How would the insurance company ever know, or be able to find out, who the main driver is? I know it is in the terms and conditions of insurance, but they will have to pay out regardless.

Not if they had probable cause to suspect that the driver, who is only a named driver, was in fact the main driver. Insurance companies employ investigators to look at things like this.

For example, if the named driver was travelling to work and had an accident then the insurance company would have reasonable grounds to suspect that the named driver was the main driver and would therefore investigate further.

Don't be under any illusions that insurance companies simply pay out without asking questions and investigating matters.

knowing that in 6months the facelifted vRS will come out, buying a pre facelift vRS now could easily lead you to lose around 3-4k in 6 months time...

maybe there will be not that main differences between the two, however, the value of a prefacelift vRS will be extremely cheap in 6 months comparing to todays price...

knowing that in 6months the facelifted vRS will come out, buying a pre facelift vRS now could easily lead you to lose around 3-4k in 6 months time...

maybe there will be not that main differences between the two, however, the value of a prefacelift vRS will be extremely cheap in 6 months comparing to todays price...

Residuals are bad anyway at the moment but I don't think it'll make that much difference. Doesn't bother me anyway as mine's on a PCP so I couldn't care if it was worth nothing as I'll just be giving it back after 2 - 3 years.

How would the insurance company ever know, or be able to find out, who the main driver is? I know it is in the terms and conditions of insurance, but they will have to pay out regardless.

Eh? How can you be charged for driving with no insurance if you are insured as a named driver?

It depends on how willing you would be to argue that your dad has two insurance policies one for a powerful car that the son appears to drive and a car thats dads anyway and would already have a policy on.

it would be 6 points as insurance would become void i would imagine.

I personally wouldn't risk it, buy as cheap a car as possible and get some NCB and if you want to play with it put a stereo in or something that is easily transferred between cars, and restrict any mods to the car to ones from more luxury versions of the same car. and tell your insurance about everything, its really not worth getting screwed over.

You can't be prosecuted for driving without insurance if you are a named driver on a policy as you are, by definition, insured. To secure a conviction the prosecution would have to prove that you were driving "when there was not at that time a policy of insurance in force" covering your use of the car.

Whether the insurance would honour any claim is quite another matter.

I think it's wrong to say you'd face any criminal sanction. Well, I'd certainly be advising a not guilty plea anyway!

The risk is that the insurance refuse to pay as you have been less than candid with them (they will ask the question "who is the main user of the car?" and if you say it's your dad when it's really you then you are lying to them) and they then have the right to cancel your policy as soon as they realise they have been misled.

Once they have cancelled a policy they enter that fact onto the MIB database, and suddenly you find yourself to be utterly, utterly uninsurable.

Mannyo is right about one thing - they really have cottoned on to this, and you'll only get away with it as long as you don't have to make a claim. As soon as you ask for money, forget it.

even if you do get away with it for a couple of years, good luck insuring it under your name later. You will still have NO NCB so you will have gained nothing, don't think that a couple of years onto you allready young age will bring your insurance down.

to the OP

The Special Edition is a nice looking car but I would wait a little while and buy one after the facelift has come out.(if I had the money. I had a look round one the other day and it did look nice)

Sorry pluncan, but at 17 unless you drive like a granny (which defeats the point of a furbie) you're just going to wrap it round a tree as much as the car handles well even at 130 it can surprise you, at 170 it's a fire breathing monster.

Paying for the Insurance aside (even if anyone is going to go near you against that car) at that age you are far better off with a banger that can just be binned if needs be.

TBH a stock furbie is only group 9 so you will be able to get someone to cover you but at a hell of a premium (my first car was a 1.3 astra and that cost me £600 to insure first year 12 years ago so I doubt it's got better)... With mods it's an different animal and an entirely different ball game, for a start you can rule the mainstream budget insurers like direct line out entirely and I'd be surprised if he could get a quote for anything less then the car is worth outright (once the brokers stops laughing).

The car he really wants doesn't come with DSG....as an earlier poster said. The current vRS does though and doesn't have those awful wheels and naff interior.

I bought the Limited Edition mainly because of the nicer interior and wheels.

Sell the car and buy what you want. I think leaving it 6 months for a 17 year old to buy it is a big mistake. I know he's on this thread and no offence meant, but I've waited out for friends/relatives to do things for me in the past and ended up shooting myself in the foot. If he wants to buy it, get him to buy it now and polish it for 6 months before he drives it.

Just to put some more perspective on insurance 7 years ago when I insured my 1.4 H reg Astra it was £1332.65p THIRD PARTY ONLY. I bought the car for £100 and spent £350 on it getting it back on the road. Then 3.5 times that amount insuring it TPO.

Bear in mind that anything over £5k value (I think) has to be insured fully comprehensively.

does the SE cost more? doesn't seem worth a premium to me, but if you like the car then screw what anyone else thinks and go for it

You can't be prosecuted for driving without insurance if you are a named driver on a policy as you are, by definition, insured. To secure a conviction the prosecution would have to prove that you were driving "when there was not at that time a policy of insurance in force" covering your use of the car.

Whether the insurance would honour any claim is quite another matter.

I think it's wrong to say you'd face any criminal sanction. Well, I'd certainly be advising a not guilty plea anyway!

The risk is that the insurance refuse to pay as you have been less than candid with them (they will ask the question "who is the main user of the car?" and if you say it's your dad when it's really you then you are lying to them) and they then have the right to cancel your policy as soon as they realise they have been misled.

Once they have cancelled a policy they enter that fact onto the MIB database, and suddenly you find yourself to be utterly, utterly uninsurable.

Mannyo is right about one thing - they really have cottoned on to this, and you'll only get away with it as long as you don't have to make a claim. As soon as you ask for money, forget it.

but surely they'd have a clause in the policy which means that when they ask the question "who is the main user of the car?" and you say it's your dad when it's really you the policy would be considered invalid (same as if you were driving with no MOT?) which would mean you were in effect driving without insurance? it would depend upon the nature of the claim also, but if you were driving to work and had a crash...

No, you're talking about separate issues. Lying to the insurers to secure insurance is an offence in itself, and up to them to pursue you for that (through the police) if they want to. And of course, if they thought you were lying to them, they would never pay out on a claim.

But in order to prosecute anybody for driving without insurance there must not be a policy of insurance in force at the time that covers that person to drive that car. If there is, then there is no offence. The end. The insurers would consider it invalid, but it is only legally invalid from the moment they find out and cancel the policy.

The no MOT situation is slightly different - there will be a specific clause in the insurance contract that says the insurance is only valid if the vehicle is properly certified for road use, and being driven by a properly qualified driver. They can't put a clause in which says "this insurance is only valid if the policyholder didn't lie to us when obtaining the policy".

I know it seems like an artificial distinction, and to a large extent it is, but the existence of a policy at the time you were driving is pretty much final when it comes to being prosecuted for driving without insurance.

but surely they can say that the proposed policy will only be valid from the given start date if the details given and then laid out in the schedule are correct/true? I wouldn't expect a policy for a bog standard version of my brother's car, insured in my dad's name to ever be considered valid

Each to his own I suppose but I wouldn't go within a 100 miles of it. BTW been driving a Vauxhall Astra Estate with easytronic box last week and I don't want to do that again, either.