car insurance for 17 year old. help!

katiekittykat

silvercar wrote: »

He is going to be driving to school every day, he is going to be the main driver!

OK Directline have come up trumps. Discount for buying online and discount for us having house insurance and another car insured with them. That is with the car in his name and him being the main driver. I have put others on as named drivers in case we do use his car occasionally. Quote now under £2k.

Will still try some others.

Thanks for advice.

Did you use any of the links I gave you in my other post?

When i passed my test the 1st place we tried was direct line as both my parents are with them - even with all the discounts they gave us for having 2 policies in the house already it came out well above £1900 - (and i was 23!!!)

In the end I went to diamond (which is women only). But do try the other links I gave you

xxxx

silvercar

thanks Katie,

I worked through martin's list, starting with comparethemarket.com and so on.

I will try those specific links before I commit.

Car not bought yet, if only he could wait til the Summer, he would be 18 and more options open.

lisyloo

you don't legally have to be MOT'd and taxed to be on the road

I think you do need to be taxed if you car is on the public road.
A privately owned driveway is OK if you have one a SORN.

Badger_Lady

lisyloo wrote: »

I think you do need to be taxed if you car is on the public road.
A privately owned driveway is OK if you have one a SORN.

Sorry, that was supposed to read "off the road" :rotfl: Will change now...

katiekittykat

silvercar wrote: »

thanks Katie,

I worked through martin's list, starting with comparethemarket.com and so on.

I will try those specific links before I commit.

Car not bought yet, if only he could wait til the Summer, he would be 18 and more options open.

No Prob's hope they help - i know how frustrating it can be.

I googled insurance for young drivers and they are the 3 main ones it bought up

Good luck

xxxx

darich

Badger_Lady wrote: »

I'm not convinced by this - you don't legally have to be MOT'd and taxed to be off the road. And many people still insure their cars while they're off-road (in case of vandalism / accidental damage).

It's an interesting case, but would the insurers really give a poo-poo as long as you don't try to claim? After all, it's difficult to shout "fraud!" if the accused has actually been giving the victim money.

The car doesn't need to be insured to be on the road so it's probably the same for MOT and tax. That wasn't my point - perhaps i worded it poorly.

Insuring the car but declaring it SORN so you can claim several years driving experience is a type of fraud and that is the point i was trying to make.
You'd be claiming to have built up several years no claims discount by not making any claims and gaining valuable driving experience when in actual fact you had no more experience than someone who had just passed their test.

Badger_Lady

darich wrote: »

You'd be claiming to have built up several years no claims discount by not making any claims and gaining valuable driving experience when in actual fact you had no more experience than someone who had just passed their test.

But this is true even if you don't do this - I passed my test, drove for 3 months and then moved house so I didn't need to, so I sold my car.

2 years later, I was no longer on "probation" with my driving licence (giving me 12 points rather than 6) and my insurance was cheaper. My premiums were lower due to my "driving experience", even though I hadn't been insured to drive during that time. In fact, I'd only driven about 3 times in 2 years (hire cars). In fact, the poster who described this has been driving regularly in someone else's car, so they have built up more "experience" than me.

The described "plan" just gets you a No Claims Discount on top of the "driving experience" reduction in premiums. And it's genuine because you have paid the premiums and not claimed.

If you can actually cite law on this, I'll stand corrected, but I don't think it's as open-and-shut as originally stated.