So I had to bite the bullet and take the insurance out on my name. For a Corsa 1.0i was around ~£1800 this was like 3-4 year ago. 
Congratulations to vtecmec for winning May/June's Lude Of The Month, with his DIY Turbo BB1 build.
>>> Click Here For Profile <<<
>>> Click Here For Profile <<<
OMG insurance
-
Shiny
- Posts: 1972
- Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:15 pm
- My Generation: 0G
- Location: Sunny Swindon
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 11 times
Here you go, i wrote this for the MaxPower forum many moons ago...
There are many posts regarding insuring cars in Parent’s names to get cheaper insurance and they often lead to heated discussions and opinions from misinformed people. Here are some facts as to why it is fraudulent and you should not do it, which I hope will put a stop to misinformed opinions and potentially dangerous advice from people who do not understand the industry, the processes and the legalities. My advice is not tied to one Insurer and is indicative of the market, although there are obvious differences between some insurers in their methods, the basic insurance principles are the same regardless of who you are insured with.
Now, onto how it works. Firstly “Insurable Interest”, one of the basic principles of insurance. The purpose of insurance is put a policyholder in the same financial position after a claim or loss as they were before the claim or loss (with the exception of any excess etc). Therefore if my car gets stolen, and its market value was £5k, my insurers will pay me £5k to put me in the same financial position I was before the car was stolen. Now, if I was not the legal owner of the car and it belonged to, for example, my son, but I insured it in my name, I will not actually suffer any financial loss if it was stolen. Therefore I have no insurable interest. My son will actually suffer the loss, therefore he must insure it in his name. The registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner of a car, so just changing the log book does not make this alright.
Insurance premiums are calculated on the risk exposure. Fact, young drivers are a high risk and attract high premiums. The amount of use available to a young driver as an additional driver under a policy in their parents’ name is an essential factor in the rating of a policy. It is not wrong for young drivers to be named under their parents policies as long as all the information provided to an Insurer is correct. When I was learning to drive I was added to my mother’s policy. She had been driving her own car for a number of years and used it every day to commute to work. Even when I passed my test, I was only able to drive the car in the evenings or at the weekend when she wasn’t using it. I was added to the policy and noted as a “frequent” driver (not the main driver) as this was genuinely the case and could easily be proved to be the case. When I bought my own car, I insured it in my own name.
Here are two scenarios –
1. A 17 yr old buys a car and insures it in his own name.
2. Dad buys a car for his 17 yr old son to use, Dad is the legal owner and registered keeper and therefore insures the car in Dad’s name. The car has been bought for the son and he will be the main user.
The risk exposure is exactly the same, as the 17yr old is the main driver regardless of who the policyholder is. Therefore the premium should in fact be the same. In some cases, scenario 2 will work out more expensive as discounts for insured only to drive will not apply.
Now the only way that scenario 2 will work out cheaper is if fraudulent information is provided to the insurers to make the risk look more attractive, by lying as to who is the main user of a car and saying Dad is the main user and son is only an occasional user. This is no different to lying about your age, lying about your car (saying it’s a 1.4 GL instead of 2.0 GT Turbo), lying about where you live (saying you live in a field in Devon rather than the middle of Greater Manchester). If you are providing false information to reduce your premium it is deliberately trying to misrepresent the true risk and deceiving your Insurers, which is fraud.
Now, to make matters worse, it is often the case that when policies are taken out in parent’s name, that in addition to lying about the main user, the ownership is also presented wrongly to the insurers, saying that it is the parent’s car when it has been bought by the young driver. As I have said earlier, Insurable Interest is a basic principle of insurance so, first off, there will be a major problem here. Secondly, again a risk has deliberately misrepresented to an insurer to make it look more attractive and to deceive the insurers to obtain a cheaper premium, which is fraud.
So, what happens if you have taken out a policy in your parent’s name and are found out. There is a very small possibility that an underwriter may suspect foul play when finalising the issue of policy documents or if there is an audit check, but in all fairness, you are really only like to be rumbled after an accident has occurred, which is the time when you will need your policy most of all. If a loss adjuster is involved, he will make a report to the Insurers, the underwriters will study the proposal form and if there is evidence of “non disclosure” or fraudulent information, from the information presented at the time of the proposal (which is the contract upon which the insurance is based), it is most likely they will not indemnify the claim and cancel your policy from inception, making all cover “null and void”. You will then be responsible for all costs as a result of the accident. As your insurance is invalid, there is a possibility of a motoring conviction for driving without insurance, 6 points minimum, a hefty fine, possibly even a ban. If the insurers see fit, they may also wish to prosecute you for fraud which could result in a criminal conviction. The policyholder (your parent) could also be facing the same prosecutions.
