VW Golf 1.6 -- £3100 Insurance

Hatter you are describing an absolute worst case scenario and one that is extremely unlikely.

Many people don't even realize that 'fronting' is illegal, and the fact it exists is reflective of market failure. Insurance Companies could easily prevent it by enforcing the same prices whether younger drivers are policy holders or named drivers.
 
scott212 said:
If nothing is done to protect younger drivers from market forces then sod it!
Click to expand...

Quinn were going to specialise in cheap insurance for young drivers. They went bump.

OP, you need to get quotes for another car. Then you need to consider whether your parents or potential other drivers will ever actually use the car. If they won't or will only use it extremely infrequently then putting them as the main driver may not be a good idea, it's up to your concience :)

Bear in mind if you don't have yourself as the main driver you are only postponing the big bill, because you'll have to start building your NCB sooner or later.
 
MrLOL said:
Just pay up like everybody else does.
Click to expand...

I've never actually fronted in my life thank you. In fact a drive a car registered and insured in my name which isn't technically mine, if anything that's the direct opposite!

Another fact is I had an accident with someone who was fronting and we tried to bring this up with our insurance company but they said it was a dead end and the cost of trying to prove it is not worth their time.
 
The fact it exists is not reflective of market, it's reflective of the fact people are selfish gits with little to no concern for anybody but themselves and who place more importance on the likelihood of getting caught doing something wrong than just not doing it in the first place.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Car insurance is a legal requirement.

The job of the Government is to 'monitor' and 'regulate' industries of this nature, especially those dealing with services which are required by law.

Just like progressive taxes, it is my view that rising costs should be spread equally to protect younger drivers, taking into the account there is strong correlation between wealth/income and age.

Furthermore, they could keep costs down for younger drivers and reserve the insane premiums for those who have had an accident where no other vehicle was involved thus punishing boy racers and reckless drivers and removing the chances of people being punished financially for accidents which may not have been their fault.
 
support_bae said:
i'm 21 and had my license for less than a year.
got the quote from one of the compare website and its with admiral
my dad has his license for 15 odd years and has currently 6 years no claims

if i pay up the 3 grand and have a 1 year ncb, what would i be expecting to pay for year 2?
Click to expand...
I insured the same car at the same age for £2,300 fully comprehensive including breakdown and other bits and bobs, for my first year. Second year it went down to £1,300? Something like that, I can't remember. Although this was a few years ago and insurance premiums in general have gone up a lot in the past year or so. Try Direct Line, they were by far the best for me at the time. Also I live in central/west London which is classed as a medium-high risk area.
 
The Edge said:
Let's just get away from rights and wrongs for a bit.

How would they prove it?
Click to expand...

I drove past a car full of teenagers at about 3am in the morning having dropped a mate home. The car was parked (illegally and in breach of the highway code I might add) on my side of the road, facing oncoming traffic. A drunk passenger swung the door open as I went past and as a consequence the door was ripped off.

Turns out the car was in the name/insurance of the driver's mum. Also turns out my best mate went to school with the driver and it was definitely, irrefutably, without a doubt HIS car. His mum has another car (he car) in her name/insured in her name as well.

We told this to the insurance company but they were not interested.
 
Morba said:
Protect young drivers? When they stop costing insurance companies so much money then the prices will reflect that.
Click to expand...

How about what I suggested?

How about raising the driving age?

Or even having the minimum age you can take your test at 18, thus requiring adult supervision for the first year of driving.

How about making the test much harder?

Aside from what I previously suggested, all these are solutions without directly intervening in the operation of insurance companies, but you can't just let market forces reign free with something of this nature; that is a service required by law and required by thousands of younger drivers who require a car for employment. I think the problem lies in the fact driving is technically a 'luxury' where as in reality this isn't always the case.
 
scott212 said:
Car insurance is a legal requirement.

The job of the Government is to 'monitor' and 'regulate' industries of this nature, especially those dealing with services which are required by law.

Just like progressive taxes, it is my view that rising costs should be spread equally to protect younger drivers, taking into the account there is strong correlation between wealth/income and age.

Furthermore, they could keep costs down for younger drivers and reserve the insane premiums for those who have had an accident where no other vehicle was involved thus punishing boy racers and reckless drivers and removing the chances of people being punished financially for accidents which may not have been their fault.
Click to expand...

The flip side is why should older, experieced drivers subsidise the premiums of those who, statistically, have the most crashes causing the most damage? I agree with your last paragraph up until the bit in bold. If you have a serious fault accident your premium should rocket. But it should be possible for a 17 year old with a clean licence and no claims to be able to insure a small un-modified car for less than £1500.
 
scott212 said:
I drove past a car full of teenagers at about 3am in the morning having dropped a mate home. The car was parked (illegally and in breach of the highway code I might add) on my side of the road, facing oncoming traffic. A drunk passenger swung the door open as I went past and as a consequence the door was ripped off.

Turns out the car was in the name/insurance of the driver's mum. Also turns out my best mate went to school with the driver and it was definitely, irrefutably, without a doubt HIS car. His mum has another car (he car) in her name/insured in her name as well.

We told this to the insurance company but they were not interested.
Click to expand...

They were the 3rd party, so it was of no interest to the insurance company.
 
The Edge said:
The flip side is why should older, experieced drivers subsidise the premiums of those who, statistically, have the most crashes causing the most damage? I agree with your last paragraph up until the bit in bold. If you have a serious fault accident your premium should rocket. But it should be possible for a 17 year old with a clean licence and no claims to be able to insure a small un-modified car for less than £1500.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree entirely but my point was on the basis that fault claims are not always reflective of a fair outcome, and rocketing premiums for admission of blame would remove any disincentive to be honest.

I knew quite a few lads when I was 17/18 who wrote cars off without another vehicle involved, just by driving far too fast. Those were the conditions I suggested in which a premium would rise rapidly, unless there was a genuine reason to suggest the driver was in fact being cautious and there was nothing they could do to prevent the accident.
 
scott212 said:
Turns out the car was in the name/insurance of the driver's mum. Also turns out my best mate went to school with the driver and it was definitely, irrefutably, without a doubt HIS car. His mum has another car (he car) in her name/insured in her name as well.
Click to expand...

But none of what you've said proves that it's HIS car. You can't get around that, unless it's tailed and stopped multiple times.

It's like i said with my mum's car, i bet that I drive it more than she does but it's hers. She bought it, she insures it i'm a named driver but if it was watched and stopped 10 times i bet 7 of them it would be me driving. The fact i do 3x the mileage in my own car.........

Where do you stop?
 
Morba said:
They were the 3rd party, so it was of no interest to the insurance company.
Click to expand...

He blamed me for driving into an open door. Even though I was stone cold sober and they all stunk of alcohol and acted aggressively.

It went 50:50 in the end. It was over 3 years ago and I don't have to declare that with my insurer so I couldn't be bothered fighting it anymore.

The guy who opened the door broke his leg in a rugby match a few weeks afterwards so I guess karma got him in the end.
 
scott212 said:
Oh I agree entirely but my point was on the basis that fault claims are not always reflective of a fair outcome, and rocketing premiums for admission of blame would remove any disincentive to be honest.

I knew quite a few lads when I was 17/18 who wrote cars off without another vehicle involved, just by driving far too fast. Those were the conditions I suggested in which a premium would rise rapidly, unless there was a genuine reason to suggest the driver was in fact being cautious and there was nothing they could do to prevent the accident.
Click to expand...

That would be done based on conviction of law being broken, so that's already being done.
 
The Edge said:
But none of what you've said proves that it's HIS car. You can't get around that, unless it's tailed and stopped multiple times.

It's like i said with my mum's car, i bet that I drive it more than she does but it's hers. She bought it, she insures it i'm a named driver but if it was watched and stopped 10 times i bet 7 of them it would be me driving. The fact i do 3x the mileage in my own car.........

Where do you stop?
Click to expand...

That was my point, the chances of being done for 'fronting' are remote and so I can see why people do it!
 
scott212 said:
He blamed me for driving into an open door. Even though I was stone cold sober and they all stunk of alcohol and acted aggressively.

It went 50:50 in the end. It was over 3 years ago and I don't have to declare that with my insurer so I couldn't be bothered fighting it anymore.

The guy who opened the door broke his leg in a rugby match a few weeks afterwards so I guess karma got him in the end.
Click to expand...

You hit a parked car that had occupants, the case of fronting means nothing to the other car.
 
The Edge said:
It's like i said with my mum's car, i bet that I drive it more than she does but it's hers. She bought it, she insures it i'm a named driver but if it was watched and stopped 10 times i bet 7 of them it would be me driving. The fact i do 3x the mileage in my own car.........

Where do you stop?
Click to expand...

The policy holder and the main driver don't necessarily have to be the same person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom