Family & Relationships6 mins ago
undisclosed speeding conviction
36 Answers
My insurance company want �200 in back-pay for my wifes speeding offence dated 2006.
Can they do this? Is there any legal right for them, or legal obligation from me?
Thanks Mitch.
Can they do this? Is there any legal right for them, or legal obligation from me?
Thanks Mitch.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by firemanmitch. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
As I said, if you are both driving, that is not a problem.
It is when the car is insured is Adam's name because it would cost a lot more to insure Eve for whatever reason, but Adam never drives the car (Or vice versa) In that instance it is definitely fraud, as highlighted in my earlier quote.
A typical example of this fraud is when the named driver is the child - but the parent never drives the car:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_ lunch/7282236.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox /7052569.stm
http://www.insurancedaily.co.uk/2007/11/01/ill egal-fronting-in-car-insurance-a-growing-probl em/
But the principal is exactly the same if the named driver is 'high risk' and the policy holder never drives the car.
It is when the car is insured is Adam's name because it would cost a lot more to insure Eve for whatever reason, but Adam never drives the car (Or vice versa) In that instance it is definitely fraud, as highlighted in my earlier quote.
A typical example of this fraud is when the named driver is the child - but the parent never drives the car:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_ lunch/7282236.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox /7052569.stm
http://www.insurancedaily.co.uk/2007/11/01/ill egal-fronting-in-car-insurance-a-growing-probl em/
But the principal is exactly the same if the named driver is 'high risk' and the policy holder never drives the car.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Doc Spock - "I do not agree that the policy holder should drive the car most."
That's a bit like saying "I do not agree that killing paedophiles should be illegal" though isn't it? With all due respect, what you agree about it isn't terribly important in the scheme of things if what we're discussing is illegal (and it is).
It is a matter of fact that the insured person should be the "main" driver. That there are thousands of couples in the same position is pretty much irrelevant. There are also thousands of people getting away with speeding on the roads every day, it's not an excuse for those who get caught doing it.
It's a fact that where one user of the car is CLEARLY the more prominent user of the car then, regardless of ownership, that person should be the holder of the insurance. In situations where there isn't a clear certainty which person will use it more (one car families where the driving is shared) it's not ultimately going to matter.
Otherwise, it's illegal, because the insurance by law is required in the name of the "main driver".
That's a bit like saying "I do not agree that killing paedophiles should be illegal" though isn't it? With all due respect, what you agree about it isn't terribly important in the scheme of things if what we're discussing is illegal (and it is).
It is a matter of fact that the insured person should be the "main" driver. That there are thousands of couples in the same position is pretty much irrelevant. There are also thousands of people getting away with speeding on the roads every day, it's not an excuse for those who get caught doing it.
It's a fact that where one user of the car is CLEARLY the more prominent user of the car then, regardless of ownership, that person should be the holder of the insurance. In situations where there isn't a clear certainty which person will use it more (one car families where the driving is shared) it's not ultimately going to matter.
Otherwise, it's illegal, because the insurance by law is required in the name of the "main driver".
To clarify on fronting issues, in general this only applies when a parent has the policy in their name, with a child as a named driver.
If both people on the policy are of the same age, and live at the same address, it doesn't make that much of a difference to us about who the main driver is (although we still ask the question apart from on certain types of policies).
We appreciate that lots of people have a spouse that deals with all the paperwork, etc (especially for certain ethnic groups), and so these situations do arise - in cases where it is a husband and wife/partners on the policy, and there may be convictions/claims for the named driver rather than the policyhodler, or there is a significant age difference, we rate the policy on the highest risk driver - we occasionally rate a policy on the son/daughter as well if it's an obvious case of fronting (ie 50 year old housewife, 21 year old son, Subaru Impreza on cover) - it's difficult to prove fronting enough to void the policy, so we try and charge the rlevant premium as if the 21 year old son was driving.
If both people on the policy are of the same age, and live at the same address, it doesn't make that much of a difference to us about who the main driver is (although we still ask the question apart from on certain types of policies).
We appreciate that lots of people have a spouse that deals with all the paperwork, etc (especially for certain ethnic groups), and so these situations do arise - in cases where it is a husband and wife/partners on the policy, and there may be convictions/claims for the named driver rather than the policyhodler, or there is a significant age difference, we rate the policy on the highest risk driver - we occasionally rate a policy on the son/daughter as well if it's an obvious case of fronting (ie 50 year old housewife, 21 year old son, Subaru Impreza on cover) - it's difficult to prove fronting enough to void the policy, so we try and charge the rlevant premium as if the 21 year old son was driving.
For various reasons, my husband and I have had cars registered in our names (1 each) and insurances on both in each others names and we have both driven the others cars the most (are you following). I have spoken to 3 insurance companies recently who have all said this doesnt matter!
Tesco tried to charge me �297 for failing to notify them of a penalty even though the joint car policy showed the speeding fine on one car and not the other which proved they had been notified. Goes without saying I moved insurance companies and have never heard anything back from Tesco.
Tesco tried to charge me �297 for failing to notify them of a penalty even though the joint car policy showed the speeding fine on one car and not the other which proved they had been notified. Goes without saying I moved insurance companies and have never heard anything back from Tesco.
