Anyone wanna help me lads?

21st November 2010, 16:52

Learning to drive

, 18 in jan looking to buy a saxo been looking at VTR's prices and they seem quite reasonable insurance group 7 not too bad, was looking at a VTS and saw that it was group 15. LOL, anyway just wondering on what your thoughts are of a VTR for my first car? i think they look quite sexy and i want something quick, not some little 1.1 polo, anyone got any thoughts on the matter and how much i would be looking at for a vtr insurance per year, cheers boys, as well as what you think of the car, is it quick? x

21st November 2010, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by iN7eL

Learning to drive

, 18 in jan looking to buy a saxo been looking at VTR's prices and they seem quite reasonable insurance group 7 not too bad, was looking at a VTS and saw that it was group 15. LOL, anyway just wondering on what your thoughts are of a VTR for my first car? i think they look quite sexy and i want something quick, not some little 1.1 polo, anyone got any thoughts on the matter and how much i would be looking at for a vtr insurance per year, cheers boys, as well as what you think of the car, is it quick? x

Welcome to sax-p this is only my opinion but here goes.

First of all vtr is 1.6 8v depending on year of the car about 10ish seconds to 60 vts 1.6 16v about 7 seconds to 60 so its why the insurance is higher. I own a vtr and im not going to lie when i say its as fast as a vts but only through gradual powergains

which i had to get used to everytime i had something done to it. Stylish - Handle well - Nippy cars and the (birds) love them. For your first car? No. You will be an inexperienced driver and it will be too much power (just my personal opinion) i also imagine based on just passing with no NCB your looking at about 3 - 3.5k on the insurance minimum. Try looking at a 1.1 saxo as pretty much anything your looking at on a vtr can fit on a 1.1 so if its the look and style your after then do that and get some nice alloys/vtr spolier/arches and bodykit and will look tasty but as for the power. dont risk crashing it in your first year and its safety Ncap 1 (which will hurt) hope this helps.Safe driving.

21st November 2010, 17:06

cheers mate, i wouldnt mine buying something lower than a vtr but it still has to be nippy

, any other opinions? cheers boys x

21st November 2010, 17:17

If you can afford the insurance then get one

Everyone has a different opinion on the word 'fast'
Personally I don't think a VTR is fast but having driven 200bhp+ cars, thats probably why

The VTS is quicker but not enough to justify the huge increase in insurance you will have to pay when you are 17/18

At 23, I could insure a VTS for like £150 more so it would probably be worthit for me.

The power difference between a 1.1 and a VTR is quite a bit so if you can afford it then go for it.

Upsides to a VTR over a 1.1

-More powerfull
-Looks better

Downsides

-More expensive to run (especially if you are heavy footed)
-Insurance costs more
-Tax will be more expensive

I don't agree with the comment above about a VTR being a bad car if you are inexperienced, if you are going to drive like a cock then you will do it regardless of whether you have a 1.1 or a VTR as your first car. They both do 70mph which is the speed limit for a dual carraige way, the VTR just gets there quicker obviously

If it were me, the only thing that would sway me is the price of insurance.
A VTR wont cost a lot more than a 1.1
It will use more petrol but not a shit load more

Put it this way, if its going to cost you 1k to insure a 1.1 and 3.5k to insure a VTR then don't bother, get the 1.1 and build up no claims and experience.

Also, dont get a car 'just for the birds'
Any bird who goes out with you because you own a fucking saxo, is a SLUUUTTT!!!
If you owned a Skyline, then fair play

21st November 2010, 17:17

Well for my first car i had a 1.2 8v clio which was a nice car all i did was lower it/tint the rear 3 windows/put alloys on it and resprayed them myself. car run fantastic and was really fun to drive. because it was a supercharged v8 you could throw it into corners and it would stick because you couldnt understeer it (i tried) i actually raced a 1.1 saxo back in the day and lost

but between the 1.1 sections defo the saxo. if you want a small powergain take a look at the 106 quicksilver or the saxo furio (1.4 version of a VTR) nippy little cars but still looking about 2k on insurance

21st November 2010, 17:25

Supercharged V8?

Im guessing you mean supercharged 8 valve? lol

21st November 2010, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

I don't agree with the comment above about a VTR being a bad car if you are inexperienced, if you are going to drive like a cock then you will do it regardless of whether you have a 1.1 or a VTR as your first car. They both do 70mph which is the speed limit for a dual carraige way, the VTR just gets there quicker obviously

Also, dont get a car 'just for the birds'
Any bird who goes out with you because you own a fucking saxo, is a SLUUUTTT!!!

But surely he will be more inclined to race because he has more power? and yes they both do 70 but when it comes to speed its not the actual speed its what we call "kinetic energy". Example. a skyline accelerates in 2nd and hits a wall at 40 technically its doing 80 because of the kinetic energy in a 1.1 u accelerate in 2nd and hit at 40 your probably doing 45.

P.s we all know sluts are the best

21st November 2010, 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

If you can afford the insurance then get one
Any bird who goes out with you because you own a fucking saxo, is a SLUUUTTT!!!
If you owned a Skyline, then fair play

Made me LOL mate

but yeah, im not too sure what im getting atm, if i was to buy a VTR should i get a 99 reg or an 03 plate?

x

21st November 2010, 17:28

HaHa sorry it was a typo - because its NOT a supercharged v8

21st November 2010, 17:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClumpyVtR

But surely he will be more inclined to race because he has more power? and yes they both do 70 but when it comes to speed its not the actual speed its what we call "kinetic energy". Example. a skyline accelerates in 2nd and hits a wall at 40 technically its doing 80 because of the kinetic energy in a 1.1 u accelerate in 2nd and hit at 40 your probably doing 45.

P.s we all know sluts are the best

Cant beat virgins.

21st November 2010, 17:32

As long as you don't drive like a retard in these bad road conditions a vtr is a great first car

21st November 2010, 17:41

anyone know how much it costs to fill a tank and how much insurance p year will be with dad as main driver

21st November 2010, 18:02

best thing to do is to phone insurance companys personally i don't think you'll have a hope in hells chance at insuring a vtr as a first car. my furio is stupidly expensive its £85 a month on my mums insurance where as my mk2 fiesta is £39 and they are both 1.4 and the fiesta is ins group 6 and the saxo is 5.
the excuse the insurance company have used were the saxo was a high risk car as its driven by younger drivers who crash them.

a mate of mne paid £1300 on his mums insurance for a 1.1 saxo.

so before you buy one give some copanys a ring and you mite think twice about a vtr.

Edit: forgot to menton i'm 19 and been driving 2yrs at the end of this month no pass plus and no nc-d but no crashes either (been named driver as didn't use car much just 3 days a week to and from college)

21st November 2010, 18:05

yeah starting to re-think about them, but they do look hot admittedly. I want a nippy saxo, no 50 bhp shitter.

21st November 2010, 18:08

look into a furio or westcoast them pal vtr looks 75bhp (so not slow) and lower insureance more mpg and lower road tax. the best of both worlds and you can drop a vtr engine in there anyways

21st November 2010, 18:20

how much would that cost for a vtr/vts engine

21st November 2010, 18:28

depends where you go and what year furio you get up to early 2000 the mk2 furio havs the mk1 engine in it so a single plug ecu and same thw the vtr but late 2000 3 plug ecu so therefor need a mk2 vtr engine o so i;ve been told.

21st November 2010, 23:22

Just to let you know. My mate just got his first car. A 1.1 saxo and got hit with a 3 and a half grand insurance premium. And that's the cheapest. But that could be cos I live near central London where if it isn't bolted down it will get robbed

21st November 2010, 23:35

if u got the money go for it but if u havent then stick to 1.1 for a year then upgrade and for having one for your first car is alright i had 1.8 turbo diesel
golf as long as u dont drive like a twat...

22nd November 2010, 00:28

VTR is a good little first car. Cost me £1100 as a named driver in my dads name (the ONLY way to do insurance until your 21.

Like others have said - if for some silly reason you choose to go with insurance in your name, which costs thousands, then there wont be much difference between group 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 cars - they are going to rip you off whatever car it is.

Speed wise it doesn't seem "fast" but thats probably cos I get to borrow the scoobyyy every now and again. Suppose nippy is the word.

Cost me £58 to fill the tank of V-Power.. To be honest no car at the moment seems "good" on petrol/diesel with the price of it at the moment.

Find one with an MOT with no advisories for rust because rust is devils work on these cars.

x

22nd November 2010, 11:39

I think VTRs are great for a first car, unless you're a dickhead who'll rag the shot out of it everywhere but in that case you'll probably do as much damage in a 1.1 as you would in a vts.
The vtr isn't what I'd call fast but they go well and they're great on fuel

22nd November 2010, 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

VTR is a good little first car. Cost me £1100 as a named driver in my dads name (the ONLY way to do insurance until your 21.

Like others have said - if for some silly reason you choose to go with insurance in your name, which costs thousands, then there wont be much difference between group 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 cars - they are going to rip you off whatever car it is.

Don't be a moron, it's the only way to do it if you want dodgy insurance. You have an accident you will be accused of fronting and end up having to foot the bill yourself

22nd November 2010, 11:54

i agree with lee the only reason why insurance is so high because people go out and get a vtr/vts or other fast cars they cant handle and crash them.... i own a 1.1 saxo and to be fair they are quite nippy for the size of engine... at the end of the day its not like you will never be able to get one so just start of small and work your way up that way when u get a faster car it will feel better rather then getting a quick car then getting older and having to get a saloon diesel to fit the kids in the back

THE END

22nd November 2010, 12:23

When I was 18, I had insurance on my own name on a 1.6 2002 focus. That was only 1565, which was quite cheap compared to my mates in the same area. Then when I was 19, I got a 2.0 focus, insurance cost me 1200 with 1 years ncb.

Ive now just bought a 1.1 saxo too, insurance cost me 700 quid 1years ncb, im still 19. So its not that exspensive tbh. VTR's for me now, are only around 950 to insure

22nd November 2010, 12:29

what insurance u with

22nd November 2010, 12:30

I was with endsleigh for my first policy at 1565.

Then for the 2.0 focus i was with Premium Choice - specialise in young drivers.

The saxos are quoted with elephant and admiral, on a 10 month policy with a years another years no claims at the end of it

A lot of it is down to the area you live in. Mines a lowish risk area I think, B90 and CV34, just moved house

BTW ive got no points, and ive done pass plus. That what helped in the first year, pass plus doesnt affect it much now as ive got a years no claims. Took £12 off my focus insurance lol

22nd November 2010, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeM

Don't be a moron, it's the only way to do it if you want dodgy insurance. You have an accident you will be accused of fronting and end up having to foot the bill yourself

Its your choice bud, if you want to be a mug and pay then I suppose you cant blame insurance companies for charging what they want.

I had a modded saxo when I was 17 - and when a woman crashed into me - I claimed under my insurance (bad mistake doing it like this, but thats another story) until her company admitted liability.

Been a named driver is not dodgy - its realistic.

22nd November 2010, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Its your choice bud, if you want to be a mug and pay then I suppose you cant blame insurance companies for charging what they want.

I had a modded saxo when I was 17 - and when a woman crashed into me - I claimed under my insurance (bad mistake doing it like this, but thats another story) until her company admitted liability.

Been a named driver is not dodgy - its realistic.

its illegal, and a reason for an insurer not to pay out. i work in car insurance and deal with claim recovery. ive come across numerous policies where the insurer has reefused payment as theyve cancelled the polciy because the named driver was the main user of the vehicle. if a named driver is in a crash its the very first thing an insurer looks at, they'll send investigators round the local area and ask neighbours who they see driving the car etc.

also, ive built up my no claims and can now insure pretty much anything for less than a grand. the first years the tough one, i paid £1600 but then with my first yars no claims it went down to £800.

22nd November 2010, 15:32

Im not interested in what you do. If your a named driver, your insured to drive. End of.

22nd November 2010, 15:35

lol ok, but policies state in the terms and conditions your policy will be voided if the named driver uses the car moe than the main driver. its called fronting and is illegal.
you dont care what i do because i know more than you and youre wrong.

22nd November 2010, 15:37

Oh - and imagine that been used as evidence in Court; "we went and asked neighbours who was the main driver" - what a load of tosh!!

Youd be more help letting us know who you work for so I could avoid that company on renewal..

As for no claims, you can build up a nice separate NCD in your mum or dads name when your 17 then when your 21 and can (maybe) afford insurance you would (hopefully) have 4 years NCD money that you have saved from not been ripped off in the bank (saving maybe £3000 over doing it in your own name??).

22nd November 2010, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Oh - and imagine that been used as evidence in Court; "we went and asked neighbours who was the main driver" - what a load of tosh!!

Youd be more help letting us know who you work for so I could avoid that company on renewal..

it has been used in evidence, and it stands. i can get you the case law if you really want?
i work in recovery, so its other insurers that refuse to pay me on this basis. ive had it from admiral (admiral, elephant and diamond), RBS (tesco, directline, nig, churchill, privilege and green flag) quinn and RSA (more than) in the past.

22nd November 2010, 15:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeM

its called fronting and is illegal.

... so is underage drinking at 17, but if you wanna get pissed you have to do it, in the same way that most people - where money doesn't grow on trees - if they want to drive at 17 that means making the insurance realistic. I.E less than the cost of the car.

22nd November 2010, 15:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeM

i can get you the case law if you really want?

No thanks, I think ive seen this dross on one of your other posts...

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeM

its other insurers that refuse to pay me on this basis. ive had it from admiral (admiral, elephant and diamond), RBS (tesco, directline, nig, churchill, privilege and green flag) quinn and RSA (more than) in the past.

Thats strange because the first claim I was talking about was Admiral (her) and Halifax (me)

I think we will beg to differ on insurance, ive obviously got better things to spend my money on

enough said.

22nd November 2010, 15:48

in reality underage drinking wont cost you anything, but insuring a car under your parents name when youre young and statistically very likely to crash and get caught out may cost you a fair bit.
im stating the facts based on my own experience, i deal with motor claims daily and i know full well theres now a very good chance of getting caught out if youre fronting on your insurance policy. its not worth the risk, if you cant afford to drive then dont. or go and rob a bank, suppose that fits in to your logic that if you want to do something thats illegal just do it anyway?

22nd November 2010, 15:54

What about a furio or westcoast? Still got the looks, quicker than a 1.1 but not as much as the VTR for a first car... I had the westcoast and definatly quick enough for a first car IMO..

22nd November 2010, 15:59

The West Coast ive just got through its MOT seems nippy enough (as little cars go). Would be a perfect little first car, shame they decide to rev themselves so much

22nd November 2010, 16:26

First of all, Iv just seen you are thinking of putting your dad as the main driver and you as the Second, DONT SO THIS! Its illegal, if you crash you will loose your car, all the money you have put into it, and find it VERY VERY hard to isure anything else after that, And all it takes is the person you hit to say, "he was a young lad with a big exhaust on his car" and you will get an insurance broker round looking at your car and turning the claim down because you weren't honest! Its happened, my friends Fiesta ended up on its roof, after a comment from the other party involved saying his car looked a bit modified his insurance never came though. And he is paying a packet 2 years later for his Focus RS...and by a packet i mean he could have bought a 2 of them for the amount he is paying out!
On that note look for something easier to insure so you can start making your own NCB, either go for the 1.1 option, and mod it for the slow and shine look, slam it and euro it!

Here is a well know example of the 1.1 slammed and made stunning (as far as im aware this was a 1.1 independence but its now a 1.6 16 gti lump...but thats irrelevant, with look like that you want to be cruising so people look at it!)

Or pay a bit more on insurance and get a Furio, get alot of nice ones for no more that £2k

That one is £1,600 and look at all the extra toys!!! I had a furio and with a few choise mods they are as nippy as you need for a 1st car, chap to run and tax, all the looks of the VT ones and will do your mates 1.25 fiesta's and 1.1 106's (But at the end of the day...unless your all on a track racing, that shouldnt matter, iv seen a few friends for my days back in school pulling there cars out of ditches and hedges after being stupid on the roads! There not for racing, just be sensible with your first car!)

So upshot of this EPIC post is get a Furio if you dont want to spend lots modding and insurance/tax/fuel or a 1.1 if you want to save even more money, but you will have to spend lots on making it something special to justify the lack of power!

Jack

22nd November 2010, 18:05

as said a vtr is a brilliant first car imo.
vts insurance will probably be ridiculous so i wouldnt even bother. whatever you do dont get a 1.1. They dont have a vt kit and look absolute wank. its rare to see a flat arch 1.1 which actually looks good. if you cant afford to unsure a vtr, then get a 1.4 westcoast or furio as they still have the vt kit

also, i dont think theres anything wrong in going as a named driver for the first year or two tbh. seeing as how ridiculous insurance prices are becoming these days it seems like the only option people are going for. only problem with it is that usually you dont get a No claims bonus at the end of the year unless you can find a company which does offer the named driver NCB. i was a named driver in my first year, so was my brother. he had like 3 claims and never had a problem with insurance tbh as they simply cant prove who drives the car more. The only thing you have to worry about is modifying a car and not telling them, then you need to be a little more careful about things

22nd November 2010, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAMason

you are thinking of putting your dad as the main driver and you as the Second, DONT SO THIS! Its illegal, if you crash you will loose your car, all the money you have put into it

Getting insurance as a named driver on a parents policy is not illegal at all. In fact most decent insurance companies recommend you do this when your trying to insure someone that is 17.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAMason

all it takes is the person you hit to say, "he was a young lad with a big exhaust on his car" and you will get an insurance broker round looking at your car and turning the claim down because you weren't honest!

My car was modified and my company didnt even ask a question about it - just paid out. Although when some idiot rammed into my Vectra GSI - they were abit funny about paying for that because apparently the factory fitted front bumper and spoiler were "vectra modifications"

As LSO says - its the risk you take, you just need to be carefull.

22nd November 2010, 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Getting insurance as a named driver on a parents policy is not illegal at all. In fact most decent insurance companies recommend you do this when your trying to insure someone that is 17.

My car was modified and my company didnt even ask a question about it - just paid out. Although when some idiot rammed into my Vectra GSI - they were abit funny about paying for that because apparently the factory fitted front bumper and spoiler were "vectra modifications"

As LSO says - its the risk you take, you just need to be carefull.

Read this thread about fronting, this is why it's illegal!

http://www.saxperience.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=348350

Inagree though, risk you take!

Jack

22nd November 2010, 20:37

If you can't afford legal insurance, then don't bother.

I had a VTR@17, under my own name.
VTS@18, again under my own name.
Now have 2 years NCB, well on my way to 3rd years NCB.

Oh yeah, and insurance is down to 3 figures for me on quite a few cars, again, under my own name.

In the long run, it's worth going on your own insurance, you reap the benefits later.

22nd November 2010, 21:56

Oh, look. A 1.1! just because it's a 1.1 doesn't mean it has to look like one! Or even have to look shite!

Mine is still quite nippy... And its legal to insure cheaply

22nd November 2010, 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Getting insurance as a named driver on a parents policy is not illegal at all. In fact most decent insurance companies recommend you do this when your trying to insure someone that is 17.

My car was modified and my company didnt even ask a question about it - just paid out. Although when some idiot rammed into my Vectra GSI - they were abit funny about paying for that because apparently the factory fitted front bumper and spoiler were "vectra modifications"

As LSO says - its the risk you take, you just need to be carefull.

It is illegal, how many times. And show me one insurer who recommends it because that's a load of bollocks. Why would an insurer charge a high premium for a high risk driver? Think about it, if they know the younger persons the main driver they increase the premium accordingly

22nd November 2010, 23:51

What a load of shite some people on talk on here. I cant even be arsed to try defend saving people money.

If you wanna come on here (LeeM) and try persuade people to pay thousands of pounds on something which you may or may not need then that is up to you - and probably your day time job doing so..

If people chose to do the insurance in their own name at 17 then more fool them! But dont come on here and try write some bollocks down by saying its cheaper, or works out cheaper in the long run because that is absolute breeze.

Example...................

17 to 21 based on 2 non fault claims (1st went through my insurance first) AS A NAMED DRIVER:

1996 Saxo VTR;

17 - 18 (NCD: 0 Years) : £858
18 - 19 (NCD: 1 Year) : £642 *Non fault claim

1998 Saxo VTR;

20 - 21 (NCD: 2 Years) : £517

2002 Vectra GSI 2.6 (Group 16);

21 - 22 (NCD: 3 Years : £875) *Non fault claim

Insurance in my own name + driving other cars extension:

1999 Saxo VTR;

22+ (NCD: 0 Years) : £967

... can't be arsed going on......

23rd November 2010, 00:31

I'm not telling people what they should or shouldn't do that's not my place, but fronting is illegal. Yes it's cheaper than insuring properly. But no insurance is cheaper again, does that make it right? No! People seem to think fronting is fine because there's less chance of getting caught but at the end of the day it's almost as bad as having no insurance at all.

23rd November 2010, 00:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

To much to quote...

Say what you like, I'm 3 years younger than you, and pay less on insurance...

So I'd say it works out quite well.

23rd November 2010, 01:14

Except I LEGALLY drive a Scooby about for less than £70 a month so yeah - its all good

"everyones" a winner

23rd November 2010, 10:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Except I LEGALLY drive a Scooby about for less than £70 a month so yeah - its all good

"everyones" a winner

If the policy is in your name then it's legal yes

23rd November 2010, 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Except I LEGALLY drive a Scooby about for less than £70 a month so yeah - its all good

"everyones" a winner

You are a knob my friend, it is people like you who convince young people to front on their insurance and risk it being voided in the event of a claim

Sure, if they don't need to claim then hunky dory
If they do and the company refuse to pay out, the poor other drivers company may have to and then guess what.....EVERYONES insurance increases...and the cycle continues.

Everyone is not a winner, eventually everyone loses due to other people being cocks like yourself

23rd November 2010, 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

You are a knob my friend, it is people like you who convince young people to front on their insurance and risk it being voided in the event of a claim

Sure, if they don't need to claim then hunky dory
If they do and the company refuse to pay out, the poor other drivers company may have to and then guess what.....EVERYONES insurance increases...and the cycle continues.

Everyone is not a winner, eventually everyone loses due to other people being cocks like yourself

HAHAHAHA! I could agree more! If you cant insure a car in your own name even though your the main driver of the car (You drive it more than your parents/partner/name on the policy) your braking the law. Its that black and white.

23rd November 2010, 13:31

evidence submitted by independant claim investigators is completely admissable in a court, insurers will happily send someone out to interview you and ask your neighbours who drives the car. they'll ask both drivers what they use the car for and how often, and most likely question why the named driver has 2 cars.
it becomes very obvious when someone is fronting, and an insurer can cancel a policy on the suspicion without proof anyway.

23rd November 2010, 16:15

just got my self a vtr the power is really good but really think to urself r u going to be a tit in the car cus of the speed the raced mine once just wondering what it was like its good but i have been in 2 crashes now and its not cool what so ever. my insurace is 1300 and i have 3 points and am 21 with 0 ncd i just had to save up to get it. but i understand not wanting a 1.1 but think of tax and petrol as well imo the vtr uses alot of fuel but imo its defo attracts attention good and bad if you know what i mean lol

23rd November 2010, 17:43

Listen - the goons of the forum can say what they like about insurance to be honest. Any defence solicitor would laugh in the face of a prosecution from any case derived from "asking the neighbours". I think you are confused between Law (you keep using the word 'illegal' - which would suggest you mean obtaining property by deception or fraud, namely a Certificate of Motor Insurance - then it comes down to evidence again - and whether you like it or not, named drivers are aloud to drive) and terms and conditions of insurance companies. Yes insurance can cancel policies if they think your not the main driver - they can also cancel it for without reason they want. Im sure if you look hard enough then the terms would say; any accidents caused by lack of concentration, speeding, careless driving or in fact by accident, are not covered by this insurance policy (unless your fully comprehensive and then we can make a profit on the excess you must pay). Oh and; your car must be kept in a roadworthy condition. <-- so this gives them another get out clause of paying. The bottom line is insurance is legalised fraud - and if you mugs decide to pay as much as possible then that is up to you, but I think you are WRONG to come on a forum which is here to help people, and try persuade them to be ripped off as well. At the end of the day it's your loss and maybe one day you will look back and think what a complete waste of money that was.

23rd November 2010, 18:33

I was concidering adding my daughter as a named drive next year when she hopefully passes her driving test, so she could borrow MY car now and again for nights out or shopping ect, i think this ok, but using a car as your own and you being a named driver is wrong and illegal, i just hope one of u noobs dont crash into my car if/when she is driving it

jim

23rd November 2010, 18:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfc2dabone

being a named driver is wrong and illegal

Why? Don't talk shite and not back up your comments? ....

23rd November 2010, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Why? Don't talk shite and not back up your comments? ....

which bit was shite, you have lost me

23rd November 2010, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfc2dabone

I was concidering adding my daughter as a named drive next year when she hopefully passes her driving test, so she could borrow MY car now and again for nights out or shopping ect, i think this ok, but using a car as your own and you being a named driver is wrong and illegal, i just hope one of u noobs dont crash into my car if/when she is driving it

jim

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Why? Don't talk shite and not back up your comments? ....

How about you quote the full bit, then it makes sense?

It is illegal to drive the car as the main driver, if you are insured as just a named driver. Don't give a fuck if you don't agree, it's not for you to agree or disagree.

End of the day, its wrong. Can't do shit about it. Either run illegally and get caught, or get a smaller car and pay less insurance legally.

I really don't give a fuck anymore... I know im legal, so i will be fine if i cras. I sincerely hope you crash and your insurance doesn't pay out, leaving you to foot a £20k bill. We'll soon have you moaning on here because that isn't fair enough.

In relation to to OP. It illegal to front, do it if you want... Be prepared to get butt fucked if your caught. My advice, 1.1 first year if you cant afford a vtr.

/thread.

23rd November 2010, 18:46

This part:::

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfc2dabone

being a named driver is wrong and illegal

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

23rd November 2010, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Why? Don't talk shite and not back up your comments? ....

It's not illegal to drive as a named driver on a policy but by decieving the insurance company in saying you are the main driver when in fact you are not, means that you have LIED to the company and if they chose to void your policy, you are then driving without insurance.....which is where the illegal part comes in.

If you are in fact just an occasional driver then sure, thats fine to be on the polcy as the additional driver

Mate, you can try and justify it anyway you want. You are obtaining insurance cover by deception. Regardless of the 'chances' of getting caught, fronting is against the law, end of story

23rd November 2010, 18:48

Why is no one explaining their definition of "illegal" - just been on the phone to my uncle who is a defence solicitor so it would be good to hear your "ideas"! ...Idiots

23rd November 2010, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Why is no one explaining their definition of "illegal" - just been on the phone to my uncle who is a defence solicitor so it would be good to hear your "ideas"! ...Idiots

Illegal. Against the law.

23rd November 2010, 18:53

Ayyyy dear. Mugs. Can't be arsed with this thread for the time being. Enjoy your evening.

23rd November 2010, 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Why is no one explaining their definition of "illegal" - just been on the phone to my uncle who is a defence solicitor so it would be good to hear your "ideas"! ...Idiots

This story is three years old as well:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ox/7052569.stm

I don't care what you think or who your uncle is, obtaining insurance by deception is fraud. Fraud is illegal.
You dont have to get caught, what your opinion is on 'the risk of actually getting caught' is irrelevant, it is fraud

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

23rd November 2010, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Ayyyy dear. Mugs. Can't be arsed with this thread for the time being. Enjoy your evening.

Possibly because you are wrong?

23rd November 2010, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

This part:::

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

read the whole post, you are funny

23rd November 2010, 19:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

obtaining insurance by deception is fraud. Fraud is illegal.

Listen. A named driver is a driver who is insured and legally allowed to drive the car. Your not deceiving anyone. You are in fact still paying nearly a thousand pounds for nothing. It is the insurance to prove who they call the 'main driver'. How the hell do they know who is the main driver? What constitutes a 'main driver'. Do they work it out in how many miles you drive? How many hours you sit in the car? Do you clock in and out? Or do they ask the neighbours

Like I say, there are clearly alot of mugs in here. Thats your choice but you shouldn't try rip people off by giving them misguided advice. Leave that to the insurance companies.

23rd November 2010, 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by outrage_uk

Listen. A named driver is a driver who is insured and legally allowed to drive the car. Your not deceiving anyone. You are in fact still paying nearly a thousand pounds for nothing. It is the insurance to prove who they call the 'main driver'. How the hell do they know who is the main driver? What constitutes a 'main driver'. Do they work it out in how many miles you drive? How many hours you sit in the car? Do you clock in and out? Or do they ask the neighbours

Like I say, there are clearly alot of mugs in here. Thats your choice but you shouldn't try rip people off by giving them misguided advice. Leave that to the insurance companies.

Ok mate, I think I have made my point which has been backed up with facts as opposed to your angry opinion. I will let others read this thread and make thier own judgements

23rd November 2010, 19:15

I think what you are trying to say is; if insurance companies decide they do not want to pay for your claim (which is their legal duty) - they can decide if you are or are not (in their opinion) the 'main driver' (to which, there is no definition) and the only proof they have is by asking your neighbours and/or checking if you have in your possession another car in your household?

Get serious. I think the most sensible thing is to leave this now and do as you say - let people make their own judgements. To be ripped off, or not to be!