Mate of mine has an 18 year old son who has just passed his test and went straight up the scale and started with 1.6 Zetec Fiesta. He got quotes of approx £4500 for insurance so his father has insured it in his name and the son as a named driver for 50% of the time when in fact the son is to be the main driver. I tried to be as polite as I could in explaining that he is in the wrong in doing that and can very easily get caught out as the Insurance companies are not stupid.
I think he is taking a big big risk if ever the son is involved in an accident.
|
|
i hear this all the time mal theres nothing we can do to get these people to see they are wrong
|
|
|
I think he is taking a big big risk if ever the son is involved in an accident.
Which is likely to be fairly soon at that age.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
He'll just lie again on the claim form.
|
|
|
|
I insure my 18-yo son's AX. All I am required to do is drive more than 50% of the miles the car covers; quite easy really. We keep a rough log in case of dispute.
Hawkeye
-----------------------------
Stranger in a strange land
|
Has anyone seen written down what constitutes a 'main driver'?
For example:
Driver one uses car for commuting to work Mon-Fri. Say 1 mile each way = 10 miles per week.
Driver two uses car on Saturday to commute to part time job. Say 10 miles each way = 20 miles per week.
Driver 2 does more miles than driver 1, but you could argue that driver 1 has custody of the car more than driver 2.
|
My impression (having been through this with 2 kids insured on Mrs BP's car) is that it's frequency of use, rather than mileage. I think the insurance might easily pick up on the car being used by the younger driver on a Monday to Friday 9-5 commute, anything else they'd probably get away with.
It isn't really anyone's problem but their own - 3rd party cover is still in force whatever the circumstances.
|
When I worked in insurance (and in the days before alot of computer based calcs for premium) we just looked at how many cars there were - If the car was in addition to the existing vehicle being used by the parent then we just assumed that the new vehicle was going to be mainly used by the youngster regardless of what anyone said. If it was adding a driver to an existing vehicle then we'd just add a more modest loading. This was in the days of generally expensive but not prohibitive insurance premiums for youngsters.
.*********
Much better to go down the 1.0 nova TPFT route for 1-3 years to get the youngster to build up their own experience and realise that they pay for their mistakes. Trouble is these days is alot of 18yr olds don't seem to see a need to go down a banger route first when you can have a brand new car as some clot or parent will lend/give them the money for a £12K vehicle that will cost a bomb to repair even in small shunts.
|
|
how can the insurance company prove any foul play without a spy in the cab device or something similar fitted?
|
|
If they did suspect foul play but could not prove it could they then decline to insure it when renewal time comes along which is not good when seeking another insurer and you are asked if insurance has ever been declined.
|
|
When I was a we lad and looked for insurance I looked into the named driver deal. Appart from mum and dad's resounding NO! I could not build up any of my own no claims that way. I think it's better to go down the cheap old car route, insure it your self but put mum and dad on YOUR insurance policy as named drivers. Their being on your policy brings the premium down for some odd reason only insurance companies can explain.
|
Their being on your policy brings the premium down forsome odd reason only insurance companies can explain.
My guess at this is that a more experienced driver may notice faults on the car that a young inexperienced driver wouldn't spot.
Worked for someone I know, he bought a Mini as his first car and knew that the drum brakes wouldn't be as good as the modern car he had lessons in so just assumed there was nothing wrong with the brakes. When his Dad drove it he found that the brakes were not working properly and got them working again.
|
|
|
|
how can the insurance company prove any foul play without a spy in the cab device or something similar fitted?
In a minor bump without Police involvement they maybe couldn't, but in a serious accident every little detail comes out.
|
|
|
|
When I worked in insurance (and in the days before alot of computer based calcs for premium) we just looked at how many cars there were >>
That's right: "Rate on the highest risk" was the way it was done.
|
I've got this argument to come. Wife no longer drives much apart from giving lift. Youngest learning to drive...
As named driver he could be over £1000pa extra anyway (ouch) but what else can I do to dissuade? As once he's past and my wife no longer gives a lift to college he might be the main driver. Which I know is the case.... but how to convince the wife????
Maybe a crook lock ;-) And I have the key.
|
Going back to the OP, and referring to a thread that I started about number of young drivers being killed, is it wise of the parent to "bend the rules" to allow new driver a 1.6 litre Fiesta Zetec, so assume it has the allys etc as well. As previously mentioned, much better to go down the 1.0 Nova route himself.
Re insurance company, yes ultimately they may not be able to prove anything but I am sure through investigation and time delay tactics they could severely annoy you!
Have heard that even something as simple as the music in the car can be enough to sway ins company's minds as to who the main drivers are?
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
|
A 1.6 Fiesta? Heavens above, he'll be dead in no time with such a high performance supercar at such a young age.
|
The insurance companies have all the risk data based on actual events, claims etc.
From experience if they deem it to be more of a risk for an 18 year old to drive a 1.6 Fiesta to a 1.0 whatever, then I am sure there is good reason for that.
The same reason why the parent should not be bending the rules.
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
I'm sure this is fairly common - in the same way as when I first lived in London many young people I knew insured their cars at their parents address because it was cheaper.
Assuming this really does invalidate insurance then surely the best deterrent would be for insurance companies to publicise the fact that they REALLY don't pay out should the worst happen.
I've heard plenty of warnings and anecdotal tales but never an actual real account with names, dates, photos etc of someone losing their home to pay a personal injury claim against them after their errant offspring mowed down an innocent child...
|
The insurance companies have to pay out 3rd party claims even if you lied on you application.
What they can do is then pursue you to reclaim their losses. And an insurance company would chase mush harder than a third party might.
|
|
|
|
