car insurance fraud issue
Discussion
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.
Nope. By adding him as a named driver she's not claiming that he's going to drive it. She's just saying that she wants him to be covered if he does. There's no false representation there, in fact there's no representation at all. If the insurer asked "does this person actually drive your car" and she said "yes", that would potentially be a false representation, but they don;t ask that.Without a false representation, her intent doesn't come into it.
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.Vaud said:
TheBear said:
He has no case at all. But I was only pointing out that a Fraud could've been committed in this scenario, nothing else.
I don't agree without the dishonesty aspect.But we're talking exam question scenarios really, rather than real life.
The only relevant dishonesty is if she believes the insurer defines a named driver as someone who is likely to drive the car. If she is aware that the insurer isn't bothered there is no difference between adding a named driver to reduce a premium and, for example, buying an estate version of a car because it is cheaper to insure, knowing she will never use the increased capacity.
Edited by Zeeky on Thursday 17th July 12:08
TheBear said:
If she knew or believed her premium would reduce with him on it then there is the dishonesty element in conjunction with her knowing he'll never drive it (if that was her mens rea).
Absolutely wrong. See my breakfast cereal example. Next you'll be saying it's fraud to take out comp insurance when you only actually wanted third party, because comp was cheaper.
It is not fraud to buy more insurance than you need to take advantage of a lower price. Adding extra drivers is buying additional cover. If they choose to sell that for a lower price, that's not your problem.
Zeeky said:
The only relevant dishonesty is if she believes the insurer defines a named driver as someone who is likely to drive the car. If she is aware that the insurer isn't bothered there is no difference between adding a named driver to reduce a premium and, for example, buying an estate version of a car because it is cheaper to insure, knowing she will never use the increased capacity.
Why do insurers reduce or increase premiums when named drivers are put on a policy?Edited by Zeeky on Thursday 17th July 12:08
Zeeky said:
My answer to that question is relevant to belief. Belief is relevant to an attempt. You are half right. Whether or not there is fraud depends on what the insurer means by named driver.
I understand that but surely in simple terms the reason that premiums go up or down with named drivers is because that person may drive instead of you and depending on who they and their history is either a higher risk (premium goes up) or a lower risk (premium goes down) than the policy holder. Depending on the company?TheBear said:
Why do insurers reduce or increase premiums when named drivers are put on a policy?
Something I've yet to work out, but it's saved my daughter a few hundred quid. And airport parking fees, as I take them to airport, bring the car home and bring them home at the end of their holiday . Pays to look at the ins co T&C and make the most of them. One question I've yet to see an insurance bod answer is why when insuring a car new to you do you get quizzed on ABS/anti theft systems, when the ins co has access to the vehicle makers specs. By finding out that my VAG oilburner has ABS and Thatham 2 immobiliser, I've had my premiums lowered , but I shouldn't have to find this out. wjwren said:
I personally don't see the major fuss as she is using car to ferry his kids about but hey ho.
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 - which im sure the police would be interested in.
So he has deliberately let his children be regularly driven about in an uninsured car? Nice chap...My Wife has been insured on my car for three years and has never driven it- and has told me she never intends to. I'm sure that has saved me some money- is that fraud?
OP your work mate is an idiot and if this is indicative of the sort of thing that they get up to then, as said, this is going to be a long, messy and costly divorce. At the end of it he will then blame it all on her behaviour, how the law is biased and on the lawyers. In fact quite likely everyone but themselves.
Regardless of what went wrong in the relationship this sort of s
t does no one any favours and paints the picture of a man she, and the children are well shot of. Note I mention the children. This sort of stunt will look great when that ball starts to roll.
Regardless of what went wrong in the relationship this sort of s
t does no one any favours and paints the picture of a man she, and the children are well shot of. Note I mention the children. This sort of stunt will look great when that ball starts to roll. TwigtheWonderkid said:
TheBear said:
If she knew or believed her premium would reduce with him on it then there is the dishonesty element in conjunction with her knowing he'll never drive it (if that was her mens rea).
Absolutely wrong. See my breakfast cereal example. Next you'll be saying it's fraud to take out comp insurance when you only actually wanted third party, because comp was cheaper.
It is not fraud to buy more insurance than you need to take advantage of a lower price. Adding extra drivers is buying additional cover. If they choose to sell that for a lower price, that's not your problem.
The Fraud offence I'm talking about has nothing to do with company promotions, additional cover, whether a company will offer more for less or any other thing you wish to dream up. It has nothing to do with whether a named driver actually wants or intends to drive at all. It also has nothing to do with whether it is even possible.
If a company wants to offer more for less then great. You're right in that it's not fraud to buy more insurance for a lower price.
But what's that got to do with a persons intent which is what this offence is concerned with? You do know this offence concerns a persons intent don't you?
TheBear said:
But what's that got to do with a persons intent which is what this offence is concerned with? You do know this offence concerns a persons intent don't you?
Not aimed at me, but I'll respond.An asset owned by the marriage. So both parties have a interest in insuring the asset. They are not divorced. No judge would see that she has attempted to commit fraud.
"Did you insure your then husband on this car?"
"Yes"
"Why?"
"We were getting divorced. Separated but we hadn't yet finalised assets. It seemed practical that either of us could pick the kids. He has been insured before on it and I saw no issue to ensuring that neither of us accidentally drive the kids around uninsured. As we weren't communicating very well it was the decision I took"
"No further questions"
It wouldn't even get to court.
TheBear said:
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.
If the insurance company charge you less for that, then its not fraud. How could it be?
Intent to reduce your insurance costs using the insurance companies own pricing structure is not a crime.
