Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
prosecuted? I don't think so...
Heres an idea for the young drivers
- Thread starter ajstan
- Start date
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
..
Last edited by a moderator:
You can't be prosecuted for "Fronting" as such as that is not an offence.
However, what can happen (and I personally know of two such events) is that the if fronting is found to have been happening, (and that is pretty easy through asking pertinent questions of neighbours and co-workers etc when investigating a possible claim involving fronting), the insurance covering the car is invalidated, so the repair costs and the third party costs had to be covered by the parents themselves, (approx £14,000 & £22,000) and the young drivers involved appeared in court charged with driving without insurance, and given the associated points (and a ban in one case) and fines.
The whole family is then blacklisted on all the insurance company databases, and from then on everyone in the family finds it extreemly hard to get reasonable rates on insurance for any vehicles.
I think that's a disgrace.
Back when I was 17 the majority of my mates had cars that were insured in their parent's names with them as a named driver. Most people don't even realise it's illegal.
I just took out a policy with my mum as a named driver yet on the balance of things she'll be driving it more than me as I won't take it to Uni. Is that fronting? Hell I bet the insurance company would claim it is when I make a claim.
Back when I was 17 the majority of my mates had cars that were insured in their parent's names with them as a named driver. Most people don't even realise it's illegal.
I just took out a policy with my mum as a named driver yet on the balance of things she'll be driving it more than me as I won't take it to Uni. Is that fronting? Hell I bet the insurance company would claim it is when I make a claim.
Last edited:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. Besides, you're asked by the insurance company who is the MAIN driver. If you say it's the parent despite the offspring using it every day for work then you're clearly lying and deserve everything you have coming.
I think it's great people get prosecuted for it personally.
That's ridiculous seeing as most people don't realise it is percieved as "fraud" by the insurance company and would be horrified if they refused to pay out. Furthermore people would be more honest if insurance companies did not ask such ridiculous prices for young drivers, on a typical teenage dirtbag 1.2 tin can, I'd rather save a grand and take the risk, as most people would tbh.
I guess strictly speaking I was fronting when I was 17 and paid about a £1200 for my first year on a new MK5 Golf. As it turned out my mum probably used the car 50/50 anyway so is that still fronting?
If they don't want people to partake in "fronting" - then simple - don't offer the ability to add young people as named drivers. Done.
Last edited:
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
How can people not realise that lying to an insurance company is fraud? It's simple, answer the questions the insurance company asks truthfully and you'll have fully legal cover.
That doesn't sound like fronting at all. And if you'd have answered "we'll be using it 50/50" when asked who the main driver is then that's fine.
So you'd remove a facility available to honest and truthful people to stop the dishonest ones abusing it? It's there for scenarios such as the parent using the car to travel to and from work but the offspring to use the vehicle occasionally at night for trips to the cinema etc. That's a perfectly legitimate use of a "named driver" policy.
Christ on a bike, that's hardly an excuse for committing fraud is it? Simple matter of fact - if it's too expensive don't buy the insurance! Go everywhere on a bike, get public transport or cadge lifts for God sake. The insurance quote when I was 17 was very expensive, so I waited another year for my first car and the insurance dropped by £600 so I could then afford it. Owning a car and being able to drive is NOT A RIGHT! It's a luxury that has to be paid for.
I think my council tax is expensive but I don't try to get it cheaper by lying and saying I live on my own. I quite like that new TV in Comet's new window bu I don't steal it because I can't afford it.
Last edited by a moderator:
scott212 again rants about insurance without actually having a point.
Insurance is expensive because, as it has been said many times before, young people cost insurers a lot of money, as statistically, they cause a lot more accidents.
If you have a better way of lowering the financial risk to the insurer and offering decent prices to youngsters, I reccomend you go and start an insurance company, you will get a lot of business!
Insurance is expensive because, as it has been said many times before, young people cost insurers a lot of money, as statistically, they cause a lot more accidents.
If you have a better way of lowering the financial risk to the insurer and offering decent prices to youngsters, I reccomend you go and start an insurance company, you will get a lot of business!
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 2,211
Is the difference by fronting that massive anyway?
When I was comparing quotes from various companies for my mondeo, the difference between it being in my name alone and being in my mums name with me as a named driver (for comparison) ranged from no difference whatsoever and maybe £150 less.
Ergo; just not worth doing. Not that I was ever going to front anyway, but still.
When I was comparing quotes from various companies for my mondeo, the difference between it being in my name alone and being in my mums name with me as a named driver (for comparison) ranged from no difference whatsoever and maybe £150 less.
Ergo; just not worth doing. Not that I was ever going to front anyway, but still.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Yup. I was on my dads insurance on his Granada - total policy cost was £480. On my own, £1400. I wasn't fronting, I really did use it only once or twice a week for a year until I could buy and insure my own car.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
What, fronting? Did you read my earlier post? They ask your next door neighbors, work colleagues etc who usually drives the car. Quite simple.
My point is "fronting" is prevalent. Many people don't even realise it's illegal. Furthermore, if you have 4 drivers who equally drive the car, what do you do then? Take out 4 seperate policies or put the policy in the name of the driver who yields the cheapest result?
There are ways of seperating the good young drivers from the bad ones, but the mechanisms with which to do this would cost more than any saving the insurer could offer in the first place. Personally I don't see why the concept of insurers paying people back a percentage of the high premiums if their clients don't crash has never been used, more direct than NCB and a much more effective incentive. It also minimizes the unfair effect whereby sensible young drivers are punished by reckless chavs in saxos. In the grand scheme of things I don't really care as Bell offer such great quotes anyway.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
If you all drive it equally then the policy is usually in the name of the owner. I really can't understand what's so difficult about it all, including how on earth people don't realise it's illegal.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
This is correct.
However, the rest of what you have written is pure fantasy, which is a real shame because it detracts from your rather sound argument that fronting is for parasites and people should buy their own insurance.
You do not personally know of the events you go on to describe.
This is completely wrong and is unable to happen under the provision of the Road Traffic Act. The Road Traffic Act sets out responsbilities for insurers as well as drivers - they have an obligation to insure against third party risk IRRESPECTIVE of any disputes they may or may not be having with the policy holder until the policy is officially voided. There is no way you personally know of this happening because it does not happen.
An insurer CAN void the policy but only the parts not covered under the provision of the RTA, ie, cover against damaged to the insured's vehicle. Therefore there is never a period of time when a 'fronter' is driving without insurance in the eyes of the law. What CAN and DOES happen, though, is that the insurer can seek to reclaim the costs of meeting a third party claim when they were deemed in breach of contract, but this has to be done through a civil court.
No they didn't.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The above post is simply my interpretation of the law and is offered 'as is' with no warranty implied or offered. You should always seek legal advice before doing stuff, etc
Then how can you ever prove people are fronting. Say my teenage sister drives a car registered and insured in my mum's name, but my mum only ever uses it to do shopping because her other car is too small. Is that still illegal?
^ Of course. Your sister is the one driving most of the time, your mom is the one that is acting the part of the named driver. The fact that your mom has another car that she drives and is insured on just makes it even more obvious.
It still seems a risk worth taking. I was involved in a crash 2 years ago insured under my mum's name, we weren't fronting but at the end of the day it could easily have been my car. The insurance company didn't ask anything of it despite the fact my mum also had an insurance policy on a different vehicle.