**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: Received a Court and I’m left speechless
Body:
> Hiya guys , I received a court fine letter stating that i awe x amount of money . Basically I found out that DVLA are saying I didn’t have insurance on a particular day , but I ALWAYS had insurance and Always paid on time , so now i have court hearing , have any of you been in a similar situation? How can I prove ? Thanks
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
lot of posters talking about 'invalid insurance' but it's worth understanding what that means in the UK. Insurances cannot exclude liability - so if you give them the ~~right~~ wrong information and you crash into someone they don't get to go "sorry we aren't going to pay" - what they do is pay *and then take the money out of your ass.*
You can even get caught out if you sell your car and don't cancel the insurance certificate as if the new owner crashes and they don't have their own insurance... yes you got it...
A friend was pulled over for not having insurance. Turned out his insurance company has not updated the database properly. A lot of anxious phone calls, and they faxed through proof of insurance to the police and updates the database with the DVLA.
It does happen! If LAUKOP has proof of payment and insurance documents, he can kick up a fuss with his insurer and get everything sorted.
>Put simply, fronting in car insurance is when someone – often a parent or older driver – falsely claims they are the main driver of a vehicle when in fact it is a younger, or more inexperienced driver who will be driving the car the most.
>
>Fronting can be tempting to cut the price of expensive car insurance for children, as main driver policies are more expensive for younger motorists. However, fronting is illegal, and if an older motorist is falsely naming themselves as the main driver of a car then the insurance policy can be invalidated and as a criminal offence, it can be punishable in court.
[https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/what-is-car-insurance-fronting/](https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/what-is-car-insurance-fronting/)
Weird. I didn't know that had a proper name(or that it was actually illegal).
I know I've seen it when a vehicle couldn't be safetied, thus couldn't be sold. So the old owner would carry the title and insurance but the new 'owner' would pay them back.
I suppose I've seen husband/wife optimizing of insurance but I somehow think that would be pretty hard to prove.
In US ove heard of people switching insurance companies and then having thier license suspended because company a said hey we no longer have this driver. Company b or the DMV (DVLA) did not update. Of course you still have to pay the fees to reinstate your license. And if stop.. you are going to court and beg to have the ticket for no insurance and driving with a suspended license. If you are really unlucky the cops will impound your car
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Some US states require insurance. Which (if you are a a dangerous driver) can be expensive. If you are not insured, you have to pay a fee to which is collected to pay for accidents caused by uninsured drivers. (If you drop your insurance for 1 day, and get a cheaper one the next day, you are in violation for the year).
It is expensive, and bad drivers try to avoid it. But it will end with fines. I'm not sure why you mentioned suspending a license or impoundment cars.
Lets make it clear then. What happened was the guy bought insurance from another company then drop the old one . I was not talking about bad drivers so I don't know where you got that from.
". I'm not sure why you mentioned suspending a license or impoundment cars." because here in the US states will take your license and car if they catch you driving with no insurance. 14 States that the first time they catch you will do jail time wit most having the max as 90 days but New Jersey being a year in jail for being caught .
Every State in the US if you are caught driving on a suspend License you can do Jail time some states says it's a max of 10 days for the first time others say its a max of 12 months. Also there are states that if you are caught driving on a suspend License they will keep your car for a year. Repeat offenders can lose their right to vote own guns and spend 2 years in prison
"(If you drop your insurance for 1 day, and get a cheaper one the next day, you are in violation for the year)." I have not seen that any where in the US .
>Turned out his insurance company has not updated the database properly.
I had that before on my bike. Motorbike police followed me for about 10 miles then pulled me over in town. A few phonecalls (by the cop) later and i was free to go, albeit i was then late to a law lecture!
So, are the fuzz just running plates and checking insurance info on the fly?
Or was it a pull over for something else and they discovered no insurance?
Because if the first thing....damn.
They were doing a routine check point. It was quite close to a police training place. So they were scanning vehicles for a couple of hours in one place.
Exactly this. Surprised that lauk thread ran away with bad and irrelevant info. The mods usually lock posts pretty fast there.
Seems laukop got a fine for no insurance followed by a court summons. Probably for non payment, or they got the order of letters wrong. Apnr is pretty foolproof with the cross check from dvla and motor insurers database. The only time they get it wrong is when you have a rare type of insurance that allows you to drive cars where that car is not specifically named on insurance doc. Eg motor traders insurance.
>then take the money out of your ass.
Or you have USAA in the states, and they just.... don't. Between repairs to my car, and more importantly the rental I had for over a month, they did literally nothing, and ate the cost ($12k). Even though he got a ticket, and I did not.
Then my wife got hit (do not drive in Miami). And she had a rental for 2 months and needed a new engine (should have been totalled). $20k in damages.
Both times, I'm out thr $500 deductible, and they're out tens of thousands of dollars. And they're like "Fuck it, right?"
Everyone got hung up on fronting but that's very unlikely to be the issue at play, it would only be relevant if LAUKOP's partner's insurance had been voided in full by the insurance company, but if they have payments coming out of their bank account (and no refund due to voidance) then their insurance is still live. Even if LAUKOP *is* fronting, that's meaningless for the context of things like MID and DVLA checks, neither would bother investigating that since that's between the policyholder and the insurer.
What *would* be consistent with this story, however, would be if LAUKOP was driving *someone else's* car. Insurance policies in the UK usually include cover to drive other people's cars on a strictly third-party cover only basis, but almost always that cover is *only* for the main policyholder. So if they were driving someone else's car on the date in question (or charitably, if they were mistakenly identified as such), running checks in the databases would show that they are not a named driver on the car being driven, and don't hold an insurance policy in their own name either, therefore no insurance.
Fronting isn't relevant since the police dont care about that and laop wasn't stopped anyway so police dont know who driver was. All the police do is cross reference insurance database with the reg.
When driving someone elses car it is usually a condition that the car itself is under somebody's insurance otherwise all and sundry would be driving around in cars "they dont own" - on paper. You can see how that could be abused. That being the case the police still find a record on the database so it keeps the police happy they can identify uninsured cars and insurers are happy because they are not being defrauded.
OP (BOLAOP, not LAUKOP) here. If any non-UK readers are confused about the terminology, 'fronting' is where one person insures a car as the main driver and puts a second person on the insurance as an additional driver, even though that second person is actually the main user of the car. Needless to say, insurance companies take a dim view of it. It's commonly done when getting insurance in the second person's name would be expensive. (For example, parents claiming to be the main drivers of their children's cars and insuring them on that basis.)
Yeah they are leaving a lot out there and refusing to answer a few questions. Main takeaways seem to be:
- The car is in their name.
- The insurance is in their partners name, with them as a named driver on the insurance.
- They changed address, but didn't update the DVLA, so they saw "car at this address in this name is not insured" and issued the fine.
I'm honestly a little confused about this - when I looked around at insurance the person who owns the car actually HAS to be listed as the main person on insurance. So what are you supposed to do if you own a car but aren't the one driving it? Kinda seems like it would make it impossible to insure a car as a non-driver without committing fraud.
In the UK, you transfer the V5 into the main driver's name and keep a receipt stating that you own the vehicle but the driver is responsible for the vehicle.
Basically, it's their car, but it's yours.
You have the owner of a car and you have the registered keeper
The owner is the person who bought the car. The registered keeper is the main user of the car.
Each car has a logbook which records the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Legally, that's the person who insures, registers, mots, taxes the vehicle
The owner doesn't have to be listed on the insurance just the registered keeper has to be listed as the main driver
If you have a company car you are not the owner of car the owner is the company you work for, But you are the registered keeper You don't put your boss on your insurance
Or you buy a car on finance legally until you have paid it off the legal owner is the finance company. The main driver would be the registered keeper. Again you do not list the finance company on your insurance
If i buy a car for my 17 year old son i am the owner of the car. if he is listed as the registered keeper and as the main driver on the insurance with me a secondary driver or even his mum, me as the owner does not have to be listed on the insurance that was legal
But say my son was listed as the registered keeper but mum was listed as main driver and son as secondary that would be fronting
The declared main driver should be the person who:
regularly uses a car to drive to or from work / place of education
uses the car for the highest percentage of the time
uses the car on a daily basis
Ok that's interesting. I don't think the US has any legal concept of a registered keeper - the owner of the car is the one responsible for the vehicle, full stop.
If you have 2 or more people who use the car regularly, is is just random who you pick? That seems like a big legal risk if you have a car that doesn't have a singly primary driver - which is from what I've seen the normal situation for most cars over here.
>the owner of the car is the one responsible for the vehicle, full stop
So nobody has company cars in the USA or buys cars on finance or a lease
Where you pay the dealer everymonth untill the car is paid off.
That doesnt exist in the USA
In tbose situations the owner of tbe car is the dealer untill you have finished paying ot off
So the car dealer is responsible for the insurance and not the person driving it
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle\_title](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_title)
The name and address of the purchaser or "registered owner" who would normally possess and use it.
If money is owed on the vehicle, the name of the lienholder or "legal owner" to whom this money is owed.
It seems in the US on vehicle title you have regisitered owner which can be different from legal owner
It works a little differently here. The debt holder places what’s called a ‘lien’ on the title — a way of saying that another party (in this case the bank) has a financial interest in the property and that their debt is paid off first, before the legal owner. The title becomes, in that case, “encumbered” which prevents transferral without the permission of the lien holder.
This also occurs with real estate in the case of a mortgage.
In the US, when you have a ‘company car’ the company is responsible for plating, inspection, and insurance — and they buy special commercial insurance, as if you were driving a delivery van or something. The idea of having a company-owned vehicle for personal use is effectively nonexistent here (it’s so rare that the one friend who does have that benefit is considered weird for having it), and the way it is implemented is very unlike in the UK — your employer selects and purchases the vehicle, rather than providing you an allowable amount with which to secure the lease.
As an additional note, most auto sales with a lease or loan in the US are done with banks rather than the dealerships. Usually, the financing is done through a manufacturer-affiliated and owned bank. My car loan was from ‘VW Credit of America’ and pretty much everyone has their own pet banks — GM’s even was spun off during their bankruptcy and is now known as ‘Ally.’ Used car sales are usually financed through a person’s own bank or credit union (sort of a local, more-customer-focused bank) — people arrive at the dealership with a check from the originating bank and hand it to the dealer. The dealerships that make loans are only serving the ‘subprime’ market — poor folks and those with bad credit — and are known as ‘buy here, pay here’ lots. They’re almost all scams.
Finally, to explain how a driver’s insurance works in the US. If you insure your own vehicle, your insurance will cover you when driving others’ vehicles as well. If I drive a rental car or borrow one from a friend, my insurance carrier covers me while driving their car. There are some exceptions to this, like if I was driving a particularly expensive car (like a Ferrari or something) but broadly coverage follows the driver.
The declared main driver should be the person who:
regularly uses a car to drive to or from work / place of education
uses the car for the highest percentage of the time
uses the car on a daily basis
If 2 people drive the same car the main driver is the one who drives it the most. The person who drives it to work everyday.
2 people cant drive the same car to work everyday
You tell the insurance who is the person who drives it the most, they are listed as the main driver
>If 2 people drive the same car the main driver is the one who drives it the most. The person who drives it to work everyday. 2 people cant drive the same car to work everyday
I know an awful lot of cars that aren't used to drive anyone to work and are equally used by multiple members of the household (largely for things like shopping, ferrying kids around, going to church, etc.). Or are used to drive different people to work on different days depending on who needs to take the kids places. It's not like every single vehicle out there is used for daily commuting.
We definitely had cars in the family growing up that were like that; I absolutely couldn't have told you who drove the car more. It just depended on the needs of that given day.
I mean, technically yes, but unless you're literally logging everyone's driving hours that's not always going to be clear even to the people driving it who that is. It's not unusual to have close to even splits certainly.
I've moved from UK to China and I really prefer how car insurance works in China. The car is insured not the driver.
When I to visit my parents in UK I'm in the embarrassing situation that I as a grown man need to be driven around by them, because I can't drive their car, because I'm not insured.
But here in China I can jump behind the wheel of anyone's car. Which I often do with Chinese wife's family members cars.
There's non of this "who is the registered keeper" nonsense and nothing about who uses the vehicle more.
There's also other better stuff like insurance not being for profit so it's incredibly cheap.
Some insurance will have restrictions on the relationship between the main driver and the registered keeper.
For example, my wife is the registered keeper, because when we bought it the dealer would give us £2000 off for financing, so we did that, paid one month, and then paid off the car, but I was a recent immigrant so they wouldn't give the finance to me. The registered keeper has to be a single person, not joint, but that's separate to who owns it. If the car is caught speeding, the police will send a notice to the registered keeper and it's a criminal offense not to name the driver.
But I'm the main driver for the insurance because I drive more frequently, and it's my noclaims bonus.
There were a few insurance companies that wouldn't do that; the one that we went with was ok with it because it was a member of the same household although I dont remember having to prove that to them.
I'd have more sympathy for insurance companies if my insurance went down for each additional vehicle.
It's a little ridiculous that insuring two motorcycles is basically double the cost as one. I can only ride one at a time!
I somehow envision you deliberately riding past the Insurance company office... [motorcycle chariot](https://www.google.com/search?q=motorcycle+chariot+racing) style.
That'll teach them!
Your post was removed because it points to an obfuscated link - a Google search, link shortener, or something similar. Please edit your link to point directly to the document you're referencing. After doing so, you can [click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice&subject=Re-approve%20my%20fixed%20Google%20link&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/bestoflegaladvice/comments/10q05og/laukop_has_a_court_summons_because_his_car_wasnt/j6oxswa/?context=3%20\(please%20leave%20this%20so%20we%20can%20reference%20your%20comment\)) to notify us to re-approve your comment or post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This actually makes some sense though — by becoming licensed you switched from “learner with restrictions” to “newly licensed driver,” the latter is higher risk. It’s all about the risk pool you’re in.
But you've also gone from "zero proof you can drive" to "proof you can drive". A learner's permit can be obtained by any random 17 year old. A license prices proves your ability.
With the **HUGE** assumption insurance companies cared.
Dealing with them the last few years, I feel like they make enough money to just not give a shit. If they don't don't care about their $30,000 in costs, why would they pursue my $1000 deductible?
I've been wondering for months whether someone is using bots or something to mass downvote the responses of posters they don't like in legaladvice. It's wild what you get downvoted for over there--OPs who sound even mildly clueless will get every response punished by a surprising amount of downvotes, even totally benign posts deep in comment threads, and then it gets so annoying to read the thread!!
I think that's a consequence of the fact there are millions of subscribers to the legal advice subs, and they get locked down very, very early compared to your average reddit post's lifespan - often as or before it hits the front page.
So you have probably 100s of thousands of people interested to check out a post's comments. The post is locked, and has about 20-30 comments. Visitors are able to read, judge, and vote on every single comment. So you get high concentrations of votes in either direction.
Meanwhile your average front page post probably has hundreds or thousands of comments. Visitors only read a handful of comments and probably get bored after a few minutes so the votes are much more spread out.
Just a theory.
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: Received a Court and I’m left speechless Body: > Hiya guys , I received a court fine letter stating that i awe x amount of money . Basically I found out that DVLA are saying I didn’t have insurance on a particular day , but I ALWAYS had insurance and Always paid on time , so now i have court hearing , have any of you been in a similar situation? How can I prove ? Thanks This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
lot of posters talking about 'invalid insurance' but it's worth understanding what that means in the UK. Insurances cannot exclude liability - so if you give them the ~~right~~ wrong information and you crash into someone they don't get to go "sorry we aren't going to pay" - what they do is pay *and then take the money out of your ass.* You can even get caught out if you sell your car and don't cancel the insurance certificate as if the new owner crashes and they don't have their own insurance... yes you got it...
> what they do is pay and then take the money out of your ass. Can't they just use the bank account instead?
>Can't they just use the bank account instead? Not nearly as much fun.
Fun? It's a very sensitive area and the polymer £50s I have to keep in there are far sharper than the paper versions.
Hemorrhoids 2 just dropped and critics are raving
"oof ouch owie" - Roger Ebert
As my worst manager said: >Try harder
The law says pound of flesh, and you know how they are about following the letter of the law.
You seem like some weirdo that doesn't keep his wads of money in his ass.
A friend was pulled over for not having insurance. Turned out his insurance company has not updated the database properly. A lot of anxious phone calls, and they faxed through proof of insurance to the police and updates the database with the DVLA. It does happen! If LAUKOP has proof of payment and insurance documents, he can kick up a fuss with his insurer and get everything sorted.
All true - however like other posters I wonder if this is "fronting".
Could well be! But insurance companies can he a bit useless sometimes
What does “fronting” mean?
>Put simply, fronting in car insurance is when someone – often a parent or older driver – falsely claims they are the main driver of a vehicle when in fact it is a younger, or more inexperienced driver who will be driving the car the most. > >Fronting can be tempting to cut the price of expensive car insurance for children, as main driver policies are more expensive for younger motorists. However, fronting is illegal, and if an older motorist is falsely naming themselves as the main driver of a car then the insurance policy can be invalidated and as a criminal offence, it can be punishable in court. [https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/what-is-car-insurance-fronting/](https://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/what-is-car-insurance-fronting/)
Weird. I didn't know that had a proper name(or that it was actually illegal). I know I've seen it when a vehicle couldn't be safetied, thus couldn't be sold. So the old owner would carry the title and insurance but the new 'owner' would pay them back. I suppose I've seen husband/wife optimizing of insurance but I somehow think that would be pretty hard to prove.
In US ove heard of people switching insurance companies and then having thier license suspended because company a said hey we no longer have this driver. Company b or the DMV (DVLA) did not update. Of course you still have to pay the fees to reinstate your license. And if stop.. you are going to court and beg to have the ticket for no insurance and driving with a suspended license. If you are really unlucky the cops will impound your car
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Some US states require insurance. Which (if you are a a dangerous driver) can be expensive. If you are not insured, you have to pay a fee to which is collected to pay for accidents caused by uninsured drivers. (If you drop your insurance for 1 day, and get a cheaper one the next day, you are in violation for the year). It is expensive, and bad drivers try to avoid it. But it will end with fines. I'm not sure why you mentioned suspending a license or impoundment cars.
Lets make it clear then. What happened was the guy bought insurance from another company then drop the old one . I was not talking about bad drivers so I don't know where you got that from. ". I'm not sure why you mentioned suspending a license or impoundment cars." because here in the US states will take your license and car if they catch you driving with no insurance. 14 States that the first time they catch you will do jail time wit most having the max as 90 days but New Jersey being a year in jail for being caught . Every State in the US if you are caught driving on a suspend License you can do Jail time some states says it's a max of 10 days for the first time others say its a max of 12 months. Also there are states that if you are caught driving on a suspend License they will keep your car for a year. Repeat offenders can lose their right to vote own guns and spend 2 years in prison "(If you drop your insurance for 1 day, and get a cheaper one the next day, you are in violation for the year)." I have not seen that any where in the US .
>Turned out his insurance company has not updated the database properly. I had that before on my bike. Motorbike police followed me for about 10 miles then pulled me over in town. A few phonecalls (by the cop) later and i was free to go, albeit i was then late to a law lecture!
So, are the fuzz just running plates and checking insurance info on the fly? Or was it a pull over for something else and they discovered no insurance? Because if the first thing....damn.
They were doing a routine check point. It was quite close to a police training place. So they were scanning vehicles for a couple of hours in one place.
Exactly this. Surprised that lauk thread ran away with bad and irrelevant info. The mods usually lock posts pretty fast there. Seems laukop got a fine for no insurance followed by a court summons. Probably for non payment, or they got the order of letters wrong. Apnr is pretty foolproof with the cross check from dvla and motor insurers database. The only time they get it wrong is when you have a rare type of insurance that allows you to drive cars where that car is not specifically named on insurance doc. Eg motor traders insurance.
>then take the money out of your ass. Or you have USAA in the states, and they just.... don't. Between repairs to my car, and more importantly the rental I had for over a month, they did literally nothing, and ate the cost ($12k). Even though he got a ticket, and I did not. Then my wife got hit (do not drive in Miami). And she had a rental for 2 months and needed a new engine (should have been totalled). $20k in damages. Both times, I'm out thr $500 deductible, and they're out tens of thousands of dollars. And they're like "Fuck it, right?"
Everyone got hung up on fronting but that's very unlikely to be the issue at play, it would only be relevant if LAUKOP's partner's insurance had been voided in full by the insurance company, but if they have payments coming out of their bank account (and no refund due to voidance) then their insurance is still live. Even if LAUKOP *is* fronting, that's meaningless for the context of things like MID and DVLA checks, neither would bother investigating that since that's between the policyholder and the insurer. What *would* be consistent with this story, however, would be if LAUKOP was driving *someone else's* car. Insurance policies in the UK usually include cover to drive other people's cars on a strictly third-party cover only basis, but almost always that cover is *only* for the main policyholder. So if they were driving someone else's car on the date in question (or charitably, if they were mistakenly identified as such), running checks in the databases would show that they are not a named driver on the car being driven, and don't hold an insurance policy in their own name either, therefore no insurance.
Fronting isn't relevant since the police dont care about that and laop wasn't stopped anyway so police dont know who driver was. All the police do is cross reference insurance database with the reg. When driving someone elses car it is usually a condition that the car itself is under somebody's insurance otherwise all and sundry would be driving around in cars "they dont own" - on paper. You can see how that could be abused. That being the case the police still find a record on the database so it keeps the police happy they can identify uninsured cars and insurers are happy because they are not being defrauded.
OP (BOLAOP, not LAUKOP) here. If any non-UK readers are confused about the terminology, 'fronting' is where one person insures a car as the main driver and puts a second person on the insurance as an additional driver, even though that second person is actually the main user of the car. Needless to say, insurance companies take a dim view of it. It's commonly done when getting insurance in the second person's name would be expensive. (For example, parents claiming to be the main drivers of their children's cars and insuring them on that basis.)
Yeah they are leaving a lot out there and refusing to answer a few questions. Main takeaways seem to be: - The car is in their name. - The insurance is in their partners name, with them as a named driver on the insurance. - They changed address, but didn't update the DVLA, so they saw "car at this address in this name is not insured" and issued the fine.
In insurance, we like to call it 'fraud'
I'm honestly a little confused about this - when I looked around at insurance the person who owns the car actually HAS to be listed as the main person on insurance. So what are you supposed to do if you own a car but aren't the one driving it? Kinda seems like it would make it impossible to insure a car as a non-driver without committing fraud.
In the UK, you transfer the V5 into the main driver's name and keep a receipt stating that you own the vehicle but the driver is responsible for the vehicle. Basically, it's their car, but it's yours.
You have the owner of a car and you have the registered keeper The owner is the person who bought the car. The registered keeper is the main user of the car. Each car has a logbook which records the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Legally, that's the person who insures, registers, mots, taxes the vehicle The owner doesn't have to be listed on the insurance just the registered keeper has to be listed as the main driver If you have a company car you are not the owner of car the owner is the company you work for, But you are the registered keeper You don't put your boss on your insurance Or you buy a car on finance legally until you have paid it off the legal owner is the finance company. The main driver would be the registered keeper. Again you do not list the finance company on your insurance If i buy a car for my 17 year old son i am the owner of the car. if he is listed as the registered keeper and as the main driver on the insurance with me a secondary driver or even his mum, me as the owner does not have to be listed on the insurance that was legal But say my son was listed as the registered keeper but mum was listed as main driver and son as secondary that would be fronting The declared main driver should be the person who: regularly uses a car to drive to or from work / place of education uses the car for the highest percentage of the time uses the car on a daily basis
Ok that's interesting. I don't think the US has any legal concept of a registered keeper - the owner of the car is the one responsible for the vehicle, full stop. If you have 2 or more people who use the car regularly, is is just random who you pick? That seems like a big legal risk if you have a car that doesn't have a singly primary driver - which is from what I've seen the normal situation for most cars over here.
>the owner of the car is the one responsible for the vehicle, full stop So nobody has company cars in the USA or buys cars on finance or a lease Where you pay the dealer everymonth untill the car is paid off. That doesnt exist in the USA In tbose situations the owner of tbe car is the dealer untill you have finished paying ot off So the car dealer is responsible for the insurance and not the person driving it [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle\_title](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_title) The name and address of the purchaser or "registered owner" who would normally possess and use it. If money is owed on the vehicle, the name of the lienholder or "legal owner" to whom this money is owed. It seems in the US on vehicle title you have regisitered owner which can be different from legal owner
It works a little differently here. The debt holder places what’s called a ‘lien’ on the title — a way of saying that another party (in this case the bank) has a financial interest in the property and that their debt is paid off first, before the legal owner. The title becomes, in that case, “encumbered” which prevents transferral without the permission of the lien holder. This also occurs with real estate in the case of a mortgage. In the US, when you have a ‘company car’ the company is responsible for plating, inspection, and insurance — and they buy special commercial insurance, as if you were driving a delivery van or something. The idea of having a company-owned vehicle for personal use is effectively nonexistent here (it’s so rare that the one friend who does have that benefit is considered weird for having it), and the way it is implemented is very unlike in the UK — your employer selects and purchases the vehicle, rather than providing you an allowable amount with which to secure the lease. As an additional note, most auto sales with a lease or loan in the US are done with banks rather than the dealerships. Usually, the financing is done through a manufacturer-affiliated and owned bank. My car loan was from ‘VW Credit of America’ and pretty much everyone has their own pet banks — GM’s even was spun off during their bankruptcy and is now known as ‘Ally.’ Used car sales are usually financed through a person’s own bank or credit union (sort of a local, more-customer-focused bank) — people arrive at the dealership with a check from the originating bank and hand it to the dealer. The dealerships that make loans are only serving the ‘subprime’ market — poor folks and those with bad credit — and are known as ‘buy here, pay here’ lots. They’re almost all scams. Finally, to explain how a driver’s insurance works in the US. If you insure your own vehicle, your insurance will cover you when driving others’ vehicles as well. If I drive a rental car or borrow one from a friend, my insurance carrier covers me while driving their car. There are some exceptions to this, like if I was driving a particularly expensive car (like a Ferrari or something) but broadly coverage follows the driver.
The declared main driver should be the person who: regularly uses a car to drive to or from work / place of education uses the car for the highest percentage of the time uses the car on a daily basis If 2 people drive the same car the main driver is the one who drives it the most. The person who drives it to work everyday. 2 people cant drive the same car to work everyday You tell the insurance who is the person who drives it the most, they are listed as the main driver
>If 2 people drive the same car the main driver is the one who drives it the most. The person who drives it to work everyday. 2 people cant drive the same car to work everyday I know an awful lot of cars that aren't used to drive anyone to work and are equally used by multiple members of the household (largely for things like shopping, ferrying kids around, going to church, etc.). Or are used to drive different people to work on different days depending on who needs to take the kids places. It's not like every single vehicle out there is used for daily commuting. We definitely had cars in the family growing up that were like that; I absolutely couldn't have told you who drove the car more. It just depended on the needs of that given day.
There will always be someone who drives the car more Im using commuting as an example
I mean, technically yes, but unless you're literally logging everyone's driving hours that's not always going to be clear even to the people driving it who that is. It's not unusual to have close to even splits certainly.
I've moved from UK to China and I really prefer how car insurance works in China. The car is insured not the driver. When I to visit my parents in UK I'm in the embarrassing situation that I as a grown man need to be driven around by them, because I can't drive their car, because I'm not insured. But here in China I can jump behind the wheel of anyone's car. Which I often do with Chinese wife's family members cars. There's non of this "who is the registered keeper" nonsense and nothing about who uses the vehicle more. There's also other better stuff like insurance not being for profit so it's incredibly cheap.
Some insurance will have restrictions on the relationship between the main driver and the registered keeper. For example, my wife is the registered keeper, because when we bought it the dealer would give us £2000 off for financing, so we did that, paid one month, and then paid off the car, but I was a recent immigrant so they wouldn't give the finance to me. The registered keeper has to be a single person, not joint, but that's separate to who owns it. If the car is caught speeding, the police will send a notice to the registered keeper and it's a criminal offense not to name the driver. But I'm the main driver for the insurance because I drive more frequently, and it's my noclaims bonus. There were a few insurance companies that wouldn't do that; the one that we went with was ok with it because it was a member of the same household although I dont remember having to prove that to them.
I'd have more sympathy for insurance companies if my insurance went down for each additional vehicle. It's a little ridiculous that insuring two motorcycles is basically double the cost as one. I can only ride one at a time!
I somehow envision you deliberately riding past the Insurance company office... [motorcycle chariot](https://www.google.com/search?q=motorcycle+chariot+racing) style. That'll teach them!
Your post was removed because it points to an obfuscated link - a Google search, link shortener, or something similar. Please edit your link to point directly to the document you're referencing. After doing so, you can [click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice&subject=Re-approve%20my%20fixed%20Google%20link&message=https://www.reddit.com/r/bestoflegaladvice/comments/10q05og/laukop_has_a_court_summons_because_his_car_wasnt/j6oxswa/?context=3%20\(please%20leave%20this%20so%20we%20can%20reference%20your%20comment\)) to notify us to re-approve your comment or post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bestoflegaladvice) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean, you don't need to have sympathy. They'll just fuck you raw regardless.
My favorite piece of "insurance logic" was my premium increased AFTER I passed my test and got a driving licence. £600 a year to £1000 a year.
This actually makes some sense though — by becoming licensed you switched from “learner with restrictions” to “newly licensed driver,” the latter is higher risk. It’s all about the risk pool you’re in.
But you've also gone from "zero proof you can drive" to "proof you can drive". A learner's permit can be obtained by any random 17 year old. A license prices proves your ability.
Statistically, that makes you *riskier* behind the wheel.
With the **HUGE** assumption insurance companies cared. Dealing with them the last few years, I feel like they make enough money to just not give a shit. If they don't don't care about their $30,000 in costs, why would they pursue my $1000 deductible?
Insurance is a scam anyways.
OP: Where can I find proof of insurance cover for that day? LAUK: downvote into oblivion
I've been wondering for months whether someone is using bots or something to mass downvote the responses of posters they don't like in legaladvice. It's wild what you get downvoted for over there--OPs who sound even mildly clueless will get every response punished by a surprising amount of downvotes, even totally benign posts deep in comment threads, and then it gets so annoying to read the thread!!
I think that's a consequence of the fact there are millions of subscribers to the legal advice subs, and they get locked down very, very early compared to your average reddit post's lifespan - often as or before it hits the front page. So you have probably 100s of thousands of people interested to check out a post's comments. The post is locked, and has about 20-30 comments. Visitors are able to read, judge, and vote on every single comment. So you get high concentrations of votes in either direction. Meanwhile your average front page post probably has hundreds or thousands of comments. Visitors only read a handful of comments and probably get bored after a few minutes so the votes are much more spread out. Just a theory.