Family to lose home for not having car insured

[ricgem2002]

And to allow him to drive it if the story is true. You can't be fronting without complicity from 2 parties basically.

But we have nothing other than a story told by a police officer to verify that this is true.

and given its a sy police officer we could take that with a pinch of salt:wink:

[Berberis]

It's obvious that the parents have had to sell their house to pay for the compensation against their son, in other words, bailing them out as he had no way of doing so himself. I assume they would have done the same regardless of them being silly enough to be implicit in his insurance fraud.

 

When I was 17, it was common for parents to have kids as named drivers on parents' second cars for shared use of the car and give them experience without them owning their own car (and lower insurance premiums). There must have been some concrete evidence to show that this 'sharing' wasn't the case and it was just a scam to save money.

 

I think you assume wrong. The car was insured in the name of the Mother and the son was a named driver, but after an investigation it was determined the son was the main driver and not the mother and so they were both guilty of committing insurance fraud. If it was just the son, he would have no way to pay and the courts can't make him pay money he doesn't have.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2016 at 16:07 ----------

 

How would it work then if it had happened to family that didnt own a property? Let's say it happened to a family living in a council house!

 

How would they pay 'hundreds of thousands' of pounds out?

 

I think judgements are based on the parties ability to pay, in the UK, unlike in the USA.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Berberis

[the_bloke]

I think you assume wrong. The car was insured in the name of the Mother and the son was a named driver, but after an investigation it was determined the son was the main driver and not the mother and so they were both guilty of committing insurance fraud. If it was just the son, he would have no way to pay and the courts can't make him pay money he doesn't have.

 

Good point well made.

 

The article in the Star gives scant information, and we've been assuming the driver was a teenager, it could equally have been a grown man passing off the car as being owned and insured by his elderly mother. If the man was a family man with a house, then that would explain more.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

I think you assume wrong. The car was insured in the name of the Mother and the son was a named driver, but after an investigation it was determined the son was the main driver and not the mother and so they were both guilty of committing insurance fraud. If it was just the son, he would have no way to pay and the courts can't make him pay money he doesn't have.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2016 at 16:07 ----------

 

 

I think judgements are based on the parties ability to pay, in the UK, unlike in the USA.

None of which would assist financially the victim of an impecunious driver at fault.

[geared]

I thought insurance would cover a 3rd party even if the policy wasn't kosher??

For example kids with undeclared modifications or drunk people who cause accidents?

 

Fronting is illegal, but it does seem overly harsh that the insurance company wouldn't cover the 3rd party in such a case???

If anything you'd expect the insurance company to pay out, and then sue the policy holders for damages.

[ricgem2002]

I thought insurance would cover a 3rd party even if the policy wasn't kosher??

For example kids with undeclared modifications or drunk people who cause accidents?

 

Fronting is illegal, but it does seem overly harsh that the insurance company wouldn't cover the 3rd party in such a case???

If anything you'd expect the insurance company to pay out, and then sue the policy holders for damages.

we are talking about insurance companies here they will do anything to get out of paying

[Eater Sundae]

I thought insurance would cover a 3rd party even if the policy wasn't kosher??

For example kids with undeclared modifications or drunk people who cause accidents?

 

Fronting is illegal, but it does seem overly harsh that the insurance company wouldn't cover the 3rd party in such a case???

If anything you'd expect the insurance company to pay out, and then sue the policy holders for damages.

 

That was probably what happened. It would make sense if it were the insurance company that sued.

 

It's hard to tell from the article, which seems very disjointed and not very specific.

[ANGELFIRE1]

How would it work then if it had happened to family that didnt own a property? Let's say it happened to a family living in a council house!

 

How would they pay 'hundreds of thousands' of pounds out?

 

I was just going to post the same.

 

We are lucky enough to have two cars, because I always insured them we have me as the main Policy holder with my missus the "named" (main) driver on the other Policy.

 

Angel1.

[francypants]

If this story is true, I say good it serves them right.

[andrejuan]

we are talking about insurance companies here they will do anything to get out of paying

 

Sad but true, they can't be trusted. However, driving without insurance (or blagging it) is bang out of order.