Young driver insurance

piperh

djimi wrote: »

Bear in mind you cant insure a car that you dont own, so if Mammy is letting little Johnny driver her car all of the time but doesnt want to sign it over to him then he cannot take out a policy in his own name on said car. Allowing her to name him as the primary driver on the policy gets around this.

This is not true Djimi, we've had a car registered in my name since we bought it 3 yrs ago and originally it was insured in hubbys name with son as named driver and for the last 2yrs it's been in sons name with hubby as named driver. I've never been on either policy.

goz83

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Very sorry to hear that. It sounds like a very serious accident.

Was there someone acting the bollox ?

Young, inexperienced driver in sports car on mammies policy. Left my car as a write-off, destroyed from behind. I will have to let you draw your own conclusions there.

goz83

goz83 wrote: »

As KS&L has said, it's not about adding ones children to a policy. It's when parents are on paper as the main driver of the car (especially high performance cars), but the policy holder will likely never sit behind the wheel of said car.
.

It's fairly rare though for a person to drive a car 100% of the time as a named driver with a few exceptions, one being two people I know who swapped cars but just named each other on each other's insurance rather than change the names over as they are planning to swap back again.

In most cases it's more of a middle ground with the car being shared between the parent and their child maybe up to 50:50. In this instance I see it as being perfectly legitimate to have the parent down as the main driver.

That said with the extortionate price of insurance I would personally have no problem driving a car as the main driver but insured as a named driver in order to get a more reasonable quotes (in a small engined car) if I was getting started out in driving again. It's completely unfair the money being asked of young people starting out. I can see why you are against it as you were badly injured but the vast majority are safe drivers and just want to try get started driving at a semi-reasonable cost.

goz83

Israel Muscular Sauna wrote: »

It's fairly rare though for a person to drive a car 100% of the time as a named driver with a few exceptions, one being two people I know who swapped cars but just named each other on each other's insurance rather than change the names over as they are planning to swap back again.

In most cases it's more of a middle ground with the car being shared between the parent and their child maybe up to 50:50. In this instance I see it as being perfectly legitimate to have the parent down as the main driver.

That said with the extortionate price of insurance I would personally have no problem driving a car as the main driver but insured as a named driver in order to get a more reasonable quotes (in a small engined car) if I was getting started out in driving again. It's completely unfair the money being asked of young people starting out. I can see why you are against it as you were badly injured but the vast majority are safe drivers and just want to try get started driving at a semi-reasonable cost.

I'm on my wifes policy as a named driver and she is on my policy as a named driver. That's the kind of thing named driving is really for. That, and a child going on a parents policy while they are learning how to drive, or if they genuinely only use the car sometimes. The person who uses the car 51% or greater is the person who should be marked as the main driver. It's pretty black and white.

Now, when you look at the under 21 and as far as the under 25 category, children are driving their own car, or their parents car in the vast majority of cases as the actual main driver, but tell the insurer otherwise. I don't agree with this and I never have. That's why I didn't go on mammies policy. It was a killer paying such a massive premium, but I paid it and thank god I never caused anything more serious than an accident at 5mp. In 3 years, I have been rear ended twice by young male drivers, who were named drivers on someone elses policy. The first time was a lad is his late twenties and the second time was a lad in his early twenties. I'm not against it just because I was the unfortunate guy who was injured. That just solidified my reasoning for being against insurance fraud.

oldyouth

piperh wrote: »

This is not true Djimi, we've had a car registered in my name since we bought it 3 yrs ago and originally it was insured in hubbys name with son as named driver and for the last 2yrs it's been in sons name with hubby as named driver. I've never been on either policy.

Sorry, are you saying the car is still registered in your name but your son has an insurance policy in his own name on this vehicle? Seriously, if that is the situation, get it sorted ASAP. A husband/wife thing is fine, but not a child

piperh

oldyouth wrote: »

Sorry, are you saying the car is still registered in your name but your son has an insurance policy in his own name on this vehicle? Seriously, if that is the situation, get it sorted ASAP. A husband/wife thing is fine, but not a child

Yes and the insurance companies have always known it was registered in my name. And when stopped and asked whose car it was and then to produce the gard didn't have an issue with it either.

Why are you saying to sort it, Is it illegal? I would have thought the insurance company would have picked it up when he claimed on the policy if it was and used it as an excuse not to pay out.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

piperh wrote: »

Yes and the insurance companies have always known it was registered in my name. And when stopped and asked whose car it was and then to produce the gard didn't have an issue with it either.

Why are you saying to sort it, Is it illegal? I would have thought the insurance company would have picked it up when he claimed on the policy if it was and used it as an excuse not to pay out.

the definition of insurance is to protect the policy holder against financial loss of their property.

if they dont own the property then they wont have a financial interest in the property and therefore can't insure it.

so if your son goes and writes off the car tomorrow the insurance company do not have to pay out a cent.

Snake

Sam Kade wrote: »

So your're still considered a high risk driver if you have been driving 4-5 years as a named driver without any claims.

Yes.

piperh

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

the definition of insurance is to protect the policy holder against financial loss of their property.

if they dont own the property then they wont have a financial interest in the property and therefore can't insure it.

so if your son goes and writes off the car tomorrow the insurance company do not have to pay out a cent.

Ok that makes sense however they started and renewed the policy knowing he wasn't the registered keeper. And paid out a considerable amount to repair the car after an accident. Surely by accepting payment knowing the details they've entered into a contract based on them.

goz83

piperh wrote: »

Ok that makes sense however they started and renewed the policy knowing he wasn't the registered keeper. And paid out a considerable amount to repair the car after an accident. Surely by accepting payment knowing the details they've entered into a contract based on them.

I would second that. I have transferred my policy on many occasions to vehicles my insurers were aware they were not registered to me. Since I have had "drive other cars" on my policy in recent years, it hasn't been necessary to transfer insurance.

My sister transferred her policy to my dads car for a few weeks while hers was in getting work and was out of action. Insurers knew it was not in her name.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

goz83 wrote: »

I would second that. I have transferred my policy on many occasions to vehicles my insurers were aware they were not registered to me. Since I have had "drive other cars" on my policy in recent years, it hasn't been necessary to transfer insurance.

My sister transferred her policy to my dads car for a few weeks while hers was in getting work and was out of action. Insurers knew it was not in her name.

Temporary substitutes are very common when cars are getting worked on or when you need a replacement car as a result from an accident etc. hence why its always temporary and never permanent

oldyouth

goz83 wrote: »

I would second that. I have transferred my policy on many occasions to vehicles my insurers were aware they were not registered to me. Since I have had "drive other cars" on my policy in recent years, it hasn't been necessary to transfer insurance.

My sister transferred her policy to my dads car for a few weeks while hers was in getting work and was out of action. Insurers knew it was not in her name.

Temporary transfers are never an issue and a standard facility offered by insurers.

oldyouth

piperh wrote: »

Ok that makes sense however they started and renewed the policy knowing he wasn't the registered keeper. And paid out a considerable amount to repair the car after an accident. Surely by accepting payment knowing the details they've entered into a contract based on them.

I would get the situation corrected as soon as possible. When you say insurance companies, do you mean the insurers themselves or your broker? If you have a partial loss, insurers will rarely ask for proof of ownership or the log book, in the event of a total loss, they will and that's when you will have a problem. There are also technical insurance reasons when the registered owner needs to be the policyholder. Get a copy of the proposal form and see what was declared with regard to ownership

I'm not saying you have done anything sneaky here, quite the opposite, you seem to have been upfront in your dealings. However, your son should not be the policyholder on a car registered in your name

piperh

oldyouth wrote: »

I would get the situation corrected as soon as possible. When you say insurance companies, do you mean the insurers themselves or your broker? If you have a partial loss, insurers will rarely ask for proof of ownership or the log book, in the event of a total loss, they will and that's when you will have a problem. There are also technical insurance reasons when the registered owner needs to be the policyholder. Get a copy of the proposal form and see what was declared with regard to ownership

I'm not saying you have done anything sneaky here, quite the opposite, you seem to have been upfront in your dealings. However, your son should not be the policyholder on a car registered in your name

Thanks, no it's always been Aviva. I checked the policy last night afterwards as I hated the idea of him being uninsured and there is no mention of registered owner. I will call them on Monday to see what they say.

djimi

piperh wrote: »

Thanks, no it's always been Aviva. I checked the policy last night afterwards as I hated the idea of him being uninsured and there is no mention of registered owner. I will call them on Monday to see what they say.

If you check any online quote for example, the first assumption will usually be that you or your partner is the registered owner of the car. This may not apply to all insurers, but it has been the case for any that I have dealt with. Your son should not be able to take our a policy on a car that he does not own.

That said, if Aviva have sold such a policy, are aware of the situation and have paid out in the event of a claim then they obviously are not too bothered.

djimi

goz83 wrote: »

Except, it's not grand. People get seriously injured, or killed when certain drivers are fronted on cars they otherwise would find impossible to insure. I'm one of those injured people who was hit by a young driver on mammies policy in a high performance car. :mad:

Fronting is (and always has been) an issue in this country, but in situations like yours it is only part of a bigger issue. The real issue is that young inexperienced drivers are able to get insured in any capacity on high performance cars. Fronting is bad enough, but if you change the situation around a bit, you could well have a situation where a teenage learner is insured on their fathers M3, and even though Daddy is the primary driver, you still have a learner driving around (perfectly legally) in an M3.

What needs to happen is a restriction needs to be put on the licensing system to limit what people can drive based on their experience. I know we dont use insurance groups in Ireland, but something like that would be a good benchmark; you can only drive up to say group 5 on a learners permit, up to group 10 while on a N plate, and then on an increasing scale based on experience built up (Im only using those groups as an example; I have no idea what cars are actually in each group). This would stop a 17 year old learner driving a type R Integra, because even if they could otherwise find an insurer who would offer them a policy (be it main driver or named), they would not be legally able to drive a group 35 car on a learners permit. Tie this back to insurers (ie make it impossible to insure a car that you are not licensed to drive) and it sorts the issue in a hurry.

Im sure that people will be on to bemoan the "nanny state" menality of such an idea, but something really has to be done to prevent people from driving cars that are beyond their ability and experience. Right now anybody in Ireland can drive the most powerful car that they are able to afford to insure, but and whether they are playing by the rules or not, the reality is that there are insured to drive the car and nobody is really stepping in any asking why teenagers and particularly leaners are (legally or otherwise) allowed to drive serious performance cars provided they can shell out what the insurance company wants from them. Its utter madness and badly needs to be looked at.

goz83

djimi wrote: »

Fronting is (and always has been) an issue in this country, but in situations like yours it is only part of a bigger issue. The real issue is that young inexperienced drivers are able to get insured in any capacity on high performance cars. Fronting is bad enough, but if you change the situation around a bit, you could well have a situation where a teenage learner is insured on their fathers M3, and even though Daddy is the primary driver, you still have a learner driving around (perfectly legally) in an M3.

What needs to happen is a restriction needs to be put on the licensing system to limit what people can drive based on their experience. I know we dont use insurance groups in Ireland, but something like that would be a good benchmark; you can only drive up to say group 5 on a learners permit, up to group 10 while on a N plate, and then on an increasing scale based on experience built up (Im only using those groups as an example; I have no idea what cars are actually in each group). This would stop a 17 year old learner driving a type R Integra, because even if they could otherwise find an insurer who would offer them a policy (be it main driver or named), they would not be legally able to drive a group 35 car on a learners permit. Tie this back to insurers (ie make it impossible to insure a car that you are not licensed to drive) and it sorts the issue in a hurry.

Im sure that people will be on to bemoan the "nanny state" menality of such an idea, but something really has to be done to prevent people from driving cars that are beyond their ability and experience. Right now anybody in Ireland can drive the most powerful car that they are able to afford to insure, but and whether they are playing by the rules or not, the reality is that there are insured to drive the car and nobody is really stepping in any asking why teenagers and particularly leaners are (legally or otherwise) allowed to drive serious performance cars provided they can shell out what the insurance company wants from them. Its utter madness and badly needs to be looked at.

This.

100% agree. They've done something like this with motorcycle licenses. Cars could be put into categories. The category could be printed on the motortax disc. Categories could be set by age and by license type. The license type being primary and age being secondary, so age of an inexperienced driver does not trump their license. This would also stop people insuring a micra and driving that type r integra in someone elses name, because their license and/or age would restrict them if they have "drive other cars" on their insurance policy. Could be teated as driving unlicensed if caught, just like a B license holder can't jump into an articulated lorry and go for a spin.

I think age 30 with full license and outside the Novice period of 2 years should be sufficient enough to remove all category restrictions. Kinda like Axa, the way they just wont touch some drivers on some cars until they are 30 with full license.

djimi

djimi wrote: »

Fronting is (and always has been) an issue in this country, but in situations like yours it is only part of a bigger issue. The real issue is that young inexperienced drivers are able to get insured in any capacity on high performance cars. Fronting is bad enough, but if you change the situation around a bit, you could well have a situation where a teenage learner is insured on their fathers M3, and even though Daddy is the primary driver, you still have a learner driving around (perfectly legally) in an M3.

What needs to happen is a restriction needs to be put on the licensing system to limit what people can drive based on their experience. I know we dont use insurance groups in Ireland, but something like that would be a good benchmark; you can only drive up to say group 5 on a learners permit, up to group 10 while on a N plate, and then on an increasing scale based on experience built up (Im only using those groups as an example; I have no idea what cars are actually in each group). This would stop a 17 year old learner driving a type R Integra, because even if they could otherwise find an insurer who would offer them a policy (be it main driver or named), they would not be legally able to drive a group 35 car on a learners permit. Tie this back to insurers (ie make it impossible to insure a car that you are not licensed to drive) and it sorts the issue in a hurry.

Im sure that people will be on to bemoan the "nanny state" menality of such an idea, but something really has to be done to prevent people from driving cars that are beyond their ability and experience. Right now anybody in Ireland can drive the most powerful car that they are able to afford to insure, but and whether they are playing by the rules or not, the reality is that there are insured to drive the car and nobody is really stepping in any asking why teenagers and particularly leaners are (legally or otherwise) allowed to drive serious performance cars provided they can shell out what the insurance company wants from them. Its utter madness and badly needs to be looked at.

Is there any evidence that young drivers crash more often in more powerful cars than small engined cars. Anecdotally I would say most crashes I see ( in particular serious ones on the news etc) it's usually very normal cars being driven not anything performance related. I think people get too hung up on the type of car, you can crash at 100 mph in a micra and infact if you are driving fast you might as well be in something with the handling and brakes to deal with it. Even still when I drive other family members small cars (similar cars to which I started out in) I wonder how I drove like I did in such cars and managed to keep it between the ditches. I was driving nearly as hard on the back roads as I do in my GTI and there is a massive difference in capability.

I don't like the idea of restricting what fully licences driver can drive, similar to how I totally disagree with the N plate.

goz83

Israel Muscular Sauna wrote: »

Is there any evidence that young drivers crash more often in more powerful cars than small engined cars. Anecdotally I would say most crashes I see ( in particular serious ones on the news etc) it's usually very normal cars being driven not anything performance related. I think people get too hung up on the type of car, you can crash at 100 mph in a micra and infact if you are driving fast you might as well be in something with the handling and brakes to deal with it. Even still when I drive other family members small cars (similar cars to which I started out in) I wonder how I drove like I did in such cars and managed to keep it between the ditches. I was driving nearly as hard on the back roads as I do in my GTI and there is a massive difference in capability.

I don't like the idea of restricting what fully licences driver can drive, similar to how I totally disagree with the N plate.

Well there are a lot less parents that will help little Johnny insure a pocket rocket than a "normal car". But I would bet my left testicle that the young motorist behind the wheel of lets say a Toyota MR2 is a tad bit more likely to rag it than the young motorist in a Toyota Yaris. It's like saying "Don't Push The RED Button". So, yeah, I would say they are more likely to crash, but that there are way more driving normal cars.

Why would it be a bad idea to keep an 18 year old (who just passed his test) out of a Nissan 350z or other powerful car? And why are you against the N plate? I think it makes absolute sense for a newly qualified driver to display this. They have just passed their test and have a lot of learning to do.

djimi

Israel Muscular Sauna wrote: »

Is there any evidence that young drivers crash more often in more powerful cars than small engined cars. Anecdotally I would say most crashes I see ( in particular serious ones on the news etc) it's usually very normal cars being driven not anything performance related. I think people get too hung up on the type of car, you can crash at 100 mph in a micra and infact if you are driving fast you might as well be in something with the handling and brakes to deal with it. Even still when I drive other family members small cars (similar cars to which I started out in) I wonder how I drove like I did in such cars and managed to keep it between the ditches. I was driving nearly as hard on the back roads as I do in my GTI and there is a massive difference in capability.

I don't like the idea of restricting what fully licences driver can drive, similar to how I totally disagree with the N plate.

Ever seen the cost for a teenager to take out policy in their own name on a performance car? Insurance companies dont pull those figures out of thin air...

Its all to do with risk. You stick an inexperienced driver in a 350bhp performance car and surely nobody in their right mind would argue that they are a massively increased risk compared to the same driver driving a 75bhp 1L car (or whatever those cars are)?

If you want to talk anecdotally, I know of plenty of young drivers who used to wreck all manner of performance cars by acting like morons or simply through pure inability to drive the car that is under their arse. Certainly far more than older/more experienced drivers driving similar cars.

piperh

Quick follow up. I called insurance today and they said it makes no difference as to the registered owner, I asked if they would pay out value of car and they said yes and it was then my responsibility to recoup off the insured.

oldyouth

Piperh, can I ask were you talking to your insurance company or your broker?

piperh

oldyouth wrote: »

Piperh, can I ask were you talking to your insurance company or your broker?

The insurance company, don't use a broker. We've kept the car with the same insurer since we bought it. My son does still live at home and it was only afterwards I thought I should've asked if this made a difference.

oldyouth

I would seriously urge you to get that advice in writing. You have done everything by the book, but it doesn't get away from the fact that the current situation is wrong. It is a basic principle of every insurance policy that you cannot insure the property of another person (spouses are deemed to be a single legal entity)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurable_interest

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

oldyouth wrote: »

I would seriously urge you to get that advice in writing. You have done everything by the book, but it doesn't get away from the fact that the current situation is wrong. It is a basic principle of every insurance policy that you cannot insure the property of another person (spouses are deemed to be a single legal entity)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurable_interest

But also to be careful how they word it too.

I mean it could be perfectly fine , we're not saying you're wrong or anything but you just want to cover your own ass !

quadrifoglio verde

djimi wrote: »

Fronting is (and always has been) an issue in this country, but in situations like yours it is only part of a bigger issue. The real issue is that young inexperienced drivers are able to get insured in any capacity on high performance cars. Fronting is bad enough, but if you change the situation around a bit, you could well have a situation where a teenage learner is insured on their fathers M3, and even though Daddy is the primary driver, you still have a learner driving around (perfectly legally) in an M3.

What needs to happen is a restriction needs to be put on the licensing system to limit what people can drive based on their experience. I know we dont use insurance groups in Ireland, but something like that would be a good benchmark; you can only drive up to say group 5 on a learners permit, up to group 10 while on a N plate, and then on an increasing scale based on experience built up (Im only using those groups as an example; I have no idea what cars are actually in each group). This would stop a 17 year old learner driving a type R Integra, because even if they could otherwise find an insurer who would offer them a policy (be it main driver or named), they would not be legally able to drive a group 35 car on a learners permit. Tie this back to insurers (ie make it impossible to insure a car that you are not licensed to drive) and it sorts the issue in a hurry.

Im sure that people will be on to bemoan the "nanny state" menality of such an idea, but something really has to be done to prevent people from driving cars that are beyond their ability and experience. Right now anybody in Ireland can drive the most powerful car that they are able to afford to insure, but and whether they are playing by the rules or not, the reality is that there are insured to drive the car and nobody is really stepping in any asking why teenagers and particularly leaners are (legally or otherwise) allowed to drive serious performance cars provided they can shell out what the insurance company wants from them. Its utter madness and badly needs to be looked at.

You don't even need to afford to insure it. When I was 19 I got my full licence. Being insured with liberty on a polo, gave me 3rd party extension to drive any car once I had the owners permission and it was privately owned.

So insurance was 1500 for the year on polo, but covered me to drive anything.

I'd argue that you should have to have 2 years Ncb in your own name before you're covered on anything else. You've demonstrated that you're a safe driver through the Ncb and should be rewarded as a result. Another person mentioned 30 years old, but just because you're 30 doesn't mean that you're safe or good. Ncb does give an insight.
The idea of covering someone like me who had 1 years Ncb and a full licence for 2 weeks to drive an e60 m5 is ludacrous though.

djimi

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

You don't even need to afford to insure it. When I was 19 I got my full licence. Being insured with liberty on a polo, gave me 3rd party extension to drive any car once I had the owners permission and it was privately owned.

So insurance was 1500 for the year on polo, but covered me to drive anything.

I'd argue that you should have to have 2 years Ncb in your own name before you're covered on anything else. You've demonstrated that you're a safe driver through the Ncb and should be rewarded as a result. Another person mentioned 30 years old, but just because you're 30 doesn't mean that you're safe or good. Ncb does give an insight.
The idea of covering someone like me who had 1 years Ncb and a full licence for 2 weeks to drive an e60 m5 is ludacrous though.

That must have changed in recent times; when I was starting out I think my first policy gave me third party extension cover on cars only up to 1.6L. Madness really allowing a young inexperienced driver to get behind the wheel of whatever they can get their hands on.

Im not sure that NCB is the best indicator tbh, purely based on the fact that someone could have a learners permit for three years, could use the car only occasionally for lessons or whatever and still build up three years or NCB. I know having a full license for a period of time also does not guarantee that the driver has actually been driving during that period, but at least it shows they can pass their test!

quadrifoglio verde

djimi wrote: »

That must have changed in recent times; when I was starting out I think my first policy gave me third party extension cover on cars only up to 1.6L. Madness really allowing a young inexperienced driver to get behind the wheel of whatever they can get their hands on.

Im not sure that NCB is the best indicator tbh, purely based on the fact that someone could have a learners permit for three years, could use the car only occasionally for lessons or whatever and still build up three years or NCB. I know having a full license for a period of time also does not guarantee that the driver has actually been driving during that period, but at least it shows they can pass their test!

Oh agreed but arbitrarily saying that cars of a certain category should be restricted based on age and not on experience (which Ncb and years a full licence is held do) isn't going to work either.
There's very few who'd take out a policy in their own name at 17/18 and only use the car once a week for driving lessons.

djimi

djimi wrote: »

That must have changed in recent times; when I was starting out I think my first policy gave me third party extension cover on cars only up to 1.6L.

My first insurance in my own name was on a small car-van with Quinn about 8 or 9 years ago and there was no stipulation. In fact I've never see any restriction on any policy I've had in relation to engine size.

djimi

Israel Muscular Sauna wrote: »

My first insurance in my own name was on a small car-van with Quinn about 8 or 9 years ago and there was no stipulation. In fact I've never see any restriction on any policy I've had in relation to engine size.

It was about 11-12 years ago that I had my first policy. Was insured with ARB initially then I think Axa. I cant remember the details but one of them was definitely restricted. It was only for a year or two so it may have been with ARB at the time.