Maintaining No Claims with one car

[raybarrow]

Hi Folks,
Mrs B and each have a car insured separately with the other person as additional driver. It is very likely that we will go down to one in the near future. How long does a No Claims bonus last? As a car can only have one insured main driver is there a way to maintain the No Claims Bonus?
We could insure Mrs B as main driver one year and me the next but that's messy.
Cheers,
Ray.

[Lootman]

One idea is to keep a second car but make it a very cheap one, hardly used, and maintain just third party cover on it. The annual cost won't be much and it will maintain both NCDs. That is what we have done: My wife has the "nice" newer car, insured fully comp in her name only. And I have the old clunker, insured in my name only.

Another advantage of that arrangement is that if either of us have an accident that we have to report, or get a traffic ticket, then the other's insurance is not affected.

[chas49]

I'm slightly puzzled here. If you're going down to one car, then one of you won't be a policyholder and won't need an NCD. Unless you're planning on going basck 'up' to two cars in the future?

In which case, I think your NCD is valid for at least 12 months - but insurers may give you longer - it's up to them. In addition some insurers will allow you to use "named driver NCD" as long as you take out a policy with them.

[DrFfybes]

Hi Folks,
Mrs B and each have a car insured separately with the other person as additional driver. It is very likely that we will go down to one in the near future. How long does a No Claims bonus last?

Well Googling it for you reveals 2 to 3 years

https://www.google.com/search?d&q=how+l ... insurances

However IIRC you must declare that the Policyholder is the main driver of the vehicle (something put in place to avoid 'fronting' where a low risk driver like a parent insures the vehicle with their high risk offspring as a named driver), so unless you also intend to swap main driver duties every year then you may be risking fraud.

Additionally, if you had your own NCD and continue as a named driver on another policy (either as a named driver or a company car), most insurers will credit you with a substantial number of years anyway should you take another policy out in your own name.

So the idea of buying and storing a second vehicle you never use just to save a few quid if you ever decide to start using it is fine in theory, but probably a rather expensive way of doing it in practice, especially if your premiums tend to be in the £130-£180 range like ours

Paul

[Gerry557]

Swapping of main drivers every two years.

Strangely it was more for naming the male driver rather than the female driver even swapping on the same insurer. I suppose there might be slightly more admin or a bit of discount for ticking the renew button.

[Gersemi]

However IIRC you must declare that the Policyholder is the main driver of the vehicle (something put in place to avoid 'fronting' where a low risk driver like a parent insures the vehicle with their high risk offspring as a named driver), so unless you also intend to swap main driver duties every year then you may be risking fraud.

Paul

Not so. My OH is declared as the main driver on my car insurance policy - because that is the truth. He has never had his own car insurance - I used to be the main driver, but over the years he has started to do more miles. The insurer isn't bothered, presumably they aren't worried about 'fronting' in our case - a married couple, both in their 50's!

[AJC5001]

One idea is to keep a second car but make it a very cheap one, hardly used, and maintain just third party cover on it. The annual cost won't be much and it will maintain both NCDs. That is what we have done: My wife has the "nice" newer car, insured fully comp in her name only. And I have the old clunker, insured in my name only.

Another advantage of that arrangement is that if either of us have an accident that we have to report, or get a traffic ticket, then the other's insurance is not affected.

So you never drive the "nice" car and she never drives the "clunker"?
Or do you rely on the 'Drive another car with the users permission' third party only clause (assuming your individual policies have one).

Adrian

[Lootman]

One idea is to keep a second car but make it a very cheap one, hardly used, and maintain just third party cover on it. The annual cost won't be much and it will maintain both NCDs. That is what we have done: My wife has the "nice" newer car, insured fully comp in her name only. And I have the old clunker, insured in my name only.

Another advantage of that arrangement is that if either of us have an accident that we have to report, or get a traffic ticket, then the other's insurance is not affected.

So you never drive the "nice" car and she never drives the "clunker"?

Or do you rely on the 'Drive another car with the users permission' third party only clause (assuming your individual policies have one).

My wife never drives my car. For a start, it's a manual.

My wife's insurance allows for "occasional" use by any driver who has her permission. I got stopped once by a policeman whilst driving her car and he asked to see my insurance. I produced my wife's insurance certificate and that was accepted without a problem. He still gave me a ticket but it did not impact her insurance. My insurance is so cheap that it really didn't matter anyway.

[didds]

However IIRC you must declare that the Policyholder is the main driver of the vehicle (something put in place to avoid 'fronting' where a low risk driver like a parent insures the vehicle with their high risk offspring as a named driver), so unless you also intend to swap main driver duties every year then you may be risking fraud.

We've been here before (or maybe in TMF) - for a starters how would they ever know who has driven the car most where there are effectively two drivers of the same vehicle.

And then that "who has driven it the most" could swap depending on usage anyway. I get it is to prevent fronting, but TBH except in the most extreme of cases frankly its a meaningless concept.

eg we insure our one car in my name on January 1st 00:01, with my wife as a named driver.
As 07:00 my wife drives to town and back a distance of 3 miles. I have not driven it at all between 0001 and 0700.

Am I the main driver (0) miles or my wife (3 miles)?

At midday I drive elsewhere and back - 4 miles.

now who is the main driver - me on 4 miles, or my wife on 3?

At 1800 she pops out for two miles? Wife 6, me 4.

Who is the main driver now?

Ad infinitum.


Meaningless.

[daveh]

However IIRC you must declare that the Policyholder is the main driver of the vehicle (something put in place to avoid 'fronting' where a low risk driver like a parent insures the vehicle with their high risk offspring as a named driver), so unless you also intend to swap main driver duties every year then you may be risking fraud.

We've been here before (or maybe in TMF) - for a starters how would they ever know who has driven the car most where there are effectively two drivers of the same vehicle.

And then that "who has driven it the most" could swap depending on usage anyway. I get it is to prevent fronting, but TBH except in the most extreme of cases frankly its a meaningless concept.

eg we insure our one car in my name on January 1st 00:01, with my wife as a named driver.
As 07:00 my wife drives to town and back a distance of 3 miles. I have not driven it at all between 0001 and 0700.

Am I the main driver (0) miles or my wife (3 miles)?

At midday I drive elsewhere and back - 4 miles.

now who is the main driver - me on 4 miles, or my wife on 3?

At 1800 she pops out for two miles? Wife 6, me 4.

Who is the main driver now?

Ad infinitum.


Meaningless.

What it's there for is to stop the situation where newly qualified child needs car for getting to college. Parents find the cheap clunker they've bought for them to drive is going to cost several grand to insure in child's name. So they insure it in their name as main driver with either child as named driver or as any driver allowed. Yet the majority of miles are going to be done by child and few if any done by the registered main driver.

[didds]

What it's there for is to stop the situation where newly qualified child needs car for getting to college. Parents find the cheap clunker they've bought for them to drive is going to cost several grand to insure in child's name. So they insure it in their name as main driver with either child as named driver or as any driver allowed. Yet the majority of miles are going to be done by child and few if any done by the registered main driver.

Yes. I know. As in when i wrote

. I get it is to prevent fronting, but TBH except in the most extreme of cases frankly its a meaningless concept.

so how do they choose to differentiate? If college is 60 miles away and the child lives there - that's easy .... maybe? [1]. But if college is 10 miles away and the child lives at home?
Kid drives 10 miles to and from college during the day. dad drives 10 miles in the evening to <insert hobby here>. Or mum drivesd 10 miles somewhere <insert reason>

Whats the difference.

[1] Its meaningless except in the most extreme cases - and even then it only gets "found" if/when there is a claim. Meanwhile hundreds/thousands have been saved per year. It must still happen.

The questions still remain "Are you the main driver" - not "are you fronting for your 18 year old at college 50 miles away" QED the question covers all policies

[redsturgeon]

From

https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-in ... from%20you.

How do insurers find out about fronting?
In most cases, insurers find out about fronting when a claim has been made.

When a policyholder makes a claim, the insurer will ask a number of questions to ascertain what has happened. The answers to these questions may suggest that the policyholder is guilty of fronting – prompting the insurer to investigate further.

For example, consider a scenario where a parent is named on the policy as the main driver and their student child as a named driver. If the child has an accident in their university town, and not near their parents’ address, the insurer might suspect that the child takes the car with them to university during term-time, and so is actually the main driver.

If an insurer launches an investigation because it detects fronting, it might do some or all of the following:

interview both the main and named drivers to confirm their driving habits

consult motoring databases

look at CCTV

look at road toll, congestion charge and ULEZ records

In the above example, if CCTV shows that the car is regularly driven around the university area, the insurer may conclude that the child is actually the main driver and the parent and child are guilty of fronting.

[chas49]

From

https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-in ... from%20you.

........
If an insurer launches an investigation because it detects fronting, it might do some or all of the following:

.....

look at CCTV

look at road toll, congestion charge and ULEZ records

(snipped quote to highlight)

I would be surprised if insurers would be able to do these. Surely it would need to be the police or a public body doing that? And they wouldn't (presumably) be investigating unless there was already reasonable suspicion of fraud.

[redsturgeon]

From

https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-in ... from%20you.

(snipped quote to highlight)

I would be surprised if insurers would be able to do these. Surely it would need to be the police or a public body doing that? And they wouldn't (presumably) be investigating unless there was already reasonable suspicion of fraud.

I would love to be surprised if insurers could do these things but experience has turned me into a cynic.

[didds]

Onbe could say then that fronting is just a way to minimise "rent" on an allowance to drive. ANPR checks etc etc all pass cos the car is insured.

Its only potentially when a claim is made that it comes to light. Then the insurance doesn't pay out for 1st/2nd party claims presumably. And in the meantime the years spent fronting have in effect created a slush fund to cover that (yes I know nobody stashes that cash away literally in a slush fund but the overall effect is the same).

Meanwhile the question still gets asked on all policies whether an 18 year old and a 45 year parent, or spouses.
And the reality is nobody can say who the "main driver" is.

As it is - that college student may well be a very limited driver compared to the policy holder. They could still be driving in their college town when "spotted" having driven away from home to that town for the first time for weeks. So one would imagine some sort of hard proof would be needed to prove fronting - and as above by Chas49 I'd be very surprised that insurers can just tap into council ANPR, and highways traffic cameras and the PNC .

Im just very doubtful that what is claimed by insurers is actually reality.

[swill453]

Onbe could say then that fronting is just a way to minimise "rent" on an allowance to drive. ANPR checks etc etc all pass cos the car is insured.

Its only potentially when a claim is made that it comes to light. Then the insurance doesn't pay out for 1st/2nd party claims presumably. And in the meantime the years spent fronting have in effect created a slush fund to cover that (yes I know nobody stashes that cash away literally in a slush fund but the overall effect is the same).

Not so fast. If the fronting "offence" is blatant, I'm sure they could claw back the 3rd party claim from you as well. If it's a £million McLaren you've wrecked that could be life-changing.

Scott.

[9873210]

[1] Its meaningless except in the most extreme cases

Rather the opposite, it's meaningless only in the more marginal cases. For most cases it's actually pretty clear who the main driver is. And manufactured doubt is not real doubt.

On a more general note: there is always a problem mapping a continuous variable into a discrete one. It would be better to ask how much each driver drives? I doubt a car driven 6000 miles by a parent and 5000 miles by a child is lower risk than one driven 5000 miles by a child.

[didds]

Not so fast. If the fronting "offence" is blatant, I'm sure they could claw back the 3rd party claim from you as well. If it's a £million McLaren you've wrecked that could be life-changing.

Scott.

thats fair enough Scott yes. Mind you the average person doesnt HAVE £million to be clawed back from, even at £X a month after living expenses are allowed for by courts etc AIUI, so it all starts to get somewhat redundant at that level.

But yes - you are right.

[didds]

[1] Its meaningless except in the most extreme cases

Rather the opposite, it's meaningless only in the more marginal cases. For most cases it's actually pretty clear who the main driver is. And manufactured doubt is not real doubt.

Really ? Who is the main driver of our car, registered and insured in my wife's car, and our campervan, registered and insured in mine where we are both additional drivers on each policy? And where our mid 20s son is also on both policies?

Over the course of each year i couldn't come close to being able to definitively suggest who it is for each of my wife and I ... my son does very little mileage in them... but who is to ever know outside us?. I doubt many couples are really that different. And its the same question for the policy not just for fronters.

[qiuote]
On a more general note: there is always a problem mapping a continuous variable into a discrete one. It would be better to ask how much each driver drives? I doubt a car driven 6000 miles by a parent and 5000 miles by a child is lower risk than one driven 5000 miles by a child.[/quote]

But that's the entire issue isn't it? ie "mapping a continuous variable into a discrete one". Who knows other that a very very general finger in the air basis. And it still doesnt prevent fronters saying "Kid = 1000 miles, parents = 10000" when thats not true - And now we are back to square one, and how does one prove it (or NOT prove it if needed") ?

If nobody has a claim .... then the insurers just dont know. THAT is the bottom line.

[Lootman]

Meanwhile the question still gets asked on all policies whether an 18 year old and a 45 year parent, or spouses.
And the reality is nobody can say who the "main driver" is.

Indeed. If my kid does 10,000 miles a year then that is a lot. But if I am the "main driver" does it then becomes OK as long as I do 11,000 miles a year in the same car?

The same issue arises with the definition of "occasional use" that I talked about earlier. The term is not defined and is subjective. Does it mean a few times a year? A month? Or just less than the "main driver"?

So when the cop stopped me in my wife's car on insurance that did not name me at all, the cop inspected the insurance but was satisfied by it. He was more interested in why my license address was different from the registered address of the vehicle, but he let that slide as well once he decided that I had not stolen the car.