GT TDI insurance help!!

Clutchkick

Im 18 with a prev liecence that ive had for 6 months,ive been lookn at golf mkiv gt tdi's for a while now but have only just managed to get around my parents because i need a car for college.

I know i cant get quoted online for insurance on this kinda car with "no experience" and most prob wont even do it at all but i know its possible because theres plenty driven around the same age as me with prev liecences and 0 yrs ncb or experience in theese cars and other vag cars with the same engine..

my question is who'd prob be the best to go to for insurance before i spend decades ringin around till i find somone who's just willn to give me a quote a ridiculously high price,it has to be possible,they cant all have no insurance in theese cars..

secondly,i know its gonna be expencive either way but is there any point having my dad insured on it as the main driver as well as his car and i'd get insured as an additional driver on the golf,he has a full liecence and ncb,the whole lot,would i be more lkely to get a quote then and would it work out any bit cheaper????

challengemaster

Clutchkick wrote: »

secondly,i know its gonna be expencive either way but is there any point having my dad insured on it as the main driver as well as his car and i'd get insured as an additional driver on the golf,he has a full liecence and ncb,the whole lot,would i be more lkely to get a quote then and would it work out any bit cheaper????

1. It's illegal
2. He won't have any NCB, NCB is only valid for one premium
3. You won't earn any NCB experience (named driver isn't worth the paper its on)

homer90

Micra FTW....

Neilw

Insure the car as what it really is, golf tdi highline/trendline 130bhp or what ever it is (no such thing as a gt tdi ). The info will be on the data sticker in the boot along with the engine power in kw.

oleras

challengemaster wrote: »

1. It's illegal

Care to elaborate ?

dax121

oleras wrote: »

Care to elaborate ?

its actually not you can insure more than one car. but u can only use ur no claims on one policy.
so if ur dad gets a policy on the golf he cant use his no claims. but he can use his driveing experence and that should bring it down

oldyouth

I take it from the tone of your post that you intend to drive that powerful car to college without a qualified driver beside you on a (prev ) provisional licence/learners permit?

Mar4ix

try insurance brokers not an insurance companies. I couldnt insure my car 5 years ago at all, only through brokers.

challengemaster

dax121 wrote: »

its actually not you can insure more than one car. but u can only use ur no claims on one policy.
so if ur dad gets a policy on the golf he cant use his no claims. but he can use his driveing experence and that should bring it down

Actually it is, because his dad won't actually be the main driver of the car. Small little thing called insurance fraud

Otis Driftwood

challengemaster wrote: »

Actually it is, because his dad won't actually be the main driver of the car. Small little thing called insurance fraud

+1

OP,if your Dad is rated as the main driver to get a cheaper quote when in fact it is you that are the main driver and you end up crashing then it could negate any potential claim.

You would be lying to get a cheaper quote and that is fraud.

TBH most companies get it hard to quote GTI's for drivers with a full NCB and 5+ years experience never mind a provisional licenced 18 year old with little/no experience.

The cheapest option is to get a small 1 litre like a corsa etc and start earning your own NCB,get more experience and pass your test.

sleepysniper

oldyouth wrote: »

I take it from the tone of your post that you intend to drive that powerful car to college without a qualified driver beside you on a (prev ) provisional licence/learners permit?

powerful...yeah right:rolleyes::pac:

MugMugs

challengemaster wrote: »

dax121 wrote: »

its actually not you can insure more than one car. but u can only use ur no claims on one policy.
so if ur dad gets a policy on the golf he cant use his no claims. but he can use his driveing experence and that should bring it down

Actually it is, because his dad won't actually be the main driver of the car. Small little thing called insurance fraud

It's not illegal. It's a non disclosure issue. That said, if he acts as a named driver and is supervised while driving as a named driver, I can't see the issue.

will56

OP, for your father to insure the car and put you as a named driver he would need to have an insurable interest in the car ie own it.

Henry Ford III

MugMugs wrote: »

It's not illegal. It's a non disclosure issue. That said, if he acts as a named driver and is supervised while driving as a named driver, I can't see the issue.

Aye but what if he acts as the main driver, and unaccompanied (on a learner permit)?

dax121

dax121 wrote: »

its actually not you can insure more than one car. but u can only use ur no claims on one policy.
so if ur dad gets a policy on the golf he cant use his no claims. but he can use his driveing experence and that should bring it down

Some companies will mirror your no claims on the second car I know of people doing it but I cant remember who they are insured with.

challengemaster wrote: »

Actually it is, because his dad won't actually be the main driver of the car. Small little thing called insurance fraud

While technically it shouldn't be done its fairly common and I've never heard of anyone getting hassle over it.

Also some companies do take named driver experience into account if you dont have a no claims bonus.

copeyhagen

as long as the cars in the fathers name and he has it insured as a second policy, makes no difference if he doesnt drive it and the son does as named driver. supervised of course..

Gophur

OP, you do not "need" a car for college. It may be convenient but it's not a necessity.

I don't know what you mean by a "prev licence", but you may be referring to a Learner's Permit. There is no such thing as a Provisional Licence.

Before you get any fanciful notions about Golfs, or such like, how about proving to the rest of the World you are capable of driving solo and getting your full licence?

Marcusm

MugMugs wrote: »

It's not illegal. It's a non disclosure issue. That said, if he acts as a named driver and is supervised while driving as a named driver, I can't see the issue.

It is unlawful, results in an offence under section 64 Road Traffic Act, obtaining insurance through providing information knowing it to be false. Up to 6 months in chokey, iirc.

Gophur

Marcusm wrote: »

It is unlawful, results in an offence under section 64 Road Traffic Act, obtaining insurance through providing information knowing it to be false. Up to 6 months in chokey, iirc.

Can you provide a reference to anyone ever being convicted of such an offence?

(All Court reports are available on-line, BTW)

Gophur

Gophur wrote: »

OP, you do not "need" a car for college. It may be convenient but it's not a necessity.

For some people it pretty much is a necessity same as a car is a necessity for anyone living outside of a city.

Marcusm wrote: »

It is unlawful, results in an offence under section 64 Road Traffic Act, obtaining insurance through providing information knowing it to be false. Up to 6 months in chokey, iirc.

Proving it on the other hand....

oleras

Marcusm wrote: »

It is unlawful, results in an offence under section 64 Road Traffic Act, obtaining insurance through providing information knowing it to be false. Up to 6 months in chokey, iirc.

The car has to be in the fathers name and the op would be named on the policy, he can drive it to the moon and back if he likes as a named driver, where is this false information you speak of ?

Marcusm

Gophur wrote: »

Can you provide a reference to anyone ever being convicted of such an offence?

(All Court reports are available on-line, BTW)

Where are District Court reports available online?

stevenmu

If you search the forum here (I'm on mobile at the moment), a number of people have posted here who have been caught out. I don't recall any of them being prosecuted, but they did have their insurance invalidated when claims were made.

Gophur

Giovanni Spicy Tapestry wrote: »

For some people it pretty much is a necessity same as a car is a necessity for anyone living outside of a city.

................

Students from every corner of the country managed for years without cars. It's a fallacy that anyone of them needs one.

A Legacy of years of excess, perhaps? Some people cannot differentiate between need and want.

pippip

main driver is only there to clarify who get financially compensated should the worst happen. Unless the insurance company have the car under 24 hr surveilance how are they going to prove anything

Gophur

pippip wrote: »

main driver is only there to clarify who get financially compensated should the worst happen...........

Incorrect!

Main driver is nominated to allow the Insurance Company properly calculate the risk involved and the resulting premium.

Gophur

Gophur wrote: »

Students from every corner of the country managed for years without cars. It's a fallacy that anyone of them needs one.

A Legacy of years of excess, perhaps? Some people cannot differentiate between need and want.

Well its either move near college or get a car and I know I preferred the car option.

Getting a lift 2 hours before college starts and relying on putting someone out to get a way home or walking for a few miles to get a bus which runs once a day at an inconvenient time drops you a good bit from the college and to get home having to leave college earlier than you want because you have to get the bus and then having to walk home a few miles after.

I would say in the above situation you need a car. I certainly didn't make my life a misery by taking either of the two options above.

Also my father and uncles drove to college back in the 70's and 80's so you cant claim its a new thing.

Sobanek

Clutchkick wrote: »

Im 18 with a prev liecence that ive had for 6 months,ive been lookn at golf mkiv gt tdi's for a while now but have only just managed to get around my parents because i need a car for college.

Don't look at GT TDIs since the insurance will come up to around 4k. Go for the 1.6 first, I got quoted 1900 in AXA for a 1999 1.6.
Another option is a BMW 318tds - I got a 1700 quote on that one.
Both TPFT.

secondly,i know its gonna be expencive either way but is there any point having my dad insured on it as the main driver as well as his car and i'd get insured as an additional driver on the golf,he has a full liecence and ncb,the whole lot,would i be more lkely to get a quote then and would it work out any bit cheaper????

First of all, it's illegal. If he's insured on the second car, he automatically loses his NCB. Just in case people try to do something like this .

What I'd suggest is staying away from being "cool" and getting yourself some 1.0 ecobox like a Polo or a Corsa, earn your first NCB and then after you've got 2 years NCB, get yourself the GT TDI. I'm 18 myself, currently on full licence, going to have my first NCB in February and I'm still not planning to buy a Golf TDI for now even though, I'd truly love it. Like I said, based on my own experience - get yourself the 1.6.

Gophur

Giovanni Spicy Tapestry wrote: »

Well its either move near college or get a car and I know I preferred the car option.

Getting a lift 2 hours before college starts and relying on putting someone out to get a way home or walking for a few miles to get a bus which runs once a day at an inconvenient time drops you a good bit from the college and to get home having to leave college earlier than you want because you have to get the bus and then having to walk home a few miles after.

I would say in the above situation you need a car. I certainly didn't make my life a misery by taking either of the two options above.

A car was an option, it was not a necessity. Some people have no idea what it's like to be inconvenienced.

So what if it means moving into accommodation close to college? It's the way thousands do it, every year.

Sobanek

Gophur wrote: »

A car was an option, it was not a necessity. Some people have no idea what it's like to be inconvenienced.

So what if it means moving into accommodation close to college? It's the way thousands do it, every year.

When I was 16 and didn't have my learner's permit (or the full licence), I had to wake up at 6:30, leave the house at 7:20 and was in school at 8:20. Classes start at 9:00. I left the school at 3:50 and was home at around 6:20.

When I got my full licence, I woke up at 7:00, left the house at 8:00 and was in school at 8:55. I left the school at 3:50 and was home at 4:40 most of the times.

I had more time to study, do my homework and I actually had a social life.
It's very convenient to have a car, trust me on that.

It's pointless though if it's a 15 minute walk to the college / school.

Gophur

Gophur wrote: »

So what if it means moving into accommodation close to college? It's the way thousands do it, every year.

Whats wrong with choosing the car over living near the college?

Gophur

Sobanek wrote: »

When I was 16 and didn't have my learner's permit (or the full licence), I had to wake up at 6:30, leave the house at 7:20 and was in school at 8:20. Classes start at 9:00. I left the school at 3:50 and was home at around 6:20.

When I got my full licence, I woke up at 7:00, left the house at 8:00 and was in school at 8:55. I left the school at 3:50 and was home at 4:40 most of the times.

I had more time to study, do my homework and I actually had a social life.
It's very convenient to have a car, trust me on that.

It's pointless though if it's a 15 minute walk to the college / school.

And your point is?

Nobody's denying it's convenient, but it's not a necessity.

By the way, thousands of people have 12 hour days commuting/working, for years on end, and have no choice but to accept it. Don't think you were, in any way, hard done by.

Gophur

Giovanni Spicy Tapestry wrote: »

Whats wrong with choosing the car over living near the college?

Nothing wrong.

(Nothing wrong with living near the college, either)

C4Kid

Sobanek wrote: »

It's pointless though if it's a 15 minute walk to the college / school.

I've to do that just to get from where I park to the college, that way it's an inconvenience.

If you want a golf and you want it to be feasible, get one with a smaller engine.

Gophur

Gophur wrote: »

Nothing wrong.

(Nothing wrong with living near the college, either)

Agreed.

barura

Clutchkick wrote: »

Im 18 with a prev liecence that ive had for 6 months,ive been lookn at golf mkiv gt tdi's for a while now but have only just managed to get around my parents because i need a car for college.

If you have had your licence for 6 months, go get your full licence. Then get the car. I've said it before and I'll say it again though; you just need to do the speed limit in the bloody thing! So think about getting another car that is reasonable to insure like the 1.6 Golf. If you still want a GTI "feel" go to a breakers and find any which have been crashed and grab the interior etc.

L-M

A friend of mine travels from Thurles to UL and back everyday because it works out cheaper than staying.

OP Don't bother with a "GT TDI", depending on how far away you live suffer on with a 90bhp TDI or a 1.4 petrol.

Otis Driftwood

Ive never heard of anyone being prosecuted for being the named driver and crashing/being found to be the main driver however I have seen claims being rejected,policies being cancelled for non disclosure etc.This stays with you for at least 5 years so trying to save a few quid now by being dishonest can end up causing a huge amount of hassle should the worst,ie a crash,happen.

YouTookMyName

1.3 Corolla FTW.

pippip

Just get a 1.4 or 1.6 golf and change the badges......nobody will ever know:D:D:D

MugMugs

Marcusm wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

It's not illegal. It's a non disclosure issue. That said, if he acts as a named driver and is supervised while driving as a named driver, I can't see the issue.

It is unlawful, results in an offence under section 64 Road Traffic Act, obtaining insurance through providing information knowing it to be false. Up to 6 months in chokey, iirc.

Eh, so all named drivers out there being supervised while driving (assuming that his intention) are obtaining insurance by deception? No, they are driving as named drivers.

Yeah - we all know what happens then Henry. . Can't multi quote as on phone.

Marcusm

MugMugs wrote: »

Eh, so all named drivers out there being supervised while driving (assuming that his intention) are obtaining insurance by deception? No, they are driving as named drivers.

Yeah - we all know what happens then Henry. . Can't multi quote as on phone.

Maybe I'm being too subtle. The OP has made no reference to his father ever driving the car and thus as proposer he would be supplying false information as he would not be the main driver, perhaps never a driver with respect o this car at all. In order to legitimately benefit, it would have to be shown that the proposer was the main driver and he named driver or additional assured to be subordinate in his use of the car. This is leaving asdeentirely that the OP proposes to drive unaccompanied while he is not a licensed driver which might be of relevance in the event of a claim.

oldyouth

sleepysniper wrote: »

powerful...yeah right:rolleyes::pac:

Well the OP has not proved that he is competent to pass a test in a Micra, yet he thinks he can drive a yoke like this without a qualified driver beside him

ottostreet

oldyouth wrote: »

Well the OP has not proved that he is competent to pass a test in a Micra, yet he thinks he can drive a yoke like this without a qualified driver beside him

Jaysus, it's only a Golf!

oldyouth

ottostreet wrote: »

Jaysus, it's only a Golf!

Jaysus, it's only the law of the land that applies to everyone but me

ottostreet

oldyouth wrote: »

Jaysus, it's only the law of the land that applies to everyone but me

Insurance companies are a law unto themselves though. It is not 'law' that is preventing the OP from insuring his chosen car, it is a private company.

oldyouth

The law allows OP to drive that car, but the law also requires OP to have a qualified driver beside him. We all know it isn't going to happen.

Insurance companies cannot facilitate a deliberate illegal act

mantaman

Neilw wrote: »

Insure the car as what it really is, golf tdi highline/trendline 130bhp or what ever it is (no such thing as a gt tdi ). The info will be on the data sticker in the boot along with the engine power in kw.

pretty sure that you could get a gt tdi also.

To the op, stick with a lower powered car, cheaper and lets face it, if you are going to be driving un-accompanied, you don't need to be attracting the attention of the gardai.

Otis Driftwood

ottostreet wrote: »

Insurance companies are a law unto themselves though. It is not 'law' that is preventing the OP from insuring his chosen car, it is a private company.

That grainy stuff around yer ears,pull yer head out of it as you could well smother.

ottostreet

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

That grainy stuff around yer ears,pull yer head out of it as you could well smother.

Please explain..

The Dagda

mantaman wrote: »

pretty sure that you could get a gt tdi also.

To the op, stick with a lower powered car, cheaper and lets face it, if you are going to be driving un-accompanied, you don't need to be attracting the attention of the gardai.

Unless it's an imported car it's not a gt tdi. The first place to start is to talk to a broker about getting insured in a golf tdi