car insurance fraud issue
Discussion
charltjr said:
It's easy to defend against though isn't it.
"No, I didn't do it to lower the premium. I did it because I thought he might have to drive the car again at some point so added him to the policy just in case"
"OK madam, that's fine"
Fraud? Sheeeeeesh.
You would never need to defend it, because no insurer would ever question it or pursue it. Why would they?"No, I didn't do it to lower the premium. I did it because I thought he might have to drive the car again at some point so added him to the policy just in case"
"OK madam, that's fine"
Fraud? Sheeeeeesh.
She makes a claim, she was driving, and they ask questions about why the additional driver wasn't driving before dealing with the claim?? Utter nonsense.
Fraud....I've never heard such tripe.
Only issue is if her husband was listed as the main driver. It used to be a common trick with patents and newly qualified children as a means of reducing premiums.
OP - did your friend cancel the insurance without his wife's permission or knowledge as you suggested? If so on what authority did he act?
OP - did your friend cancel the insurance without his wife's permission or knowledge as you suggested? If so on what authority did he act?
Jon1967x said:
Only issue is if her husband was listed as the main driver. It used to be a common trick with patents and newly qualified children as a means of reducing premiums.
OP - did your friend cancel the insurance without his wife's permission or knowledge as you suggested? If so on what authority did he act?
OP - did your friend cancel the insurance without his wife's permission or knowledge as you suggested? If so on what authority did he act?
wjwren said:
question regarding insurance and possible fraud please - work colleague has split up from his wife few months ago. He has found out his ex wife to be has insured the car again with him as a named driver. I personally don't see the major fuss as she is using car to ferry his kids about but hey ho. He said he wants to do her for fraud. Would the police be interested? He has since phoned up and canceled the policy and she has presumably taken out her own policy unless she is driving around with out insurance at all - which im sure the police would be interested in.
Jon1967x said:
Only issue is if her husband was listed as the main driver. It used to be a common trick with patents and newly qualified children as a means of reducing premiums.
OP - did your friend cancel the insurance without his wife's permission or knowledge as you suggested? If so on what authority did he act?
OP - did your friend cancel the insurance without his wife's permission or knowledge as you suggested? If so on what authority did he act?
wjwren said:
question regarding insurance and possible fraud please - work colleague has split up from his wife few months ago. He has found out his ex wife to be has insured the car again with him as a named driver. I personally don't see the major fuss as she is using car to ferry his kids about but hey ho. He said he wants to do her for fraud. Would the police be interested? He has since phoned up and canceled the policy and she has presumably taken out her own policy unless she is driving around with out insurance at all - which im sure the police would be interested in.
Actually there could very well be a fraud by false representation.
Forget the practicalities or proving it.
If her intention at the time of taking out the policy was to reduce her premium by adding a named driver who won't drive then she's made a gain for herself and committed the offence.
Forget the practicalities or proving it.
If her intention at the time of taking out the policy was to reduce her premium by adding a named driver who won't drive then she's made a gain for herself and committed the offence.
TheBear said:
Actually there could very well be a fraud by false representation.
Forget the practicalities or proving it.
If her intention at the time of taking out the policy was to reduce her premium by adding a named driver who won't drive then she's made a gain for herself and committed the offence.
What false representation has she made? At what point has she told the insurance company that the person she named will ever actually drive the car?Forget the practicalities or proving it.
If her intention at the time of taking out the policy was to reduce her premium by adding a named driver who won't drive then she's made a gain for herself and committed the offence.
wibble cb said:
Obtaining a pecuniary advantage (i.e. the premium paid was lowered due to his name being used as a possible driver) , though I am not sure this is still an offence as such (see link below):
No longer exists. It,and many other deception offences, was repealed and replaced by the provisions in the Fraud Act 2006.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/sectio...
Whilst it could be argued that if her insurance premium was reduced by her putting him as a named driver she has made a gain I think proving it was done dishonestly is going to be extremely difficult & I can't see the Police getting involved.
I expect she would simply say that she put him as a named driver in case he needed to use her car to ferry the children around. An entirely reasonable and sensible response.
As others have already said, points scoring in a divorce/separation achieves nothing,creates animosity and usually costs more. Plus does he really want his children being told what a nasty man daddy is, just look what he's doing?
Edited by paintman on Thursday 17th July 10:02
I really don't see the problem. I split up with my ex 18 months ago (not yet divorced). She's still on my car insurance as my spouse main reasons are a) she may need to use my car at some point for the kids and b) it works out a bit cheaper for me.... Until such time that we are officially divorced then that's how it'll stay.
Aretnap said:
TheBear said:
Actually there could very well be a fraud by false representation.
Forget the practicalities or proving it.
If her intention at the time of taking out the policy was to reduce her premium by adding a named driver who won't drive then she's made a gain for herself and committed the offence.
What false representation has she made? At what point has she told the insurance company that the person she named will ever actually drive the car?Forget the practicalities or proving it.
If her intention at the time of taking out the policy was to reduce her premium by adding a named driver who won't drive then she's made a gain for herself and committed the offence.
Load of old rubbish by OPs friend creating a pile of hate rather than focusing on an a mixable divorce. Think of the kids, etc. Divorce must be stressful enough without spurious crap like this dragging each other down.
Aretnap said:
TheBear said:
Actually there could very well be a fraud by false representation.
Forget the practicalities or proving it.
If her intention at the time of taking out the policy was to reduce her premium by adding a named driver who won't drive then she's made a gain for herself and committed the offence.
What false representation has she made? At what point has she told the insurance company that the person she named will ever actually drive the car?Forget the practicalities or proving it.
If her intention at the time of taking out the policy was to reduce her premium by adding a named driver who won't drive then she's made a gain for herself and committed the offence.
Last week in the supermarket they had my usual breakfast cereal, Shreddies, 500g box for £2.75. But they had the 750g box on special offer at £2.50. Problem is, I'm going on holiday for a month so I'll never actually eat the extra 250g. It'll be stale when I get back so I will end up binning it. Have I committed fraud by taking advantage of their lower price by buying more than I actually need? Of course I haven't.
It's the same with insurance. By naming an additional driver, you're buying more cover than you actually need. Because they choose to sell more cover for less money, just like the Shreddies. That's their lookout. It's not fraudulent to take advantage of their generosity.
wibble cb said:
Ganglandboss said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Davie_GLA said:
Not fraud in any way shape or form. Did she do it to reduce the premium?
Well precisely, you're half way to working it out.http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...
So the fraud if there is one, is not on him as such, but rather the insurance co.
wjwren said:
question regarding insurance and possible fraud please - work colleague has split up from his wife few months ago. He has found out his ex wife to be has insured the car again with him as a named driver. I personally don't see the major fuss as she is using car to ferry his kids about but hey ho. He said he wants to do her for fraud. Would the police be interested? He has since phoned up and canceled the policy and she has presumably taken out her own policy unless she is driving around with out insurance at all - which im sure the police would be interested in.
This statement is clear as mud, he could be the named driver on her policy, but according to this bit she could have been fronting by insuring the car as him with her as named driver.wjwren said:
He has since phoned up and canceled the policy and she has presumably taken out her own policy unless she is driving around with out insurance at all.
Aretnap said:
TheBear said:
Actually there could very well be a fraud by false representation.
Forget the practicalities or proving it.
If her intention at the time of taking out the policy was to reduce her premium by adding a named driver who won't drive then she's made a gain for herself and committed the offence.
What false representation has she made? At what point has she told the insurance company that the person she named will ever actually drive the car?Forget the practicalities or proving it.
If her intention at the time of taking out the policy was to reduce her premium by adding a named driver who won't drive then she's made a gain for herself and committed the offence.
TheBear said:
She doesn't have to tell them anything about the driver. The only thing that matters is her intent, and if her intent was to reduce her premium by adding a driver who is never going to drive then there is the representation which is false to make a gain for herself.
That would be up to the insurer, not him, he has no case for fraud as he has not been defrauded.Oh, and any insurer (I hope) would think that it is a reasonable provision for a couple sharing the same address and until divorced, a shared asset (not that they care), so probably would not think they were being defrauded...
Take any married couple and plug the names into a quote engine for primary/secondary driver. Given shared use, the difference in quotes is minimal?
paintman said:
But you need to prove that she did it dishonestly. Without both elements you have no offence.
Absolutely. Proving it would be almost impossible and it seems that in this case the husband is being a bit of a wally considering it's entirely reasonable to think that he would drive it in some circumstances due to his children. But in messy break-ups quite often the children come below pettiness and revenge.Edited by TheBear on Thursday 17th July 11:45
Vaud said:
TheBear said:
She doesn't have to tell them anything about the driver. The only thing that matters is her intent, and if her intent was to reduce her premium by adding a driver who is never going to drive then there is the representation which is false to make a gain for herself.
That would be up to the insurer, not him, he has no case for fraud as he has not been defrauded.Oh, and any insurer (I hope) would think that it is a reasonable provision for a couple sharing the same address and until divorced, a shared asset (not that they care), so probably would not think they were being defrauded...
Take any married couple and plug the names into a quote engine for primary/secondary driver. Given shared use, the difference in quotes is minimal?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff