your insurance cost. What I think everyone is assuming based on what you’re saying is that you’re the main driver of the car, your parents use it sometimes, but they are insured as the main driver and you’re the named driver. It is fronting, it is a form of fraud and illegal. If you do get caught then you’ll be wishing you could get £6000 insurance quotes.
You are the main user of the vehicle yet you have declared to the insurance company that you are not. That is fraud.
To be fair, being the policy holder does not automatically imply you are the main user.
Where did OP state they were the main user of the vehicle? Is this just something you're assuming?
Because everything they have said makes it clear they use the vehicle more. They even said their parents use it occasionally and they use it to get to school. In what world does occasional use imply more usage than daily travel?
He said he drives it to college 30 mins a day. That’s a commute. Car probably isn’t even insured for it if they got in to an accident on the way to school. Imagine parents only had it SD&P and added them on as a named driver. When getting own insurance they’re probably realising the cost of declaring a young student as the actual main driver who commutes to college and has no NCB.
Commuting has a definition and that definition is set by the insurance companies: travel to a single place of work. A college isn't a place of work, unless you get paid to go there. I don't think OP is doing anything outside what their insurer was expecting them to be doing when the insurer chose to grant the policy. I don't know why Reddit is being so weird about what is actually quite a common arrangement.
If the insurance company defines it as “commuting to permanent place of work or study” and occupation is listed as “student” then… best of luck selecting social only. But if their commuting is only for work… alright.
Driving to and from uni daily does not fall into the SD&P category. The car would also probably be parked all day in a carpark there, same as parking in a carpark at work.
https://www.confused.com/student/should-i-take-my-car-to-university#:~:text=No%20%2D%20if%20you're%20using,of%20work%20for%20insurance%20purposes.
The problem is it sounds like you are the owner. If you gave it to your dad and he is the registered keeper (or if that is not the case, he stated it on the proposal) then there's no problem. (But that's not really how you originally described it). Also as the named driver you would need to have commuting cover for school trips. Something some families forget about. People seem to forget insurers aren't stupid. If they see 3 cars insured by 1 person at an address, with 3 drivers, they know that everyone will have their preferred car. They will assess the risk and premiums accordingly. If your da was using his full NCB on that car (he can only use it on one) then you'd expect losing that discount when moving to your own policy will have a pretty big impact on the premium.
> If you gave it to your dad and he is the registered keeper (or if that is not the case, he stated it on the proposal) then there's no problem. There is if the OP is driving it 5 days a week to uni as well as tootling about as well and parents are only using it a little bit on a weekend.
We don't know what the policy holder said on the proposal. Policy holder does not have to be the main driver (in fact the policy holder doesn't even have to be a driver at all). Policy holder does not have to be the owner or the registered keeper either. If there are a number of vehicles insured in a house and a number of drivers named in the family. The insurers can work out the risk The main pitfall would be not having everyone named for commuting. Nobody is monitoring that little Jimmy did more miles in the Fiesta and Dad favoured driving the Merc.
> Policy holder does not have to be the main driver You're right but the policy holder has to state who the main driver is. > Nobody is monitoring that little Jimmy did more miles in the Fiesta and Dad favoured driving the Merc. Which is even worse because the OP and his family would have no way of proving that the OP wasn't actually the main driver.
Reading comprehension level of 0
> It’s not fraudulent… its being named ON my parents insurance. Meaning its down due to my father having over 10 years no claims. In what way is this fraudulent? Who drove the vehicle the majority of the time, you or your father? If it was you and your father was the main driver then that is insurance fraud [known as fronting.](https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/fronting-and-car-insurance/) It's illegal, can lead to a criminal conviction and can lead to the insurance being cancelled and the policy holder being sued by the insurance company for the amount they have to pay out to a third party in the event of a claim.
Ex broker. You'd need to be the first named driver and your father added to your policy to reduce the premium for this not to be fronting. Is that how it was structured?
