Give me one good reason...

[JohnMR]

Chrisw666 said:

Tell you what, go and commit fraud to save a few £s and let us know how it turns out.

Cock.

It isn't fraud. What are you talking about!

Answer my question.

I have a car. A relation is the named driver, and for all intents and purposes I drive it 'now and again'.

I'm insured, as I'm a named driver and insurance wouldn't be able to prove otherwise, ever. Would they? No.

Thanks

[anonymous-user]

JohnMR said:

a more experienced driver is driving the car more often

Do you lot ever read? This isn't fronting.

Someone mentions fronting on PH and I swear a select group of people actually get excited because they get to have a good old moan about something else today.

Edited by MSTRBKR on Wednesday 20th July 22:31

[JohnMR]

MSTRBKR said:

Do lot ever read? This isn't fronting.

Someone mentions fronting on PH and I swear a select group of people actually get excited because they get to have a good old moan about something else today.

It's being a named driver and for all intents and purposes 'sharing a car'. I don't see what is remotely illegal about that at all.

[johnnyBv8]

MSTRBKR said:

Do lot ever read? This isn't fronting.

Someone mentions fronting on PH and I swear a select group of people actually get excited because they get to have a good old moan about something else today.

I don't understand your post; presumably you've missed a word or two out. If you're suggesting the OP isn't describing fronting, then you need to read the thread properly. If I've guessed your missing word incorrectly, then apologies!

[anonymous-user]

Deleted.

Edited by MSTRBKR on Wednesday 20th July 22:40

[anonymous-user]

johnnyBv8 said:

I don't understand your post; presumably you've missed a word or two out. If you're suggesting the OP isn't describing fronting, then you need to read the thread properly. If I've guessed your missing word incorrectly, then apologies!

His first post suggested he was fronting, but the bit I quoted suggested he was going to drive it less than the main driver.

[johnnyBv8]

MSTRBKR said:

His first post suggested he was fronting, but the bit I quoted suggested he was going to drive it less than the main driver.

Er, that's because you quoted it out of context. He said "Theoretically..."

Edited by johnnyBv8 on Wednesday 20th July 22:34

[pops and bangs]

With car insurance I take the approach to be 100% honest so they do not have any reason not to pay out.

In a real big claim there are ways to find out.

If someone is insured to drive it now and again, and they cause a big crash it wouldn't be uncommon for them to investigate further.

If say your son or whoever crashes, and they find out he was on his way to work 20 miles away, and his work place has cctv in the car park, they could possibly check the cctv and see him parking up everyday....

It's a risk some people are willing to take, as "it'll never happen to me" or so people think, and it might not.

The same way someone who has a few drinks, won't get pulled over, or the sameway you won't get caught speeding, or crash, or the assessor won't find those modifications you haven't declared etc etc......

And anyway as far as I know insurance companies have caught on to it, if Bob who is 110 years old with 80 years no claims adds little bob who is 17 years old as a named driver they work out the premium based on the highest risk....

Edited by pops and bangs on Wednesday 20th July 22:44

[anonymous-user]

johnnyBv8 said:

Er, that's because you quoted it out of context. He said "Theoretically..."

You mean "in theory"?

I don't think so. He used "in theory" in response to Y282's question below. He used it to say that cheaper insurance can be be had because the more experienced driver is using the car more often.

Pretty sure the OP knows that the more experienced driver has to drive it more often, but I'm unsure of whether he intends to do it that way or not.

ETA: I took it out of context to make my point more obvious.

ETA2: Oh wait, now I see it can be read the way you say. My mistake, perhaps he really is planning to front.

JohnMR said:

Y282 said:

rather, ask yourself why fronting makes your insurance much cheaper.

Because in theory, a more experienced driver is driving the car more often, so there's (in insurance terms) less chance of an accident?

Edited by MSTRBKR on Wednesday 20th July 22:39

[Chrisw666]

JohnMR said:

It isn't fraud. What are you talking about!

Answer my question.

I have a car. A relation is the named driver, and for all intents and purposes I drive it 'now and again'.

I'm insured, as I'm a named driver and insurance wouldn't be able to prove otherwise, ever. Would they? No.

Thanks

Still the actions of an utter flap but if saving a few quid and breaking the law makes you happy go ahead being an utter flap.

Alternatively grow up and go and troll somewhere else you tt.

[B3njamin]

JohnMR said:

It isn't fraud. What are you talking about!

Answer my question.

I have a car. A relation is the named driver, and for all intents and purposes I drive it 'now and again'.

I'm insured, as I'm a named driver and insurance wouldn't be able to prove otherwise, ever. Would they? No.

Thanks

It is fraud if you are the one driving it the most. Assuming the other person drives it the most and you only drive it 'now and again' then no fraud; the fact it may well go undetected makes it no less fraudulent.

As for whether they'd be able to prove it, don't be so hasty in assuming you are invulnerable. An acquaintance crashed their car and the insurance company inquired with the named main driver as to how often they used it. The main named driver not wanting to lie told the truth and said that they knew the driver but had never driven said vehicle. The fronting driver was then in a bit of a rubbish situation although fortunately the insurance company must have taken pity since they only insisted on the difference in premium being settled - which came to £900 that they had to find pretty sharpish. Everything worked out in the end and as you will have grasped, you stand a fair chance of not being caught, however the consequences can be harsh and you'd have to carefully weigh up whether it's worth it.

[johnnyBv8]

MSTRBKR said:

johnnyBv8 said:

Er, that's because you quoted it out of context. He said "Theoretically..."

You mean "in theory"?

Yes, sorry I meant 'in theory'. Doing it from my phone and thought I could remember the wording, or at least to the extent that people would know what I meant.

[Mr Sparkle]

Chrisw666 said:

JohnMR said:

Chrisw666 said:

You will be driving uninsured.

So a named driver isn't insured? What?!

Well the very fact that the main driver won't actually be the main driver is breaking the terms and conditions that the policy has been taken out under. So if you have an accident the insurer will refuse to pay out.

I think the insurer still has to payout to any third party that has lost something/been injured(?)

[pops and bangs]

Not sure why some people can't grasp what fronting is.

If Bob who is 60 years old tells the insurance that they themselves are the main driver when their 17 year old relative is the main driver to get cheaper insurance then that is fronting.

Whether the insurance can prove it or not does not detract from the fact it is fronting.

If I don't declare a modification because I will replace it with the oem part in a crash, It's still illegal.

And insurance companies will investigate things in certain situations....

[Chrisw666]

Mr Sparkle said:

I think the insurer still has to payout to any third party that has lost something/been injured(?)

That is true, but no payout will go to the uninsured driver and they can seek to recover their losses through the courts if they feel it appropriate.

[pops and bangs]

JohnMR said:

How would an insurer prove that? There is just no way they could.

Do you honestly think that?

If you end up causing a massive crash and kill someone, do you not think they might investigate it? It's not hard to get a few statements from people in your road, your work place etc as to whether you drive the car often.

Yes you can always get them to lie for you....But what about your nosey neighbour Sally who sees you drive your fiesta every morning at 8am to drive to work.....

Or what about your bank statement that shows you filling up £60 at shell every week?

Edited by pops and bangs on Wednesday 20th July 22:53

[Cub911]

I have decided to deploy the troll nemesis, bask in its glory.

[chrisispringles]

JohnMR said:

It isn't fraud. What are you talking about!

Answer my question.

I have a car. A relation is the named driver, and for all intents and purposes I drive it 'now and again'.

I'm insured, as I'm a named driver and insurance wouldn't be able to prove otherwise, ever. Would they? No.

Thanks

They could prove otherwise:

If your relative has a car of their own, then the chances are they have little insurable interest in the car that you are a named driver on.

If the car was bought around the time you passed your test then that suggests that the car was bought for your use and not your relative's.

They can ask to see CCTV footage from your school or workplace or ask how you get there, if they say that you drive in then you are driving the car more often than the relative, so you are almost definitely fronting the insurance.

I'm 17 and by no way an expert in the insurance industry, yet I could prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were fronting, so think what a team of specialists could manage.

[pacman1]

JohnMR said:

Because in theory, a more experienced driver is driving the car more often, so there's (in insurance terms) less chance of an accident?

Experience can work both ways. If you tell your insurance company you drive for a living, your premium will increase since they think that the more miles you cover, the more likely the odds are of you having an accident.

Here's another..
My insurance is cheaper because I still have my ex on the policy as a named driver, even though whilst together and using the same insurance company, she rear ended someone and on another occasion was in charge of my car when it was stolen!

[pops and bangs]

pacman1 said:

Experience can work both ways. If you tell your insurance company you drive for a living, your premium will increase since they think that the more miles you cover, the more likely the odds are of you having an accident.

Here's another..
My insurance is cheaper because I still have my ex on the policy as a named driver, even though whilst together and using the same insurance company, she rear ended someone and on another occasion was in charge of my car when it was stolen!

It's fine, we had another member the other day explaining how someone didn't declare points for cheaper insurance, but it was ok because those points didn't relate to the claim.

These people will always justify their actions to themselves, they have a different frame of mind, to "normal" people.....