What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
Fronting, with HJ's approval, apparently - dieseldogg

As in the letter to the Daily Telegraph Sat past re insuring a car for a son who NEEDS a car

HJ said it would be OK for the parents to insure in their name with the son as a named driver

so long as they drove said car "regularly".................hmmmmmmm

nonsense

if he NEEDED the car it was his to insure

jat

M

Fronting, with HJ's approval, apparently - primeradriver

Depends.

If the parents could gerrymander the situation such that they drive the car 51% of the miles, then there isn't a problem.

Feasible....

Fronting, with HJ's approval, apparently - brum

nonsense

if he NEEDED the car it was his to insure

THAT statement is Nonsense jat

The car needs to be insured in the name of the legal and registered owner, who also must be the "main driver", ie. the one who does the most miles in it. If thats not the case, you have a duty to tell the insurance company, who may choose to accept (with price adjustment probably) or decline.

Its clearly stated as a declaration by most insurers when taking your renewal.

Edited by brum on 11/08/2010 at 23:32

Fronting, with HJ's approval, apparently - Collos25

HJ is correct but not all insurance companies will see it that way,a young person making a claim on a car at or around a Unversity town they attend or on the route to a place of work then the insurance company starts to smell a rat and may ask a client to prove they are the main driver something that is not as easy as one thinks.So I would say both points of view have pluses and minuses.

The car does not have to insured by the owner it has to be insured by the registered keeper a big difference .

Edited by Andy Bairsto on 12/08/2010 at 09:45