There is a question on an insurance proposal form that asks if you have ever been refused or declined insurance or had a policy cancelled by the insurers. If you end up having a policy cancelled due to non disclosure or fraud, you have to disclose this on your future policies. It is an absolute nightmare getting insurance if you have had a policy null and void under these circumstances. Only non-standard insurers will touch you and will want a very very hefty premium.
Loss adjusters are not usually involved in small claims, but at the end of the day, if the damage is £500 and your claim gets kicked out, £500 won’t cripple most people. But it’s when the claim runs into thousands of pounds that you really want your Insurance to be totally in order. I personally have dealt with a claim involving a cyclist where the reserve was £500,000. If you t-boned a car and crippled a load of Harley Street Surgeons on the way to meeting, the claim could run into £millions. Look at the Selby disaster, a few seconds of lost concentration has cost many many millions. Quite often the way the courts work is that the MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) become involved and insist the Insurers pay the injured party. The Insurer’s then have a right to recover their outlay from you, as your policy has been invalidated due to fraud. Saving a couple of hundred pounds could cost you thousands and thousands of pounds.
So, now you know the potential consequences, you might think to yourself “how will they ever know?”. Well if a loss adjuster is involved. He will look for obvious signs, like the number of cars in the family, who is entitled to drive each car and so on, to establish a general picture. Then he will ask to see receipts, petrol receipts, servicing receipts etc and see what name they are in. If the car was still driveable, he may have been hiding and watching the pattern and use by each driver for the previous week or two before you even know he is involved (and then show you pictures to contradict any more lies you may present him with when interviewed). He will want to know how each person gets to work. Now there are other obvious things like dad owning a Saab Estate and also a Nova with a BB4 and Max Power Sunstrip and two 12” bass boxes in the boot (assuming modifications have been disclosed which is another topic entirely!) which the 17yr old son hardly drives? He may interview neighbours to establish the use by each driver, interview people at the workplaces and neighbouring work places of each driver, again to establish who drives what to where on a daily basis. I’m sure there are many other methods they use, but I hope this is drawing a picture for you. They do this every day, it's their job, they know every trick, every lie, every "loophole"
I do believe there is a problem in the industry where Insurer’s employ telephonists to provide motor quotes for cost efficiency, these people are generally data input clerks and do not have the knowledge for alarm bells to ring where young drivers and parents insuring cars are concerned. The same applies to internet quotes. But they are relying on people to provide truthful information and answers, which is confirmed by the signing of the proposal form or by agreeing to the statement of fact.
Now all the legalities aside, you will not earn any no claims bonus insuring a car in your parents name. By the time you reach 21, you may have left home, and you might want a tasty car as the market has opened up being over 21. If you took out a policy in your own name at 17, although it obviously costs a fair whack at the time, provided you have been claim free, you will have 4 years NCB by the time you 21, which is 60% off the premium. So a base premium on nil NCB of £2,000 will reduce to £800. As well as the saving, you have held a legitimate policy that will pay out in the event of any claim, even a serious claim with costly damage and personal injury.
This is a very serious issue, if you can't do it properly, you might as well not do it at all. Insurance costs are part of car ownership. If you can't afford to insure your car properly, quite simply you can't afford to have a car.
There are many posts regarding insuring cars in Parent’s names to get cheaper insurance and they often lead to heated discussions and opinions from misinformed people. Here are some facts as to why it is fraudulent and you should not do it, which I hope will put a stop to misinformed opinions and potentially dangerous advice from people who do not understand the industry, the processes and the legalities. My advice is not tied to one Insurer and is indicative of the market, although there are obvious differences between some insurers in their methods, the basic insurance principles are the same regardless of who you are insured with.
Now, onto how it works. Firstly “Insurable Interest”, one of the basic principles of insurance. The purpose of insurance is put a policyholder in the same financial position after a claim or loss as they were before the claim or loss (with the exception of any excess etc). Therefore if my car gets stolen, and its market value was £5k, my insurers will pay me £5k to put me in the same financial position I was before the car was stolen. Now, if I was not the legal owner of the car and it belonged to, for example, my son, but I insured it in my name, I will not actually suffer any financial loss if it was stolen. Therefore I have no insurable interest. My son will actually suffer the loss, therefore he must insure it in his name. The registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner of a car, so just changing the log book does not make this alright.
Insurance premiums are calculated on the risk exposure. Fact, young drivers are a high risk and attract high premiums. The amount of use available to a young driver as an additional driver under a policy in their parents’ name is an essential factor in the rating of a policy. It is not wrong for young drivers to be named under their parents policies as long as all the information provided to an Insurer is correct. When I was learning to drive I was added to my mother’s policy. She had been driving her own car for a number of years and used it every day to commute to work. Even when I passed my test, I was only able to drive the car in the evenings or at the weekend when she wasn’t using it. I was added to the policy and noted as a “frequent” driver (not the main driver) as this was genuinely the case and could easily be proved to be the case. When I bought my own car, I insured it in my own name.
Here are two scenarios –
1. A 17 yr old buys a car and insures it in his own name.
2. Dad buys a car for his 17 yr old son to use, Dad is the legal owner and registered keeper and therefore insures the car in Dad’s name. The car has been bought for the son and he will be the main user.
The risk exposure is exactly the same, as the 17yr old is the main driver regardless of who the policyholder is. Therefore the premium should in fact be the same. In some cases, scenario 2 will work out more expensive as discounts for insured only to drive will not apply.
Now the only way that scenario 2 will work out cheaper is if fraudulent information is provided to the insurers to make the risk look more attractive, by lying as to who is the main user of a car and saying Dad is the main user and son is only an occasional user. This is no different to lying about your age, lying about your car (saying it’s a 1.4 GL instead of 2.0 GT Turbo), lying about where you live (saying you live in a field in Devon rather than the middle of Greater Manchester). If you are providing false information to reduce your premium it is deliberately trying to misrepresent the true risk and deceiving your Insurers, which is fraud.
Now, to make matters worse, it is often the case that when policies are taken out in parent’s name, that in addition to lying about the main user, the ownership is also presented wrongly to the insurers, saying that it is the parent’s car when it has been bought by the young driver. As I have said earlier, Insurable Interest is a basic principle of insurance so, first off, there will be a major problem here. Secondly, again a risk has deliberately misrepresented to an insurer to make it look more attractive and to deceive the insurers to obtain a cheaper premium, which is fraud.
So, what happens if you have taken out a policy in your parent’s name and are found out. There is a very small possibility that an underwriter may suspect foul play when finalising the issue of policy documents or if there is an audit check, but in all fairness, you are really only like to be rumbled after an accident has occurred, which is the time when you will need your policy most of all. If a loss adjuster is involved, he will make a report to the Insurers, the underwriters will study the proposal form and if there is evidence of “non disclosure” or fraudulent information, from the information presented at the time of the proposal (which is the contract upon which the insurance is based), it is most likely they will not indemnify the claim and cancel your policy from inception, making all cover “null and void”. You will then be responsible for all costs as a result of the accident. As your insurance is invalid, there is a possibility of a motoring conviction for driving without insurance, 6 points minimum, a hefty fine, possibly even a ban. If the insurers see fit, they may also wish to prosecute you for fraud which could result in a criminal conviction. The policyholder (your parent) could also be facing the same prosecutions.
There is a question on an insurance proposal form that asks if you have ever been refused or declined insurance or had a policy cancelled by the insurers. If you end up having a policy cancelled due to non disclosure or fraud, you have to disclose this on your future policies. It is an absolute nightmare getting insurance if you have had a policy null and void under these circumstances. Only non-standard insurers will touch you and will want a very very hefty premium.
Loss adjusters are not usually involved in small claims, but at the end of the day, if the damage is £500 and your claim gets kicked out, £500 won’t cripple most people. But it’s when the claim runs into thousands of pounds that you really want your Insurance to be totally in order. I personally have dealt with a claim involving a cyclist where the reserve was £500,000. If you t-boned a car and crippled a load of Harley Street Surgeons on the way to meeting, the claim could run into £millions. Look at the Selby disaster, a few seconds of lost concentration has cost many many millions. Quite often the way the courts work is that the MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) become involved and insist the Insurers pay the injured party. The Insurer’s then have a right to recover their outlay from you, as your policy has been invalidated due to fraud. Saving a couple of hundred pounds could cost you thousands and thousands of pounds.
So, now you know the potential consequences, you might think to yourself “how will they ever know?”. Well if a loss adjuster is involved. He will look for obvious signs, like the number of cars in the family, who is entitled to drive each car and so on, to establish a general picture. Then he will ask to see receipts, petrol receipts, servicing receipts etc and see what name they are in. If the car was still driveable, he may have been hiding and watching the pattern and use by each driver for the previous week or two before you even know he is involved (and then show you pictures to contradict any more lies you may present him with when interviewed). He will want to know how each person gets to work. Now there are other obvious things like dad owning a Saab Estate and also a Nova with a BB4 and Max Power Sunstrip and two 12” bass boxes in the boot (assuming modifications have been disclosed which is another topic entirely!) which the 17yr old son hardly drives? He may interview neighbours to establish the use by each driver, interview people at the workplaces and neighbouring work places of each driver, again to establish who drives what to where on a daily basis. I’m sure there are many other methods they use, but I hope this is drawing a picture for you. They do this every day, it's their job, they know every trick, every lie, every "loophole"
I do believe there is a problem in the industry where Insurer’s employ telephonists to provide motor quotes for cost efficiency, these people are generally data input clerks and do not have the knowledge for alarm bells to ring where young drivers and parents insuring cars are concerned. The same applies to internet quotes. But they are relying on people to provide truthful information and answers, which is confirmed by the signing of the proposal form or by agreeing to the statement of fact.
Now all the legalities aside, you will not earn any no claims bonus insuring a car in your parents name. By the time you reach 21, you may have left home, and you might want a tasty car as the market has opened up being over 21. If you took out a policy in your own name at 17, although it obviously costs a fair whack at the time, provided you have been claim free, you will have 4 years NCB by the time you 21, which is 60% off the premium. So a base premium on nil NCB of £2,000 will reduce to £800. As well as the saving, you have held a legitimate policy that will pay out in the event of any claim, even a serious claim with costly damage and personal injury.
This is a very serious issue, if you can't do it properly, you might as well not do it at all. Insurance costs are part of car ownership. If you can't afford to insure your car properly, quite simply you can't afford to have a car.
-
mercutio
- LotM Winner
- Posts: 14958
- Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 8:45 pm
- My Generation: 5G
- Location: Sunny Manchester
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 4 times
- Contact:
i got my renewal last year and it was higher and the guy was trying to bring it down and asked if i wanted my missus as a named driver i said no as she would just put it through a wall 
even though i know having her on it would make it cheaper it would also mean she might think oh i will move it i am insured and i come home to my lude on the couch in the front room
even though i know having her on it would make it cheaper it would also mean she might think oh i will move it i am insured and i come home to my lude on the couch in the front room bristol_bb4 wrote:ahhh a 5th gen, i love 5th gens
Dino wrote:I loves the 5th gen really.... just dont quote me on it...
4thgenphil wrote:Mines 4 1/4 unches mate, sorry
http://www.ludegeneration.co.uk/profile ... -t618.html
-
Ted
- Posts: 2765
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 5:44 pm
- My Generation: 4G
- Location: about 26 miles away from where I was
- Been thanked: 3 times
ok maybe this needs to be a poll
am i a missrable old got
yes .............. 1
no
[/quote]
am i a missrable old got
yes .............. 1
no
[/quote]if it aint broke don't fix it https://www.facebook.com/pages/tram-roa ... 8502699270
Shiny FTW as ever, the guru has spoken.
As some of you know my first car was an Astra, K reg 1.4 LSi, that's the single point injection so it has half a carb with one injector in the top. Not powerful and a bit of a shed but was good for a first car, I managed to wrangle a bit off the premium because I could prove I had a company van and was also named on my folks cars etc etc, still this car I got for £200 off my brother in law cost me £1000 third party fire and theft, it stung rather a lot coughing that up for something that would need to be written off 5 times to make the money back if I even got a fraction of it back.
Now though I'm nearly 30 and have 4 years protected NCB and even though my first stagea got written off (thats a long story involving oil and a prang at 30mph bending a chassis rail and hugely costly parts ) my insurance fully comp is just under a grand, before the accident it was £650 ish which isn't bad on a rare import that is basically a skyline. It stings to insure but spread the costs over the year which in itself cost a bit more but it makes it managable until you're older and insurance is cheaper, the first year claim free really drops the premium.
IMO trying to exploit these things just doesn't end well, as per Shiny's post, they will look should it be required and they'll find out. Bite the bullet and get insured, drive like a granny until it's cheaper and you've got more experience, then go do some track days on track day insurance
As some of you know my first car was an Astra, K reg 1.4 LSi, that's the single point injection so it has half a carb with one injector in the top. Not powerful and a bit of a shed but was good for a first car, I managed to wrangle a bit off the premium because I could prove I had a company van and was also named on my folks cars etc etc, still this car I got for £200 off my brother in law cost me £1000 third party fire and theft, it stung rather a lot coughing that up for something that would need to be written off 5 times to make the money back if I even got a fraction of it back.
Now though I'm nearly 30 and have 4 years protected NCB and even though my first stagea got written off (thats a long story involving oil and a prang at 30mph bending a chassis rail and hugely costly parts
) my insurance fully comp is just under a grand, before the accident it was £650 ish which isn't bad on a rare import that is basically a skyline. It stings to insure but spread the costs over the year which in itself cost a bit more but it makes it managable until you're older and insurance is cheaper, the first year claim free really drops the premium.IMO trying to exploit these things just doesn't end well, as per Shiny's post, they will look should it be required and they'll find out. Bite the bullet and get insured, drive like a granny until it's cheaper and you've got more experience, then go do some track days on track day insurance
-
indigolemon
- The Chaos Engine
- Posts: 6682
- Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 1:45 pm
- My Generation: 4G
- PSN GamerTag: M149YSL
- Location: Kelty, Fife
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 71 times
- Contact: