Can I drive any car with fully comp insurance?
Discussion
ferrariF50lover said:
All this b
ks is one of the reasons we should insure the driver, not the car.
Oooh, you can drive your own car and any other brown cars, except on the third Tuesday of the month if your birthday is an odd day of the week or your socks are either unmatching or a cotton/nylon blend but you can't drive a 1.6 if your name contains any of the letters of the word toad or if your wife's second cousin lives in a bungalow.
Nonsense.
Agreed, and the consequences of cocking it up can be quite severe (eg. six points). Every other country in Europe (including those that aren't actually in the EU eg Switzerland) appear to have much more straightforward systems. So much of the UK market appears to be nasty little money making schemes or just plain scams eg. foreign use, no claims bonus, ncb "protection" etc etc ks is one of the reasons we should insure the driver, not the car.Oooh, you can drive your own car and any other brown cars, except on the third Tuesday of the month if your birthday is an odd day of the week or your socks are either unmatching or a cotton/nylon blend but you can't drive a 1.6 if your name contains any of the letters of the word toad or if your wife's second cousin lives in a bungalow.
Nonsense.
ferrariF50lover said:
All this bks is one of the reasons we should insure the driver, not the car.
Oooh, you can drive your own car and any other brown cars, except on the third Tuesday of the month if your birthday is an odd day of the week or your socks are either unmatching or a cotton/nylon blend but you can't drive a 1.6 if your name contains any of the letters of the word toad or if your wife's second cousin lives in a bungalow.
Nonsense.
So my wife and I would need 2 policies to drive our car, or 4 if I want my two sons to drive. fks is one of the reasons we should insure the driver, not the car.Oooh, you can drive your own car and any other brown cars, except on the third Tuesday of the month if your birthday is an odd day of the week or your socks are either unmatching or a cotton/nylon blend but you can't drive a 1.6 if your name contains any of the letters of the word toad or if your wife's second cousin lives in a bungalow.
Nonsense.
k that for a game of soldiers. All that extra admin, plus the cost. Stupid idea. I'd be interested to understand more about why people believe this is fraud and/or illegal. Who is being defrauded?
1. The father's insurance company? Well the father isn't making any false declarations if he does legally own the car (and as far as this policy goes, he is the main driver, so long as he does drive it at least occasionally.) Their liability exposure is nil when the son is driving, I can't see how this could ever come back to bite anyone.
2. Not the OP's insurance company either, so long as the contract doesn't actually say anything about "emergency cover" - and I have never seen anything like that written on any of my DWC documentation.
It's definitely not intelligent, but only because the OP is leaving himself open to destroying his car, (and also, he might drive like an idiot and kill someone.)
I did exactly this when I was in my early 20s with an MR2. I called my insurance company and specifically asked if they were happy for me to regularly drive the MR2. They said it was fine, but just reminded me I wouldn't be covered for my own losses.
Was it intelligent? Possibly not, but then I didn't drive like a tit. Was it fraud? Not in any way that I can see...
Also, as I understand it, this is not "fronting". Fronting is being dishonest about who is the main driver.
1. The father's insurance company? Well the father isn't making any false declarations if he does legally own the car (and as far as this policy goes, he is the main driver, so long as he does drive it at least occasionally.) Their liability exposure is nil when the son is driving, I can't see how this could ever come back to bite anyone.
2. Not the OP's insurance company either, so long as the contract doesn't actually say anything about "emergency cover" - and I have never seen anything like that written on any of my DWC documentation.
It's definitely not intelligent, but only because the OP is leaving himself open to destroying his car, (and also, he might drive like an idiot and kill someone.)
I did exactly this when I was in my early 20s with an MR2. I called my insurance company and specifically asked if they were happy for me to regularly drive the MR2. They said it was fine, but just reminded me I wouldn't be covered for my own losses.
Was it intelligent? Possibly not, but then I didn't drive like a tit. Was it fraud? Not in any way that I can see...
Also, as I understand it, this is not "fronting". Fronting is being dishonest about who is the main driver.
Edited by Bennet on Monday 15th January 12:56
Jonno02 said:
ensignia said:
Don't do this ffs.
Just delete your post and be done with it, before the sanctimonious horde arrives.
Sanctimonious? It's illegal, for christ sake.Just delete your post and be done with it, before the sanctimonious horde arrives.
So when they go out driving, they can't cope with being told to wait their turn (Give Way lines) or to stop (traffic lights, etc). Here we have an OP seemingly telling us that he can afford to buy an M3 (he can't, he can afford to service £25k worth of debt in reality), but he doesn't fancy the insurance bill that goes with it.
Either he can afford £4k to insure the car based on his risk profile, in which case he should just buy the damned thing and pay the insurance premium, or he can't afford to insure this, or any other M3, and he should work out what he can afford to insure before he decides which car to buy.
