Hi - I am having major prob with car insurance (royal sun alliance - more than) Took out new policy in december with max ncd and protection, added my son as a named driver - he passed his test year before and we put him on the policy back then. I have a van also insured in my name with wife as named driver and my wife has car insured in her name with me as named driver.

NOW THEN - my son borrowed the car and had an accident (NOT HIS FAULT - Some body opedned their car door as he was passiing) Car is a write off - offered us pitiful amount which we refused and now they are investigating the claim for what looks like fronting.

They interviewed my son who answered truthfully that he can borrow the car at weekends and that his dad has a van for domestic work purposes.

We (my wife and I) bought the car and the van 1 month before my son passed his test paid by our bank account and taxed by us and last year when we put our son on the policy we paid the cost (1600). This year now he is working and paying board (hoorah) he pays the 99 quid a month from his bank, 30 is his contibution to the policy and 70.00 is his board. the car is registered to me and I am the owner (i pay for all its repairs - groan)The letter they sent this week refers to my sons recorded interview and paints a different picture ie i only occasionally use the car for work purposes - in fact until it was written off - I took it to work every day. Also my son gets a lift to work and back in the works van. They also say that i usually use the van for work purposes - which is true as in I never use it socially or for pleasure (dont need to explain why but will oblige - comfort at my age is paramount) but it looks like I am saying that I dont use the car to get to my employed work. When the reality is that I only use the van for domestic work ie tip, recycling, small removals for family etc.

I need to respond to the letter asap but feel that they have picked out words and left others out to incriminate me - they ask me how often my son drives car which is less than 20% in truth (it is my car and I have priority - also his girlfriend has her own car so they go out in that. Also my son works away couple of times a month for 3-5 days where he takes company van. I dont feel as though we are fronting and we never took the policy out for this reason - we paid for all extras so certainly was not trying to save cash - Any advise greatly appreciated. just so you know customer relations at royal sun alliance and more than is pants - the people you talk to in far away places like india have been the most helpful

I used to be an indemnity handler before I moved to TP claims. It was my job to try and prove issues such as fronting.

Basically, if the policy isn't fronted then they cannot void your policy. All you have to do is tell them the truth. It is not your job to disprove the policy is fronted. It is theirs to prove it. All you have to do is tell them what you have told us.

Write them a letter clarifying that you used the vehicle to commute to work on a daily basis, as well as for social and domestic purposes. The van is used for domestic purposes (explain re: the tip, removals, etc). Explain that your son did not tell them that you use the vehicle as part of your profession, but for domestic work. Your son only uses the vehicle occasionally for social purposes when it is free and you estimate that your son uses the vehicle 20% of the time.

You should be fine, unless your son HAS told them something contradictory. They will inform you if this is the case but they need evidence (e.g. a letter or a recorded phone call). They can't rely purely on the notes a handler has put on the system, as they cannot allow for mis-interpretation, human errors, etc which may have lead to the handler putting the wrong information of the file.

If they do not accept your letter due to 'contradictory information' request hard evidence of what you or your son previously advised. The call recording for your sons interview, for example. You can then examine this yourself to establish if the insurer has simply mis-interpreted something your son has said.

If they void your policy and you do not feel they have sufficient evidence to do so, then I suggest that you go to the Ombudsman.

Hope this helps.

What is fronting? I've read both posts but don't understand what the accusation is about. You paid 1600 quid for insurance? Are they saying you got the insurance cheaper by putting your name on the car? Damn that must be a nice car, what is it?

Hi sang33ta,

Fronting, is simply where a parent/more experienced driver/(anyone likely to get a lower premium when named as policyholder than the named driver would get)

So for example,

You insure a car as the policyholder, therefore the main user, but your son is the named driver- if he uses the vehicle more than occasionally, he could be classed as the main user, which would create a huge premium compared to the one offered.

Hope that makes sense?!

Thanks ab123uk.

Who is investigating the claim as fronting? If the accident is not your fault I don't see as it's the other insurers business. I don't see how they will prove otherwise if you bought the car with your money and it's in your name not your sons.

I really think insurers take the biscuit when it come to paying or replacing a car. They often under offer or try to replace with lightyear millage.

Looks like another one for a Judge, get a court date set, it may improve their offer, but likely they will just drag it out and test your patience right until the court doors.

Good luck.

Sang33ta, insurers have criteria for there policy's- when you input your details online via a broker, you will only see quotes from insurers happy to accept that policy- with the information provided, if that info is incorrect, it is likely that a quote would be priced differently, or that the risk is unacceptable, so no quote would've been offered.

It will be the Underwriter of the op's policy who has an issue with this, and regardless of who is at fault in an accident, if they are being exposed to higher risk, they would want the additional premiums/want rid of the policy.

With regards to offers on vehicles, you cannot be left in a worse position than that you were in prior to the accident- provide the insurer with like 4 like examples of vehicles from autotrader etc, and they are likely to review this.

yes go to autotrader.co.uk and maybe parkers and get a quote for the value of your viehcle it's very useful for negotiating a settlement price.

Often though to get the true value I've accepted the valuation + written off car and sell it for parts or spare & repair on ebay to make up the difference. Insurers don't want your dead car, it cost them to tow it away, store it, and sell/scrap it so you can use this to your advantage.

ab123uk my problem with online brokers is that I enter all my details into Confused.com, say, they quote the first 9 insurers (who are fronts for Zurich), Zuric direct say they don't want the poilcy in position 23, say, but you bought it with one of the 1st 9 offered not knowing they are a front. The front then sells you a policy (in my cases always Zurich) that does not cover the information you told them. Unless you check the small print you'd be driving around underinsured and when you come to claim Zuric will say you didn't tell me about detail xyz when actually you did tell the online comarison site.

Phew! Well a bit of thread stealing sorry

sang33ta, if they hadn't asked the questions, they are unable to void a policy.... with zurich, i would imagin they ask more than enough to cover themselves!

thanks never shay die. We intend to just be honest. I just noticed too that we did not buy the van til we had had the car 5 months. Anyhow I have applied for a data subject request (the phone recording between my son and them) however they have forty days to supply it.... and gosh this is bad but my niece used to work for a holiday co and would promise allsorts on the phone but only record the bits to suit them....she left as she could not bear all the old folks crying that they had not got what they were promised....just hope this aint happened!! as my insurers want a reply from me to confirm the info they said is correct i feel caught up - if i say not quite then my son looks bad - if i say yep then they will say i am fronting - I think it lacks detailing and this is what i will say to them - will let ya all know - my son had saved 700 quid towards buying his own car but wants to give us it now as he feels all his fault - bless

My son has just had accident last Tues and lucky to be alive. I did not get one letter from More Than. Yesterday i got a letter from a company called TCF, when i looked on the internet this is a fraud investigation company. All last week i've been the one ringing the insurance company and they just kept fobbing me off and when i rang them yesterday i prized it out of them what i was being investigated for, the person told me "fronting". I'd never heard of it before, someone from this TCF is going to ring me tomorrow at a pre arranged time and speak to me for about half an hour. I'm mad because they've lied to me last week knowing all the time that i have been referred to this company and when i took out the insurance they were quite happy to take my money straight away. By the way i am not fronting it is my car, i'm am the registered keeper and i am the one on the receipt when i purchased it. I am the main driver, i know they are trying to wriggle out of paying up, there was no other person involved but my car is a right off. But i am still worried especially after looking at this on the internet, how can i prove that i am not fronting could someone give me some advice.

As far as im aware its only fronting if you son is the main driver and you where added to lower the policy cost if it is the other way around and you are the main drive i.e first named on policy and your son is second driver that is not fronting.

Thats how i understand it anyway.

Regards

PF

Thanks for your quick response. However, the way i understand it is that the mum or dad say they are the main driver (when they are not) and the son or daughter is a named driver when they are infact the main driver. I am the main driver and allow my son to drive the car but he has to earn that privilege, he's 18 thinks he knows everything there is to know and that we have never been young. He does not work he goes to college, there's no way he can even begin to afford to run a car, even to put petrol in it. Really mad at insurance company for their total slyness on this, there's people out there with no insurance and no tax. I've done everything above board and their accusing me of fraud:confused:

Thanks chris

Have you thought about taking this complaint to the FOS as i know they do mediate in insurance claims. how long they will take im not sure but if you get no joy with the insurance company this is another avenue for you.

Financial Ombudsman Service

Regards

PF

To the OP - what was the recorded mileage of the van when you bought it / it was last MOT'd? My thinking is that if you, say, have a 20 mile round trip to work = 100 miles a week = 2600 miles in 6 months, and since that time you had only driven it, say, 600 miles it would be very easy for you to prove that you could not have used it to go to work every day. This would mean that you would have needed alternative transport.

Not sure what your job is, but do they have car park security cameras? Do you have colleagues that can witness that you drove the car to work? I agree that it is not your responsibility to prove that you are not fronting, but my feeling is that if there is something simple you can do to prove your case then it will get the claim settled a lot quicker.

---

sang - what information was or was not collected is immaterial as long as everything you said was true anything omitted does not make the slightest bit of difference. These 'fronts' as you call them (or brokers as they are more correctly termed) can ask any questions they like that they feel is material to the risk of the policy. They cannot just ask anything because the underwriting company would need to prove a statistical basis for that question should any complaints occur (this is why they can rate on your age despite the age discrimination act).

The information you provide is then run against a number of products. Now these products can be very very different. For example one might rate on whether you smoke or not (risk of fire), another product may not have this question. If the product does not have this question then they cannot come back at a later date and state that because you smoke they won't cover you, even if they can prove that this makes you more risky.

If, say, you put that you were a smoker into the website then all policies that declined you for smoking should not be available. If one is available then it is not your fault, it is the fault of the broker as they have mis-sold you insurance cover. This is serious business, but you are protected because the blame does not lie with you.

However you do need to be very very careful about what exactly you are buying. Never purchase insurance without carefully reading the policy wording (and plenty of people here will help explain anything ticky to you). Sadly the days of internet selling has made the process all too automatic, and many people just rush through it without realising there can be big difference in what you are buying.

---

Fronting is a very difficult to detect type of insurance fraud. It is where you lie about who is the main driver in order to alter the level of risk in order to drive a lower premium. They would need to prove that a riskier named driver used the vehicle more than the main driver in order to prove that fronting has occurred.

I know it is frustrating, and it is wrong of the insurance company to lie to you, but I'm going to be a bit sympathetic to them for deciding to investigate you. Fronting occurs a huge amount, and it costs a lot of money. And it's not the insurance company that ends up paying for it because thye just raise their prices - it is innocent people who end up paying for it. Don't take it personally, because it isn't personal. They are not accusing you of this, they are investigating it. And it happens a hell of a lot so don't feel that you are being singled out.

Just tell the truth to the investigator and you should have nothing to fear. If you can find anything to support your position then prepare it for that meeting. However if things go slowly after they have not found anything then start to complain like mad!!!