Car Insurance - Mis-sold?

pigpen11

Thanks Foggytown for your support- I really was just looking for a bit of advice - Not an assassination

The broker is Post Office - The company they placed the policy with in April, won't insure my son now he has passed his test. For this reason I/they have to cancel the policy - I have already paid them £500 of the £1700 premium but they want 40% of the policy premium plus the admin fee - Another £215.00 - My question is - If they can not provide a service I have paid for why should I pay another £215.00 to cancel when they are really cancelling the policy by not being able to provide the cover. No where in its policy docs does it say we may not insure your son when he passes his test.

Most learner drivers pass within the first year of their Insurance being taken out. I just think, especially as I specifically asked the question, if the PO knows that the premium will increase dramatically, in this case, more than double they should advise this somewhere - My opinion only - But I really did check first as I would never have taken the policy out.

To those who accused me of encouraging underhand practices - I have this afternoon re-insured my son with Direct Line - One of the few companies I have since found out that treat provisional licences and full licences as equal - Oh how I wish I had known this in April. - It has cost an arm and a leg - Which he is paying before you accuse him of being spoilt, and he has lost two months no claims as we have to start again.

I have cancelled the PO policy and the charges are subject to an ongoing discussion with them

raskazz

Selden wrote: »

Out of interest, do you know of any cases where someone has been prosecuted for fronting?

There has been a push by the industry to discourage such arrangements by stressing their fraudulent nature. See for example the joint press release from the MIB and Aviva.

Fronting is dishonest and foolish. No-one should do it.

But in reality are there any prosecutions?

There aren't many prosecutions - that is because (a) the Police/CPS are either not aware of Section 174 of the Road Traffic Act or cannot be bothered to investigate offences under it and (b) there is nothing to be gained from insurers in supporting prosecution on a case-by-case basis.

But tbh prosecution is the least of "fronters'" concerns - much worse is the prospect of being sued to recover costs incurred by the insurer due to Road Traffic Act obligations.

dacouch

Selden wrote: »

Out of interest, do you know of any cases where someone has been prosecuted for fronting?

Not strictly a court case for fronting http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/8164221.Car_owner_being_sued_by_her_insurance_firm/

Someone (Possibly the MIB)is going to get a very big bill (Excluding the court costs) for the injury claims.

stator

Why turn this thread into a flame war about the illegalities of 'fronting', that's not what he was asking about.

The only advice I can offer is to write a complaint letter and if they fail to rectify it then go to the ombudsman. However the best you can hope for is that they will waive the cancellation fee, so it might be worth paying the fee and then complaining for a refund, because it usually takes a while and you don't want to be without insurance.

To get insurance I would recommend you just buy a cheap 1.0L car and insure it Third Party only. Keep the clio off the road until he can afford to insure it. You could also consider PassPlus as a way to reduce the premium.

Evilm

stator wrote: »

Why turn this thread into a flame war about the illegalities of 'fronting', that's not what he was asking about.

The only advice I can offer is to write a complaint letter and if they fail to rectify it then go to the ombudsman. However the best you can hope for is that they will waive the cancellation fee, so it might be worth paying the fee and then complaining for a refund, because it usually takes a while and you don't want to be without insurance.

To get insurance I would recommend you just buy a cheap 1.0L car and insure it Third Party only. Keep the clio off the road until he can afford to insure it. You could also consider PassPlus as a way to reduce the premium.

I agree. Also see if upping the voluntary excesses and reducing the amount of miles he will drive can make a difference. Whilst getting quotes the other day for me I halved the policy price by saying I'd pay £350 excess.

Evilm

Also have you tried adding you to the policy as a named driver? I did that with mine (legitimately as he needs to be able to drive it anyway) and the premium dropped 20% because they saw I had an older driver to advise me. I checked and doing the same on a full license policy had the same result.

biscit

lisyloo wrote: »

No sorry, that's not justified.
If you can't afford something you don't have it.
It doesn't justify immoral/illegal acts like stealing just so you can have what you want.
No wonder we have a broken society if parents encourage their offspring to do illegal/immoral things just because they can't gett what they want easily.
When I was a kid, if I couldn't have something I worked and saved up until I could.
Now people just do what they want and to hell with the consequences for anyone else.

When you were a kid they didn't charge such silly money for young people on car insurance. Never did when I learned to drive. It's not an identical situation, and it's plain ignorance to pretend otherwise.

Part of what's got us here is, true, people being immoral and taking what they can't afford. But another part is insurance companies who cherry pick the best risks and give them low prices, meaning the cost risk is not spread over all drivers as it was in the past.

Owning a car and paying for petrol- that's comparable.

biscit

raskazz wrote: »

There aren't many prosecutions - that is because (a) the Police/CPS are either not aware of Section 174 of the Road Traffic Act or cannot be bothered to investigate offences under it and (b) there is nothing to be gained from insurers in supporting prosecution on a case-by-case basis.

But tbh prosecution is the least of "fronters'" concerns - much worse is the prospect of being sued to recover costs incurred by the insurer due to Road Traffic Act obligations.

Yes, as I understand it the biggest risk of fronting is if the young driver has an accident and the insurance company declare the policy nul and void. You make a good point here raskazz, prosecution is not the only consequence of fraud.

Evilm wrote: »

Also have you tried adding you to the policy as a named driver? I did that with mine (legitimately as he needs to be able to drive it anyway) and the premium dropped 20% because they saw I had an older driver to advise me. I checked and doing the same on a full license policy had the same result.

Same happened to me when I got married. I added my wife as a second driver and the premium dropped.

It's not fronting either.

dacouch

biscit wrote: »

When you were a kid they didn't charge such silly money for young people on car insurance. Never did when I learned to drive. It's not an identical situation, and it's plain ignorance to pretend otherwise.

When we were kids we thought £500 TPF&T was expensive, the main reasons the premiums for young drivers have gone up so much are the ending of "Knock for Knock" which favoured TPF&T Insurers such as Pegasus etc and the government bringing in the No Win No Fee for solicitors.

dunstonh

There is no doubt that there is the potential for prosecution, but so far no-one here has produced evidence of a single criminal case being pursued.

Prosecution is a possible option. However, in most cases, the insurance company wont pay out and the individual suffers the financial loss. That is usually hard enough (especially when the parent and child finds out what their insurance premiums will be after that).

That said, you are always leaving yourself open to prosecution. Just because no-one has found an internet source for evidence of prosecution yet, doesnt mean that there hasnt been one or that there wont be one in future. The way the insurers are getting more fed up with fronting the more likely they will go for prosecution. The police are more likely to go with driving without insurance or dangerous driving or any of the other driving offences depending on the scale of an accident.