Yes, Own car, own insurance.
In effect then its the insurance group and a very cheap car on Third party fire and theft to build up a no claims discount.
Well. thats how my generation did it.
I have noticed a difference in my nephews generation, a sort of `grasping` " I want it and I want it now"
( a nearly new car and thousands for the insurance)
|
The likes of confused or moneysupermarket do not cover all the companies who wil insure young drivers so suggest you try the following who give decent discounts for having the pass plus certificate :-
quinn direct
ecarinsurance
|
What I don't want to do is have him as a named driver on my policy and risk my NCB
That wouldn't normally happen if his car has a separate policy - in fact you may find it difficult to get your NCB applied to the policy if you're still using it on another car.
|
Last year my son passed his test and we bought a '54 plate micra for me to use mainly, and him to use whenever he wanted. After lots of hours in searches we insured the car for £1,400 with me as main driver and him named via Swinton - most companies now seem to allow named drivers to build a no claims discount. This was the cheapest option at that time as I had used my NCB on a larger car.
This January, just as he was about to get his first year no claims, he managed to skid off the road into a large ditch and did £2,942 worth of damage to the car - fortunately he and his passenger were unscathed - one good reason to make sure your son has a safe car, This had no effect on my no claims as it was not my accident.
We are now are now about to re-insure the car the original company, not surprisingly, now want £2,200 to insure it. Yesterday I found Admiral will insure it for £1,030 in sons name with me as a named driver, but £1,350 in mine with him as named driver. Am I going to be the only parent in the country whose son is fronting the insurance for her?
Additionally, if I subsequently also insure my X-trail with them, it will only be another £120 for next year (I pay about £300 now).
|
|
|
That wouldn't normally happen if his car has a separate policy ..
bill payer:
so assume the parent has his own car plus ncb. the 2nd car is insured in its own right in parent's name with son as named driver, and has no ncb.
now supposing son prangs the car, and a claim is made (comprehensive or 3rd party is immaterial).
so dad's 1st insurance company has to be told of the claim as a material fact. therefore dad finds his loading and hence premium goes up on 1st car even though ncb may remain intact.
or have i got it wrong?
|
|
Have just found out that if you use your NCB on your main car, but are a named driver on another policy then some companies (ie Quinn) will allow you to use that as NCB on a second car - if that makes sense! ie if you are named on two policies you can claim NCB on two cars. Others will only count if the car you were named on was insured with them (ie Admiral). Hope that makes sense.
|
Have just found out that if you use your NCB on your main car, but are a named driver on another policy then some companies (ie Quinn) will allow you to use that as NCB on a second car - if that makes sense! ie if you are named on two policies you can claim NCB on two cars. Others will only count if the car you were named on was insured with them (ie Admiral).
Also, Direct Line make a feature out of allowing named drivers to build up their own no-claims (which I presume could then only be used to take out a Direct Line policy).
|
|
|
|
so dad's 1st insurance company has to be told of the claim as a material fact. therefore dad finds his loading and hence premium goes up on 1st car even though ncb may remain intact.
I don't believe that's correct. The 'any accidents or convictions' question is a personal one, relating to a specific driver, not relating to the policyholder. So in the situation you decribe, there would be no need for Dad to tell his 1st insurance company. This is all my opinion - you must decide for yourself.
I've told insurance company's things in the past, where I've been uncertain if they were relevant, and the person on the phone seems to make an instant (and confident) decision. So even if something did turn out to be relevant, they'd probably deny having been told!
|
|
|
|
|
|
">In effect then its the insurance group and a very cheap car on Third party fire and theft to build up a no claims discount.
Well. thats how my generation did it.<"
In my experience, TPFT is not much cheaper (if at all) than fully comp for a youngster. If cheap car = safe car then fine, but I couldn't take responsibility for placing a youngster in a standard cheapo car if safety is compromised, at least give them a chance in a crash. A few grand for some peace of mind is worth it. The Minis I used to drive as a teenager were death traps by modern standards, although the addition of a decent cage, seats and harnesses helped, but then the insurance goes through the roof.
"> I have noticed a difference in my nephews generation, a sort of `grasping` " I want it and I want it now"<"
Welcome to the capitalist world.
"> ( a nearly new car and thousands for the insurance)<"
I'm happy to pay 1k a year in depreciation knowing that my son has a better chance in crash because he is in a reasonably modern car. A mid 1960's Mini doesn't cost much less to insure than a modern group 1-3 car, insurance for 17 year olds is expensive full stop.
But of course, he really wants a RWD Escort with enormous power courtesy of Cosworth. Or a Mini with a 'bike engine in the boot.
|
but I couldn't take responsibility for placing a youngster in a standard cheapo car if safety is compromised,
Exactly my thoughts - we helped both our daughters buy new cars (their first cars at 21 though, not 18). I paid extra for side airbags on the Ibiza, and am terribly guilt-ridden about the Colt that we just bought only having 2 airbags - the Yaris my wife wanted to buy has 9 (T3 model). If Colt driving daughter changes job to one that isn't just across town then I'll feel compelled to change her car.
