Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No its not?
Loads of my friends got their dad to insure the car they wanted and they were second driver... Insurance Fraud... hahahaahaha
No its not?
Loads of my friends got their dad to insure the car they wanted and they were second driver... Insurance Fraud... hahahaahaha
don't understand this post at all - but your inference is that it's OK to insure cars in the parent's name with the youngster being the named driver - and that they are then the main driver - not the policy holder. This is fraud, the policy holder should be the main driver.As long as your name is on the policy and you are insured on another car, you can drive it when you want???
As long as your name is on the policy and you are insured on another car, you can drive it when you want??? Thats interesting... we did that on our mark 1 GTi... and the insurance guy himself even suggested it to bring the price down fo rme and my dad... lol
what is there not to understand??? I just said that if you are insured on another car and your name is on your father's policy as a second driver you can therefore drive any of these cars when ever you want?
I did not say at ANY POINT in ANY of my posts that i decieve the insurer by saying for example, the father would be the main driver when he isn't, of course he is, but as a second driver you can also drive the damn car.
Let me make it clearer - as an example, one of my friends drives a 325Ci and his father has the E60 M5, he is insured as a second driver on the M5 and if we're going out somewhere in london or so, he'll be a show off and bring it out, but its not his car and we all know it. So thats what i mean when i say that your name should be on the V5 and you should be the polciy holder for a car to be counted as yours.
Whats the big deal?
I'd listen to the questions next time Who is the policy holder and who is the main driver.
I understand the desire to cut costs for early motoring, but when the insurance doesn't bail you out in a claim as they invoke a clause (which they really will try to do) where they feel deception was used, it really is a false economy
Define the main driver, say for example I have a car, and my old man insurers it as the main driver, and me as an additional. I drive it and so does he, who is the main driver. Him or me?
Define the main driver, say for example I have a car, and my old man insurers it as the main driver, and me as an additional. I drive it and so does he, who is the main driver. Him or me?
Aside how is this main driver defined is it counted as who does more miles in the car or who has the longest duration driving it (I might use it to go to work doing 100 miles/week taking 10hrs whereas old man might use it in the weekend and go 140 miles in 2hrs),
How can any of this be proved in the event of the claim. When I insured my car (in my name) it asked me if I were the registered keeper, if I wasn't it wouldn't insure.
So is the Main driver the V5C holder or the person who uses it the most timewise or milewise. Note the V5 doesn't evidence ownership, its not a document of title
Define the main driver...
?
EDIT - i believe there is a difference between POLICY HOLDER and NAMED DRIVERS and POLICY HOLDER and a set MAIN DRIVER + NAMED DRIVERS.....
I agree that if you are the main user of the car then you should be the policy holder.
HOWEVER - i'm a named driver on my wife's policy (and she is named driver on my policy). We both use each others cars if and when and how much we want.
cant really see it being a problem at all in an event of a claim.... and unless we have 4 seperate policies then how else to do it?
In reality, we both use our cars ourselves more than the named drivers, but i am not convinced how it could ever be proven really if she did drive my car more than i do.
If i have a crash in her car on my way to work, because i happen to take that car that day, i expect to be fully covered, and i wouldnt expect any problems during claim time. I just cant see the difference between that and Rage's situation. Other than its father/son scenario instead of spouse, which may cause the insurer to look into things a little more?
EDIT - i believe there is a difference between POLICY HOLDER and NAMED DRIVERS and POLICY HOLDER and a set MAIN DRIVER + NAMED DRIVERS.....
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.