car insurance fraud issue
Discussion
98elise said:
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.
I'm talking about dishonest intent to reduce your costs.
My interpretation of premiums going up or down depending on who you name means that insurance companies are evaluating that persons risk and factoring in them driving the car at some point. Otherwise the premium wouldn't change, or it would go upwith an additional driver and additional risk. I could be wrong but if that is the case then there is a gain to be had depending on who you name, which means, to me, that if you are just naming someone who will never know or you won't let them drive then you are fraudulently making a gain for yourself and the insurance company loses out.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear.
Edited by TheBear on Thursday 17th July 16:48
My father in law is going to be on holiday with us this year. Knowing that fact, I stuck him on as a named driver at renewal some months back (because adding someone halfway through always seems to incur admin fees, annoyingly). He will probably never drive it (and I said as much on the phone when going through the renewal) but he might. I have no idea what difference, if any, it made to the premium.
"No problems" was the response from the overly-cheerful Welsh bloke on the phone. "so long as he's not the main user."
In this case, the mother is simply being sensible - a scenario where the father needs to collect the children when his own car is out of action is not unfeasible, after all. And her concern is that the kids are transported; they'll not be bothered which car does the transporting, nor who does the driving.
She's being the grown-up here, he's being the idiot.
"No problems" was the response from the overly-cheerful Welsh bloke on the phone. "so long as he's not the main user."
In this case, the mother is simply being sensible - a scenario where the father needs to collect the children when his own car is out of action is not unfeasible, after all. And her concern is that the kids are transported; they'll not be bothered which car does the transporting, nor who does the driving.
She's being the grown-up here, he's being the idiot.
Ganglandboss said:
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.
Its academic really as in the real world its nigh on impossible to prove intent, but you posed the question, I suggested an answer!Does this also fall into the same category as all those other insurance questions where the answer given may not be 100% accurate (i.e. used for commuting, parked in a garage overnight, any modifications etc etc) ? We probably all massage the truth to our own benefit to some degree, its never usually checked until there is a potential issue like a claim?
TheBear said:
But the pricing structure also takes into account NCB, past accidents, endorsements etc...
I'm talking about dishonest intent to reduce your costs.
My interpretation of premiums going up or down depending on who you name means that insurance companies are evaluating that persons risk and factoring in them driving the car at some point. Otherwise the premium wouldn't change, or it would go upwith an additional driver and additional risk. I could be wrong but if that is the case then there is a gain to be had depending on who you name, which means, to me, that if you are just naming someone who will never know or you won't let them drive then you are fraudulently making a gain for yourself and the insurance company loses out.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear.
It's clear enough; there's the potential for fraud.I'm talking about dishonest intent to reduce your costs.
My interpretation of premiums going up or down depending on who you name means that insurance companies are evaluating that persons risk and factoring in them driving the car at some point. Otherwise the premium wouldn't change, or it would go upwith an additional driver and additional risk. I could be wrong but if that is the case then there is a gain to be had depending on who you name, which means, to me, that if you are just naming someone who will never know or you won't let them drive then you are fraudulently making a gain for yourself and the insurance company loses out.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear.
Of course, for all we know adding the OP's colleage has added to the premium due to accidents, time licence held etc.
TheBear said:
... 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?
I think you're looking behind the criteria that need to be satisfied to be eligible for the premium and considering the reasons why the premium is set at that level. The latter isn't the policyholder's concern. You may be gaining an unfair advantage over policyholders who do share the driving with a lower risk driver but you aren't doing so by misleading the insurer. Think tax avoidance vs. tax evasion.
TheBear said:
But the pricing structure also takes into account NCB, past accidents, endorsements etc...
I'm talking about dishonest intent to reduce your costs.
My interpretation of premiums going up or down depending on who you name means that insurance companies are evaluating that persons risk and factoring in them driving the car at some point. Otherwise the premium wouldn't change, or it would go upwith an additional driver and additional risk. I could be wrong but if that is the case then there is a gain to be had depending on who you name, which means, to me, that if you are just naming someone who will never know or you won't let them drive then you are fraudulently making a gain for yourself and the insurance company loses out.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear.
You don't know that. You're just guessing. It could be that the insurance company have got data that shows that if you're the kind of person that trusts someone else to drive your car, you're a more considerate person. That makes you a better driver so a better risk, even if the other driver you have named will never drive.I'm talking about dishonest intent to reduce your costs.
My interpretation of premiums going up or down depending on who you name means that insurance companies are evaluating that persons risk and factoring in them driving the car at some point. Otherwise the premium wouldn't change, or it would go upwith an additional driver and additional risk. I could be wrong but if that is the case then there is a gain to be had depending on who you name, which means, to me, that if you are just naming someone who will never know or you won't let them drive then you are fraudulently making a gain for yourself and the insurance company loses out.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear.
Edited by TheBear on Thursday 17th July 16:48
Or it could be that the insurance company have data to show that the more financially astute the policyholder is, the less likely they are to claim. So a policyholder who is shrewd enough to have worked out that adding another driver gets them a discount is the kind of driver they want to attract. They may have stats to show drivers who look to save money on their insurance are likely to drive smoother to maximise fuel economy. So they may be happy to give the discount, even if they knew the named driver will never drive.
You haven't got a clue what their thinking is, and neither do I. So to add a driver you know will never drive in order to get a discount isn't fraud, because for all you know this may be just the kind of thing insurers want. Switched on clients who could be a lower risk.
TheBear said:
98elise said:
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.
I'm talking about dishonest intent to reduce your costs.
My interpretation of premiums going up or down depending on who you name means that insurance companies are evaluating that persons risk and factoring in them driving the car at some point. Otherwise the premium wouldn't change, or it would go upwith an additional driver and additional risk. I could be wrong but if that is the case then there is a gain to be had depending on who you name, which means, to me, that if you are just naming someone who will never know or you won't let them drive then you are fraudulently making a gain for yourself and the insurance company loses out.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear.
Edited by TheBear on Thursday 17th July 16:48
The insurance company are offering cheaper insurance when somebody else is named on the policy. If they needed that person to actually drive the car then they would say so.
Its no different to anything else you might do specifically to reduce your insurance costs. As long as you have been truthful to the company they you haven't defrauded anyone.
Insurance is based on risk, having a named driver simply puts you in a different risk profile.
Zeeky said:
TheBear said:
... 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?
I think you're looking behind the criteria that need to be satisfied to be eligible for the premium and considering the reasons why the premium is set at that level. The latter isn't the policyholder's concern. You may be gaining an unfair advantage over policyholders who do share the driving with a lower risk driver but you aren't doing so by misleading the insurer. Think tax avoidance vs. tax evasion.
It's difficult to get my head around someone(potentially)gaining a financial advantage from stating something false and them not committing any offence. I guess its morals rather than legalities?
TheBear said:
Zeeky said:
TheBear said:
... 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?
I think you're looking behind the criteria that need to be satisfied to be eligible for the premium and considering the reasons why the premium is set at that level. The latter isn't the policyholder's concern. You may be gaining an unfair advantage over policyholders who do share the driving with a lower risk driver but you aren't doing so by misleading the insurer. Think tax avoidance vs. tax evasion.
It's difficult to get my head around someone(potentially)gaining a financial advantage from stating something false and them not committing any offence. I guess its morals rather than legalities?
It doesn't matter if you do it for the convenience, or just to save money. Its not a crime to save money on your car insurance.
I've been on my mothers insurance for over a decade, yet never driven her car. I'm not commiting any kind of fraud.
Edited by 98elise on Friday 18th July 01:54
98elise said:
Why do you think its a false statement? Its adding a named driver to the policy as someone who CAN (but might not) drive the car under that policy. Its not an implication that they WILL drive it, unless the insurance company has that in their T&C's.
It doesn't matter if you do it for the convenience, or just to save money. Its not a crime to save money on your car insurance.
I've been on my mothers insurance for over a decade, yet never driven her car. I'm not commiting any kind of fraud.
Because it's her state of mind at the time of taking the policy out that matters. If she had an intent to deceive then even though it isn't possible to commit the fraud as zeeky pointed out she makes an attempt which is enough. It doesn't matter if you do it for the convenience, or just to save money. Its not a crime to save money on your car insurance.
I've been on my mothers insurance for over a decade, yet never driven her car. I'm not commiting any kind of fraud.
Edited by 98elise on Friday 18th July 01:54
Stop thinking in terms of the consequences, whether the company considers it fraud, whether someone will drive or whether it is even possible. Only consider the persons intent at the time and what constitutes a criminal attempt.
TheBear said:
Because it's her state of mind at the time of taking the policy out that matters. If she had an intent to deceive then even though it isn't possible to commit the fraud as zeeky pointed out she makes an attempt which is enough.
Stop thinking in terms of the consequences, whether the company considers it fraud, whether someone will drive or whether it is even possible. Only consider the persons intent at the time and what constitutes a criminal attempt.
I still don't see where the fraud is. We like two drivers on a policy, there are fewer claims on these policies. We don't know how many times the named drivers actually use the car, but that's irrelevant. Spouses / partners even when separated are still spouses / partners until legal proceedings are complete. Insurer a have zero appetite to see this as fraud. Stop thinking in terms of the consequences, whether the company considers it fraud, whether someone will drive or whether it is even possible. Only consider the persons intent at the time and what constitutes a criminal attempt.
LoonR1 said:
I still don't see where the fraud is. We like two drivers on a policy, there are fewer claims on these policies. We don't know how many times the named drivers actually use the car, but that's irrelevant. Spouses / partners even when separated are still spouses / partners until legal proceedings are complete. Insurer a have zero appetite to see this as fraud.
A criminal attempt in simple terms is someone who tries to commit a crime and actually embarks on it (in this case in her mind she thinks she will state something false to gain a financial advantage and then does) even if it transpires that it was impossible to do (the insurer isn't bothered or doesn't consider it fraudulent). The timeline I'm talking about is:
1: lady wants cheaper insurance
2: lady hears that her insurance might go down if she names a driver on her policy
3: lady thinks I'll put my ex husband on it. He has a clean licence and my premium will go down. I will never let him drive ever and he'll never know but I want it to be cheaper and he'll be a lower risk and they will think he'll drive at some point even though it'll always be me.
4: lady phones/goes online and does it
5: end
What happens after doesn't matter. What matters is whether you consider her state of mind as having a dishonest intent to make a gain for herself.
TheBear said:
What happens after doesn't matter. What matters is whether you consider her state of mind as having a dishonest intent to make a gain for herself.
Dishonest would be if she lied - there is no lie saying you'd like to insure somebody on your car. There is a lie if you answered any question incorrectly (convictions, age etc). There is a lie if you said he would be the main driver. There is a lie if you say you keep the car in the garage knowing it doesn't fit and will never happen. At worst she can be accused of playing the system. My money is more likely that with all the divorce stuff going on she just renewed like for like anyway - the cause and intent is different, the outcome is the same, a named driver never likely to drive the car and without the persons permission. It doesn't ask if you have their permission.
Bigger questions for me is how did he know? Did he read her private paper work? Did he make false representation to cancel the policy? Did he leave her uninsured? It still seems to me that if a crime is committed it was by him
Jon1967x said:
Dishonest would be if she lied - there is no lie saying you'd like to insure somebody on your car.
I would consider it dishonest to give the name of someone you'd like to insure on your car if you have no intention of telling them or letting them drive purely to make a financial gain for yourself. You, and most others to be fair, would consider that more taking advantage or playing the system and what's on offer.
TheBear said:
I would consider it dishonest to give the name of someone you'd like to insure on your car if you have no intention of telling them or letting them drive purely to make a financial gain for yourself.
You, and most others to be fair, would consider that more taking advantage or playing the system and what's on offer.
It is taking advantage and playing the system, but it isn't dishonest and it isn't fraud.You, and most others to be fair, would consider that more taking advantage or playing the system and what's on offer.
My sis in law is is a researcher for a the BBC. On an online quote, she put her occupation as a researcher, and her employer's business as broadcasting, and got quotes of around £600. She changed employers business to media and the price was around half that.
That isn't dishonest, as her employers business is indeed media. If the insurers want to charge extra for broadcasting over general media, they should change "media" to read "media, excluding broadcasting".
Taking advantage of their quotation system's weaknesses is not fraud, it's financial astuteness.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff