[TW]Fox;18094638 said:As much as I hate fronting this isnt true - as at no point is the car really 'uninsured' - disputes between insured and insurer do not divest the insurer of its obligations under the RTA, as far as I know.
.I'm sure I've heard of people caught with fronted policies being slapped with a no insurance charge?
I'm pretty sure I've heard it done to people with undeclared modifications.
Ashton West, Chief Executive of MIB said: ' In the event that the driver of a fronted policy is involved in an accident, both the policyholder and the driver could be open to additional costs, penalties, fines and - potentially – prosecution. It simply isn’t worth the risk. '
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ting-scam-new-figures-show.html#ixzz19RSkJW4q

I'm sure I've heard of people caught with fronted policies being slapped with a no insurance charge?
I'm pretty sure I've heard it done to people with undeclared modifications.
No. What can happen is that the insurer will pursue the policy holder to reclaim any third party claims (which could be a very large amount of money).
.Could be typical daily mail scare mongering, equally it could be just the MIB protecting its vested interests in making money out of people. Wouldnt like to take the risk myself![]()
I'd refuse to pay the premium and do the 'fronting' instead. You have to manipulate the system. It's still 'legal' in the sense that you're insured to drive and it would be extremely difficult for an insurer to refuse to pay out on the basis that you're 'fronting.' The cost of proving it in a legal battle would be large and not really worth it.
I'd advise all young people to do the same because the premiums are sickening. Once you've been driving for a year or so it can then be cheaper to actually register and insure the car in your own name, especially the case with Bell.

I....
I'd refuse to pay the premium and do the 'fronting' instead. You have to manipulate the system. It's still 'legal' in the sense that you're insured to drive and it would be extremely difficult for an insurer to refuse to pay out on the basis that you're 'fronting.' The cost of proving it in a legal battle would be large and not really worth it..

)
You're an idiot, then. Yes, the insurer will pay out, but will sue you personally for the money. If you can't afford it, you'll go bankrupt. You'll be blacklisted by the majority of insurers. You could also be criminally prosecuted for fraud.I'd refuse to pay the premium and do the 'fronting' instead. You have to manipulate the system. It's still 'legal' in the sense that you're insured to drive and it would be extremely difficult for an insurer to refuse to pay out on the basis that you're 'fronting.' The cost of proving it in a legal battle would be large and not really worth it.
I'd advise all young people to do the same because the premiums are sickening. Once you've been driving for a year or so it can then be cheaper to actually register and insure the car in your own name, especially the case with Bell.
Because you're not defrauding the insurer - all you're doing is adding named drivers to your policy.Also why such a big deal with fronting? What about the opposite? Adding my parents onto my policy HALVES it even though neither of them have stepped foot in the car for 6 months.
Fronting is hardly the same as theft or murder.
If nothing is done to protect younger drivers from market forces then sod whether something subject to so much ambiguity is legal or illegal.
Fronting is hardly the same as theft or murder.
You do realise that most insurers pay out more than what they take in from all their customers? They all aim for a 1:1 ratio between money they take in and money they pay out. The business they have is investing/earning interest on the upfront payments, offering a credit facility, reselling peripheral services to their customers.If nothing is done to protect younger drivers from market forces then sod it!