This sounds like 'fronting' to me....experts advice please

slipp_digby

there was another thread on here, cant find it now :mad: you should look at that too as its relevant (from memory he had put his son in wrongly as his spouse when he took out the insruance).

they had misrepresented the risk when the insurer found out they then wanted them to pay the past additional premiums for the additional risk they had taken on without knowing. he owed them £700 extra on a policy costing about the same.

assuming OHs cousin 'fronted it' and insured this car third party (as it was the only way to make it economically insurable) he needs to rectify his mistake sooner rather than later as I am guessing his true premium for an impreza as main driver is much much higher.

jem16

I assume you meant this thread?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=652151

slipp_digby

jem16 wrote: »

I assume you meant this thread?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=652151

yes that's the one, thank you jem16

I think there is a lesson in here too which is relevant, even if they don't need to claim there may be consequences of the ££££ kind if the insurers find out he had misrepresented the risk

raskazz

Yes, it is obvious fromting and if any claims are submitted the insurer will be all over them like a rash checking the details submitted at inception.

If the car is stolen he and his mother would have to face a theft interview with a professional interviewer. Invariably the interviewer runs rings around the 'fronter' until it is obvious that the risk was misrepresented.

As pointed out elsewhere, if he persists with the fraud then not being paid out for a theft is the least of his worries - if he injures a third party then if his insurer has to compensate the third party then they will sue either him or his mum for the outlay. This will be detailed in a 'Right of recovery' clause in the policy document - you should suggest that he and his mum read this, consider that injury claims can run into millions of pounds, then think long and hard about what they are doing.

The policyholder is also guilty of an arrestablel offence under s. 174 of the Road Traffic Act:

(5) A person who makes a false statement or withholds any material information for the purpose of obtaining the issue—
(a) of a certificate of insurance or certificate of security under Part VI of this Act ...
is guilty of an offence.

chris_spackman

is a policeman and he dealt with a case like this. This guy crashed an rs turbo into a couple walking their dog. The old man broke both his legs,two ribs and his wife had a broken arm and collar bone. After hitting them the younger guy ploughed through a garden wall and came to a stop with his car inches from the wall of the house. Turned out the guy driving was only 18 years old and his dad nsured the car for him. The crash happened 40 miles waway from his dads house at 10pm. The dad is now bankrupt. Had to sell his house etc to cover the costs,for what it was worth!
So to sum it up....only drive a car you can afford to insure. Never tell porkies to the insurance company.

jaxxy00

Interesting reading this. I know of 3 young people that have their parents insure their cars for them with them as named drivers when actually they are the sole user of the car. I always thought it wasnt quite right but didnt realise it was illegal.

My daughter has her own insurance (although more money) and is earning her own no claims etc and the others think they are clever because they get theirs cheap, well they will find out if unfortunately a claim happens.