[dxb335d]

With seperate policies, no you cant for sure. Thats illegal.

[Irnbrukid]

Originally Posted by foxy-367

They do you just can't have two people insured on the same vehicle

What do you mean by that?

His dad couldnt have him named on both policies?

[Irnbrukid]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

With seperate policies, no you cant for sure. Thats illegal.

What do you mean by that carl??

[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by Irnbrukid

What do you mean by that carl??

You and me couldnt take out seperate policies on the same car.

Cuz we both could claim if it were stolen etc. Two insurance companies would be paying out for only one car.

[Irnbrukid]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

You and me couldnt take out seperate policies on the same car.

Cuz we both could claim if it were stolen etc. Two insurance companies would be paying out for only one car.

Were getting our wires crossed here, i know you cant do that. But you can insure two seperate cars by yourself, thus these could be insured by two different companys. And the no claims is independant on them (just checked).

[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by Irnbrukid

Were getting our wires crossed here, i know you cant do that. But you can insure two seperate cars by yourself, thus these could be insured by two different companys. And the no claims is independant on them (just checked).

Oh yes, you can have as many policies on different cars as much as you can afford.

[Irnbrukid]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

Oh yes, you can have as many policies on different cars as much as you can afford.

Yes i know.

What i meant was it will look suspect if the dad has 2 policies with his son only on 1 especially the expensive one, which his son is paying for.

[dxb335d]

Yeah Suppose so. But why not? Maybe the son didnt want to be on the other cars policy?!

[Irnbrukid]

Not for the fact he didnt want to be on the policy for the other car, the reason that he (dad) i supposed to be main driver when he has another car.

I just hope he comes out it unscathed and from now on insures his own cars instead of having to be in a position like this again. Bet he wishes he took the £24k he was offered now.

[Teutonicdriver]

The OP stated the car was "My car" but he was not the main driver.... Yeah...that will be right.
Its all very well making your insurance cheaper by decieving the Insurance Comany but when it comes to them not paying thats not fair?
Sorry but I have no sympathy, Ive had to pay a bloody fortune since I started driving and a proportion of that is to compensate Insurance companies for fraudulent claims. I expect those companies to do their bit to reduce those costs by being more savvy with those that would try to either claim in dodgy circumstances or those that decide they dont want to pay the going rate like I have to, and give the companies dodgy info in their insurance application.
When something looks like a fish and smells like a fish its generally a fish.

[rogerxp]

I'd still give him the benefit of doubt here chaps. We all know what it looks like, and more importantly what the insurance company are thinking, but it could still be completely legitimate.

I'm sure he'll be along soon to update us all.

[themetz]

Originally Posted by Teutonicdriver

When something looks like a fish and smells like a fish its generally a fish.

Generally? What else could it be?

Originally Posted by rogerxp

I'm sure he'll be along soon to update us all.

[Teutonicdriver]

Originally Posted by rogerxp

I'd still give him the benefit of doubt here chaps. We all know what it looks like, and more importantly what the insurance company are thinking, but it could still be completely legitimate.

I'm sure he'll be along soon to update us all.

Okay, I accept your point. It could well be that he has bought a BMW for his Dad, and that he only uses it occassionaly and if thats the case then I do feel sorry for him.

[Teutonicdriver]

Originally Posted by themetz

Generally? What else could it be?

Something as fishy as fish but not actually a fish?

[rogerxp]

Originally Posted by Teutonicdriver

Okay, I accept your point. It could well be that he has bought a BMW for his Dad, and that he only uses it occassionaly and if thats the case then I do feel sorry for him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Samaritan, and certainly don't know what to believe here but, he kind a 'sounds' genuine, perhaps guilty is being simply young and naive, but I feel sorry for the guy and have seen so many of these threads suddenly turn which makes me cringe a little when the OP isn't here to defend the points raised.

We'll see...

Now, where's that moral high ground I just came down from

[toxicnerve]

Originally Posted by Teutonicdriver

Something as fishy as fish but not actually a fish?

Unwashed poontang perhaps?

Until the OP comes back and enlightens us I am going to go with the theory that he has no proof that the car was equally driven by both himself and his father therefore he cant dispute what the insurance company are implying.

But then again, he's innocent until proven guilty. I guess the insurance company, if they were so inclined/force to, would simply have to see fueling receipts etc to make their case.

[rogerxp]

Originally Posted by toxicnerve

Until the OP comes back and enlightens us I am going to go with the theory that he has no proof that the car was equally driven by both himself and his father therefore he cant dispute what the insurance company are implying.

When my halo slips a little I must admit to being tempted to agree with your theory. Even if it's completely legitimate proving it is a completely different matter and a very daunting prospect - of course that's where legal representation comes in.

[Teutonicdriver]

Originally Posted by toxicnerve

But then again, he's innocent until proven guilty.

Hes not the one who needs to prove his innocence, its the Insurance Co who have failed to pay out. They dont have to answer to anyone except him (and his legal representative). Im pretty sure they will have plenty of legal support though!

[dxb335d]

They dont need to prove anything.

[E902717]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

They dont need to prove anything.

They do, if they think he is fronting and he says he is not and it goes to court the insurance company have got to provide evidence that he was fronting his policy. If they cant and he keeps pushing they will pay out and cut there losses they will only go to court if they know they will win.

[xenon]

You guys are mixing up criminal law and civil law as I said earlier. Forget all this "innocent until proven guilty" stuff, it's not relevant.

[Teutonicdriver]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

They dont need to prove anything.

Of course they do. On the face of it, its them that have failed to deliver on the contract to provide an insurance payout and therefore they will have to provide properly evidenced grounds for that decision or they would be held in breach.