FFS, at the age of 22 I bought my first car. It was a clapped-out 12 year-old Cortina 1.6L and it's main purpose was to get me a year's no claims before I went out and bought something ever so slightly nicer after a year. 'Hot' hatches and 'performance' coupes were a pipe-dream for me at that age.
My message to the OP? Either get wealthy, or get real. Your "plan" is illegal and could potentially land you in a LOT of trouble. No problem if you're a habitual criminal driving various "pool" cars without tax and insurance, but harder to shrug off if it ends up with your car being seized and auctioned/crushed, leaving you with no car and £25k of finance to pay off. It might sound harsh, but if you can't afford the insurance, then you can't really afford the car.
Bennet said:
I'd be interested to understand more about why people believe this is fraud and/or illegal. Who is being defrauded?
1. The father's insurance company? Well the father isn't making any false declarations if he does legally own the car (and as far as this policy goes, he is the main driver, so long as he does drive it at least occasionally.) Their liability exposure is nil when the son is driving, I can't see how this could ever come back to bite anyone.
2. Not the OP's insurance company either, so long as the contract doesn't actually say anything about "emergency cover" - and I have never seen anything like that written on any of my DWC documentation.
It's definitely not intelligent, but only because the OP is leaving himself open to destroying his car, (and also, he might drive like an idiot and kill someone.)
I did exactly this when I was in my early 20s with an MR2. I called my insurance company and specifically asked if they were happy for me to regularly drive the MR2. They said it was fine, but just reminded me I wouldn't be covered for my own losses.
Was it intelligent? Possibly not, but then I didn't drive like a tit. Was it fraud? Not in any way that I can see...
Also, as I understand it, this is not "fronting". Fronting is being dishonest about who is the main driver.
Interesting.1. The father's insurance company? Well the father isn't making any false declarations if he does legally own the car (and as far as this policy goes, he is the main driver, so long as he does drive it at least occasionally.) Their liability exposure is nil when the son is driving, I can't see how this could ever come back to bite anyone.
2. Not the OP's insurance company either, so long as the contract doesn't actually say anything about "emergency cover" - and I have never seen anything like that written on any of my DWC documentation.
It's definitely not intelligent, but only because the OP is leaving himself open to destroying his car, (and also, he might drive like an idiot and kill someone.)
I did exactly this when I was in my early 20s with an MR2. I called my insurance company and specifically asked if they were happy for me to regularly drive the MR2. They said it was fine, but just reminded me I wouldn't be covered for my own losses.
Was it intelligent? Possibly not, but then I didn't drive like a tit. Was it fraud? Not in any way that I can see...
Also, as I understand it, this is not "fronting". Fronting is being dishonest about who is the main driver.
Edited by Bennet on Monday 15th January 12:56
You are right, it's not fronting. No problem with client's dad's policy on the car either. No risk to his insurer.
But the OP will be taking out a policy on a cheap low group car, in order to use the DOC extension to drive a high performance car which, although may not be legally his, is mainly for his use.
That's a material fact that should be disclosed to the insurer of the cheapo car, who then wouldn't give DOC cover if they knew. Seems like insurance fraud to me. He's with holding information in order to get a policy that they wouldn't otherwise give him, and the intention behind it is to avoid paying the correct price for the risk.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's a material fact that should be disclosed to the insurer of the cheapo car, who then wouldn't give DOC cover if they knew. Seems like insurance fraud to me. He's with holding information in order to get a policy that they wouldn't otherwise give him, and the intention behind it is to avoid paying the correct price for the risk.
"IANAL" - as they say.I always assumed that the ability for people to take DWC to extremes was part of the risk baked in to the price.
The risk from their point of view is low because there aren't many drivers out there who can afford the car, but not the insurance, and are willing to risk going uninsured for their own losses in a high value car.
I don't remember any part of any insurance declaration I've ever signed including anything where I certify I'm not taking the policy out with the intention of making more use of the DWC clause than I am of the primary vehicle.
But you could also be absolutely right.
Bennet said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's a material fact that should be disclosed to the insurer of the cheapo car, who then wouldn't give DOC cover if they knew. Seems like insurance fraud to me. He's with holding information in order to get a policy that they wouldn't otherwise give him, and the intention behind it is to avoid paying the correct price for the risk.
"IANAL" - as they say.I always assumed that the ability for people to take DWC to extremes was part of the risk baked in to the price.
The risk from their point of view is low because there aren't many drivers out there who can afford the car, but not the insurance, and are willing to risk going uninsured for their own losses in a high value car.
I don't remember any part of any insurance declaration I've ever signed including anything where I certify I'm not taking the policy out with the intention of making more use of the DWC clause than I am of the primary vehicle.
But you could also be absolutely right.
I still think that in a case like this, deliberately arranging two policies in a way to allow you to drive a high performance car (even tpo cover) without paying the right price, would be fraud. But I wouldn't stake my life on it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And so could you, it's a very grey area. There used to be very clear rules about disclosure of a material fact, and that if you had info they you suspected would influence the insurer's attitude to the risk, you were duty bound to disclose it, even if they didn't specifically ask. But that's been diluted over the years with legislation favouring the consumer over the insurer.
