There has been much press comment in the last few weeks on the issue of fronting. It would appear that insurance companies are starting to take a stand against the practice of parents taking out insurance for cars for their children, with the kids then driving around as a named driver, even though they driver the car the majority of the time.

With effect from 3rd December 2007, one large insurance company will no longer write any new policies to insure a driver under the age of 25, even as a named driver. The reason given is the issue of fronting and the unacceptable underwriting risk that fronting presents. Other companies will undoubtedly follow which will restrict the number of insurers that offer cover to younger drivers and this will lead to an increase in premiums.

The ramifications of fronting are not often realised in the dash to save cash on the premiums for young drivers.

Not only is the young driver technically unisured, which is a 6 point penalty - loss of licence until a retest if this happens in the first two years, but the policyholder (ie the parent) will have problems as well. In some cases the insurance company has paid out for third party claims and then claimed the money back from the policyholder. Also if a claim is rejected, and the financial ombudsman's office estimate that 1,000 such claims are rejected every year, this needs to be declared on future insurance applications. This in itself will have an impact on the parent securing insurance at reasonable rates in the future.

The question of proof is one that many parents will throw up as an excuse. "The insurance company need to prove that the young drivers are the main drivers."   Er... wrong - the insurance company is making a decision on whether to pay out and it is notoriously difficult to prise the cash out of them if they suspect fronting. It is up to the policyholder to prove that the young driver is not the main driver of the car before the claim is paid. In some cases it is made easy for the insurance company as the car is registered to the young driver .... oops.

This act of 'fronting' is false economy. As a mother of 2 young daughters who have been driving their own cars for 6 and 1years respectively, i have have encouraged them, no insisted , that they take out their own policies. Ok it hurts at the beginning because of the high premiums but it also make them take more care in their driving habits as it will be a finanicial loss to their pocket should they have an accident. Is it not the responability of parents to set an example to their children?

Its also important to understand what the wording "additional named driver " means on a policy.

I have ben told that the additional driver is covered only in case of an emergency when the principal named driver is suddenly incapcitated and unable to drive the vehicle. If your child were to drive the vehicle to a friend's party then he/she is not covered!

Anyone know about this?

I've not heard of this, are you not referring to Driving Other Cars extension that people over-use and think it's quite acceptable? If you have a named driver on the policy, then they are insured to drive the vehicle irrespective or where or when, providing that the insurer is aware of use (ie. commuting, frequent, casual etc.)

i am 19 an have been drivin for 1 month. my first years policy cost me £2400 on a 1.0litre corsa. i had to front this cost to be able to drive. in the first year had to make claims on my policy which i expected to raise my quote, when my renewel letter come through the post it stated £4000, as an 18year old alredy with a loan to pay the first year's insurance and car i had no other way but to sacrifice my car. becoming a named driver would have brough the price down to £1800 however this was still to high. with these prices it is understandable why parents allow ther children to go on their policy.

driving for 18month sorry

You answered your own point "had to make claims in the first year" BB

---

Circumstances alters cases!!

but the claims were made because of vandalism. not due to driving ability. i accept that young drivers are likely to have crashes within their first few years of driving but they shouldnt warrent th step rise in insurance. it could be reflected within the excesses that would be due if a claim is made