Can I drive any car with fully comp insurance?
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You couldn't have been the only one driving down the lane. How many others came to grief?
You do seem to like arguing for no obvious gain 
I was unavailable to conduct a traffic survey, that day but it was a country lane in the middle of nowhere in North Wales, possibly carrying as many as 2 or 3 cars a week. Obviously, there is little point in considering just this one lane, you would need to consider every other lane to achieve statistical significance but I imagine collisions in lanes are probably not uncommon.
You will be pleased to know that, despite my massive inability to pilot a car and enormous risk to life and limb, I accidentally passed through that lane, successfully, twice a day, without incident, over a 3 year period, despite being a shiftless and inattentive student, bar this one day.... early morning... in 1979 (from memory).....when the water ran off the fields... on a downhill gradient .... in a Vauxhall Viva ... big Transit suddenly appeared....he obviously came to grief having slowed and stopped from his terminal velocity of 2mph, as he was pointing uphill and weighed several tons. Had I been in the Transit, so would I, even though, statistically, I should have been travelling at light speed and ought to have hit several outlying farms, various agricultural machinery, two cows and a henhouse, which underlines how wrong statistics can be....
As it was, I was insured by a Mr Wile E. Coyote and Acme Insurance sorted out his Transit.
I think things need to get back on track. Firstly, fully comp does not automatically allow you to drive other cars, nowadays it's an add-on. I had it for a few years as part of the policy then one year noticed it was absent. Depends on the insurer, though. I'm with esure and it's automatic, it wasn't with LV. Paid extra £20 for driving other cars with LV.
WRT the op, you would need driving other cars as an add-on to the policy. If your dad is the named driver, it means the car will need its own policy, so in effect you're paying 2 policies.
You will be third party only. Not worth the risk.
Plus echo what others have said re: fronting. I knew a lot of people who did it, they simply thought it was being clever. I paid my own car insurance and it was not a pleasant feeling knowing I was being honest and yet they all got to drive nicer cars on PCP and lower insurance costs. Until the wonderful day one (now ex) friend had a minor collision. Insurers discovered they were fronting, declared the policy void and pursued them for the costs awarded to the third party; meanwhile the car (on a PCP) was seized by the fuzz and crushed.
Apparently, I was "a heartless b
d" for laughing so hard a little bit of wee came out.
OP - if you want to do this, go ahead. It's illegal, and if you get stopped and the fuzz find out, your car will be crushed for no insurance. You won't get a payout and will still have to pay the PCP monthly car credit until you can afford the balloon payment on what is essentially a pile of coke cans.
Final point, as the vehicle will effectively only be third party, in itself you can be the worlds best driver and not have a fault collision. But you park down a side street to grab a kebab at 1am and get sideswiped by a van that doesn't stop. Or T-boned by an uninsured driver. Or stolen car. 3rd party cover won't pay out for those.
Spend the money on what is evidently much needed phalloplasty.
WRT the op, you would need driving other cars as an add-on to the policy. If your dad is the named driver, it means the car will need its own policy, so in effect you're paying 2 policies.
You will be third party only. Not worth the risk.
Plus echo what others have said re: fronting. I knew a lot of people who did it, they simply thought it was being clever. I paid my own car insurance and it was not a pleasant feeling knowing I was being honest and yet they all got to drive nicer cars on PCP and lower insurance costs. Until the wonderful day one (now ex) friend had a minor collision. Insurers discovered they were fronting, declared the policy void and pursued them for the costs awarded to the third party; meanwhile the car (on a PCP) was seized by the fuzz and crushed.
Apparently, I was "a heartless b
d" for laughing so hard a little bit of wee came out.OP - if you want to do this, go ahead. It's illegal, and if you get stopped and the fuzz find out, your car will be crushed for no insurance. You won't get a payout and will still have to pay the PCP monthly car credit until you can afford the balloon payment on what is essentially a pile of coke cans.
Final point, as the vehicle will effectively only be third party, in itself you can be the worlds best driver and not have a fault collision. But you park down a side street to grab a kebab at 1am and get sideswiped by a van that doesn't stop. Or T-boned by an uninsured driver. Or stolen car. 3rd party cover won't pay out for those.
Spend the money on what is evidently much needed phalloplasty.
think for those policies that do give cover for other cars its third party only so the bod you are borrowing the car off must be trusting because if you prang it into somebody else the cover will repair their damage but not the damage youve caused to your mates car. he wont be happy. i think that would be down to a named driver endorsement to get the full cover
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.
Also, as I understand it, this is not "fronting". Fronting is being dishonest about who is the main driver.
What a load of cr*p - you say the father isn't making any false declarations if he owns the car and says he is the main driver "so long as he does drive it at least occasionally" - there is a world of difference between being the main driver and "he does drive it at least occasionally". 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.
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
It isn't fronting (do you even know what that means in the general insurance industry)?
What you are suggesting is potentially illegal!
General Insurance in the UK works on the basis of the legal doctrine of "uberrima fides" so there is an onus on the potential policyholder to disclose all or any information that may affect the judgement of the insurer, and I'm sure there isn't going to be an insurer rushing to a sh*tfest/cl*sterf
k mess like this any time soon! Edited by Mr Tidy on Wednesday 17th January 01:43
Mr Tidy said:
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.
Also, as I understand it, this is not "fronting". Fronting is being dishonest about who is the main driver.
What a load of cr*p - you say the father isn't making any false declarations if he owns the car and says he is the main driver "so long as he does drive it at least occasionally" - there is a world of difference between being the main driver and "he does drive it at least occasionally". 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.
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
It isn't fronting (do you even know what that means in the general insurance industry)?
What you are suggesting is potentially illegal!
General Insurance in the UK works on the basis of the legal doctrine of "uberrima fides" so there is an onus on the potential policyholder to disclose all or any information that may affect the judgement of the insurer, and I'm sure there isn't going to be an insurer rushing to a sh*tfest/cl*sterf
k mess like this any time soon! Edited by Mr Tidy on Wednesday 17th January 01:43
The dad will have his own policy on the M3 (which he will own and have in his name) and that policy will be for the dad only. So occasional user/main user isn't relevant, as he's the only driver on the policy.
Son will insure a low cost low group car, for himself only, and drive dad's M3 on his doc cover. He will drive the M3 more than his dad, because it's actually his car in reality, but not legally.
It isn't fronting. Fronting is when the young additional driver on the policy who is declared as an occasional driver, is the main driver. Tottaly different thing.
Also, you are out of date re utmost good faith and disclosure of info not specifically asked for by insurers. See my earlier post replying to Bennett.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
popeyewhite said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Spot on. Most people aren't into cars. They are 40+, with a 1.4 eurobox, paying £200 or less for husband and wife cover.
Average cost of FC motor insurance is £485 according to the ABI. One wonders what decade you're living in.An insurance company will insure me to drive 2 tons of metal all day and night for that. If I do anything wrong they will shell out many thousands of pounds to put things right.
Sounds like a bargain.
98elise said:
£485 still sounds like a bargain. I'm currently sat in a coffee house. The a paper cup of flavoured water has cost me £2.
An insurance company will insure me to drive 2 tons of metal all day and night for that. If I do anything wrong they will shell out many thousands of pounds to put things right.
Sounds like a bargain.
Agreed.An insurance company will insure me to drive 2 tons of metal all day and night for that. If I do anything wrong they will shell out many thousands of pounds to put things right.
Sounds like a bargain.
And let's not forget that £485 is only £440 to the insurer. Out of that, they have to pay their admin costs, their marketing costs, the running costs of their business and... yes... their profit (and tax on it).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff