Insurance Question

Steve_bullockuk · 28 Mar 2011 at 14:07

Afternoon All,

Im after some advice for a work colleague who has recently insured a vehicle in his household for his daughter.

The car is actually owned by my colleagues wife and has her name on the logbook. The vehicle is insured by my colleague and he is the main policy holder. He has his daughter as a named driver but does not have any mention of his wife on the policy even though she actually owns the vehicle.

My understanding is that you cannot be the main policy holder on a vehicle if you are not down as the vehicle owner on the log book. Is my understanding correct?

I've had a quick browse on google for this but can't seem the find a definite answer.

DM · 28 Mar 2011 at 14:09

Dosent matter who's name is on the book, you can be the policy holder.

They are fronting for the daughter though.

stoofa · 28 Mar 2011 at 14:16

Aye - the actual fact that the owner is not insured to drive the vehicle isn't an issue.
The issue I see (from the way you've written things) is that the parents are fronting their daughter.
They are listed as the main driver with the daughter as a "named driver" - whereas I get the impression the daughter is going to be the main driver.

All fine unless there is an accident and the insurance company decide to investigate.

Steve_bullockuk · 28 Mar 2011 at 14:17

stoofa said:
Aye - the actual fact that the owner is not insured to drive the vehicle isn't an issue.
The issue I see (from the way you've written things) is that the parents are fronting their daughter.
They are listed as the main driver with the daughter as a "named driver" - whereas I get the impression the daughter is going to be the main driver.

All fine unless there is an accident and the insurance company decide to investigate.

Yes thats exactly whats happening.

I always thought you couldn't be the main policy holder if you did not own the vehicle. My mistake.

SGWills · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:08

anyone can be the owner of the vehicle, if wife bought car for husband and put her name on the books to take the car home or to sort the insurance out, it doesnt make her the main driver, however the daughter being the named driver even thou she is the highest risk is naughty

Bennie-Mac · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:13

As above it doesnt matter who the registered owner is, otherwise there would be many a fleet car owned by finance companies or whatever and the drivers would be unable to insure them.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:31

DM said:
They are fronting for the daughter though.

You can't possibly know this. The OP hasn't said how often the daughter drives the car.

DM · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:36

Burnsy2023 said:
You can't possibly know this. The OP hasn't said how often the daughter drives the car.

I think he did as it goes, about 3 posts up.

Barks · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:39

If insurance companies thought fronting was an issue they would adjust their contracts and pricing calculations to align incentives.

Most of them don't let young drivers have access to DOC, otherwise we'd have legions of 17 year olds driving their parent's turbo diesels amongst other things. Similarly insurance companies/the law could state that new drivers can only be added as named drivers if the policy holder does not actively drive or own another car. Something simple like that would kill off the majority of fronting as it's not rare for you to have 'daddy's car' 'mummy's car' and 'mummy's second car' in many households with teenagers present.

Maybe I'm ranting but I'm particularly bitter about fronting because I had an accident many years ago when I was a teenager with someone who knew some of my mates and openly admitted he was fronting; his mum never stepped foot in the car. Of course the insurance company were not interested in this.

DM · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:41

scott212 said:
If insurance companies thought fronting was an issue they would adjust their contracts and pricing calculations to align incentives.

Dont get me wrong i dont give a monkeys what the bloke does, or anyone else for that matter.

I just read what he asked, answered the question, then he confirmed a couple post down that they are indeed fronting.

Peerzy · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:45

The do think it is an issue.

Point in case:

Me, 21, good post code, 4NCB
Mum, 50, same post code, 5NCB (never crashed)
Car, 2007 BMW 335i

Insurance for me £900
Insurance for me with (hypothetical) 0NCB £1300
Insurance for my mum with 5NCB and with me as named driver £2800

DM · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:47

Peerzy said:
The do think it is an issue.

Point in case:

Me, 21, good post code, 4NCB
Mum, 50, same post code, 5NCB (never crashed)
Car, 2007 BMW 335i

Insurance for me £900
Insurance for me with (hypothetical) 0NCB £1300
Insurance for my mum with 5NCB and with me as named driver £2800

That was a very good quote with 0 NCB on that car.

Barks · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:47

DM said:
Dont get me wrong i dont give a monkeys what the bloke does, or anyone else for that matter.

I just read what he asked, answered the question, then he confirmed a couple post down that they are indeed fronting.

It wasn't directed at you just a general comment.

Barks · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:49

Peerzy said:
The do think it is an issue.

