FRONTING it's not illegal

ChrisK....._3

Totally wrong wrong wrong
I've never heard of fronting until today but FRONTING is the act of adding a primary driver on an insurance and this is not illegal and Matt Dumbbell Oliver does not get to define FRONTING and it's irrepressible to describe it as an illegal act

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1011316/car-insurance-fronting-fraud-UK

Matt Oliver, spokesperson for GoCompare Car Insurance, said “Fronting describes the deliberate intention of the named driver, often a child of the proposer or younger/less experienced driver, being the sole or main user of the vehicle.

While it’s completely legal to add a more experienced driver onto your policy as a named driver, fronting is illegal

N9eav

The article says; While it’s completely legal to add a more experienced driver onto your policy as a named driver, fronting is illegal, and could potentially land you in court, as well as impacting on your ability to take out insurance in the future.


All drivers on the policy would be legally insured if the car was stopped on the road by Police and the driver was on the policy.


What the Fronting issue is would be declaring in your application to the insurer that person A is the main driver when clearly they will never be so. That is fraud by false representation Sec 2 or possible 3 of the fraud act 2006.


Might be hard to detect unless gran would never have an ear popping bass, bolt on spoiler and a road clearance of 2cm

malc_b

Hmm, see Fraud Act 2006, specifically section 2, false representation.



"A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading."


"A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another,"


Seems to me that Fronting is falsely stating you are the main driver when you know you are not and you are doing that to make a monetary gain. It meets all the requirements of the fraud as far as I can see so it would be fraud and thus illegal. Plus of course, if there was an accident, the insurers would cancel the policy so the driver would be driving uninsured, also a criminal offense.

Car_54

malc_b wrote: »

Hmm, see Fraud Act 2006, specifically section 2, false representation.



"A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading."


"A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another,"


Seems to me that Fronting is falsely stating you are the main driver when you know you are not and you are doing that to make a monetary gain. It meets all the requirements of the fraud as far as I can see so it would be fraud and thus illegal. Plus of course, if there was an accident, the insurers would cancel the policy so the driver would be driving uninsured, also a criminal offense.

All true, except the last sentence. The insurer can’t cancel 3rd party cover retrospectively.

N9eav

malc_b wrote: »

the insurers would cancel the policy so the driver would be driving uninsured, also a criminal offense.

Actually that is not strictly true. The insurers still have third party legal obligations and the driver is covered under the road traffic act even if obtained by fraud. (Durrant v MacLaren 1956) unless the insurer has given notice of revoking the policy.


I would not however rely on legal Aid to try and wangle your way out of living on the edge of caselaw

NBLondon

ChrisK..... wrote: »

Totally wrong wrong wrong
I've never heard of fronting until today but FRONTING is the act of adding a primary driver on an insurance and this is not illegal and Matt Dumbbell Oliver does not get to define FRONTING and

You've never heard of it until today but you get to define it eh? Generically, "Fronting" is the act of publicly declaring person A is in a role when the reality is that person B is in that role. It may or may not be illegal if the intention is to defraud. In the motor insurance case (which has been discussed here on a number of occasions) - declaring A is the main driver, when the reality is that B is the main driver, is the fraudulent act.

It's a badly worded article since it starts out using fronting to mean both the legal way of reducing premiums (adding a named driver) and the illegal (falsely declaring which is the main driver). Matt Oliver is correct - it's the journalist who is clumsy.

Johno100

I'm sure fraud and the Fraud Act is one way it is illegal. I wonder with the police seemingly having the ability to ticket drivers and seize vehicles that whilst having the legal minimum level of insurance cover don't have the correct class of use (e.g. business use, hire and reward) for the journey in question, can they apply the same rule if there is a road side admission that a young named driver is actually the main/sole driver rather than say the policy holding parent?

Car_54

Johno100 wrote: »

I'm sure fraud and the Fraud Act is one way it is illegal. I wonder with the police seemingly having the ability to ticket drivers and seize vehicles that whilst having the legal minimum level of insurance cover don't have the correct class of use (e.g. business use, hire and reward) for the journey in question, can they apply the same rule if there is a road side admission that a young named driver is actually the main/sole driver rather than say the policy holding parent?

No, because the insurance is valid unless and until the insurer cancels it, so no (insurance) offence has been committed.

Johno100

Car_54 wrote: »

No, because the insurance is valid unless and until the insurer cancels it, so no (insurance) offence has been committed.

But how is that different from seizing a vehicle and prosecuting a driver with valid insurance but not the right class of cover?

Car_54

Johno100 wrote: »

But how is that different from seizing a vehicle and prosecuting a driver with valid insurance but not the right class of cover?

Because if you’ve the wrong class of cover you do NOT have valid insurance at that particular time.

The fronting driver has valid insurance.

iolanthe07

The fronting driver has valid insurance.



Yes, but obtained fraudulently. If the insurance company finds out (and they have their ways) you'll find it hard to get insurance again. They tell each other about this sort of thing because they really don't like it.