I still think that in a case like this, deliberately arranging two policies in a way to allow you to drive a high performance car (even tpo cover) without paying the right price, would be fraud. But I wouldn't stake my life on it.
It could be seen as misrepresentation which may allow the FC insurer to void from inception however they wouldn't be on for the claim if the OP was driving DOC, the insurer for the smart car offering DOC would be on for the TP costs and the insured would left with a damaged M3.I still think that in a case like this, deliberately arranging two policies in a way to allow you to drive a high performance car (even tpo cover) without paying the right price, would be fraud. But I wouldn't stake my life on it.
Depending on the value of the claim they may investigate further, the outcome of which is unknown.
What I find is persons willing to a bit "shifty" during inception of the policy tend to be just as so during the claims process, one would not be surprised in the event of an accident and given the right opportunity the PH father was all of a sudden the driver of the M3 and not the OP.
I merely use the OP as an example in that scenario with no evidence to suggest he would of course do that.
ZOLLAR said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And so could you, it's a very grey area. There used to be very clear rules about disclosure of a material fact, and that if you had info they you suspected would influence the insurer's attitude to the risk, you were duty bound to disclose it, even if they didn't specifically ask. But that's been diluted over the years with legislation favouring the consumer over the insurer.
I still think that in a case like this, deliberately arranging two policies in a way to allow you to drive a high performance car (even tpo cover) without paying the right price, would be fraud. But I wouldn't stake my life on it.
It could be seen as misrepresentation which may allow the FC insurer to void from inception however they wouldn't be on for the claim if the OP was driving DOC, the insurer for the smart car offering DOC would be on for the TP costs and the insured would left with a damaged M3.I still think that in a case like this, deliberately arranging two policies in a way to allow you to drive a high performance car (even tpo cover) without paying the right price, would be fraud. But I wouldn't stake my life on it.
Depending on the value of the claim they may investigate further, the outcome of which is unknown.
What I find is persons willing to a bit "shifty" during inception of the policy tend to be just as so during the claims process, one would not be surprised in the event of an accident and given the right opportunity the PH father was all of a sudden the driver of the M3 and not the OP.
I merely use the OP as an example in that scenario with no evidence to suggest he would of course do that.
48k said:
Bit early for half term isn't it? 
people do this though.I know a couple who tried it when we were all our early 20's, they got caught because the police pull over young people in nice cars and delve a little deeper than they might if it was someone older + you will probably be driving it pretty quickly
WCZ said:
48k said:
Bit early for half term isn't it?
people do this though.I know a couple who tried it when we were all our early 20's, they got caught because the police pull over young people in nice cars and delve a little deeper than they might if it was someone older + you will probably be driving it pretty quickly
WCZ said:
48k said:
Bit early for half term isn't it?
people do this though.I know a couple who tried it when we were all our early 20's, they got caught because the police pull over young people in nice cars and delve a little deeper than they might if it was someone older + you will probably be driving it pretty quickly
Granted their decision may well be overturned in court or the matter dropped but probably really not worth the hassle.
Toaster Pilot said:
Isn’t exactly this kind of behaviour the reason why DOC is a) rarely available to under 25s and b) being more and more restricted by some insurers?
Pretty much, ballache is an understatement.It can be an incredibly useful benefit when used correctly and not abused however give and inch and they take a mile.
When we had a Family Fleet Policy we were ALL insured to drive any car fully comp up the £100k. We could drive cars whose value was more than £100k but they wouold only pay out £100k. It was a convenient policy - one payment - one renewal date for 8 cars, but expensive.
It's OK to bleat on about what would be ideal for you, but few people want to pay for it. Essentially you want the world on a stick and everyone else to pay for it.
Dog Star said:
ferrariF50lover said:
All this bks is one of the reasons we should insure the driver, not the car.
Oooh, you can drive your own car and any other brown cars, except on the third Tuesday of the month if your birthday is an odd day of the week or your socks are either unmatching or a cotton/nylon blend but you can't drive a 1.6 if your name contains any of the letters of the word toad or if your wife's second cousin lives in a bungalow.
Nonsense.
Agreed, and the consequences of cocking it up can be quite severe (eg. six points). Every other country in Europe (including those that aren't actually in the EU eg Switzerland) appear to have much more straightforward systems. So much of the UK market appears to be nasty little money making schemes or just plain scams eg. foreign use, no claims bonus, ncb "protection" etc etc ks is one of the reasons we should insure the driver, not the car.Oooh, you can drive your own car and any other brown cars, except on the third Tuesday of the month if your birthday is an odd day of the week or your socks are either unmatching or a cotton/nylon blend but you can't drive a 1.6 if your name contains any of the letters of the word toad or if your wife's second cousin lives in a bungalow.
Nonsense.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff