This lie could cost you thousands

Rachel Wait
by Lovemoney Staff Rachel Wait on 26 November 2009  |  Comments 10 comments

Tell this little white lie and you could potentially lose thousands of pounds.

On the back of Emma Lunn's recent article I want to lie to my insurer, we had a lot of questions from readers regarding car insurance and the issue of fronting.

Fronting, as the name suggests, is when you put a fake 'front' on a car insurance policy you've taken out in order to bring down your premiums.

Let's say you insure a car in your own name and add, say, your teenage son as a 'named driver' to the policy. If, in fact, your son is the main or only driver, rather than an occasional driver, then this is fronting.

And it's illegal. You've just committed insurance fraud!

Not just parents

Of course, it's not just parents who do it. When a young person buys a car and registers it in his/her own name, but lies to the insurer that his/her parent is the main driver, then this is fronting too!

The main reason people do this is to simply keep premiums down - after all, if a more experienced driver with a decent no-claims history is the main driver, the cost of insurance will be far lower than if the younger, more risky, driver was the main policyholder. 

Sounds simple so far... but what if, like lovemoney.com reader Tony1968, you're not sure who the main driver is?

The main driver

'We have one car in my name, the other in my wife's, but we both use them," said Tony1968. "My wife does more trips in "my" car but I do more miles so you could argue either way.

'Playing with online sites gives a difference of about £2 depending who's declared as main driver and they're not all the same way round so I hope it's clear I'm not trying to commit fraud to save £2 a year! Even so, how would they check who drove it most?'

The good news for Tony1968 is that because a husband and wife are usually of a similar age and have similar risk profiles, fronting isn't generally an issue. And it's clear that there is little risk difference between Tony1968 and his wife, given the fact there's only a £2 price difference between insurance quotes. As a result, it's unlikely that an insurer would investigate who drives the car the most.

That said, Direct Line advises that the main driver should always be the registered owner and keeper of the vehicle.

Markyboi also asked: 'I have two cars and the driving is shared pretty equally between them. We tend to use the cheaper diesel car if available. This car is in my wife's name but it is likely that I drive it more often than she does. She is named as the main driver and the insurance is in her name but I am named on her policy. Am I likely to fall foul of the insurers wriggle out, if they somehow discovered I drove it more than her?'

Again, many insurers are unlikely to make an issue of fronting here because again, the risk profiles between Markyboi and his wife will be similar. However, Direct Line says the person who drives the car more - ie Markyboi - should be the main driver on the policy and as a result, the ownership issue needs to be addressed. That's because insuring a car as the main driver when you're not the registered owner and keeper could be considered fraudulent.

So to be on the safe side, Markyboi should put the diesel car's ownership and insurance in his name if he is doing most of the driving. His wife would then be named as the additional driver. That said, it could be worth Markyboi giving his own insurer a ring to find out if this is definitely necessary in his case.

Fronting problems

Fronting can be an issue between husband and wife, however, if there is a difference in risk profiles - perhaps because one person has multiple motoring convictions which would make him/her a greater risk. In this case, the higher risk person should be classed as the main driver - if he/she isn't, this would be seen as fronting and if you had to make a claim, it's likely it would be turned down.

Similarly, in the case of parent and child, if you're using the car equally, it's always safest to name the riskiest driver - typically the younger driver - as the main driver.

However, if the car belonged to the parent and the younger driver was only using the car from time to time, it would fine to name the younger driver as an additional driver on a parent's policy. In fact, if you do this with Direct Line, it can work out to be beneficial because the younger driver can earn his own named driver No Claims Discount to apply to his own policy when he has his a car.

On the other hand, another insurer, esure, operates slightly differently as it won't ask who uses the car more frequently, but will simply look at the riskiest driver named on the policy and base the premium on this - whether or not the riskiest driver is the main driver or an additional driver.

Fronting can also be a big issue if you've got a son or daughter taking your car off to university on a regular basis. For example, if you share your car with your son and he leaves it parked on the road outside his university accommodation, but you've stated on your policy that the car is always parked in your garage at home, your policy is likely to be invalidated when you come to make a claim.

They'll never find out

Some readers also wondered how insurers would be able to prove fronting. According to Admiral, if an insurer suspects fronting it will examine the evidence available from the police report and the claim form.

This can involve looking at whether the accident happened on a regular route for the secondary driver (who is in fact the main driver) - such as on the way to work. The ownership and usage of other cars in the household would also be investigated.

For very large claims, the insurer can justify spending more time and money on these investigations and can look into things such as statements from neighbours/friends/colleagues regarding the vehicle usage. CCTV footage might also be examined.

The consequences of fronting

If your insurer does detect fronting, it can refuse to pay out for any claims. And if it's a case of parent and child, the insurer can settle a third-party claim and recover the cost from the parent.

It's also possible that if a claim is rejected, the young driver could be treated as uninsured and could be heavily fined. And the driver could be given penalty points on his/her driving licence - which could lead to an automatic driving ban.

Drivers who have had a policy cancelled will also have to declare this on any future applications and as a result, it's likely to be more difficult and more expensive to buy insurance.  

Moral of the story

I think the moral of the story here is to simply be honest when applying for car insurance. And if you're unsure about anything, always ask the insurer. Of course, your honesty may lead to higher premiums, but paying that bit more will be worth it if and when you come to make a claim.

There are better ways to keep your costs down

If you are looking for ways to keep your insurance premiums down, fronting isn't the solution. Instead, adopt this goal: Slash your insurance costs. Next, watch these videos: Beating the renewal quote is nothing to shout about and Don't make this car insurance mistake. And then, why not have a wander over to Q&A and ask other lovemoney.com members for advice?

Finally, always shop around for your policy to make sure you're getting the very best deal - check out the lovemoney.com car insurance centre to compare quotes.

More: Five ways to slash the cost of your car insurance | 305 compelling reasons to compare car insurance

Compare car insurance with lovemoney.com

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (10)

  • Chorlton1
    Love rating 61
    Chorlton1 said

    I think the insurance business is another area that needs to be investigated after we have finished with the banks. The premiums many are now charging makes it more likely that drivers will risk not paying especially the young inexperienced drivers who are probably more likely to be involved in an accident. I would be interested to hear the premiums new drivers are paying compared to the cost of the car they drive. My first insurance policy on a Austin Mini 850 was about £50 more than the car was worth around 16 years ago for 3 party fire and theft and since then prices have steadily escallated.

    Report on 26 November 2009  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Honky81
    Love rating 4
    Honky81 said

    Hey,

    Another tip: Name a low risk driver (i.e. your mum/dad) as a second driver will reduce the premium (as opposed to just one "high risk" driver)...

    Worked for a friend of mine.

    Report on 26 November 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Scoobydoo
    Love rating 0
    Scoobydoo said

    My current policy started in March and I am the owner and main driver.

    Sons (22 and 24) and boyfriend are all named drivers and put my premiums up quite nicely but it meant there was an emergency spare car when they needed it.

    I have a health problem which means I am choosing not to drive for a bit while it is sorted.

    Car is spending most of the time on the drive although it has been borrowed on a couple of occasions - son helped girlfriend relocate her belongings to Uni - a couple of hours driving time. And son and boyfriend took it to the garage and back (one drove each way) to get it MOT'd, 10 miles tops.

    So, where do I stand. Do I need to advise the insurers? My MOT cert will confirm the low level of mileage that it has done recently compared to the miles it has had put on it by me.

    Report on 26 November 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 265
    oldhenry said

    Another scam of insurers to avoid a pay out? Perhaps you didn't tell them you had a pet , that is a risk as teh dog could be leaping about the car ( my Jack Russell did years ago)

    But , seriously, I have a car, and my wife has a car. these are insured/owned in the correct names etc.

    But if we travel together( often) I always drive, and that i both cars. If she goe alone, it is often in my car.

    How on earth do you sort this crap out. When I was young, some time ago, most policies were any driver anyway so it did not matter a hoot. What a ridiculous world it is coming too, nanny state , over-regulation blah, blah.

    Report on 26 November 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LateDeveloper
    Love rating 22
    LateDeveloper said

    People worry over such things ?

    If you own the car, and drive, you are the main driver, the onus is on the insurance company to prove that you are not the main driver. I think, in the eyes of the law, if you own the car and drive, then you are classified as the main driver, it does not matter how often you drive. If other people are named drivers on your policy, there is usually a restriction in place, enforced by the insurance company, ie third party only, if not, then again the onus is on the insurance company to prove that you are niether the owner, nor the main driver. Unless there is a stipulation in writing on your insurance policy, as to the number of hours the policy holder must drive the car, for them to be considered as main driver, or there is some kind of stipulation restricting other named drivers from driving the car, more hours than the policy holder, then the insurance company can do nothing.

