Surely you mean its cheaper parked on a driveway than the street :L ?
My eldest is nearing 17 and she is going to get a 90 (although I would prefer her to have a series 3 as they are even cheaper to insure) and with the misses as a named driver, go compare comes in at £1100 for the first year (£998 for a series 3). The way I see it is that she will have a sound vehicle which she can learn a lot from (in terms of general maintenance) and less chance of having a prang, and if she did the other party would be in a worse condition! Guess what her b'day present will be until she is in full time employment?
Still a rip off for young'ens.
What are you typing in to get that quote? It came up with 5 grand when I tried.....My eldest is nearing 17 and she is going to get a 90 (although I would prefer her to have a series 3 as they are even cheaper to insure) and with the misses as a named driver, go compare comes in at £1100 for the first year (£998 for a series 3). The way I see it is that she will have a sound vehicle which she can learn a lot from (in terms of general maintenance) and less chance of having a prang, and if she did the other party would be in a worse condition! Guess what her b'day present will be until she is in full time employment?
Still a rip off for young'ens.
5 Grand!!!!!! :faint2::faint2:What are you typing in to get that quote? It came up with 5 grand when I tried.....
Not good advice. If you are a named driver on your parents policy, it is assumed by the insurance company that your parents are the main drivers of the vehicle. If you make a claim while a named driver is driving, especially a young driver, the insurance company will investigate the claim very thoroughly, and if they are even slightly suspicious that you may be the main driver, and not your parents, they will inavidate the policy, refuse to pay the claim, and you could even be prosecuted for driving without valid insurance.If the system thinks you're fronting, it bumps up the quote.
Best advice is to be a named driver on a parents policy, with said parent also the registered vehicle owner. If said parent doesn't already have a car (uses a company car or something) then this can work out a lot cheaper.
If the system thinks you're fronting, it bumps up the quote.
Best advice is to be a named driver on a parents policy, with said parent also the registered vehicle owner. If said parent doesn't already have a car (uses a company car or something) then this can work out a lot cheaper.
however the parent would then have to be the main driver
Do you know if certain insurance companies who do not allow 17 yr olds to be a main driver would allow a 17 yr old driver to be a named driver?Yes.. That's the point..
Let me clarify; I'm not suggesting that all young drivers should front their insurance, I'm just saying that in some specific circumstances it's not illegal and can work out better for the inexperienced driver.
The insurance company don't have to prove anything. reasonable grounds for suspicion of fraud is enough for them to avoid paying a claim. If they do refuse the claim, the onus is then on you to prove that everything you said on the policy is correct.That's true, but if the owner of the vehicle has no other insurance policy and no other privately owned vehicle besides the one in question, it can be argued that it is indeed his main car and the named driver is just that, someone else who also drives the car.
The insurance company would then have to prove that the named driver was using the vehicle more than the owner. This is not a simple task.
(obviously if the named driver uses the car away from home a lot this is not a good idea)
There are no circumstances in which fronting is legal.Yes.. That's the point..
Let me clarify; I'm not suggesting that all young drivers should front their insurance, I'm just saying that in some specific circumstances it's not illegal and can work out better for the inexperienced driver.
There are no circumstances in which fronting is legal.
The insurance company don't have to prove anything. reasonable grounds for suspicion of fraud is enough for them to avoid paying a claim. If they do refuse the claim, the onus is then on you to prove that everything you said on the policy is correct.