I once refused to drive a company car that didn't have ABS so why should my wife and kids use a car that hasn't got it?
Boys are invincible though, of course - I know I was!
|
So in the situation you decribe, there would be no need for Dad to tell his 1st insurance company. This is all my opinion - you must decide for yourself.
bill payer: i think it is not merely your "accidents and convictions" they want to know about, but also any claims you may have made. the following case does not exactly fit the hypothetical situation i described, but nevertheless is an interesting read:
www.onlinedmc.co.uk/drake_ins_v__provident_ins.htm
Drake Insurance Plc (in provisional liquidation) v Provident Insurance Plc
English Court of Appeal; Pill, Clarke and Rix LJJ. ; 17 December 2003
...
a car driven by Mrs Kaur was involved in an accident with a motorcycle. The motorcycle rider was seriously injured and claimed compensation. The car belonged to Mrs Kaur's husband, Dr Singh, who was insured by Provident Insurance. Mrs Kaur was a named driver under that policy, but she also owned a car of her own, insured by Drake Insurance. That policy indemnified her against liability to third parties when driving another vehicle with permission of the owner.
Dr Singh claimed under the Provident policy, but Provident avoided the policy for non-disclosure. Mrs Kaur made a claim under her own policy with Drake, who eventually paid up. Drake then claimed against Provident for a contribution on the grounds that Provident had no right to avoid the policy, and that, since both companies were liable to indemnify Mrs Kaur, this was a case of double insurance of the same risk. ....
|
The question is usually framed: "have you had any accidents or claims in the past five years?
This includes a claim your policy whether you were involved in the accident or not. There is no get-out; if you are the policyholder - it is your responsibilty and you will be penalised.
The convictions question is usually asked separately.
"Dr Singh claimed under the Provident policy, but Provident avoided the policy for non-disclosure."
Non- disclosure of what? This is crucial in understanding the decision.
|
This includes a claim your policy whether you were involved in the accident or not. There is no get-out; if you are the policyholder - it is your responsibilty and you will be penalised.
glad to hear that confirmation.
"Dr Singh claimed under the Provident policy, but Provident avoided the policy for non-disclosure." Non- disclosure of what? This is crucial in understanding the decision.
it is all there in the link i posted.
it is a bit of a diversion from the topic (although it covers the question of insurance of named driver on another policy), and in the event the non-disclosure in this case was ruled to be of no effect, but the main point i am making is that it is importnat to make disclosures of all convictions, ccidents, and claims, and to do it writing and to keep a copy.
|
>> This includes a claim your policy whether you were involved in the accident or not. There is no get-out; if you >> are the policyholder - it is your responsibilty and you will be penalised. glad to hear that confirmation.
With all due respect to Jemima Can, I wouldn't take anything I read in an Internet forum as confirmation of anything.
On the point about declaring a claim, I guess it's an issue of who makes the claim, the policyholder or the driver actually involved. I still think it's irrelevant if the policyholder wasn't the involved driver, but of course the right thing to do would be to declare it and let the insurance company decide.
|
"On the point about declaring a claim, I guess it's an issue of who makes the claim, the policyholder or the driver actually involved. I still think it's irrelevant if the policyholder wasn't the involved driver, but of course the right thing to do would be to declare it and let the insurance company decide."
The policyholder takes out a policy covering a driver the policyholder names, on a vehicle the policyholder chooses, for risks the policyholder decides to insure against.
How on earth is that irrelevant? The policyholder is the one who has entered the contract.
|
How on earth is that irrelevant? The policyholder is the one who has entered the contract.
So, when my wife an accident in 'her' car, but which is owned and insured in my name, why wouldn't the insurance company talk to me, only to her?
When I renewed the policy for 'my' car (insured with the same company) they'd already tied the accident to her name on the policy schedule.
If she wasn't listed as a driver for 'my' car then I don't see that there's any issue at all relevant to the insurance of 'my' car.
I have stressed that everyone should always do whatever they think is right.
|
Bill Payer
"So, when my wife an accident in 'her' car, but which is owned and insured in my name, why wouldn't the insurance company talk to me, only to her?
When I renewed the policy for 'my' car (insured with the same company) they'd already tied the accident to her name on the policy schedule.
If she wasn't listed as a driver for 'my' car then I don't see that there's any issue at all relevant to the insurance of 'my' car."
Without going into the finer details here, from what you say, both cars you refer to are owned and insured in your name. Your wife does not have 'her' car. You can refer to it as such but they are actually both your cars.
As policyholder - you - not your wife - you propose a 'set of risks' to an insurer and you ask them for a quote to cover that 'unique to you' set of risks.
If the risk that the insurance company takes on generates a claim, then the next time that - you - present that set of risks to the insurer again, the insurance company will be aware that your 'unique to you' 'set of risks' has caused a claim and are likely to quote you a higher premium.
If your wife seeks insurance in her own name, her record as a driver, would be reflected in her quote.
So, you are penalised as policyholder because the policy you have held has generated claims.
I'm guessing, but the Data Protection Act is probably why the insurance company wouldn't speak to you regarding your wife's data. I'm sure they would if she gave her written (or sometimes even verbal) consent.
|
If the risk that the insurance company takes on generates a claim, then the next time that - you - present that set of risks to the insurer again, the insurance company will be aware that your 'unique to you' 'set of risks' has caused a claim and are likely to quote you a higher premium.
Exactly - the risk is unique to me. It's irrelevant if another driver caused a claim on a different policy.
So, you are penalised as policyholder because the policy you have held has generated claims.
I don't believe that to be correct. Premiums are based on the car / drivers etc, not on the claim record of another driver who happened to be named on another policy that the policyholder holds.
|
"Exactly - the risk is unique to me. It's irrelevant if another driver caused a claim on a different policy."
You - added the other driver to - your - policy - You made them part of your risk.
Don't have them on your policy if you aren't pprepared to take the risk that they will cause a claim - simple as that.
">> So, you are penalised as policyholder because the policy you haveheld has generated claims.
I don't believe that to be correct. Premiums are based on the car / drivers etc, not on the claim record of another driver who happened to be named on another policy that the policyholder holds."
You may not agree with it, but I'm sure you do know - it is correct.
|
You - added the other driver to - your - policy - You made them part of your risk.
That's the bit that I think you're mis-understanding (or perhaps you're doing it on purpose?) - they only affect the risk on the policy they're on. They don't affect the risk on my other policies that they're not included on.
You may not agree with it, but I'm sure you do know - it is correct.
I know it's not correct. If I call an insurance and ask for a quote for me only to drive my car, but I mention that on my other policy I made a claim because my wife ran into the back of another car, they'll tell me it's irrelevant and won't even make a note of it.
If what you are saying was true, then it wouldn't be possible to have different levels of NCB - once I made a claim on one policy then it would affect my NCB on the other policy. Which of course it doesn't.
|
They won't tell you it's irrelevant. You, as policyholder, will have made a claim - that's relevant.
You will have to answer the question: Any accidents or claims in the last 5 years?
Your answer will have to be yes.
I think we're playing with semantics.
"That's the bit that I think you're mis-understanding (or perhaps you're doing it on purpose?) - they only affect the risk on the policy they're on. They don't affect the risk on my other policies that they're not included on."
I'm not mis-understanding you deliberately. You - as a policyholder - have a history of claiming. It doesn't matter whether you claimed on a different policy or whether you were driving - you still claimed on a policy where you were policyholder. If that seems unjust, you really only have the option to make your named drivers go and insure themselves - but - you - still have a claims history on your policyholding record.
To put it in the bluntest terms, you have had claims, and to an insurance company, the whys and wherefores don't really affect the issue to much: you are a 'known claimer': that's a valid reason to charge you more.
One could say that you as a policyholder are not a very good judge of risk because you took on the named driver and, because you are not a good judge of risk: there may be an argument for charging you more.
I'm not saying that is their reasoning; but it wouldn't be unreasonable if it was.
|
|
"Dr Singh claimed under the Provident policy, but Provident avoided the policy for non-disclosure." Non- disclosure of what? This is crucial in understanding the decision.
His speeding penalty was the main bone of contention - clearly that's material, but the insurance company still lost on appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
">Boys are invincible though, of course - I know I was!<"
Yes! Me to! Some of the near misses still makes me cringe 30 years on, but I think the risk taking continues until late 20s at least. It's motorbikes that were the real killer, at least half a dozen of my friends/classmates from my teenage years died on motorbikes. Carnage.
|
.. but of course the right thing to do would be to declare it and let the insurance company decide. ..
in my view, that is probably about the only sensible advice bill-payer has contributed to this thread. some of the rest of his opinions have, in my opinion, been either wrong or dangerous.
|
"But of course, he really wants a RWD Escort with enormous power courtesy of Cosworth. Or a Mini with a 'bike engine in the boot."
Fair point about the safety, we all got bikes at 16yrs ( early 60s) three in my class of 15 boys, two on one bike and including my best friend were killed in that first years biking as we raced everthing on 650s with dropped bars. When the survivors got old bangers with holes in the floor a year or two later, there were no more accidents. I often reflect on it, the biking losses almost seeming like the toll taken in a war.
|
">class of 15 boys, two on one bike and including my best friend were killed<"
That's a frightening rate of attrition, but give a 16 year old a 'bike capable of over 100mph and there will be crashes. Why is it that the most exciting things a male can do involve a high risk of death? Perhaps the definition of exciting is the risk of death. So long live video games. I've decided that I really want a Trident, if only for the howling.
|
|
|
|
his opinions have, in my opinion, been either wrong or dangerous.
and that's all they are - opinions. Not advice. I don't think an opinion can be wrong or dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
