How much can a named driver actually drive?

vaio

lisyloo wrote: »

........If insurers think something is fishy, they don't look for evidence, they simply refuse to pay and make it your problem.......

are you sure about this?

I'd have thought an insurance company refusing to pay would get short shrift from the FOS/courts if they didn't have firm evidence to back up their refusal to pay

silvercar

I'm interested to know if the general definition of main driver as based on who drives it most is based on number of journeys/ times spent driving/ mileage or what.

At the moment elder son is main driver (and owner and registered keeper) with both parents named drivers for occasional use (both parents also have their own cars). In the next year eldest will be away at uni term time except for some weekends. When home he will use it to drive often 20-40 mile distances to visit friends as well as local journeys. In holiday times he will have virtually exclusive use. At some time youngest son will pass test and want to use car to drive 3 miles to school and back plus local journeys. Youngest son will do a rota to school with friends so won't be driving every week day. Given that eldest son is at uni, on first glance it could look like fronting, but it won't be...

mikey72

vaio wrote: »

are you sure about this?

I'd have thought an insurance company refusing to pay would get short shrift from the FOS/courts if they didn't have firm evidence to back up their refusal to pay

Thankfully, they are forced to accept some responsibilty for their action.
The FOS will not let them arbitrarily refuse to honour their contract.

lisyloo

While I'm sure that your overall argument is probably right this isn't a great example, how would an insurance company be able to obtain CCTV evidence in a civil case? They could send out an investigator with a video camera to collect evidence but the chances of that actually happening must be very remote.

Perhaps it's not the best example.
My point was that I don't think it's a good idea for people to think "it's ok, they'll never find out so it doesn't matter".
It does matter because if you end up being not insured because you got it wrong (whether indavertant or not) then you can end up being pursued for a 5 figure sum.
I agree the chances are remote, but I'm suggesting it's not good advice just to not bother because "they will never find out".

Insurers won't take you to court, they will simply not pay.
Yes you do have recourse to the courts and the FOS (for free) but remember all that time you may be without a car.
I've taken a number of cases to the FOS and won most of them but in some cases it's taken many months to be assigned someone to work on my case.
So I personally don't think it's something to take lightly.
A lot of people don't take it seriously enough and some end up being uninsured and end up being pursued by 3rd parties, the police or both.
I'm just warning agasint that. I'm aware that in some cases it will fall on deaf ears.

But going to court/the FOS is not a panacea.
It involves costs, risk, time off, being without a car, potential higher costs if you lose and emotional stress.

It's a great system if insurers are behaving badly, but I don't think it should be used as a fallbak posistion for not setting up your policy properly and potentially not being insured which is an offence.

I totally agree with Mikey/Vaio that insureres should honour their contracts.
What I'm talking about is fronting which is customers beign fradulent rather than insurers not honouring their contracts.

lisyloo

are you sure about this?

Yes I believe I've seen dozens of examples on these boards (assuming they aren't all made up).

I'd have thought an insurance company refusing to pay would get short shrift from the FOS/courts if they didn't have firm evidence to back up their refusal to pay

You don't get "short shrift" from the FOS in my experience.
I don't know what timescales they are running to now, but IME it's 2-6 months wait for a case worker assigned to a complaint.
Ultimately if an insurer is behaving wrongly then the customer should win, albeit with some delay, lack of car use, cost, risk, time off work, stress, hassle etc. That wasn't actually the scenario I was discussing.
If the insurer does have evidence and the customer hasn't set up their poloicy properly then off course it's a different matter and that's what I am referring to. When you go to court you don't KNOW evidence the other side has at that point, so if you have made a mistake or lied then you are not in a comfortable posistion. We are talking about going to court when you know you are in the wrong.

HappyMJ

silvercar wrote: »

I'm interested to know if the general definition of main driver as based on who drives it most is based on number of journeys/ times spent driving/ mileage or what.

At the moment elder son is main driver (and owner and registered keeper) with both parents named drivers for occasional use (both parents also have their own cars). In the next year eldest will be away at uni term time except for some weekends. When home he will use it to drive often 20-40 mile distances to visit friends as well as local journeys. In holiday times he will have virtually exclusive use. At some time youngest son will pass test and want to use car to drive 3 miles to school and back plus local journeys. Youngest son will do a rota to school with friends so won't be driving every week day. Given that eldest son is at uni, on first glance it could look like fronting, but it won't be...