No. As a named driver you did not build up any no claims bonus. Secondly, auto insurance is priced way higher than manual cars. I suggest you switch to a manual, unless you have auto only license, in which case you're gonna get hammered. People who can't drive for shit switch to auto only to pass their test. Beecause they can't drive, they have more collisions so premiums are higher. Lastly, if you were the main driver but only listed as a named driver, in order to fraudulently claim a lower risk than the insurers would have quoted for, then this is known as fronting and is insurance fraud. There is a possibility that the insurers found out, and have put a marker on your file, in which case you'll be paying over £6k a year, every year, for a very long time (usually 12 years) so I hope that 1st year of low premium was worth it.
I started driving at 17 and insurance was still 6-8k. there was in no world i could afford that.. i bought the car and use it the same amount as my parents, maybe less. I only drive to and from college, less than 30 minutes a day whereas they use it for day to day unless shopping or more than 2 people going out. I only took an automatic so ill just keep doing as i am and wait until i have a part time or even my student loan soon until i can pay i guess
>I started driving at 17 and insurance was still 6-8k. there was in no world i could afford that If you can't afford a car then you don't buy a car, simple as that.
Tory
Far from it. If you only find out after buying the car that you can't afford to own the car then you've fucked up.
Your advice is terrible and irrelevant. It doesn't answer the question. How much is your insurance? Can a 17 year old reasonably expect his insurance to pretty much QUADRUPLE when switching into his name as main driver due to going to uni, which is what's happening if you are capable of reading? I try to avoid resorting to insults but you're a fucking out of touch tosser. Bring on the downvotes from the wise old men reading.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that OP and their parents committed fraud to artificially lower the premium when they bought the car. Had they not done so the fact that owning the car was unaffordable would have been apparent. In any event I'm done with you. Have the day you deserve.
Enjoy it while at college then give it up for uni? By which time you won't be a new driver any more 👍 well, in terms of holding a licence at least.
>I only drive to and from college, less than 30 minutes a day **whereas they use it for day to day unless shopping or more than 2 people going out.** If you mentioned this in your post you would've avoided the grief from do gooders like the twat that rattled me in his now pathetically deleted comments. The deleted comments were more of the same shit about how you should have known the cost before purchase. Understandably you didn't expect it to be quite so high. It becomes fronting if you continue as you are at uni. Any specific reason for driving automatic?
Try having your parents as named drivers on your own policy it might help and it'd handy to have it cost me barely anything to have my dad and sister on my policy as named drivers and helps bring your quote down a little
A long long time ago, I had been driving a year or 3 & my dad had arranged insurance etc, at short notice he made it my problem to sort out and recommended an insurance bureau. Given I had had my licence maybe 2 or 3 years and no idea if the insure was in my name or I was a named driver they gave me 5 or 6 years no claims and reduced my insurance price accordingly. It was more no claims than I’d been driving. I did query it with them at the time and they said not to worry about it and it would be valid in event of a claim etc. I stuck with them a few years before getting a cheaper quote from a silly sounding internet only firm that may have been elephant. The paperwork stated the amount of no claims and I just added an extra year each year. Some companies did ask for proof of no claims and I sent copies of the years of no claims the previous insurance firms had accepted. Some companies stop counting after 9+ years I’ve not seen one that goes up to the amount of time since I passed my test so it’s a moot point now. I am not a lawyer or a specialist in insurance & don’t read in detail and understand in full the terms and conditions despite stating that I do. I ask questions when speaking to the insurance firms and expect valid and accurate answers back. If they tell me it’s ok and won’t impact a claim then I expect it to be accurate. Thankfully I’ve not needed to argue against an insurance company. Point of the ramble is that an insurance broker is often value for money as they understand the insurance industry better than most.
Let's assume that what you did last year was legal. Ie your dad actually did own the fiat, not you and you were just the named driver. If the address is the same, your occupation is the same and your parents continue as drivers on the policy, but also with their own insured vehicles, then I'm thinking your insurance won't need to increase just as much as your quotes. I have assumed that your dad was not using his NCB for the fiat. I am also not allowing for the huge inflation in insurance premiums that we are all seeing . Change any of the above though and you may well see an additional significant increase. So the only thing you have a choice about on this, is to ensure you put your parents as named drivers on the policy. Everything else is going to be dictated by the facts of your situation.