Undeclared Banned Named Driver

ThinkingOutLoud_2

I guess the OP can hope that he can try to explain:-
- it was negligent oversight and he had failed to act in prior years to the ban (his action was not driven by the ban...)
- as his Mum was banned she actually was not going to be able to drive any car
- he had in previous years insured her so e.g. she could if ever they went out as a family and he had a pint - she could drive them home ...no more no less
- if he had noticed she was insured, he would clearly been best removed her so as to avoid any extra costs or being declined and all of this!

I agree fraud is the intent to mislead. I don't think there is any evidence or logic for the OP to have tried to put his Mum on the policy. He has not benefited from doing so and the insurer TBH has not suffered any significant consequential loss really. If the premium would have been different with Mum removed, I am sure the Op would be happy to pay it.

But it depends on how hard-nosed they want to be...certainly worth fighting as far as the ombudsman if they play hardball given the money at stake for the OP.

MEM62

kaya wrote: »

Using your parents details to obtain cheaper car insurance is 100% illegal its called "fronting" , regardless of the fact your mum was prosecuted for drink driving or if you failed to notify them in time you have still broken the law and now admitted to it on a pubic forum , that's not unpleasant or judgemental its a fact

Complete tosh!

Fronting is where the policy is in the mane of someone else with you as a named driver. Which does not appear to be the case here.

Also, would you please state what specific law the OP has broken?

System

losgiganteskid wrote: »

and why do people start a sentence with the word "So" ??

Because the sentence in question was the culmination of a story that was in the course of telling, implying a long winded story so far which the speaker is now going to bring to a conclusion.

"So" is a pause for breath, a bit like "Anyway, to cut a long story short".


But "So" when used out of the blue with no pre-history, is a nonsense, but in this case the word was used absolutely correctly.

losgiganteskid

The use of the word "so" at the start of that sentence was totally unnecessary. " Presumably if you hadn't been found out....." would suffice - why use two words when one will do ?

Placitasgirl

As you've adopted the role of grammar police I think you need a reminder a sentence should never begin with "and". Also that the first letter of a sentence should be capitalised.

As your post added nothing of value to the thread I had decided to ignore it, but as you seem intent on correcting me I thought I'd return the favour :-)

ThinkingOutLoud_2

losgiganteskid wrote: »

The use of the word "so" at the start of that sentence was totally unnecessary. " Presumably if you hadn't been found out....." would suffice - why use two words when one will do ?

Because while his prepositional pedantry is precise - his brevity is only so-so :-)
PS Apologies for ending my above and this sentence with two so's.

losgiganteskid

Placitasgirl wrote: »

As you've adopted the role of grammar police I think you need a reminder a sentence should never begin with "and". Also that the first letter of a sentence should be capitalised.

As your post added nothing of value to the thread I had decided to ignore it, but as you seem intent on correcting me I thought I'd return the favour :-)

Clearly touched a nerve there

Don't believe I actually started a new sentence - if I had, I would have put a full stop and started a new sentence with a capital letter

ThinkingOutLoud_2

losgiganteskid wrote: »

Clearly touched a nerve there

Don't believe I actually started a new sentence - if I had, I would have put a full stop and started a new sentence with a capital letter

You could even put a full stop at the end of all your sentences.
:rotfl:

losgiganteskid

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

You could even put a full stop at the end of all your sentences.
:rotfl:

I like your style "Out Loud" - but I do take comfort from your slogan "nothing I say should be relied upon " QED :beer:

GwylimT

kaya wrote: »

Using your parents details to obtain cheaper car insurance is 100% illegal its called "fronting" , regardless of the fact your mum was prosecuted for drink driving or if you failed to notify them in time you have still broken the law and now admitted to it on a pubic forum , that's not unpleasant or judgemental its a fact

Wrong. My wife and I are named drivers on my sons policy, this saves him £250 a year, nothing at all illegal about it. Care to show legislation which says having parents as named drivers is against the law?