    Don't forget, it is in the insurance companies interest to either not pay out or reduce the cost of any claim, and if they do do so and break the terms of the contract, then it is your right to sue them under breach of contract, something that inevitably could cost them 10 x as much in legal fees.

    As far as withholding evidence of anything that may effect your insurance, then again the onus is on the insurance company to supply information as to what may effect your policy, and any insurance company will provide details of what must be declared, prior to any insurance being taken out. They have to do this by law, it forms part of the contract of insurance. Insurance companies are not ogres, but they will work to the strictest guide lines of the policy issued. The onus in this case is for the prerson taking out the policy, to read everything including the fine print, before taking out any policy. You are entering into a legally binding contract, that any court of law will uphold, if either party breaks that contract.

    Report on 27 November 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Mike10613
    Love rating 599
    Mike10613 said

    In some cases establishing who is the main driver can be confusing. If it came to court the judge would have to decide if there was intent to defraud the insurance company. Your insurance can also be invalid if you don't declare a disability or health problem. Most problems are now declared in a phone call and so no record is in writing. I wasn't well enough to drive last year and so my sister probably drove my car more than me; but there was no intention to defraud. I informed my insurance company and the premium was based on a low mileage that I can prove as the mileage is always taken when the car is MOT'd I also have medical emergency insurance on my car and anyone is insured to drive it with me in the car if I'm not well enough to drive. The same applies in a motoring emergency (although I can't imagine one). There is clearly no intention to defraud and a judge would rule on that in the case of an accident. I am driving more this year and so it isn't a problem, but intention is what may be looked at in a court of law.

    Report on 27 November 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Wellsprungalice
    Love rating 20
    Wellsprungalice said

    Mike 10613 makes an interesting point: "Your insurance can also be invalid if you don't declare a disability or health problem."

    What level of disability are we talking about, here? Anyone an expert in the motor insurance game who can advise?

    My partner has a condition which causes muscle fatigue - she can drive safely for hours, but walk very little, and so has been granted a mobility vehicle because of this. We we don't organise the insurance for the mobility car, Motability does, so fitness wasn't raised, we were both just covered automatically.

    We are currently having an argument about whether my partner should admit to her disability as the second driver on my insurance. If it doesn't affect your ability to drive safely, and you've not been warned about effects on driving by your GP, should you declare it, or is this just another excuse for the scammy insurance companies to bump premiums?

    At what point is a disability or health problem considered to be sufficient to declare?

    Anyone know the law on this (not just opinion) please?

    Report on 27 November 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • michaelpatricksimons
    Love rating 3
    michaelpatricksimons said

    For over 30 years I was employed by solicitors who acted for insurance companies.

    On many occasions insurance companies sent me files and asked if they should indemnify the insured (car driver).

    I can give you an assurance that honesty is the best policy. To knowlingly give any false information is being stupid, stupid, stupid.... You could loose all of your savings, your home and even finish up being a bankrupt.

    The point I make which is confused in the above writings, is that each insurance company should be judged on its past record. A chartered loss adjuster friend of mine worked for an insurance comany and the first exercise he was compelled to carry out on every claim, was to vet the application for for insurance cover, to mark the answer to each question with a tick or a cross, just like a school master marking your home work, looking for dishonest replies. In every case where the insured had lied to obtain insurance cover that they would not otherwise have got, the claims were rejected. There was an exception namely if a claim for damages for personal injuries was made, whih I discuss below.

    At the end of the application form for every type of insurance, every person is required to give a Declaration that the contents of the form are true. It is a criminal offence to have made any or every false answer to obtain cover. It is not appreciated that it is for the insurance company to decide whether or not they wish to take on the risk of covering the aplicant. It is not for the applicant to assume that they hve an inherant right to insurance cover. The insurance company owes a duty of care to its insurers.

    What are the consequence of a claim being rejected. The insurance company should write to the insured, specifying the respects in which the insured is in breach of his Declaration and to void the policy ab initio, at the same time he must refund the whole of the premium

    The driver will be told to deal with the claim himself. If he does not have sufficient funds, the injuried parties must notify the Motor Insurers Bureau of the claim if they wish to persue their claim for recovery of their losses and damages for personal injuries and all financial losses. The Bureau will send the culprit a form to sign in which they agree to indemnify the Bureau of all claims and costs it pays. Failure to make payment will result in the culprit being sued in the County Court. If the Judgment is unpaid, it will be registered in the County Court's Register of unpaid Judgements. That entry will be seen by the credit agencies and will be noted in their records. A consquence is that the liar may find it almost impossible to obtain hire purchace or a credit agreement or a new credit card or every type of insurance cover. All because they were a liar. If you have a mortgage, you have to have insurance cover. You may not get cover in which case your application for a mortgage will be rejected.

    There is one comment that always annoys me: that is when people compare the value of the car with the insurance premiuim. This attitude is complete and utter nonsense. It is not comparing the like with the like. The correct approach is to ask oneself this elementary question: If I have an accident and it is my fault wholly or in part, how much money will the insurance company have to pay out to settle all of the claims and costs? In many cases the pay-out will excede the insurance premium.

    For example, I have just paid my renewal premium of £395 which includes a legal expenses policy for my solicitors' costs of up to £100,000 in pursuing a claim on my behalf and a fully comprehensive recovery cost eg similar to what you pay to the RAC or AA. My wife is the only other driver. I have a limit of 12,000 miles a year. Any accident I might have could see the pay-out well in excess of the premium. I drive to safeguard by 65% no claims bonus. Do remember that this statement of fact means what it says, it is not a no blames bonus until the claims have been resolved or the other party admits liability for the whole of the claim.

    A very important point that is not mentioned above is that during the course of the insurance cover, if you have an accident or have committed a criminal motoring offence (it does not matter if the police issue you with a fixed penalty or are convicted by the Court) or more importantly have a health problem that you would have to disclose - these changes in circumstances must be reported to your insurance company immediately. In the case of a reportable illness, you must not drive until your insurance company have decided whether or not to continue insuring you. The list of illnesses and ailments is on the DLVC website. Whether or not you trouble yourself to obtain a copy of this list is immaterial because you are deemed, in contract law, to know of its existance and content. It is for the insurance company to consider the facts and to decide whether or not it will continue to insure you.

    Do you know that the driver is driving a car when he ought not to be and you are a passenger? About 10 years ago a case was referred to the Court of Appeal and it related to a pilot who was piloting his aircraft when he was under the influence of alcohol. He had passengers who knew he had consumed alcohol. The aircraft crashed and it was severely damaged. The passengers were injured The claimant was a Mr. Stinton but I cannot remember the defendant's name (the pilot). The insurers of the aircraft successfully defended the proceedings on the grounds that the passengers know the pilot had consumed too much alcohol. Everyone who is tempted to lie to obtain insurance cover should read this Judgement and to understand the consequences, which are similar to obtaining insurance cover by lying.

    A few months ago, the Police in a University town tipped off the local press that they were going to do a survey of the cars parked nearto the University. The police activities were shown in the BBC local news. They checked who was the registered keeper of vehicles parked on the highway. The tax disc disclosed the place where it was issued. In every case where the registered keeper of the car did not live within a reasonable distance of the University, he was issued with a summonse for driving without insurance cover. In law the Police were wrong if the vehicle was insured. What should have happened is that the Police should have notified the insurance company concerned, that company should have interviewed the person who had obtained the insurance company and then decided whether or not to void the policy ab initio.

    In Eire, young drivers can only buy third party insurance cover only. It excludes fire and theft of the vehicle.

    Directly across the road from where I live, the hustand and wife have two cars, I do not know what the insurance cover is. They have two children and each one of them has a car. Have they ensured that each child has its own insurance cover for their vehicle, I doubtd it. If the case should be that the parent has obtained insurance cover for a vehicle and named their children as an additional driver, the consequences could be dire. As there is insurance cover on both vehicles, the insurance company is bound to deal with the claims in consequence of a directive issued by the EEC. Supposing one of the children is involved in an accident and the monies paid out by the insurance company are say £500,000, the parents would loose their live savings and their home, all because they were dishonest.

    My message to you is always be honest, even if insurance cover costs you more money. If you cannot afford the insurance premium, do not guy a car or motor cycle or motor scooter.

    I have written this resume from memory as I do not have access to law books.

    Report on 11 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • michaelpatricksimons
    Love rating 3
    michaelpatricksimons said

    Somehow you have transposed a heading "Trick your insurer into cheaper premiums - legally"

    It should have read illegally.

    Report on 11 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • luther102
    Love rating 2
    luther102 said

    While insurance companies charge a youngster over £4,000 for a year and while they all charge almost exactly the same, what the hell should they expect?

    Report on 13 June 2011  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable)

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV1