Insuring a car when not the registered keeper

[4x4Tyke]

hiscocks said:

4x4Tyke said:

Judging by that, you are the registered keeper, which is not the same thing as the owner.

Thanks, but the V5 has his name on it. So although I am definitely the keeper, I'm not registered as such.

Yep, sorry, poor wording by me. As the defacto keeper you could (probably should) become the registered keeper.

[98elise]

daytona355 said:

Whilst I have no idea why some seek to disparage just about anyone on here, and whether or not someone took advantage of some rules in his teenage years, let's get something straight. The insurers want the person with majority access to a vehicle to be the main, or first named, insured, as that's the details upon which the risk is assessed. They actually don't need it to be the owner or registered keeper, some do charge higher premiums for the perceived risk of such arrangements of course. Therefore, yes, if a youngster has a car, but it is insured by mum or dad first, technically it is fronting if mum or dad are not the main driver. It must also be kept at the address of the main driver, or can be kept at a proxy address but if this is the case, again, the risk is assessed using those details (Ie, if you haven't got a garage, but state you are using one to reduce premiums, good luck trying to make a claim if an adjuster comes out, because the lack of garage would invalidate the claim.

However, whether that was the case years ago for this chap is irrelevant, who cares?, self righteous, holier than though comments will come back one day to bite you on the ass.

As long as you are happy to pay increased premiums then thats fine.

Insurance is a pot of money pooled to pay out for accidents. If a high risk (and high cost) group decide not to fund their risk, then the rest of us have to pay for it.

I don't think I should be paying for it.

I'm sure they asked for the main driver 17 years ago as thats when we first stared insuring my partner as the main driver of my car, with me named (I had just started a new job with a company car)

[Variomatic]

Magic919 said:

In 1981 we were asking who the main driver was. It wasn't a new thing at that time.

A bit like the various conditions imposed (or not) on DOc cover, some did and some didn't because the industry as a whole was far less coordinated. My "any car / any driver" policy cost a bit (not a whole lot) more than some at the time but, as a student who was changing cars and getting one of his sober mates to drive home from parties on occasions, or share trips to Alton Towers, or borrow the "hall car" to shift stuff, it was worth it.

They only really started having exactly the same questions across the board when comparison sites started to appear.

[daytona355]

98elise said:

As long as you are happy to pay increased premiums then thats fine.

Insurance is a pot of money pooled to pay out for accidents. If a high risk (and high cost) group decide not to fund their risk, then the rest of us have to pay for it.

I don't think I should be paying for it.

I'm sure they asked for the main driver 17 years ago as thats when we first stared insuring my partner as the main driver of my car, with me named (I had just started a new job with a company car)

You are exactly right, as was I. the point is that 'twig' was having a pop at the chap about how he may or may not have insured a car almost 20 years ago, when the guy is asking what he should be doing to get it right today having decided to put a car back on the road after a number of years........ The past is the past, it is irrelevant. If something was wrong back then, and there was a claim, it's was a risk, but what has that got to do with insuring him now?

I remember my first car - 1986, a Granada 3.0 Ghia, cost £108 per annum fully comprehensive the day I passed my test! Can you imagine, these days, I'd probably no be able to consider the car! When my Mrs was 19, I paid £2400 or thereabouts for fully comp on a 120i cabriolet, a pretty, yet gutless car compared to others. She still pays almost £1000 a year at the grand old age of 26 for her X5 3 litre diesel

[Variomatic]

daytona355 said:

[...]

I remember my first car - 1986, a Granada 3.0 Ghia, cost £108 per annum fully comprehensive the day I passed my test! Can you imagine, these days, I'd probably no be able to consider the car! When my Mrs was 19, I paid £2400 or thereabouts for fully comp on a 120i cabriolet, a pretty, yet gutless car compared to others. She still pays almost £1000 a year at the grand old age of 26 for her X5 3 litre diesel

Weakest "I'm a cradle snatcher" post ever

But totally agree about the insurance (and you lucky lucky barsteward)

[TwigtheWonderkid]

daytona355 said:

You are exactly right, as was I. the point is that 'twig' was having a pop at the chap about how he may or may not have insured a car almost 20 years ago, when the guy is asking what he should be doing to get it right today having decided to put a car back on the road after a number of years........ The past is the past, it is irrelevant.

Well why did he bring it up then, almost boasting about it! I was 33 20 years ago, and my premium would have been higher because he and others were paying less into the pot than they should have been paying. He got away with it and is now talking about it as if it was something to be proud of. If you lot were/are happy about being robbed, good for you. I find it a bit irritating.

[daytona355]

Is your life that empty that it matters? So what, are you annoyed now with your buildings and contents cover paying more because of floods in Somerset? Maybe they should never have bought houses down there without the expectation a flood will happen, unless they were prepared to pay for their own damage?

In 2004, I bought a plasma tv for £4500, for the euros, by 2005, HD was coming out, and my tv was now a big, pixelated picture frame. I can't remember writing in disgust to Panasonic demanding an upgrade! Life happens, enjoy the good stuff and shut out the bad

[TwigtheWonderkid]

daytona355 said:

Is your life that empty that it matters? So what, are you annoyed now with your buildings and contents cover paying more because of floods in Somerset?

Explain to me where the fraud is. Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I'm not seeing it.

[daytona355]

There is no proven fraud in your original post, just surmise, anger and jealousy. Get a life bud, it's too short

[TwigtheWonderkid]

daytona355 said:

There is no proven fraud in your original post, just surmise, anger and jealousy. Get a life bud, it's too short

OP said:

The full story is that I got it 17 years ago, at the age of 20, and stuck it in my dads name for cheaper insurance

No, you're right, apart from the confession of fraud, there's no proven fraud at all.

[daytona355]

He hasn't said nearly enough to be an admission of anything, grow up

[HotJambalaya]

There's no point mate, don't waste your breath at all. He's show himself as the sort of person with an immense chip on his shoulder for some reason or another. The very fact that he can read "boasting about it" into my original comment says it all really when all I had was a simple question then a simple attempt to clarify the situation.

I don't recal mentioning anywhere who would be driving X% of the time here. His argument of "reducing the pot of money available to all" is also hillarious, having never at any point made a claim I'd rather consider my insurance contributions to have increased the pool of money available! So yes, while I consider it my car even though it's in my dads name (in just the same way as I considered it my bedroom in my dads house when I was growing up) it was in his name.

It's not worth sinking to the level of some of the miserable so and so's here since they just drag you down to their foolish level and then beat you with experience.

Anyway, long story short I'll be keeping the V5 in his name now and just insuring me sole driver and not registered keeper, confirming that no other policy is in place on the car.

Sheesh.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

HotJambalaya said:

His argument of "reducing the pot of money available to all" is also hillarious, having never at any point made a claim I'd rather consider my insurance contributions to have increased the pool of money available!

So 20 yrs of driving and you don't understand the principles of insurance. You think that a 17 y/old with a Ferrari who tells his insurance co he's 57 with a Fiesta, in not short paying into the pool so long as he doesn't have a claim.

[JacquesMesrine]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So 20 yrs of driving and you don't understand the principles of insurance. You think that a 17 y/old with a Ferrari who tells his insurance co he's 57 with a Fiesta, in not short paying into the pool so long as he doesn't have a claim.

Now you've done it, you've said "Ferrari". Uh oh.

[daytona355]

HotJambalaya said:

There's no point mate, don't waste your breath at all. He's show himself as the sort of person with an immense chip on his shoulder for some reason or another. The very fact that he can read "boasting about it" into my original comment says it all really when all I had was a simple question then a simple attempt to clarify the situation.

I don't recal mentioning anywhere who would be driving X% of the time here. His argument of "reducing the pot of money available to all" is also hillarious, having never at any point made a claim I'd rather consider my insurance contributions to have increased the pool of money available! So yes, while I consider it my car even though it's in my dads name (in just the same way as I considered it my bedroom in my dads house when I was growing up) it was in his name.

It's not worth sinking to the level of some of the miserable so and so's here since they just drag you down to their foolish level and then beat you with experience.

Anyway, long story short I'll be keeping the V5 in his name now and just insuring me sole driver and not registered keeper, confirming that no other policy is in place on the car.

Sheesh.

They are very touchy aren't they? Hahaha, they argue for the sake of it, fools