As long as eldest son does not buy another car then I can't see why a few weeks with sole use will be seen as fronting. It'll be fine but you might want to discuss this with the insurance company and get it in writing.

vaio

lisyloo wrote: »

........You don't get "short shrift" from the FOS in my experience.
I don't know what timescales they are running to now, but IME it's 2-6 months wait for a case worker assigned to a complaint.
Ultimately if an insurer is behaving wrongly then the customer should win, albeit with some delay, lack of car use, cost, risk, time off work, stress, hassle etc. That wasn't actually the scenario I was discussing.
If the insurer does have evidence and the customer hasn't set up their poloicy properly then off course it's a different matter and that's what I am referring to. .......

Ahh, that’s what confused me. Now you’re talking about insurance companies having evidence of non (mis) disclosure, when you said....

lisyloo wrote: »

........If insurers think something is fishy, they don't look for evidence, they simply refuse to pay and make it your problem.......

I assumed that was what you meant was insurance companies refusing to pay without evidence but just because they “think” there might be something fishy going on.

lisyloo wrote: »

........When you go to court you don't KNOW evidence the other side has at that point, so if you have made a mistake or lied then you are not in a comfortable posistion. We are talking about going to court when you know you are in the wrong.

Similarly, if an insurance company does have evidence of wrong doing I’d be falling down surprised if they didn't mention it when they rejected the claim but even if they didn’t it would very quickly come out into the open during the defence/discovery process of a court action. Judges take a very dim view of “aces up sleeves” being produced during court cases without prior disclosure

lisyloo

Now you’re talking about insurance companies having evidence of non (mis) disclosure, when you said....

I don't think the customer would know whether the insurer had evidence or not at the start.

I assumed that was what you meant was insurance companies refusing to pay without evidence but just because they “think” there might be something fishy going on.

I think they try to "fobb off" customers all the time don't you?
I reckon I could find you dozens of examples and so could you if you search (if you needed to). Mikey is constantly telling people to go to the FOS (and me too).

Similarly, if an insurance company does have evidence of wrong doing I’d be falling down surprised if they didn't mention it when they rejected the claim

I don't think they are communicative and clear to customers at all and I'm suprised you think so.

but even if they didn’t it would very quickly come out into the open during the defence/discovery process of a court action.

Right so, you agree that someone that's knows they are guilty of inadvertant disclosure (not lying but simply didn't bother doing the job properly), would have to go to court without knowing what evidence the other side has against them?
I personally think that's an uncomfortable position don't you?
and I have heard from several sources that costs can be awarded in the small claims court and I can think of a specific example.

Judges take a very dim view of “aces up sleeves” being produced during court cases without prior disclosure

Blimey, so the customer is guilty of non-disclosure but you are still painting the insurer in the wrong !!!
I thought judges also took a dim view of people clearly wasting their time when they were in the wrong and were more likely to award costs in the case where someon is clearly trying it on.

I am suprised at the tack you are taking.
Are you saying that people shouldn't worry about non-disclousre and it's not important ???

vaio

lisyloo wrote: »

......I don't think the customer would know whether the insurer had evidence or not at the start.

I don't think they are communicative and clear to customers at all and I'm suprised you think so.

Right so, you agree that someone that's knows they are guilty of inadvertant disclosure (not lying but simply didn't bother doing the job properly), would have to go to court without knowing what evidence the other side has against them?
I personally think that's an uncomfortable position don't you?
and I have heard from several sources that costs can be awarded in the small claims court and I can think of a specific example......

I’m no great fan of insurance companies but, as I said above, I’d be really surprised if they rejected a claim without hard evidence of wrong doing AND I’m sure they would tell the policy holder exactly what that evidence was.

In the unlikely event of them not doing so and the policy holder suing them the evidence would have to be disclosed long before attendance at court, either as part of their written defence or as part of the pre trial discovery process.

lisyloo wrote: »

......Blimey, so the customer is guilty of non-disclosure but you are still painting the insurer in the wrong !!!
I thought judges also took a dim view of people clearly wasting their time when they were in the wrong and were more likely to award costs in the case where someon is clearly trying it on.

I am suprised at the tack you are taking.
Are you saying that people shouldn't worry about non-disclousre and it's not important ???

I’m not particularly painting insurance companies in the wrong and neither am I suggesting for a moment that non (or mis) disclosure is not important.

All my post was meant to convey was that when you said…..

lisyloo wrote: »

........If insurers think something is fishy, they don't look for evidence, they simply refuse to pay and make it your problem.......

You were wrong, I can’t imagine that any insurance company would reject a claim WITHOUT evidence to back up their rejection and such evidence would be communicated to the policy holder, almost certainly at the time the claim was rejected but in any event, long before anyone had to attend court.