MAB Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 My son who is 20 was quoted £1800 for a Fiesta Zetec S I bought him. This is soooooooo excessive, but he does not have any no claims bonus ( he takes his test on Oct 24th) So I thought I would help him out and took out another policy with Direct Line with him as a named driver. This then cost £600 which he is paying. This being with Direct line , he then starts building up his no - claims bonus. I thought great - a job well done. Anyway I got a letter from Direct Line saying I needed to provide proof of MY no claims. No problem I thought. Phoned up my broker - and here is the bombshell - They said they cant provide evidence of no claims on a policy that is still active ( My Z insurance) It seems that I can only have no claims on 1 single policy. Did everyone know that and am I being soo naieve ? Sooo not happy !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Yes sir! I have a second car and have to build up no claims on it. All mine is in the Zed! It sounds good but it is actually to stop people doing this type of thing, taking out policys for there kids as lets face it, it's cheaper! I'm afraid your boy might have to bite the bullet and either pay big or sell up and get a no power car. Unfortunate I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_b Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I also got hit with this on my 7 (second car). Did some phoning around and got a broker who would give me a 1 or 2 year NCD as an introductory offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedrush Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Thats wierd, Im with direct line, I am under my mums name, her first car 911 policy is with direct line, the 350z is in her name to, I am a named driver, her no claims from the 911 also contributed to the no points on the 350z, I have been under her name for 2 years now, and have collected 2 years no claims. After reading this I called direct line and asked them, they said because my mum took out no claims duplication, and no claims protection her no years claim can be duplicated to any car as long as the car is in her name So guess its touch and go with these companies or depend who you get on the other line, we even have this in writing as I called my mum to check Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winged Rodent Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Thats wierd, Im with direct line, I am under my mums name, her first car 911 policy is with direct line, the 350z is in her name to, I am a named driver, her no claims from the 911 also contributed to the no points on the 350z, I have been under her name for 2 years now, and have collected 2 years no claims. After reading this I called direct line and asked them, they said because my mum took out no claims duplication, and no claims protection her no years claim can be duplicated to any car as long as the car is in her name So guess its touch and go with these companies or depend who you get on the other line, we even have this in writing as I called my mum to check That's because your mum has two cars insured with the same insurance company. Some companies (Directline is one) will allow you to use one No Claims Discount entitlement for 2 cars - It's almost like having 2 cars insured on one policy. However, you will not be able to use an NCD on 2 or more policies if they are with different companies. Although some companies will take in to consideration your NCD currently being 'used' on another policy - in a similar way to company car drivers who may get 'credited' some NCD etitlement from their company's insurance (if they haven't made a claim) if they haven't had insurance in their own name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarnie Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Zedrush, its called Mirroring. Norwhich Union will mirror my ncd if/when i take out another policy with them for another car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmmackfc Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Many moons ago when I was a young lad I had a Punto 1.6L under my mums name and me as the 2nd driver. I was the main insurer on her 1.0L Fiesta with her as the 2nd driver. Legally I could drive both (which I did) but it also meant I wasn't paying a whack in cash. I don't know your personal circumstances MAB but if your missus has a small run around this may be a solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andywrx Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 All those insuring their children's cars in their name should take not of this Zurich Insurance has warned that parents could be unknowingly committing insurance fraud if they insure the vehicles of their children in their own name, with the child a named driver in an attempt to lower the insurance premium. A YouGov survey commissioned by Zurich found 10% of parents and grandparents had committed this "fronting" insurance fraud, but 60% did not realise they were in the wrong. Scott Clayton of Zurich said: "They also don't realise it is a false economy. In an accident, an insurer could decline a claim or recover any third-party costs from the child or parents." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedrush Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 All those insuring their children's cars in their name should take not of this Zurich Insurance has warned that parents could be unknowingly committing insurance fraud if they insure the vehicles of their children in their own name, with the child a named driver in an attempt to lower the insurance premium. A YouGov survey commissioned by Zurich found 10% of parents and grandparents had committed this "fronting" insurance fraud, but 60% did not realise they were in the wrong. Scott Clayton of Zurich said: "They also don't realise it is a false economy. In an accident, an insurer could decline a claim or recover any third-party costs from the child or parents." Yeh but the 350z is in mums name, private plate is in mums name, registered and parked at her address and she just lets me borrow it from time to time ahem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarnie Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 All those insuring their children's cars in their name should take not of this Zurich Insurance has warned that parents could be unknowingly committing insurance fraud if they insure the vehicles of their children in their own name, with the child a named driver in an attempt to lower the insurance premium. A YouGov survey commissioned by Zurich found 10% of parents and grandparents had committed this "fronting" insurance fraud, but 60% did not realise they were in the wrong. Scott Clayton of Zurich said: "They also don't realise it is a false economy. In an accident, an insurer could decline a claim or recover any third-party costs from the child or parents." Thats rubbish. I'd like to see them try to decline a payout. The only way i can see for them to payout is if the car is registered to the kid but then the parent is insured as the main driver but even then thats very loose ground...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 All those insuring their children's cars in their name should take not of this Zurich Insurance has warned that parents could be unknowingly committing insurance fraud if they insure the vehicles of their children in their own name, with the child a named driver in an attempt to lower the insurance premium. A YouGov survey commissioned by Zurich found 10% of parents and grandparents had committed this "fronting" insurance fraud, but 60% did not realise they were in the wrong. Scott Clayton of Zurich said: "They also don't realise it is a false economy. In an accident, an insurer could decline a claim or recover any third-party costs from the child or parents." Thats rubbish. I'd like to see them try to decline a payout. The only way i can see for them to payout is if the car is registered to the kid but then the parent is insured as the main driver but even then thats very loose ground...... I'm not so sure. The premium and indeed whether to provide cover at all is based upon the premise that the policyholder is the main driver. The insurer will argue that if they had known the main driver was a 17 year old they would have been at far greater risk and entitled to charge a far higher premium or even decline to insure. It can hardly be said to be a trivial non-disclosure and if it is clearly done to mislead the insurer and avoid paying the full premium I doubt you would get much sympathy from the ombudsman or a court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarnie Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 All those insuring their children's cars in their name should take not of this Zurich Insurance has warned that parents could be unknowingly committing insurance fraud if they insure the vehicles of their children in their own name, with the child a named driver in an attempt to lower the insurance premium. A YouGov survey commissioned by Zurich found 10% of parents and grandparents had committed this "fronting" insurance fraud, but 60% did not realise they were in the wrong. Scott Clayton of Zurich said: "They also don't realise it is a false economy. In an accident, an insurer could decline a claim or recover any third-party costs from the child or parents." Thats rubbish. I'd like to see them try to decline a payout. The only way i can see for them to payout is if the car is registered to the kid but then the parent is insured as the main driver but even then thats very loose ground...... I'm not so sure. The premium and indeed whether to provide cover at all is based upon the premise that the policyholder is the main driver. The insurer will argue that if they had known the main driver was a 17 year old they would have been at far greater risk and entitled to charge a far higher premium or even decline to insure. It can hardly be said to be a trivial non-disclosure and if it is clearly done to mislead the insurer and avoid paying the full premium I doubt you would get much sympathy from the ombudsman or a court. Agreed to a certain extent but quantifying and proving who exactly is the 'main' driver is extremely difficult. There would have to be significant evidence that the parent was not the main driver to justify a non payment such as the two parties living hundreds of miles apart making it impossible for the parent to be the main driver. I car share with my (ex)misses but how do you quantify who is the main driver. She uses it more, i do more miles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedrush Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I always thought the car had to be registered in the oldest persons name and the younger latter is just a named driver in order to take advantage of cheaper insurance. Im pretty sure they wont insure you if the car is in the younger persons name yet he is trying to do it under his parents name on the policy, thats what direct line said anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H5 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Depends what the policy says. Some say that the car has to be regsitered to named drivers on the policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl114 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 From what i understand, the named driver usually is put down as the registered keeper of the vehicle. So if anything happens and its the other way round, then im sure you will be in for a shock. I was on my Dad''s insurance many moons ago, and he was the registered keeper and main driver on the insurance policy, I was an additional driver. To be honest, i didnt really drive the car much anyway as i was always at uni. I had a little bump in it once and they did pay out. So i guess its luck of the draw. I personally wouldnt insure the car in your name if you are not the registered keeper though, i think thats cause for trouble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M13KYF Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 moved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl114 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 moved Is the old cut and paste out again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nixy Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 definitely something to be wary of. My son wanted me to do the same for him when he got his car. I wouldn't do it. His insurance was £1600 with Liverpool Victoria fully comp before he passed his test. He paid it monthly by direct debit as he's working. He has now got 2 years no claims and has just taken out a policy for tp fire and theft for about £400. On the other hand, one of his mates had his dad as the insurer and wrote his car off, Dad insured again on the next car and he wrote that off as well! His dad also took 3 points for him when he was speeding. My son has never even had a bump - probably because he has more to lose as it's HIS insurance. Sometimes you just have to do it the hard way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.