Who me said:
Something I've yet to work out, but it's saved my daughter a few hundred quid. And airport parking fees, as I take them to airport, bring the car home and bring them home at the end of their holiday . Pays to look at the ins co T&C and make the most of them. One question I've yet to see an insurance bod answer is why when insuring a car new to you do you get quizzed on ABS/anti theft systems, when the ins co has access to the vehicle makers specs. By finding out that my VAG oilburner has ABS and Thatham 2 immobiliser, I've had my premiums lowered , but I shouldn't have to find this out.
Here's your answer. We don't all have access to the specifics of each and every car and all the optional extras purchased on that car. Even if we did that would be provided to us at a cost and as we'd need that info for every quote then the cost would need to go on every quote, but be paid for by those who take a policy out. As we now rum at 20 quotes per policy taken out, then even £1 charge would mean a notional £20 being added to each policy to try to recoup the cost.
Edited by LoonR1 on Thursday 17th July 16:49
Vaud said:
TheBear said:
But what's that got to do with a persons intent which is what this offence is concerned with? You do know this offence concerns a persons intent don't you?
Not aimed at me, but I'll respond.An asset owned by the marriage. So both parties have a interest in insuring the asset. They are not divorced. No judge would see that she has attempted to commit fraud.
"Did you insure your then husband on this car?"
"Yes"
"Why?"
"We were getting divorced. Separated but we hadn't yet finalised assets. It seemed practical that either of us could pick the kids. He has been insured before on it and I saw no issue to ensuring that neither of us accidentally drive the kids around uninsured. As we weren't communicating very well it was the decision I took"
"No further questions"
It wouldn't even get to court.
Intent offences don't care about what happens next. I don't care what happens next. The fraud offence I'm talking about doesn't care what happens next.
Someone said there could be no fraud. I said there could be.
"Did you insure your husband on this car?"
"Yes"
"Why"
"Because I heard that if you put a less risky driver on your policy then it means that your premium goes down and you don't pay as much. There's no way he'll drive it under any circumstances and I purely wanted to save money and make the insurance company think he would and so they would think a safer driver would be driving at some point instead of me.I know it was wrong but I'm deemed too risky on my own and can't afford it."
Offence complete. Doesn't matter what the companies policy is, doesn't matter if they would turn around and say no problem. Doesn't matter what cereal promotion is on at the supermarket. Doesn't matter that Alfahorns wife doesn't want to drive his car. Nothing else matters.
Do I think this would ever happen? I'm sure it does happen but not in a million years would someone ever say this or would you prove it. Does that mean that they have been sneaky and committed this offence - Yes.
Would a company offer you a reduced premium if you said to them "I'd like Joe Bloggs on my policy please. He's an advanced driver but I can tell you he will never drive the car in a million years and it will only be me but I know you'll take some money off if I name him"?
Just read through this, according to some on here i'm a master criminal. 
My wife has been a named driver on my policies for years, she has never driven the Merc, and is highly unlikely to do so, she doesn't like autos, she's covered for my van too, guess what? Yep, never driven it either. She doesn't like vans either. She was covered for the Jag, never drove it.
But she has the option.
So does knobend hubby.
My wife has been a named driver on my policies for years, she has never driven the Merc, and is highly unlikely to do so, she doesn't like autos, she's covered for my van too, guess what? Yep, never driven it either. She doesn't like vans either. She was covered for the Jag, never drove it.
But she has the option.
So does knobend hubby.
TheBear said:
That's fine but again for the umpteenth time, that's not what I'm talking about.
Intent offences don't care about what happens next. I don't care what happens next. The fraud offence I'm talking about doesn't care what happens next.
Someone said there could be no fraud. I said there could be.
"Did you insure your husband on this car?"
"Yes"
"Why"
"Because I heard that if you put a less risky driver on your policy then it means that your premium goes down and you don't pay as much. There's no way he'll drive it under any circumstances and I purely wanted to save money and make the insurance company think he would and so they would think a safer driver would be driving at some point instead of me.I know it was wrong but I'm deemed too risky on my own and can't afford it."
Offence complete. Doesn't matter what the companies policy is, doesn't matter if they would turn around and say no problem. Doesn't matter what cereal promotion is on at the supermarket. Doesn't matter that Alfahorns wife doesn't want to drive his car. Nothing else matters.
Do I think this would ever happen? I'm sure it does happen but not in a million years would someone ever say this or would you prove it. Does that mean that they have been sneaky and committed this offence - Yes.
Would a company offer you a reduced premium if you said to them "I'd like Joe Bloggs on my policy please. He's an advanced driver but I can tell you he will never drive the car in a million years and it will only be me but I know you'll take some money off if I name him"?
Are you suggesting this is civil or criminal?Intent offences don't care about what happens next. I don't care what happens next. The fraud offence I'm talking about doesn't care what happens next.
Someone said there could be no fraud. I said there could be.
"Did you insure your husband on this car?"
"Yes"
"Why"
"Because I heard that if you put a less risky driver on your policy then it means that your premium goes down and you don't pay as much. There's no way he'll drive it under any circumstances and I purely wanted to save money and make the insurance company think he would and so they would think a safer driver would be driving at some point instead of me.I know it was wrong but I'm deemed too risky on my own and can't afford it."
Offence complete. Doesn't matter what the companies policy is, doesn't matter if they would turn around and say no problem. Doesn't matter what cereal promotion is on at the supermarket. Doesn't matter that Alfahorns wife doesn't want to drive his car. Nothing else matters.
Do I think this would ever happen? I'm sure it does happen but not in a million years would someone ever say this or would you prove it. Does that mean that they have been sneaky and committed this offence - Yes.
Would a company offer you a reduced premium if you said to them "I'd like Joe Bloggs on my policy please. He's an advanced driver but I can tell you he will never drive the car in a million years and it will only be me but I know you'll take some money off if I name him"?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff