The Lemon Fool

Lootman wrote: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?

Or 10,001 !

swill453 wrote:

didds wrote: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.

Is that true though? I would have thought that your insurer is obligated to pay out third party claims but could then try and reclaim that money from you if you had materially lied to them.

In over 50 years of driving i have never claimed on a motor policy. If I had a bump I just paid for it myself rather than involve insurance. Having accepted my premia for all that time and opted not to make claims, I feel owed some flexibility.

Lootman wrote:

swill453 wrote: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.

Is that true though? I would have thought that your insurer is obligated to pay out third party claims but could then try and reclaim that money from you if you had materially lied to them.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.

Scott.

swill453 wrote:Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.

Scott.

and is what i took it be mean. quite what happens when the fronter doesn't have £1M and is never likely to ever have £1M even in a lifetime, is open to conjecture.

didds wrote:

swill453 wrote: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,

They can claw back what you have, subject to legal limits. Garnishing, say, 10% of your earnings, any inheritances, any eventual estate, perhaps the rolex that you ill-advisedly wore to the debtors exam, ... may not make the insurance company whole, but it can still be life-changing for you. You will essentially be in a huge debt hole for the rest of your life, or possibly, bankrupt, which is another type of life changing.

pour encourager les autres.

none of which helps me understand who is the main driver of my wife's and my main vehicles. which we are not fronting. but still have declared a "main driver" for.

9873210 wrote: Garnishing, say, 10% of your earnings, any inheritances, any eventual estate, perhaps the rolex that you ill-advisedly wore to the debtors exam . .

Yes I remember a friend of mine attending some kind of examination meeting with the administrators of his bankruptcy, and he was advised to take no cash or valuables with him as he could have been made to forfeit them there and then. As i recall he even removed his gold wedding ring.

9873210 wrote:pour encourager les autres.

pour discourager les autres, surely

didds wrote:none of which helps me understand who is the main driver of my wife's and my main vehicles. which we are not fronting. but still have declared a "main driver" for.

What does your insurance company say? Mine (LV) says the main driver is the one that drives it "most often", as in number of times, not necessarily highest mileage.

Maybe keep a log for a month or something, then you'd have some evidence in the event of a question.

Scott.

that would still change month by month, or week by week. Its still no better (though I appreciate your attempt Scott)

swill453 wrote:

didds wrote:none of which helps me understand who is the main driver of my wife's and my main vehicles. which we are not fronting. but still have declared a "main driver" for.

What does your insurance company say? Mine (LV) says the main driver is the one that drives it "most often", as in number of times, not necessarily highest mileage.

Maybe keep a log for a month or something, then you'd have some evidence in the event of a question.

That is interesting. Although my wife drives more miles in her car than I do, it is possible I do more trips in it, albeit shorter ones.

Her car lives in our garage and mine is parked on the street. As it is not always easy to find an on-street space near our house, I will sometimes use her car to avoid risking losing my on-street space.

Not sure keeping a written log would count because it would be so easy to fake it. But the fact that it is HER car and not mine surely counts as support for the argument that she has to be the main driver, and the only named driver in this case.

didds wrote:that would still change month by month, or week by week. Its still no better (though I appreciate your attempt Scott)

Insurance is on the basis of utmost good faith. In this case I would write a letter with the actual state of affairs and send it to the insurance companies' agent. In the modern age of procrustean multiple-choice websites without "none-of-the-above", free form text or any actual agent the letter goes to the CEO of the company. Keep a copy for your files.

9873210 wrote:

didds wrote:that would still change month by month, or week by week. Its still no better (though I appreciate your attempt Scott)

Insurance is on the basis of utmost good faith. In this case I would write a letter with the actual state of affairs and send it to the insurance companies' agent. In the modern age of procrustean multiple-choice websites without "none-of-the-above", free form text or any actual agent the letter goes to the CEO of the company. Keep a copy for your files.

My instinct is always to volunteer the minimum amount of information that I have to, to avoid over-committing and painting myself into a corner.

That way I have the flexibility to present a number of different scenarios in the future, depending on what actually happens.

Lootman wrote:

9873210 wrote:Insurance is on the basis of utmost good faith. In this case I would write a letter with the actual state of affairs and send it to the insurance companies' agent. In the modern age of procrustean multiple-choice websites without "none-of-the-above", free form text or any actual agent the letter goes to the CEO of the company. Keep a copy for your files.

My instinct is always to volunteer the minimum amount of information that I have to, to avoid over-committing and painting myself into a corner.

That way I have the flexibility to present a number of different scenarios in the future, depending on what actually happens.

Except you ticked a box that said who was the principal driver, and another box or two that said that you fully understood every box you ticked and answered truthfully. The deniability seems a little implausible.

9873210 wrote:

Lootman wrote:My instinct is always to volunteer the minimum amount of information that I have to, to avoid over-committing and painting myself into a corner.

That way I have the flexibility to present a number of different scenarios in the future, depending on what actually happens.

Except you ticked a box that said who was the principal driver, and another box or two that said that you fully understood every box you ticked and answered truthfully. The deniability seems a little implausible.

Sure, but as didds noted it may be hard or impossible for anyone to prove I was not the "main" driver (whatever that means). So I was expressing doubt about the wisdom of including a letter offering more info than I was being asked for. And how that may later constrain how I want to respond to a specific incident.

Years ago I was coached by a trial specialist on how to give testimony as a witness in court. Some of the principles I learned back then have stuck with me. One was: "Answer only what the question asks for. Do not volunteer anything beyond that". An example was: "Do you know what time it is?" If you do the best answer is "Yes".

I have heard similar advice for dealing with criminal issues, tax issues and so on. There is a reason why lawyers often recommend silence in some situations. If a dispute goes to court I may regret something I said earlier that I did not need to say and cannot now credibly un-say.

Lootman wrote:

9873210 wrote:Except you ticked a box that said who was the principal driver, and another box or two that said that you fully understood every box you ticked and answered truthfully. The deniability seems a little implausible.

Sure, but as didds noted it may be hard or impossible for anyone to prove I was not the "main" driver (whatever that means). So I was expressing doubt about the wisdom of including a letter offering more info than I was being asked for. And how that may later constrain how I want to respond to a specific incident.

Years ago I was coached by a trial specialist on how to give testimony as a witness in court. Some of the principles I learned back then have stuck with me. One was: "Answer only what the question asks for. Do not volunteer anything beyond that". An example was: "Do you know what time it is?" If you do the best answer is "Yes".

I have heard similar advice for dealing with criminal issues, tax issues and so on. There is a reason why lawyers often recommend silence in some situations. If a dispute goes to court I may regret something I said earlier that I did not need to say and cannot now credibly un-say.

There is before and after. Before you get to decide what is to your advantage, do it, and document it. Your actions create the facts and the evidence. After it is too late. This is why lawyers recommend putting things in writing and having them dated and sometimes witnessed before the excrement hits the ventilator.

The advice lawyers give changes radically once a suit is filed.

9873210 wrote:

Lootman wrote:Sure, but as didds noted it may be hard or impossible for anyone to prove I was not the "main" driver (whatever that means). So I was expressing doubt about the wisdom of including a letter offering more info than I was being asked for. And how that may later constrain how I want to respond to a specific incident.

Years ago I was coached by a trial specialist on how to give testimony as a witness in court. Some of the principles I learned back then have stuck with me. One was: "Answer only what the question asks for. Do not volunteer anything beyond that". An example was: "Do you know what time it is?" If you do the best answer is "Yes".

I have heard similar advice for dealing with criminal issues, tax issues and so on. There is a reason why lawyers often recommend silence in some situations. If a dispute goes to court I may regret something I said earlier that I did not need to say and cannot now credibly un-say.

There is before and after. Before you get to decide what is to your advantage, do it, and document it. Your actions create the facts and the evidence. After it is too late. This is why lawyers recommend putting things in writing and having them dated and sometimes witnessed before the excrement hits the ventilator.

The advice lawyers give changes radically once a suit is filed.

The advice "Before you get to decide what is to your advantage, do it, and document it" is sound IF you know for sure now what will later be to your advantage. But I may not know what that will later be and so it may be the case that I pre-document something that later bites me in the butt.

I think this comes down to one's personal style of handling conflicts. My preference is to not be limited to what I predicted years ago might help me. And to not forewarn my adversary about the defence strategy I will later choose. Others might prefer having their defence all out there and rely upon that. Having successfully navigated 50 years my way I don't see me changing now, but each to his own.

Hi Folks,

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.

I did reply earlier but can't seem to see it anywhere.

Did a couple of very quick quote on GoCompare for one 'mature' driver with full No-Claims Bonus and no No-Claims Bonus. Difference about £200 which surprised me being less than I thought. Keeping the second car would cost more than that with tax, service, MOT, fuel and after year one would starto to earn No-Claims Bonus.
The question then is which car to keep. Ford Ka, Skoda Fabia auto.
Logically the Ka is the better choice. It's what Mrs B drives, cheaper to run (the car not Mrs B), tax etc, nppy and parkable around town, not a slouch or uncomfortable on a long journey and we will be doing fewer of those as time goes on. Surprisingly spacious. Only two doors which is a disadvantage/advantage 'sometimes'as it discourages other 'mature' people having a lift as getting in the back is a young persons game.
Fabia is more expensive to run, bigger, four doors, roomier (which we don't really need - gone are the days of ferrying chidren and stuff around Gone are the days of moving teenagers from one Uni accommodation to another. I love the auto, Mrs B has not driven it yet. I think she has to have a go before we make a decision. Some people just don't like the way an auto 'takes over', but in traffic jams and threading your way through urban streets that you are not too familar with, 'taking over' is great. On the motorway there's no real differnce.
I think that decision will come later this year.
All these things to look forward to as we get older, but who wants to die young.
Ray