Point in case:

Me, 21, good post code, 4NCB
Mum, 50, same post code, 5NCB (never crashed)
Car, 2007 BMW 335i

Insurance for me £900
Insurance for me with (hypothetical) 0NCB £1300
Insurance for my mum with 5NCB and with me as named driver £2800

I'm confident that you got that quote through Bell or the Admiral group and they are the only insurance company I've ever tried quotes with where you are always better off - as a young driver - declaring yourself as the policy holder and adding your parents. I'm pretty sure they specialize in offering insurance to young drivers or drivers with little NCB anyway so it would make sense to do their pricing/quote structure this way. Needless to say I'm insured with them and when I originally took out my quote they were well over a grand cheaper than anyone else.

DM · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:52

scott212 said:
It wasn't directed at you just a general comment.

No no, i wasnt having a go, i should explain.

I think the whole insurance industry has gone completely to **** in this country, the whole compo claim, fronting , telling lies to reduce premiums, i wouldnt do it because i see it as short sighted, i coughed up for both my kids, stupid amounts of money so they could get a bit of no claims in their own name.

But now i really coundnt give a toss who does what, let them get on with it, iv got better things to get the hump about in me life.

Barks · 28 Mar 2011 at 15:56

DM said:
No no, i wasnt having a go, i should explain.

I think the whole insurance industry has gone completely to **** in this country, the whole compo claim, fronting , telling lies to reduce premiums, i wouldnt do it because i see it as short sighted, i coughed up for both my kids, stupid amounts of money so they could get a bit of no claims in their own name.

But now i really coundnt give a toss who does what, let them get on with it, iv got better things to get the hump about in me life.

I agree. I'm no expert as I don't work in the industry but based on my personal experience of the claims process following an accident - and that of my mates - and the fact my dad is legally forced as a doctor to sign bits of paper saying his patients have suffered whiplash following a car accident - I would say it's a bloody shambles and in dire need to tight regulation and I would love to see the destruction of no-win-no-fee legal firms which are entirely exploitative and a joke in any decent society.

DM · 28 Mar 2011 at 16:01

scott212 said:
I agree. I'm no expert as I don't work in the industry but based on my personal experience of the claims process following an accident - and that of my mates - and the fact my dad is legally forced as a doctor to sign bits of paper saying his patients have suffered whiplash following a car accident - I would say it's a bloody shambles and in dire need to tight regulation and I would love to see the destruction of no-win-no-fee legal firms which are entirely exploitative and a joke in any decent society.

See now i think the same BUT, here's the rub, i dont for one second believe that if we in the UK suddenly become moral honest model people and insurance companies costs reduced we would see one penny of that passed on to us, the customers.

Which is fair enough, in business you are only there to earn a pound note, i understand that very well, but it has lead me to now not give a toss what happens to or with the insurance industry here, i really dont care what they do or who claims what against them.

PMKeates · 28 Mar 2011 at 16:03

DM said:
See now i think the same BUT, here's the rub, i dont for one second believe that if we in the UK suddenly become moral honest model people and insurance companies costs reduced we would see one penny of that passed on to us, the customers.

I disagree. The UK insurance industry isn't a cartel and competition would drive prices down - one company will go "hey if we make 5% less profit per policy, but get 20% more policies because we are cheaper, we'll have more money!" and so on.

Barks · 28 Mar 2011 at 16:08

PMKeates said:
I disagree. The UK insurance industry isn't a cartel and competition would drive prices down - one company will go "hey if we make 5% less profit per policy, but get 20% more policies because we are cheaper, we'll have more money!" and so on.

Indeed. In theory we would go through some sort of cream-skimming process and highly profitable contracts would be erased and replaced with less profitable ones by a competitive mechanism. Makes very interesting analysis.

DM · 28 Mar 2011 at 16:09

PMKeates said:
I disagree. The UK insurance industry isn't a cartel and competition would drive prices down - one company will go "hey if we make 5% less profit per policy, but get 20% more policies because we are cheaper, we'll have more money!" and so on.

Yes that is a point of view, but here is the other side of that, that plan only works to a point.

Ie i could undercut everyone in Hatton Garden and sell diamonds at 2/3 the price, but i dont because A, no ****er would ever talk to me again and B why on earth should i cut my own throat.

Sell it cheap, sell lots of them only goes so far, then its not viable, and cartel or not common sense prevails. Also dont think for one second the top bods in the insurance game dont get together for a mutually beneficial round of golf now and then.