Mrs

[scarlettohara]

Since son's car was vandalised the insurance has become astronomical Would it be feasible to register the car in my name, insure it for me and then put him on the insurance ? He has 2 years insurance history.

Edited March 30, 2011 by Guest

[Cinnamon]

Feasible,but unfortunately illegal.

[Charlottechicken]

Since son's car was vandalised the insurance has become astronomical Would it be feasible to register the car in my name, insure it for me and then put him on the insurance ? He has 2 years insurance history.

 

It's called fronting, and as Cinnamon has said, is illegal. Have you tried getting quotes from the comparison sites with a low insurance group car.

 

There were some old threads on here somewhere, naming insurance companies who gave younger drivers a better deal, might be worth doing a search

[scarlettohara]

It's not illegal, I would own and be the registered keeper of the car and Sam would be the policy holder and only driver, I have just spoken to the AA and got a quote. Perhaps I didn't explain properly

[Leicester_H]

Hi

I guess as long as you have it in writing, its OK but this site

http://www.fancyacar.co.uk/car-insurance/fronting/

says

Fronting has been made illegal

Not many insurance companies will reject your application if you decide to do that though but if you ever make a claim to them afterwards, then they can reject your claim based on the grounds of car insurance fronting.

 

I'd advise doing some thorough research.

 

H

[scarlettohara]

I'm going to buy a car which I won't drive but my son will, the insurance will be in his name but it won't be his car. It is not fronting and not illegal. I have spoken to a call handler at AA insurance and said exactly the same, I don't have a car so it's not like I'm insuring 2 or anything I have spoken to 2 other parents who do the same thing as insuring boys for their own car is extortinate. If I was disabled then he would be able to drive me it's no different from that.

 

Here are my quotes with my son as the proposer and me (parent) as registered keeper and owner of the vehicle

 

https://car.gocompare.com/car_results.aspx?BrandID=6112007

[scarlettohara]

Hazel - I read the link, it only applies if it was son's car - it will be my car he is driving so perfectly OK.

[majorbloodnock]

OK, a few specific points to clarify:

 

1. It's perfectly legal to insure a car that is not registered in your name, but the car can only be insured under one policy at a time.
   
2. When you take out a policy insuring a vehicle, you have to declare who is the main driver. The policy holder does not have to be the main driver, but unless the insurance company takes all driver histories into account, the price will be based on the history of the main driver and the rating of the insured vehicle. In effect, taking insurance out in your name and declaring your son as the main driver shouldn't differ in cost to your son taking out his own insurance with you as a named driver.
   
3. I don't know of any insurance company that takes into account who actually owns the vehicle. Unless you found one such company, changing the registered keeper will make no difference to the price of the policy.
   
4. Declaring yourself as the main driver and then letting one of your named drivers clock up the majority of the miles is, as has been previously mentioned, illegal.

[Sammiboo]

Since son's car was vandalised the insurance has become astronomical Would it be feasible to register the car in my name, insure it for me and then put him on the insurance ? He has 2 years insurance history.

 

That bit does read like you are fronting as you said you would insure for you and put your son on it...

 

have you got a quote for your son with YOU as a named driver, it should bring his policy down.

[Olly]

Surely you will have to declare any previous claims for either you OR the named driver, which presumably is what is putting the cost up in the first place?

[Patricia W]

No, the cost for all young drivers is sky high I'm afraid. it only starts going down when they are over 25.

[majorbloodnock]

Surely you will have to declare any previous claims for either you OR the named driver, which presumably is what is putting the cost up in the first place?

 

No, the cost for all young drivers is sky high I'm afraid. it only starts going down when they are over 25.

 

Yes and no on both counts. Previous claims history may well not in itself put the cost up; it's more likely simply to preclude the cost being reduced (i.e. the basic premium staying the same but claims history stopping a no-claims bonus being applied). However, a claims history resulting from an accident that was the driver's own fault may well increase the basic premium in itself, so indeed putting the cost up. All this is mixed in with the fact Patricia W has brought up that drivers over 25 will, on average, start to see a marked reduction in premium costs.

 

Although this will unfortunately sound overly critical, I'm afraid, there are an awful lot of minor assumptions being taken for granted on this thread, and this is affecting the answers. Scarlettohara hasn't mentioned how old her son is, nor whether he had a protected no-claims nor whether he has lost his no-claims bonus. We do know he has only been a policy holder for 2 years, but we can't even be absolutely certain from the information given so far that he actually made a claim. All of this is very relevant to any answers given, yet the answers are based on assumptions about these points. I say all this not because any of the advice has been wrong per se, but because I really think we could do with slowing down a little before commenting.

[sjp]

Surely you will have to declare any previous claims for either you OR the named driver, which presumably is what is putting the cost up in the first place?

you don't need to declare insurance history any has it's held electronically and all insurance companys share infomation

that why you can insure on line so quickly

[Sammiboo]

If you have been Involved in accident fault or not this will increase you premium, the fact you have been involved in an insurance claim will make you higher risk...

[Chickendoodle]

I have worked in insurance for 30+ years (yes I know, you are all wishing why couldn't you have had as exciting a working life as I have)

 

A couple of points

 

You can own a car, insure it in your name and have a young driver as the main driver. However you have to declare the young driver as the main driver and therefore you won't gain any advantage in premium by doing this. In fact you will be doing the young driver a dis-service as he/she will not be earning any no claims bonus of their own.

 

You must declare all previous claims (yes there is a central database, but it won't necessarily pick up a claim for a named driver on a different car and you mustn't rely on this to avoid answering the question. It is really only there to pick up insurance fraud - eg multiple claims being made for the same vehicle ) The internet search engines only give an indication of premium and you will be required to answer the claims questions when you take out the cover. It is non disclosure to say that you have had no claims as the policyholder when the young driver has had a claim (not saying for a minute that you have done this ,just making a general point)

 

In short, you have to insure a car in the name of the person who owns/leases it and whether it it owned by you or your son the premium will be rated on him as the main driver so it should be no different.

 

By the way when you insure a car for a young driver it is always worth putting a parent on as an additional driver as this can bring the cost down a little but I am afraid you have to grit your teeth and pay the premium. Unfortunately young men have lots of accidents - not necessarily costing a lot in damage to their own cars but in injury claims to passengers and third parties.

 

The EU court in it's infinite wisdom has now decided that insurance companies are being sexist in charging young men more premium than young girls (how statistics can be sexist is beyond any of us in the industry). This ruling comes into effect in December 2012 and can only mean that girls premium will increase dramatically as I can't see insurance companies bringing down the premiums for young men. Anyway, that's a rant for another day.

[Clur]

Is your son getting quotes from the same company he claimed for the vandalism costs from?

 

I only ask because when I was a young driver (ok, ok, some years ago now!), I had an accident where I was at fault and when my renewal came through it had doubled. I shopped around and managed to get a quote for lower than what I had been paying before the accident. I know it's a different situation, and it's different for girls, but it might be worth shopping around again?

[scarlettohara]

The current one wanted an extra £70 a month, they have caught the boys that vandalised it but no chance of ever getting any money back I have given up trying to do it through me - no point if they don't pay out The cheapest we can find for him is £2300

[chickric]

Was looking as something totally different but came across THIS.

Someone at work was saying their insurance had doubled (NOT a young driver, no claims or any other changes, the insurance company had just reassessed his area) and he was looking into a similar system, will have to ask how he got on.

[majorbloodnock]

Was looking as something totally different but came across THIS.

Someone at work was saying their insurance had doubled (NOT a young driver, no claims or any other changes, the insurance company had just reassessed his area) and he was looking into a similar system, will have to ask how he got on.

It's an interesting concept, but has been tried out by a few insurance companies before, and they struggled to make it pay for itself. The reason the Co-op scheme may succeed is the level of discount the smart boxes attract; typically, they're talking of a reduction of about 10% instead of the 30-40% previously piloted. 10% is certainly better than a kick up the bum with a spiked boot, but saving £300 on a £3,000 premium still leaves a young person with £2,700 to cough up. It's certainly a scheme worth looking at, so long as it's not seen as a panacea.

[chickencam]

We have an Admiral Multi Car policy which was the cheapest way for us to insure ED who is a learner, we have 3 cars on the policy and she is the policy holder on one of them, which means she is earning no-claims for the future if she doesn't have an accident. I am the registered keeper of 2 of the cars and my OH is the registered keeper of the 3rd one. We have been told that we will roughly pay another £500-600 when she passes.

[Shirl]

I am confused as to what is being proposed.OH has a lease car and because he isn't the registered keeper the insurance was way more expensive than it would have been and many insurers wouldn't insure. I'm not sure how this is keeping premiums down.

[scarlettohara]

We have a quote from Elephant for £1630 but only if you pay as a lump sum - if you pay by DD it totals £2300 Not everyone has the add £1600 lying around

[majorbloodnock]

I am confused as to what is being proposed.OH has a lease car and because he isn't the registered keeper the insurance was way more expensive than it would have been and many insurers wouldn't insure. I'm not sure how this is keeping premiums down.

I can't say with any certainty, but I'd be wary of assuming that the difference in premium is simply because your OH isn't the registered keeper. Several other possibilities spring to mind, some of which may be relevant to the insurance company, some of which may not.

• Because it's a lease car, the registered keeper is a company. Insurers may well assume a car owned by a company instead of an individual is likely to be used either for business purposes or by certain higher-risk categories of driver (e.g. sale people).
  
• The insurers may well take into account the address of the registered keeper, even if the car is normally kept somewhere else.
  
• The registered keeper may have a conspicuous claims history.

Of course, all of these points stem from the fact your OH isn't the car owner, but they're not in themselves related to ownership. Nor am I suggesting any of these is the reason for the price difference; merely trying to illustrate that what one thinks of as just one change can actually be several differences wrapped up together.

[scarlettohara]

He's selling his car and buying a motorbike I don't blame him in a way - insurance companies have a lot to answer for