# Parent insuring my modified second car?



## Pandy (Jan 19, 2008)

Hi guys,

Ive been looking into insuring my modified second car but on my own im getting quite expensive quotes.

I will only use the car for 6 months over the 'summer' period and it will be limited to 2k miles, but it is imo heavily modified - with an engine conversion in the mix.

Now as its my second car and my dad would be on the policy anyway, is there anything stopping him insuring it with me as an additional driver (car would still be in my name) and we share the driving equally (which we will as i know he loves to take it out )

Im not sure if it conforms to fronting as its not my daily and will have very little use anyway?

Any help would be great, as im not paying £1700 for a policy when i will only use it sparingly, and there is no chance im getting rid of the car either!

Thanks
Andy


----------



## Richf (Apr 26, 2008)

Its whomever is the main driver , if your dad is the main driver then its fine


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Something i wrote many moons ago for Maxpower -

_There are many posts regarding insuring cars in Parent's names to get cheaper insurance and they often lead to heated discussions and opinions from misinformed people. Here are some facts as to why it is fraudulent and you should not do it, which I hope will put a stop to misinformed opinions and potentially dangerous advice from people who do not understand the industry, the processes and the legalities. My advice is not tied to one Insurer and is indicative of the market, although there are obvious differences between some insurers in their methods, the basic insurance principles are the same regardless of who you are insured with.

Now, onto how it works. Firstly "Insurable Interest", one of the basic principles of insurance. The purpose of insurance is put a policyholder in the same financial position after a claim or loss as they were before the claim or loss (with the exception of any excess etc). Therefore if my car gets stolen, and its market value was £5k, my insurers will pay me £5k to put me in the same financial position I was before the car was stolen. Now, if I was not the legal owner of the car and it belonged to, for example, my son, but I insured it in my name, I will not actually suffer any financial loss if it was stolen. Therefore I have no insurable interest. My son will actually suffer the loss, therefore he must insure it in his name. The registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner of a car, so just changing the log book does not make this alright.

Insurance premiums are calculated on the risk exposure. Fact, young drivers are a high risk and attract high premiums. The amount of use available to a young driver as an additional driver under a policy in their parents' name is an essential factor in the rating of a policy. It is not wrong for young drivers to be named under their parents policies as long as all the information provided to an Insurer is correct. When I was learning to drive I was added to my mother's policy. She had been driving her own car for a number of years and used it every day to commute to work. Even when I passed my test, I was only able to drive the car in the evenings or at the weekend when she wasn't using it. I was added to the policy and noted as a "frequent" driver (not the main driver) as this was genuinely the case and could easily be proved to be the case. When I bought my own car, I insured it in my own name.

Here are two scenarios -

1. A 17 yr old buys a car and insures it in his own name.
2. Dad buys a car for his 17 yr old son to use, Dad is the legal owner and registered keeper and therefore insures the car in Dad's name. The car has been bought for the son and he will be the main user.

The risk exposure is exactly the same, as the 17yr old is the main driver regardless of who the policyholder is. Therefore the premium should in fact be the same. In some cases, scenario 2 will work out more expensive as discounts for insured only to drive will not apply.

Now the only way that scenario 2 will work out cheaper is if fraudulent information is provided to the insurers to make the risk look more attractive, by lying as to who is the main user of a car and saying Dad is the main user and son is only an occasional user. This is no different to lying about your age, lying about your car (saying it's a 1.4 GL instead of 2.0 GT Turbo), lying about where you live (saying you live in a field in Devon rather than the middle of Greater Manchester). If you are providing false information to reduce your premium it is deliberately trying to misrepresent the true risk and deceiving your Insurers, which is fraud.

Now, to make matters worse, it is often the case that when policies are taken out in parent's name, that in addition to lying about the main user, the ownership is also presented wrongly to the insurers, saying that it is the parent's car when it has been bought by the young driver. As I have said earlier, Insurable Interest is a basic principle of insurance so, first off, there will be a major problem here. Secondly, again a risk has deliberately misrepresented to an insurer to make it look more attractive and to deceive the insurers to obtain a cheaper premium, which is fraud.

So, what happens if you have taken out a policy in your parent's name and are found out. There is a very small possibility that an underwriter may suspect foul play when finalising the issue of policy documents or if there is an audit check, but in all fairness, you are really only like to be rumbled after an accident has occurred, which is the time when you will need your policy most of all. If a loss adjuster is involved, he will make a report to the Insurers, the underwriters will study the proposal form and if there is evidence of "non disclosure" or fraudulent information, from the information presented at the time of the proposal (which is the contract upon which the insurance is based), it is most likely they will not indemnify the claim and cancel your policy from inception, making all cover "null and void". You will then be responsible for all costs as a result of the accident. As your insurance is invalid, there is a possibility of a motoring conviction for driving without insurance, 6 points minimum, a hefty fine, possibly even a ban. If the insurers see fit, they may also wish to prosecute you for fraud which could result in a criminal conviction. The policyholder (your parent) could also be facing the same prosecutions.

There is a question on an insurance proposal form that asks if you have ever been refused or declined insurance or had a policy cancelled by the insurers. If you end up having a policy cancelled due to non disclosure or fraud, you have to disclose this on your future policies. It is an absolute nightmare getting insurance if you have had a policy null and void under these circumstances. Only non-standard insurers will touch you and will want a very very hefty premium.

Loss adjusters are not usually involved in small claims, but at the end of the day, if the damage is £500 and your claim gets kicked out, £500 won't cripple most people. But it's when the claim runs into thousands of pounds that you really want your Insurance to be totally in order. I personally have dealt with a claim involving a cyclist where the reserve was £500,000. If you t-boned a car and crippled a load of Harley Street Surgeons on the way to meeting, the claim could run into £millions. Look at the Selby disaster, a few seconds of lost concentration has cost many many millions. Quite often the way the courts work is that the MIB (Motor Insurance Bureau) become involved and insist the Insurers pay the injured party. The Insurer's then have a right to recover their outlay from you, as your policy has been invalidated due to fraud. Saving a couple of hundred pounds could cost you thousands and thousands of pounds.

So, now you know the potential consequences, you might think to yourself "how will they ever know?". Well if a loss adjuster is involved. He will look for obvious signs, like the number of cars in the family, who is entitled to drive each car and so on, to establish a general picture. Then he will ask to see receipts, petrol receipts, servicing receipts etc and see what name they are in. If the car was still driveable, he may have been hiding and watching the pattern and use by each driver for the previous week or two before you even know he is involved (and then show you pictures to contradict any more lies you may present him with when interviewed). He will want to know how each person gets to work. Now there are other obvious things like dad owning a Saab Estate and also a Nova with a BB4 and Max Power Sunstrip and two 12" bass boxes in the boot (assuming modifications have been disclosed which is another topic entirely!) which the 17yr old son hardly drives? He may interview neighbours to establish the use by each driver, interview people at the workplaces and neighbouring work places of each driver, again to establish who drives what to where on a daily basis. I'm sure there are many other methods they use, but I hope this is drawing a picture for you. They do this every day, it's their job, they know every trick, every lie, every "loophole"

I do believe there is a problem in the industry where Insurer's employ telephonists to provide motor quotes for cost efficiency, these people are generally data input clerks and do not have the knowledge for alarm bells to ring where young drivers and parents insuring cars are concerned. The same applies to internet quotes. But they are relying on people to provide truthful information and answers, which is confirmed by the signing of the proposal form or by agreeing to the statement of fact.

Now all the legalities aside, you will not earn any no claims bonus insuring a car in your parents name. By the time you reach 21, you may have left home, and you might want a tasty car as the market has opened up being over 21. If you took out a policy in your own name at 17, although it obviously costs a fair whack at the time, provided you have been claim free, you will have 4 years NCB by the time you 21, which is 60% off the premium. So a base premium on nil NCB of £2,000 will reduce to £800. As well as the saving, you have held a legitimate policy that will pay out in the event of any claim, even a serious claim with costly damage and personal injury.

This is a very serious issue, if you can't do it properly, you might as well not do it at all. Insurance costs are part of car ownership. If you can't afford to insure your car properly, quite simply you can't afford to have a car._


----------



## Pandy (Jan 19, 2008)

Thanks for the info Lloyd. 

I understand about fronting and am completely against it, as such i have always been honest with my insurance and have paid the premiums for it, it just seems that for very little use its a high price when i pay less than a third of that for 10k miles on a 'boy racer' MG ZR - but i suppose thats insurance for you!

Will keep trying in my own name see what i can do.


----------



## Maggi200 (Aug 21, 2009)

I was in a car once that was pulled over. The car was registered in my friends mums name as she owned it, but the insurance in his and her as a named driver as he was actually the main driver until he got his own car. 

The police officer at the side of the road got very angry that the insurance wasn't in HER name as she was the registered owner and in the eyes of the law that's how it should be done, according to mr log up his backside. 

So I can see where the confusion comes from!


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

Pandy, not sure if companies still do this, but I used to have my daily car insured, and my good car safe in the garage - not insured.

When I wanted to use it, I just phoned up the company and got it on as a temporary vehicle...something like £5.50 for the weekend...

I was 19 at the time, with a highly modified Pulsar GTiR

:thumb:


----------



## Maggi200 (Aug 21, 2009)

Thought that had been stopped?


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

maggi133 said:


> Thought that had been stopped?


Hence my: not sure if they still do this!!

:devil:



:lol:

Like the name and picture change already..... not keen eh?!?! 

:thumb:


----------



## james_death (Aug 9, 2010)

Lloyd,
Do you have that info you just posted sat on the desktop, just waiting to be cut and pasted...:lol:

Very consise info there very handy... Something i have meant to as for ages.. and prevalant here is, can you get 6 month policys as you can or could with motorbikes.?

I think it could well be 6 months as been used on the road and 6 just fire and theft as off road.

I know i would love o be able to just insure the rover 75 for 6 months at a time as its only to be used for holidays for towing the folding camper and the wekend run to the coast in the summer... well what we get to pass for summer...:lol:


----------



## Pandy (Jan 19, 2008)

The Cueball said:


> Pandy, not sure if companies still do this, but I used to have my daily car insured, and my good car safe in the garage - not insured.
> 
> When I wanted to use it, I just phoned up the company and got it on as a temporary vehicle...something like £5.50 for the weekend...
> 
> ...


Cheers mate will try that, im with Admiral on a multicar policy with the mrs for our main cars but im not sure how friendly they are with modifications.


----------



## Maggi200 (Aug 21, 2009)

The Cueball said:


> Hence my: not sure if they still do this!!
> 
> :devil:
> 
> ...


No i meant thought they had already stopped it, just adding summin to your first point

and thank you :thumb: too soon? Don't care! Everything got approved this morning and it's on it's way for me to have it next week


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

maggi133 said:


> Thought that had been stopped?


Aye, CIE was passed as law early February 2011. Letters will start to go out early June 2011 to owners of taxed but uninsured vehicles to advise them to either SORN it or insure it.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

Another con....

:wall:


----------



## Pandy (Jan 19, 2008)

Oh what a wonderful government we have :wall:


----------



## Richf (Apr 26, 2008)

My wife is the main driver on my car and I am the main driver on hers

So she is the registered keeper and policy holder for the car I drive and vice versa, we are both named drivers on each others policies (like most married couples). 

The key thing for my insurance company (AXA) is that the main driver is named in brackets in the policy, there is no intent to deceive nor is this fronting (which is fairly academic since we both have good driving records) 

If I was to write her car off I would not have an "insurable interest" but to all intents and purposes we are joint legal owners and would both suffer a loss , me the loss of transport and her the loss of an asset


----------



## bigmc (Mar 22, 2010)

The Cueball said:


> Another con....
> 
> :wall:


Another fecking disgrace more like! I fecking hate this country and it's only getting worse!


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

So, insisting a vehicle is SORN'd when it is laid up to reduce the amount of uninsured vehicles on the road is a con? I don't understand.


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

Shiny said:


> So, insisting a vehicle is SORN'd when it is laid up to reduce the amount of uninsured vehicles on the road is a con? I don't understand.


Yes it is....another brainwashed person......think for yourself please...

It doesn't reduce this risk as the people doing it WON'T FOLLOW THE NEW LAW EITHER...

Is that so hard to understand?!?!?

People who break the law will continue to do so, not matter how many are made up...

It's a con, and the only people that pay are the innocent ones...

:thumb:


----------



## bigmc (Mar 22, 2010)

Why should you have to SORN it if it's still taxed though?!
It's akin to banning someone without a licence or giving someone points when they don't have one.


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

People are more likely to take a chance driving an uninsured car if it is taxed as there is less likelihood they will be pulled - fact.

Most of the convicted uninsured drivers i have dealt with were chancers, rather than people with a continuous disregard for the law - fact

I'm far from brainwashed, i form my own opinions from my own knowledge


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

If you say so, oh insurance guru 



:thumb:


----------



## Shiny (Apr 23, 2007)

Lol, i know you love me really...


----------



## The Cueball (Feb 8, 2007)

Shiny said:


> Lol, i know you love me really...


Of course I do...

:argie:

:thumb:


----------



## smegal (Aug 14, 2009)

Try insuring it in your own name with the likes of brentacre, greenlight or flux etc. 

You may be surprised.

When I was 17 I was insured in a parents name. I made a claim when the car was registered in my name. The insurer made me pay the amount it would of cost to insure the car in my name for the period it was registered as mien (1 month) before they would pay out.

In hindsight it is a testament to them that they offered to pay out at all.


----------



## Pandy (Jan 19, 2008)

Im getting fed up rejection after rejection after damn rejection now 

Have tried as many companies that i can find and i have had two prices back, is it getting that hard to find insurance for modified cars now?

Im contemplating taking the engine out and putting the crappy 8v back in and seeing if Admiral will put it on our Multicar, completely against what the car is about but i dont have the space or cash to rebuild it quite yet (house saving ) so it cant stay off the road.

Woe is me :wave:


----------



## stonejedi (Feb 2, 2008)

The Cueball said:


> Another con....
> 
> :wall:


+1


----------



## NeilG40 (Jan 1, 2009)

Pandy said:


> Im contemplating taking the engine out and putting the crappy 8v back in and seeing if Admiral will put it on our Multicar


If it's anything like when I tried to get a multicar quote from admiral they'll not want to do business as you've done the work yourself.


----------



## Pandy (Jan 19, 2008)

Well i have good news if i heard the guy correctly earlier, all declared limited to 2k miles for £600, if its correct (waiting for paperwork to come through) ill be tucking into a nice bit of arm!


----------

