In the event of a major claim, the insurers would check up on whether your parent was the true main user of the car or not. And if you were the main user would be perfectly justified in refusing the claim. Also, you'd have no insurance history if driving someone else's car, so would have to start from scratch, no claims wise.
Completely incorrect. The policyholder need *not* be the main user of a vehicle. In a recent survey of students 45% of their cars were insured as named drivers on their parents' policies. There is nothing illegal about this provided their age and driving history are declared.
Classic car insurers will even accept learners as named drivers. I know this because my son learned to drive at 17 in a VW Beetle insured in my name under a classic car policy.
This is, of course, the disadvantage. However with the reduction in premiums over age 25 it is still more economical to build up no claims from that age.
riccip
Absolutely correct, in every detail.
Problems only arise if the fact that the young person is the named driver is not declared to the insurer.
Insurers welcome this arrangement because the policyholder is likely to exert some influence on the young driver's behaviour in order to limit the risk of losing the policyholder's No Claims Bonus.
Sorry, should have typed "principal driver".
Weren't there any fine, upstanding British cars for you to democratically learn to drive in?
That's exactly what I do. It's too uneconomical for me to be insured with my own policy on my car, since I live away at University and only drive during holidays when I am back home. Maybe a couple of thousand miles a year.
I'd rather wait to get my own policy when I have left University and have a job - I'll be able to afford the premiums then! At the moment I'm 22 - my own policy with an agreed value on my Beetle would cost around £1,000. Compare that with the £200 extra it cost to add it to my parents policy, and both of them can drive it too...
-- Howard Rose
1966 VW Beetle 1300 Deluxe 1962 Austin Mini Deluxe 1964 Austin Mini Super Deluxe+----------+ | PLEASE | | DO NOT | | FEED THE | | TROLLS | +----------+ | | | | .\|.||/.. (tm)
: I was with the CIS when I was younger and they were one of the best quotes, : but when I reached one of the "magic age" points, other companies offered me : better deals.
I bought a boring, reliable Volvo 240 recently. CIS quoted more than twice as much as Swinton ... I don't think I'll try them again.
I have had very good quotes and service from HIC, but their telephone answering has become truly abysmal over the last year or so ... I had to hold for 55 minutes recently to change cars on a policy. Which they did very quickly, efficiently and cheaply, but there's only so much hold music I can listen to.
Ian
: In article , : riccip wrote: : > If you live with your parents it should work out considerably : > cheaper if your father (or mother) insures the car with you as a : > named driver. To be legally valid you would have to transfer : > ownership to him, then perhaps transfer it back when you're over : > 25. Food for thought. : : In the event of a major claim, the insurers would check up on whether your : parent was the true main user of the car or not. And if you were the main : user would be perfectly justified in refusing the claim.
That's making the big assumption that the parent wouldn't have told the insurance company what the situation was.
: Also, you'd have no insurance history if driving someone else's car, so : would have to start from scratch, no claims wise.
A good point. Unless the no claims discount is less than the youth supplement ...
Ian
: That's exactly what I do. It's too uneconomical for me to be insured : with my own policy on my car, since I live away at University and only : drive during holidays when I am back home. Maybe a couple of thousand : miles a year.
The last quote form I filled in asked me whether the drivers named were main, regular or occasional users of the car. I'd guess your sort of use would be either regular or occasional - it wouldn't do any harm to phone the insurers and ask.
Ian
Many ask who the principle driver is. If it's the young person, there might not be any savings to be made.
Well, tell me how the risk is reduced substantially by having the parent being the *nominal* owner of the car?
Insurance companies base their premiums on statistics, and young drivers are generally a bad risk - whether driving their own or their parent's car.
: In article , : Ian Johnston wrote: : > : In the event of a major claim, the insurers would check up on whether : > : your parent was the true main user of the car or not. And if you were : > : the main user would be perfectly justified in refusing the claim. : : > That's making the big assumption that the parent wouldn't have told the : > insurance company what the situation was. : : Well, tell me how the risk is reduced substantially by having the parent : being the *nominal* owner of the car?
It all depends how much parent and child use the car. But if the parent was using it regularly I think it would be worth putting the situation to a broker and seeing what could be done. However, all I really objected to was your assumption that having the parent own and insure the car must always be a fiddle involving lying to the insurance company.
: Insurance companies base their premiums on statistics, and young drivers : are generally a bad risk - whether driving their own or their parent's car.
True. But they may take shared use a showing a measure of parental control or restraint.
I just think it's worth asking them.
Ian:
Err, try reading again the post from riccip I was replying to. The parents didn't buy and own the car - it was suggested that it should be transferred into their name. The only reason to do this would be to try and obtain cheaper insurance through misrepresentation of the true situation.
Forgot to mention, when you *do* eventually take out a policy in your own name insurance companies will give you one year's No Claims Discount when you provide evidence of a claim-free period as a named driver. Remember to ask your broker.
In contrast back in the early-70's as a newly-qualified driver I bought my first car, a 1966 Ford Zodiac MkIII 2.6L 6-cylinder (you could land a helicopter on the bonnet). Insurance was, I believe, £110 p/a TPFT. Later, aged just 20, I purchased a Lotus Elan 2+2S for a grand. Insurance on that was around £400 fully comp, a fortune at the time.
The same year my missus passed her test and got our first VW Beetle which cost £50 to buy and under £30 to insure (TPFT). That old 1962 Beetle was such a peach I preferred it to the Lotus!
riccip
The true situation is the parent becomes the legal owner of the car. That's not misrepresentation but hard fact, in much the same way as one can legally arrange their tax affairs so as to minimise taxable income or inheritance tax.
The idea was originally suggested to me by a reputable broker and is apparently an accepted norm. If the insurer insists the parent be at least an equal user, which I've yet to come across, then simply find another insurer.
riccip
Rather than accepting the broker's word, who isn't the one carrying the risk, try writing to the insurance company explaining exactly what you're doing and why, and see what their reply is.
As I said, you're not altering the risk the premium is based on, but simply massaging the 'facts'.
That's the whole point. There's no need to explain your actions because you aren't lying. I wouldn't dream of writing to my life insurers to tell them I occasionally go on a bender or speed when the opportunity presents itself. However my life is still securely covered should I die in a car crash or choke on my own vomit.
See above.
riccip
If you're so sure what you're doing is ok and doesn't effect the risk, then writing to the insurance company to confirm it wouldn't matter. Of course, many prefer the head in sand approach - until a major claim is refused, and they then find they can't get insurance anywhere afterwards.
No, you see above. Of course it's massaging the facts to get a cheaper premium. If it wasn't altering the facts the premium wouldn't change.
An insurance agreement is a legally binding contract. The insurer has no right to refuse any claim provided all information requested has been truthfully given. No retrospective conditions can be applied. The ombudsman would have something to say if they tried.
It *is* altering the facts, not massaging them. The parent becomes the legal owner of the vehicle. That is the plain and simple truth, nothing less.
riccip
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.