Hi there, I am hoping someone can help me with some questions, yesterday I was involved in an accident, I was stopped on the motorway when a car was going too fast crashed right into the back of me, pushing me into the van in front, the recovery guy who picked my vehicle up said it prob will be written off due to its age.

My questions are:

a - I am an additional named driver on the policy with direct line, the policy holder in my mum, we didn't select for courtsey car, and my friend seems to think that the person who crashed into me, his insurance company should provide me with one? And if so how do I go about this?

b - some people have said the insurance people call and offer you a quote for your car, but its stupid amount, I have checked on parkers and the value is £1500 and I paid £1400 last year, so should I advise them I want the price I paid for it?

c - I think I may have whiplash, my neck is extremley sore and I can't look to right and left without turining my whole body, I am going to doctor's tomorrow, do I get compensation for this as it said online you can claim loss of earnings but at the moment I am unemployed.

I spoke to Direct Line who advised providing the man admits it was his fault (I can't see him not as it clearly was) then my mum won't loose her no claims.

Thanks very much in advance!

Sorry to hear of your accident.

My first question is, if you paid for the car yourself, how come it is insured in your mum's name? Who is the owner and the main driver?

In answer to your first question, if you have legal expenses cover on your policy then you may be able to claim for a courtesy car from the third party. As it's your mum's policy, the courtesy car would be provided to her, although I imagine you would be able to insure yourself to use it too.

You won't get the price you originally paid for the car as it will probably have depreciated since you bought it.

I believe you can still claim for whiplash even though you're unemployed, as they take into account pain and loss of amenity.

Sorry to hear of your accident.

 

My first question is, if you paid for the car yourself, how come it is insured in your mum's name? Who is the owner and the main driver?

Hi, well I passed my test last May and I was out looking and I bought it on my credit card so the V5 was is in my name,howver I have always used the car at weekends and my mum uses it during week for her work so as she got a discount for taking out another car with direct line (she is a named driver on my sisters car) we did it that way, as I wasn't going to pay a huge amount for insurance when I was only using it two days a week but the V5 is still in my name as we never bothered gettng it changed.

We don't have legal cover on the plan, so sadly that will be out then!

And do I just send in whatever the doctor writes or do I need to contact insurance company to tell them?

could be a problem

if you are the owner and registered keeper the policy should have been in your name, as the policy has been issued in your mums & benefitting from NCD, this is fronting, something which insurance companies are coming down hard on as they are not getting a true premium for the risk.

If you took the policy out online, there would have have been a statement of facts to confirm that the policyholder is the owner & reg keeper

again if bought over the phone, you or your mum would have been asked who is the owner & reg keeper, if they are aware no problem, but if not they could void your policy.

But surly then I can tell the insurance that my mum is the owner because techinically the V5 says registered keeper, not registered owner??

if you are the owner and registered keeper the policy should have been in your name, as the policy has been issued in your mums & benefitting from NCD, this is fronting, something which insurance companies are coming down hard on as they are not getting a true premium for the risk.

Not quite true this. (in my experience). Although they ask for owner/registered keeper the policy has to be taken out by the main user. As AlanUK only uses the car 2 days a week and his mum uses it for work during the week then his mum is obviously the main user. (at least this is how our policy's have worked for the past 8 years).

I agree with Vusys1, this sounds like a blatant fronted risk case and could potentially void your policy completely.

That said, if you were hit by a TP and presumably they're admitting liability, then it shouldn't matter what the status of your policy is as the TP's insurer is obliged to pay out under the RTA so Direct Line shouldn't really need to get involved in that side of claim.

The only potential problem you may have is getting direct line to pay out to the guy that you were pushed in to, although the same rules should apply in that they should be liable under the RTA to pay out for the TP claim.

What will happen is that when you are asked to send in your V5 and its in your name, the CV (claims validation) team at direct line will get involved and make a decision on whether to proceed with the claim etc.

DA

Thank you both for replying, I guess I will need to wait and see what they say, spoke to them this afternoon about courtsey cars but she said at moment the guy who ran into me hasn't admited liability, I am quite surprised by this as he made me go into someone who then went into someone else and we were all stationary, she said garage will prob phone tomorrow to tell me it has been wrote off and then hopefully they will be quick in issuing a cheque without any delays, just a nightmare, truly horrible experience

Not quite true this. (in my experience). Although they ask for owner/registered keeper the policy has to be taken out by the main user. As AlanUK only uses the car 2 days a week and his mum uses it for work during the week then his mum is obviously the main user. (at least this is how our policy's have worked for the past 8 years).

no no no no no!

The only person that has any insurable interest in the vehicle is the person who is that owner/keeper. If i own a car and insure it in my name, i could quite easily put a named driver on the policy as the "main driver" and the policy would still be perfectly valid.

Fronted risk is effectively an attempt to deceive the insurance industry buy hiding the true nature of the risk and therefore paying less premiums.

DA

To be honest I know insurance companies are always looking for a way to get out of paying and if they are intent on being so strong about cracking down on people trying to get cheaper insurance if they have just passed then they should be more stringent and when someone younger is going on a policy with someone older or someone who has just passed test etc then they should refuse or have something else in place rather than accepting the custom.

The questions that are asked at inception (when you take a policy out) are designed to avoid this sort of thing. The advisor will ask you who the legal owner/registered keeper of the car is, they will also ask who the main driver is and about any NCD that is applicable to the policy.

You will find that that vast majority of fronted risk cases are from policies that are set up over the internet and are usually down to the consumers not reading the terms and conditions of the policy correctly.

People that give the correct information and are honest and upfront from the start have nothing to worry about and they will be charged the correct premium for the risk and will be paid out in the event of a claim.

DA

Yes, fair point, but at end of day we are both insured to drive vehicle as much as we like, with no higher or lower risk if my mother was the registered owner.

You are right in what you are saying, and thank you for replying, but I wasn't going on as a named driver with a premium of £1000 when I can only use car Sat & Sun.

This has been my first knowlege of fronting and I wasn;t deliberatly lying or trying to get round.

Oh can I ask do you know the procedure from here?

Girl said garage would call me to let me know the status of the car (which is probably written off)

Will we get issued with cheque to get a new car this week or does he need to go through admitting the liability and that?

This wasn't a dig at you personally and i apologise if that's the way it came across.

I appreciate your point regarding the premiums, but the car is yours, you paid for it and all the documents are in your name therefore the insurance policy will also need to be in your name and this is what is going to cause all the problems.

If the car is a total loss then your mum will be asked to send in the V5, MOT cert, yours and her driving licences and other docs for the car.

As i said earlier, what will probably happen is the CV team will step in and take over processing the claim so its really just a case of doing what they ask and seeing what happens.

DA

no no no no no!

 

The only person that has any insurable interest in the vehicle is the person who is that owner/keeper. If i own a car and insure it in my name, i could quite easily put a named driver on the policy as the "main driver" and the policy would still be perfectly valid.

Just a queery - for my own knowledge/insurance.

I have two cars both are registered in my name as owner/registered keeper but one is insured in my partners name and the other in mine. (this is how we have insured them for years). Are we not insured for the car my partner uses ? (I am a named driver on the policy for her car and she is named on mine, we were told to do this by several different Insurance co's). Or is it because we are classed as married that this is ok.

As I said just wondering if I need to speak to our insurer or transfer ownership of her car to her

Many non-drivers own cars meaning the owner of a vehicle DOES not have to be the policy holder. The 'main driver' (relative, friend) can be the policy holder.

Whilst insurers would like us to think otherwise in the case of 'fronting' they can only refuse to pay out if they can prove an intention to defraud.

The only thing they can demand is any extra unpaid premium + interest

If they refuse to offer the replacement cost tell them to find you a replacement of equal condition, mileage, spec etc & if they still refuse either report them to the ombudsman or sue. It's worth remembering that a few months ago insurers where warned about this conduct

Thanks for easing my mind Jonchris. Thinking about it I remembered that several companies refused to quote for my partners car as she wasn't the registered keeper/owner but most had no problem with it as she is the main driver. Otherwise we would not have been able to insure the car as they will only put the insurance in the name of the main driver.

Many non-drivers own cars meaning the owner of a vehicle DOES not have to be the policy holder. The 'main driver' (relative, friend) can be the policy holder.

 

The only person that has any insurable interest in the vehicle is the person who is that owner/keeper. If i own a car and insure it in my name, i could quite easily put a named driver on the policy as the "main driver" and the policy would still be perfectly valid.

 

I'm sorry, but this is pure bollox!

In other insurance matters, the above statement may well be true - however, it is not true of motor insurance for the simple reason that the RTA S.143 requires the driver to be insured to use the vehicle.

Besides which, you use the phrase owner/keeper - which is it? They are separate legal entities.

It is perfectly possible for someone to own a car and not be able to drive. The insurance will be needed in the name of the driver.

If a car is being purchased via HP, the HP company is the owner. However, it is the driver who obtains insurance. If the car is on a personal lease, the driver is not the owner, but is the person who insures the car.

The only potential problem you may have is getting direct line to pay out to the guy that you were pushed in to, although the same rules should apply in that they should be liable under the RTA to pay out for the TP claim.

Direct Line do not have to pay for the damage to the vehicle in front. The damage was caused by the guy who failed to stop at the back of the queue so it's his insurers who are liable for all damage caused. There is no chain.

I'm sorry, but this is pure bollox!

 

In other insurance matters, the above statement may well be true - however, it is not true of motor insurance for the simple reason that the RTA S.143 requires the driver to be insured to use the vehicle.

 

Besides which, you use the phrase owner/keeper - which is it? They are separate legal entities.

 

It is perfectly possible for someone to own a car and not be able to drive. The insurance will be needed in the name of the driver.

 

If a car is being purchased via HP, the HP company is the owner. However, it is the driver who obtains insurance. If the car is on a personal lease, the driver is not the owner, but is the person who insures the car.

Quite Pat I was thinking of perhaps a disabled person whilst unable to drive can be the owner. They have to be the owner if they are to benefit from those allowed a disabled person such as a free road fund licence if entitled to full DLA

RP that will only be correct if the others where all stationary at the time. If that's not the case the only one to be totally fault free will be the one at the front who only has rear end damage. The others will have to prove they where stationary at the time

Agreed JC but the OP does state that he was "stopped on a motorway" in his first post so no liability whatsoever rests with him in this case.

He may do RP but for his insurer to get off without payment he may have to be able to prove it

I'm sorry, but this is pure bollox!

 

Thanks for you constructive view of my post!

 

In other insurance matters, the above statement may well be true - however, it is not true of motor insurance for the simple reason that the RTA S.143 requires the driver to be insured to use the vehicle.

 

 

Besides which, you use the phrase owner/keeper - which is it? They are separate legal entities.

 

Yes, i'm well aware of that, it was just easier to put a slash in between rather than go into the full definition of each section. For the purposes of the original query it is irrelevant as the policy will be voided due to either fronted risk or non-disclosure. take your pick.

 

It is perfectly possible for someone to own a car and not be able to drive. The insurance will be needed in the name of the driver.

 

Now who's talking bollox?! For there to be an insurance policy, there has to be insurable interest. (a simple search in wikipedia gives a good definition, but to paraphrase "A person has an "insurable interest" in something when loss or damage to it would cause that person to suffer a financial loss or certain other kinds of losses" and "A basic requirement for all types of insurance is the person who buys a policy must have an insurable interest in the subject of the insurance"

Therefore what i said was correct in that the only person that can take out a policy is the person that has insurable interest, i.e the "owner" of the car. The only exception to the rule is if its a spouse or co-habbiting partner as anything owned by either person is seen to be of joint financial interest and therefore can be insured against loss by either party.

 

 

 

If a car is being purchased via HP, the HP company is the owner. However, it is the driver who obtains insurance. If the car is on a personal lease, the driver is not the owner, but is the person who insures the car.

Quite correct, however in these cases there would be a credit agreement in place between the insured and the finance company which would prove that they had a financial tie to the car and would therefore stand to lose out if the car was damaged/stolen etc and therefore they have insurable interest in the vehicle.

Also Joncris, the disabled thing doesn't really come into it. My Aunt is disabled, cant drive and doesn't own a car. However my sister does drive and as she drives my aunt around, she gets the road tax for free as my aunt has her down as her carer.

Sorry for going on but i just had to clarify this.

DA