Young driver insurance

400ixl

Motor trade job will have an impact as it will be seen as a higher risk occupation. Apprentice is also a high trigger role, so potentially a double whammy. Is there anything else that could describe his job keeping it within realms of reality?

Lower group cars (especially the popular ones) are often more expensive that obscure higher grouped cars.

Adding two experienced drivers can help over just one.

Unfortunately as mentioned, for some it just isn't going to be affordable at 17. If he can use a bike to get to work, does he really need (want I understand) a car?

Emmia

The other danger is that as soon as he has passed his test, has a car which is insured that he uses it to drive to work, rather than cycling... Much nicer to drive when it's raining, or you want to go out after work etc.

Presumably at the costs outlined he's not funding his car purchase / running costs / insurance (his parents are?) - personally, given he can cycle to work, I think he should wait to get a car and insurance until such time that he can fund all of this himself. 

EnPointe

Janey1a said:

daveyjp said:

And what 'occupation' is the 17 year old?

The potential payout for a fully comp claim  is minimal.  Even a minor knock will write off a 15 year old Colt.

He is an apprentice in the motor trade so we can’t get around that unfortunately but we have listed it as social only, not commuting to work as he can cycle to his workplace. 

SDP only may actually  increase the risk profile on a 17 year old especially one who is an apprentice i nthe motor trade 

i'm not a young driver by any means  but a recent change of occupation and increase in business miles  , which initially  raised a  Underwriting  query  due to the nature of the job and wnating business cover -  despite  it beign a requirement of the  ermployer  as although we have a base location  we can be expected to start a shift  at one of a group of 4 or 5  locations  depending on where the works vehicles and other workers are )   actually resulted in a reduced premium for me 

EnPointe

TooManyPoints said:

If you get insurance and add him, does that make a difference?

It certainly will.

That's called "fronting". If discovered the repercussions are severe. The policy will be cancelled and that cancellation will have to be declared for life. If it is discovered following a claim, cover will be repudiated leaving the driver to bear the costs. There is also the possibility that the proposer may be prosecuted for fraud.

All in all, not the best idea.  

Fronting is a specific  set of circumstances  - which is lower risk   sibling / parent/ grnadparent / whoever  is the policy holder and claims to be the main driver  when the 17/18 year old is  in reality the main / sole driver 

 it is possible to be the policyholder and not  the main driver ( after all that is how  the multicar policies work also sometimes  peopel who have a company  car  insure  the other  car in the family to keep their  long standing  high NCB ( or things like any driver cover for  little or no premium - something  increasingly hard ot get on retail policies)   even though  their parent or child is the Declared main driver 

TooManyPoints

Fronting is a specific  set of circumstances  - which is lower risk   sibling / parent/ grnadparent / whoever  is the policy holder and claims to be the main driver  when the 17/18 year old is  in reality the main / sole driver 

Yes I know what fronting is. And that's exactly what was suggested. The other circumstances you describe are not relevant here. The only reason it was suggested that the son was not to be the policyholder (when otherwise he normally would) was to reduce the premium.

Muskey

amanda1024 said:

If you get insurance and add him, does that make a difference? To an extent you might just have to accept that it’s not cost-effective for a 17 year old to have their own car. Once he’s had a year or more of driving experience I’d expect costs to go down

This is an illegal act termed ‘Fronting’ and could get all of you in serious trouble.

Aretnap

Janey1a said:

TooManyPoints said:

If you get insurance and add him, does that make a difference?

It certainly will.

That's called "fronting". If discovered the repercussions are severe. The policy will be cancelled and that cancellation will have to be declared for life. If it is discovered following a claim, cover will be repudiated leaving the driver to bear the costs. There is also the possibility that the proposer may be prosecuted for fraud.

All in all, not the best idea.  

Yeah I wouldn’t do that.  We added his dad as a named driver as he might use the car to get to his work, with my son using it at the weekends.
My son needs his own insurance to start building up no claims discount anyway.

Not that I'd recommend fronting, but building up no claims discount is very overrated. His premium will come down substantially in a year or two with or without no claims discount, just on account of the fact that he will be older and will have held his licence for longer. And the discount you get for a year or two's NCD tends not to be that great anyway.

If he can manage without a car if his own for a year or two (eg cycle to work and borrow mum or dad's car for occasional social use) that is likely to save him much more money than any hints we can give him about getting cheaper insurance this year. There's nothing to be gained by paying a huge premium this year in order to get a small discount off what will be a lower premium anyway next year.

SpudGunPaul

TooManyPoints said:

If you get insurance and add him, does that make a difference?

It certainly will.

That's called "fronting". If discovered the repercussions are severe. The policy will be cancelled and that cancellation will have to be declared for life. If it is discovered following a claim, cover will be repudiated leaving the driver to bear the costs. There is also the possibility that the proposer may be prosecuted for fraud.

All in all, not the best idea.  

How is it fronting if the main driver is correctly named?

TooManyPoints

How is it fronting if the main driver is correctly named?

But that wasn't the implication, was it:

If you get insurance and add him,...

That phrase indicated to me that the suggestion was that the OP was to propose a policy where he was the vehicle owner and main driver and that his son would be added as a named driver. I may be wrong in my conjecture, but if I am then I don't much see the point of the exercise. If the OP is to propose a policy where he is the policyholder  but his son is the main driver, the insurer will quote on the same basis as if the son is the policyholder (if they quoted at all) and there would be nothing gained.

ohwhathaveidone

Maybe look in to son buying a scooter instead of a car, good luck.