Fronting

*astro*

Please can someone explain this to me. My 17 year old son has just bought his first car. We were going to put all the details for the insurance under his name but because he is under 18 he cannot pay by direct debit. This means he would have to pay the full cost upfront (£1800). - What 17 year old has that sort of money. In order to get round this - everything had to go in my name (his mum). I am paying the insurance then he has a standing order to pay me.
At the moment he hasnt passed his test - so someone is always with him. - When he does pass - he will be using his car for work. As the insurance is under my name & him as a named driver - does that mean we are 'fronting' as he will use it more than me.
Just a note - the insurance company know this is my 2nd car (how can I drive 2 cars at the same time) & if it is illigal why are they still covering us.
Also I am a named driver on my husbands car - if i use his car more than mine am I 'fronting'
This seams another unfair way for the younger drivers.
Please can someone help.

dacouch

Roughly what size premium are you paying?

Have you declared to the Insurer that your son is the main user of the car

Lokolo

You can pay for him using your card but have the insruance details under him....

Its hardly 'unfair'. He can pay using his card or pay using your card.

When I was 16 I knew I was going to drive and started saving. My insurance was £1600 and I paid half of it to mother and she paid the whole lot on her card, I then paid the rest in installements.

*astro*

Lokolo wrote: »

You can pay for him using your card but have the insruance details under him....

Its hardly 'unfair'. He can pay using his card or pay using your card.

When I was 16 I knew I was going to drive and started saving. My insurance was £1600 and I paid half of it to mother and she paid the whole lot on her card, I then paid the rest in installements.

In reply to dacouch, thank you but he had already saved up lots for it, - we also dont have a card to put it on-thats what Im saying they wont do installments from a 17 year old unless it goes through me. How else can it work.

In reply to Dacouch- thank you like I say - we dont have a card for that sort of money.
How would the insurance company know if he is the main driver - if he were to have an accident - he could be driving it as a once off.

Quentin

*astro* wrote: »

At the moment he hasnt passed his test - so someone is always with him. - When he does pass - he will be using his car for work. As the insurance is under my name & him as a named driver - does that mean we are 'fronting' as he will use it more than me.
Just a note - the insurance company know this is my 2nd car (how can I drive 2 cars at the same time) & if it is illigal why are they still covering us.
Also I am a named driver on my husbands car - if i use his car more than mine am I 'fronting'

1) If your son is the main driver (even now he is just a learner), then yes, this is fronting.

2) You need to inform your insurer that he is the main driver as soon as that is the case.

3) You are allowed to own (and insure) as many cars as you like.

4) You are only fronting when you are a named main driver of a car that has not been declared as that car's main driver As regards your husbands car, if you aren't the main driver of that car, then no fronting there.

Quentin

*astro* wrote: »

How would the insurance company know if he is the main driver - if he were to have an accident - he could be driving it as a once off.

When he has his accident they will investigate you, and if fronting is the issue you and he will be devasted when they refuse to pay any claim, leaving you to pay out of your own pocket.

Don't you think that everyone (dishonest) would front to save a lot when their children start driving if it was as simple as you think?

DaisyFlower

Also worth bearing in mind that there may be no cover for him using the car for work, commuting can be restricted to the main driver on some policies.

You can still pay the finance without fronting.

nickmack

'Fronting' has nothing to do with who pays the premium and everything to do with who is declared as the Main driver (the person who drives the vehicle more than anyone else) for risk purposes.

Insurance companies and investigators use a variety of techniques if fronting is suspected after a accident/claim. In many circumstances, it's easy to find out. Do a search for 'fronting' and you'll find some examples of how people have been found out after a little digging by the investigator.

soolin

Also, you need to be aware that as soon as he passes his test the premium may well go up considerably. At the moment he can't drive it on his own so he is at less risk of an accident than a brand new young driver out on his own for the first time.

My son was on my car insurance for a while when he was a learner, as soon as he passed his test my insurers (at the time Direct Line) wanted to almost double the premiums and it meant that I had to take him off the insurance. So he got his license and no longer had any access to a car.

Lavendyr

*astro* wrote: »

In reply to dacouch, thank you but he had already saved up lots for it, - we also dont have a card to put it on-thats what Im saying they wont do installments from a 17 year old unless it goes through me. How else can it work.

You pay the premium, but put him as the main driver - simple. My dad paid my insurance for the first couple of years (yes, I was very very lucky, I know) and I was the main driver, so it's certainly possible to do that.

*astro* wrote: »

How would the insurance company know if he is the main driver - if he were to have an accident - he could be driving it as a once off.

Believe me, insurance companies look into everything and if they find out that he is driving it more than you, they will invalidate your insurance (fronting is effectively fraud, incidentally) and could even refuse to insure you again because you lied to them (which will make obtaining insurance very hard to get in future - unless, of course, you lie about that as well).

Basically, it's wrong, it's fraud, and you shouldn't do it. Just my humble opinion.

dunstonh

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/7052569.stm

and one from the FOS after someone complained after the insurer didnt pay out (issue 63 of FOS publication):

63/09 motor insurance policy – daughter was ‘named driver’ on parents’ car

Mr J and his wife bought a second family car soon after their daughter passed her driving test. He arranged the car insurance over the phone and – as is standard practice for many insurers – the call was recorded.
When asked if he was the ‘owner and keeper’ of the vehicle, Mr J said that he was. He also confirmed that he was the principal driver of the car. The insurer then pointed out that Mr J was the principal driver of another vehicle it insured. Mr J said he had been mistaken and that it was his wife who would be the principal driver of the new car. He asked to add his daughter to the policy as a ‘named driver’.
While driving the new car a couple of months later, Mr J’s daughter had a minor road traffic accident, which meant that the car needed some small repairs. Mr J submitted a claim to his insurer but it was rejected because the insurer believed this was an instance of ‘fronting’. In other words, it thought the car had been insured in the name of an experienced driver – Mr J's wife – because it would be too expensive to insure in the name of the real principal driver – his daughter.

The insurer reached this conclusion after Miss J had given the insurer a statement in which she said, 'It’s insured in mum’s name I think. Dad did it because it was too expensive to have me named as the main driver…'
Mr J did not dispute that his daughter had made this statement. The insurer therefore ‘avoided’ the policy (treated it as if it had never existed) and declined to deal with the claim. Mr J then referred the matter to us.

complaint not upheld

We considered this to be a prime example of 'fronting'. Mr J had misrepresented the risk when he took out the policy – as his daughter later confirmed.
As the information on which the insurer had agreed to provide the policy was incorrect, the insurer was entitled to 'avoid' the policy from the beginning – and to decline to pay any benefit that would otherwise have been due under the policy.