Insurance in Dads name

Wats_in_a_name

I am a 17 y.o. male so insurance is very expensive. €2,300 however, if I take out insurance in my Dads name and have me as a named driver it falls to €800. Is that possible. I.E to have the car registered to me, but insurance in my Dads name?

corktina

yes .....

Delta Kilo

You can do it, but what you are suggesting is Illegal. You're dad has to be the main driver of the car, not you. If you crashed and the insurance company found out, they wont pay out, then that 2,300 sounds very cheap.

I was in your position once, and I chose the more expensive route. You are much better off having your own policy as you can build up a no claims bonus. It pays off in the end, i renewed my insurance yesterday after a price war between axa and quinn ended. After 2 years ncb with a full license, I pay little over a grand on a 1.9TDI. Next year I expect change out of €1,000.

Go the more expensive route, it works out cheaper in the long run, especially if you have an accident.

colm_mcm

Delta Kilo wrote: »

If you crashed and the insurance company found out, they wont pay out, then that 2,300 sounds very cheap.

not exactly true. they'd have to prove that he wasn't the main driver.

carchaeologist

If you only have a provisional,you have to have a full licenced driver with you at all times too...

MojoMaker

Your Dad can't take out a policy on a vehicle he doesn't own. Google the term 'insurable interest'.

Wats_in_a_name

Wats_in_a_name wrote: »

I am a 17 y.o. male so insurance is very expensive. €2,300 however, if I take out insurance in my Dads name and have me as a named driver it falls to €800. Is that possible. I.E to have the car registered to me, but insurance in my Dads name?

For the €800 quote for you and your Dad is it using a ncb or starting from scratch ??

mickdw

A few things here.
The Dad will have to be the owner of the car to even get the policy.
This car will need to be the Dads only car otherwise the insurers will know that it really is young guys car & also he will not have a bonus to use for a second ppolicy and you will end up paying 2300 again.

IMO its not worth the hassle any more. Many people about 10 years ago were insured this way but the insurers are now investigating these cases more & have on many occasions refused to pay out.

vectra

Wats_in_a_name wrote: »

I am a 17 y.o. male so insurance is very expensive. €2,300 however, if I take out insurance in my Dads name and have me as a named driver it falls to €800. Is that possible. I.E to have the car registered to me, but insurance in my Dads name?

Car has to be in your Fathers name.
What car is it? 800 sounds very cheap

Delta Kilo wrote: »

You can do it, but what you are suggesting is Illegal. You're dad has to be the main driver of the car, not you. If you crashed and the insurance company found out, they wont pay out, then that 2,300 sounds very cheap.

It is NOT Illegal,
I went through this recently for my son and of all the insurance companies I rang not one of them even suggested this.
In fact one of them said that the only advice they would offer me was maybe to consider that he insures it himself and start earning NCB in his own name.
As for having an accident
The drive is insured on the policy and is therefore Insured at times to drive the car.

mickdw wrote: »

A few things here.
The Dad will have to be the owner of the car to even get the policy.

True

mickdw wrote: »

This car will need to be the Dads only car otherwise the insurers will know that it really is young guys car & also he will not have a bonus to use for a second ppolicy and you will end up paying 2300 again..

NOT True

mickdw wrote: »

IMO its not worth the hassle any more. Many people about 10 years ago were insured this way but the insurers are now investigating these cases more & have on many occasions refused to pay out.

Of course it is worth it.
Read my reply above to Delta Kilo

mickdw

If the father insures a second car & adds a young driver to it, they will load the premium I promise you. First reason for this is that the father will already be using his bonus on original car so any new policy will have no 'no claims bonus' & second reason is that insurers are wise to this route to insuring a young driver & it sticks out like a sore thumb when its on the second car.
How can you say its worth it?
The OP is proposing to get insurance by deception. He will not be covered in the event of an accident. He is clearly going to be the main driver & was going to have the car regd to him. Insurers can & do investigate claims in these cases. If for example the OP was using the car to drive to work each day (easily vertified), they will refuse the claim. Now the insurers are bound to pay any 3rd party claims that may arise but if proven that cover was obtained by deception, they can come after the insured for those costs too.

vectra

vectra wrote: »

It is NOT Illegal,
I went through this recently for my son and of all the insurance companies

All insurance companies assume that the car you are insuring on a private policy is a private car taxed on a private basis and you are the main driver of the vehicle. When taking out a policy one agrees to this assumption (there are many more too but this one is particularly relevent to this thread). If it is later investigated and it is found that the policy owner is not the main driver than it can be deemed fraud. Obtaining insurance fraudulently is a World of pain.

I would advice the OP to have a serious think about this.

thebiglad

colm_mcm wrote: »

not exactly true. they'd have to prove that he wasn't the main driver.

It would be easy to prove

First of all car is registered to young driver (not policyholder).

If that was not the case questions would be asked about how car was purchased - proof could be requested, either a receipt or even sight of bank account/bank loan etc used to pay for vehicle.

Beyond that, general running costs i.e. fuel, tyres, servicing - who is paying for all of these and provide sight of invoices/receipts in policyholder's name to prove.

There are more tests but, rest assured if the insurer wants to prove who is the real owner it can be done unless you are very careful and organised.

Yes, its expensive but get your own policy, build up your own no claim discount and driving experience discount, worth it in the long run.

slimjimmc

mickdw wrote: »

The OP is proposing to get insurance by deception. He will not be covered in the event of an accident. He is clearly going to be the main driver & was going to have the car regd to him. Insurers can & do investigate claims in these cases. If for example the OP was using the car to drive to work each day (easily vertified), they will refuse the claim. Now the insurers are bound to pay any 3rd party claims that may arise but if proven that cover was obtained by deception, they can come after the insured for those costs too.

I don't think it's true to say he won't be insured, once a policy is paid up the insurer must cover any 3rd party claims even if the driver breached the policy agreement, but any 1st party claim would be rejected (I think this is what you meant Mickdw) . They will want repayment of all payouts and will come after him in the civil courts to get it.

vectra

RoverJames wrote: »

All insurance companies assume that the car you are insuring on a private policy is a private car taxed on a private basis and you are the main driver of the vehicle. When taking out a policy one agrees to this assumption (there are many more too but this one is particularly relevent to this thread). If it is later investigated and it is found that the policy owner is not the main driver than it can be deemed fraud. Obtaining insurance fraudulently is a World of pain.

I would advice the OP to have a serious think about this.

So with all of these assumptions.
Lets assume that op had an accident someday.
Would it not be wrong for the Insurer to Assume he was the main driver??
How can one say driver A is not the main driver?
Who knows how much mileage each driver puts up per week?

Wats_in_a_name

Thanks for all the replies apprecaite it. I was never planning on insurance fraud or anything illegal, which was suggested, the reason I started this thread was to make sure I wasn't commiting insurance fraud.

You definately CAN have the insurance policy in a different name then the car is registered but I'll ring up the various companies on Tuesday and see if the insurance needs to be in the main drivers name (pretty sure it does) so thats me paying €2300 a year

vectra

vectra wrote: »

So with all of these assumptions.
Lets assume that op had an accident someday.
Would it not be wrong for the Insurer to Assume he was the main driver??
How can one say driver A is not the main driver?
Who knows how much mileage each driver puts up per week?

First thing that happens when one has an accident resulting in a claim is that the insurance company will try to establish (discretely or otherwise) if folks on the policy are otherwise insured, do remember if the chap is a named driver on his dad's insurance it is his Dad they will be dealing with. Claim sheets must be filled in, one of the questions is are you otherwise insured, then the fun starts.

I suggest you ring your underwriter and run by them your specific situation Mr Vectra, explaining that you are the main driver on your son's car while you keep the miles down on your own as you are selling it possibly to buy an auto as you have back trouble and esperience pain when using the clutch in manuals. Throw in the bit about running two cars as well to explain the full situation. Then once your son passes his test he will be getting insured on his own on his (your ?) car. I'm sure they'll reckon it's fine, that is an assumption on my behalf.

[/QUOTE]

RobertM

Wats_in_a_name wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies apprecaite it. I was never planning on insurance fraud or anything illegal, which was suggested, the reason I started this thread was to make sure I wasn't commiting insurance fraud.

You definately CAN have the insurance policy in a different name then the car is registered but I'll ring up the various companies on Tuesday and see if the insurance needs to be in the main drivers name (pretty sure it does) so thats me paying €2300 a year

I paid €2700 in my first year only with a 1.4 Astra (learner permit), but now two years later (full licence) I paid 1300 for a 1.8 Alfa Romeo. That was my dilemma as well at the beginning, having insurance in my own name or having the insurance in my mom's name. She told me to get the insurance in my own name, to avail of NCB + future claims, and she was right.

vectra

RoverJames wrote: »

First thing that happens when one has an accident resulting in a claim is that the insurance company will try to establish (discretely or otherwise) if folks on the policy are otherwise insured, do remember if the chap is a named driver on his dad's insurance it is his Dad they will be dealing with. Claim sheets must be filled in, one of the questions is are you otherwise insured, then the fun starts.

I suggest you ring your underwriter and run by them your specific situation Mr Vectra, explaining that you are the main driver on your son's car while you keep the miles down on your own as you are selling it possibly to buy an auto as you have back trouble and esperience pain when using the clutch in manuals. Throw in the bit about running two cars as well to explain the full situation. Then once your son passes his test he will be getting insured on his own on his (your ?) car. I'm sure they'll reckon it's fine, that is an assumption on my behalf.

Given the audience of boards I cannot believe you have described your insurance situation on here after posting a picture of your son's car complete with registration plate.

First off I would advise you to the fact that I gave YOU no permission to post pictures of MY car.:mad:
It is my discretion to post them or not. And I would ask you now to remove them Instantly.. You have no rights to post picturees of MY car showing its Reg number. and I am pretty abboyed at you for that.
Secondly what in the name of god are you on about that the insurers will investigate who is insured..
Simple answer to that is both names on the policy are insured... Why would they not be?
In the instance of my son having an accident.. well.. I will be with him as long as he is on a learner permit. Can you tell me that he would not be insured in that instance?
Or are you assuming that I allow him to drive the Civic on his own?

My insurance company knows about my Back issue so where does that become any of your business?

Where did you get the idea of me having a problem pressing a clutch pedal and needing an Auto?

I might have said I would like a DSG shift in a car but never said I need one.

vectra

vectra wrote: »

First off I would advise you to the fact that I gave YOU no permission to post pictures of MY car.:mad:
It is my discretion to post them or not. And I would ask you now to remove them Instantly.. You have no rights to post picturees of MY car showing its Reg number. and I am pretty abboyed at you for that.
............................
Where did you get the idea of me having a problem pressing a clutch pedal and needing an Auto?

I might have said I would like a DSG shift in a car but never said I need one.

Firstly I didn't post pics of your car, I quoted a post I do not require anyones permission to quote a post.Much like I am quoting the post below to explain where I got the idea of you having a problem pressing a clutch pedal (I would consider it being often unbearable to press the clutch pedal problematic ) As I have expressed thoughts in the other thread I feel no need to answer or respond to your other questions here, some of which I feel are rhetorical

vectra wrote: »

OK
As the heading says.
I know it is called DSG in the VAG group.
What is it/similar system called in other makes?

Reason I ask is i planned on buying an Octavia Vrs Diesel this year.
But
My back problem is getting progressively worse to the extent that it is often unbearable to press the clutch. Hence the DSG option
Unbfortunately the Vrs with DSG is out of my price range. what other options are open to me?
I have considered looking at a Leon FR petrol. with DSG
what are the views on these?
I notice quite a few 2008 models on Carzone with very low mileage.
Is this telling me "STAY AWAY"? Are they a bad reseller?

Back to original Q.
What other models could I look at?
cheers

B.T.W.
I do qualify for the VRT/VAT deduction.

MojoMaker

Does anyone understand the principle of insurable interest or did anyone even look up the term if they didn't understand it.

If you don't have insurable interest in something it is called fraud.

You take a car you don't own, you write it off, and you pocket the payout. Do you see now why you need to have insurable interest in the vehicle expressed by documented ownership when applying for car insurance?

Midnight_EG

MojoMaker wrote: »

Does anyone understand the principle of insurable interest or did anyone even look up the term if they didn't understand it.

If you don't have insurable interest in something it is called fraud.

You take a car you don't own, you write it off, and you pocket the payout. Do you see now why you need to have insurable interest in the vehicle expressed by documented ownership when applying for car insurance?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_insure_someone_else's_car

weeder

thats us law though id say,

When i had my car I had it in my dad's name and i was named on his policy. If i crashed it and the insurance company had to pay out,how could they prove who did what milage in it and who uses it the most?

galwaytt

MojoMaker wrote: »

Your Dad can't take out a policy on a vehicle he doesn't own. Google the term 'insurable interest'.

yes you can: the name on the tax book is NOT necessarily the legal owner of the car. If your car is on HP for example, your name is in the tax book, but the HP company is the owner until the last payment is made......

PeakOutput

colm_mcm wrote: »

not exactly true. they'd have to prove that he wasn't the main driver.

no they dont

first they have to establish ownership if the log book is in the sons name its game over

then if the log book is in the dads name thats when they will look at who is or isnt the main user

galwaytt

MojoMaker wrote: »

.....did anyone even look up the term if they didn't understand it.?

Did you read the first line of your own quoted link?

"Yes, You can Insure the property of another Person"

galwaytt

PeakOutput wrote: »

no they dont

first they have to establish ownership if the log book is in the sons name its game over

then if the log book is in the dads name thats when they will look at who is or isnt the main user

Nope, wrong. See above. Tax book name is NOT necessarily the legal owner.

PeakOutput

vectra wrote: »

It is NOT Illegal,

if the car is in the sons name it is most definitely illegal

if the car is in the dads name then its not illegal but they could still refuse to pay out, unlikely but possible

PeakOutput

galwaytt wrote: »

Nope, wrong. See above. Tax book name is NOT necessarily the legal owner.

nope wrong in the specific case you mentioned the person with hire purchase still has insurable interest in the car

if the son buys the car and the log book is in his name it is illegal for his dad to take an insurance policy out on the car as he has no insurable interest

trust me iv seen numerous claims refused and policies cancelled as a result of this

galwaytt

PeakOutput wrote: »

nope wrong in the specific case you mentioned the person with hire purchase still has insurable interest in the car

...we'll have to agree to disagree, then....my interpretation is that, under the Road Traffic Act 1963 (iirc), the requirement is for the use of the vehicle in question be insured to indemnify any 3rd Party's against damage or injury caused by it's use. There is nothing in it regarding ownership, or interest.

Once you have that Cert, which has the no of the Act on it, above, you are covered under Law.

All other matters, regarding the obtaining of that Cert, are items of contract between the insurer and the insured, and any issues arising are a matter for due (Civil) process.

Either way, the cover cannot be voided, nor leave the 'insured' exposed to prosecution for 'no insurance'. The insurer has full recourse to the law for recompense/recoupment of (any) monies paid out, in the event of a claim, if for example it feels the cover was obtained fraudulently, etc, but that as I say, is a separate matter. They'll still have to honour the 3rd Party element as a matter of course.

PeakOutput

galwaytt wrote: »

Either way, the cover cannot be voided, nor leave the 'insured' exposed to prosecution for 'no insurance'. The insurer has full recourse to the law for recompense/recoupment of (any) monies paid out, in the event of a claim, if for example it feels the cover was obtained fraudulently, etc, but that as I say, is a separate matter. They'll still have to honour the 3rd Party element as a matter of course.

yes this is correct if it dosnt come to light until after an accident the third party damages will be covered if it is found out for some reason before any accident then the policy can be cancelled back to inception

im not familiar with the wording of the law so i can concede you may ineed be right im only familiar as to how its done in practice having been a claims handler for 3 years(im not any more)

edit; i do think there are principles of insurance that while may not be literally written in a law are deemed as legal things(dont know a better way to say that) like insurable interest and the principle that no1 should make a profit from insurance(both of which would apply in this case)

heffomike54

thebiglad wrote: »

It would be easy to prove

First of all car is registered to young driver (not policyholder).

If that was not the case questions would be asked about how car was purchased - proof could be requested, either a receipt or even sight of bank account/bank loan etc used to pay for vehicle.

Beyond that, general running costs i.e. fuel, tyres, servicing - who is paying for all of these and provide sight of invoices/receipts in policyholder's name to prove.

There are more tests but, rest assured if the insurer wants to prove who is the real owner it can be done unless you are very careful and organised.

Yes, its expensive but get your own policy, build up your own no claim discount and driving experience discount, worth it in the long run.

All great points here plus one more simple thing if you did have a crash they will start looking into where your dad was. So if you had an accident while dad was in work, game over. Best thing to do in my opinion is to insure under your own name, start building the no claims bonus asap, worth it in the long run.

weeder

dad was in work but carpooled and i needed to run to the shop but crashed along the way, my mate was with me and he has a full license.

or look at it that i have a full license

heffomike54

weeder wrote: »

dad was in work but carpooled and i needed to run to the shop but crashed along the way, my mate was with me and he has a full license.

or look at it that i have a full license

Insurance company wont just take your word for it, sure the have teams of investigators to look into claims, that story wont hold up in under much questioning.

Bob the Builder

MojoMaker wrote: »

Your Dad can't take out a policy on a vehicle he doesn't own. Google the term 'insurable interest'.

Got caught out on that myself. Quinn Insurance being the culprit. They lost out in the end. Be wary of who you are getting insured with and read the small print.

vectra

RoverJames wrote: »

Firstly I didn't post pics of your car, I quoted a post I do not require anyones permission to quote a post.Much like I am quoting the post below to explain where I got the idea of you having a problem pressing a clutch pedal (I would consider it being often unbearable to press the clutch pedal problematic ) As I have expressed thoughts in the other thread I feel no need to answer or respond to your other questions here, some of which I feel are rhetorical

Yes,
And using the word OFTEN as I did, Being the times when I am basically unable to drive so therefore not needing any insurance cover on that car at that said time. Hence another reason to own 2 cars. My son can drive me to my Doctor etc. in the Civic
You still showed pictures of my car in a post YOU made with no permission . I am asking you publicly and politely to take thos pics down. I will have to report your post otherwise.

oldyouth

Midnight_EG wrote: »

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_insure_someone_else's_car

I'm not getting in to this argument because there is so much incorrect information in it. However, this link refers to the situation that prevails in the US and other countries, such as Australia, where (basically) the person is insured rather than authorised drivers of specific vehicles. Please don't rely on it

D-Generate

I worked in insurance and we requested that the insured either be the one in the tax book or that its the insureds spouse. Anything different than that we then didn't take on the risk because it was clear they were trying to pull a fast one.
I am surprised that you got a quote of €800 OP. Most companies that I know are smart enough to recognize that if there is a father-son policy, then the son is really the main driver and as such put a high loading on the vehicle. Which ends up being pretty crappy as you don't get a NCB and only save a considerable amount for one year, by the next year the two costs are relatively equal. Which insurance company is it OP?

Seth Brundle

vectra wrote: »

Yes,
And using the word OFTEN as I did, Being the times when I am basically unable to drive so therefore not needing any insurance cover on that car at that said time. Hence another reason to own 2 cars. My son can drive me to my Doctor etc. in the Civic
You still showed pictures of my car in a post YOU made with no permission . I am asking you publicly and politely to take thos pics down. I will have to report your post otherwise.

You put the pics online and therefore they are available to anyone who wants to quote them. :rolleyes:
If in the future you don't want people to quote posts of yours that contain your pics, then don't post them! Its not a difficult concept.

vectra

kbannon wrote: »

You put the pics online and therefore they are available to anyone who wants to quote them. :rolleyes:
If in the future you don't want people to quote posts of yours that contain your pics, then don't post them! Its not a difficult concept.

Yes you are right
I put MY pictures online.
I never gave him permission to use MY pictures of MY car.

Gary ITR

vectra wrote: »

Yes you are right
I put MY pictures online.
I never gave him permission to use MY pictures of MY car.

He doesn't need it really and if kbannon or I removed it would we be telling other users that quoting posts is against the rules?

On a side note, isn't the internet wonderful, I mean if a person quotes your picture somewhere all you have to do is remove it from wherever it is hosted and it disappears, just be sure to clear your cache before checking the results

Anyway back on topic please

Henry Ford III

The basis of the cover in those circumstances is suspect.

There's also a legal issue of obtaining insurance through deception.

vectra

Onkle wrote: »

He doesn't need it really and if kbannon or I removed it would we be telling other users that quoting posts is against the rules?

On a side note, isn't the internet wonderful, I mean if a person quotes your picture somewhere all you have to do is remove it from wherever it is hosted and it disappears, just be sure to clear your cache before checking the results

Anyway back on topic please

Not really
Quoting posts is one thing.
Displaying images of other peoples personal Propertyy is a different matter altogether.

Pics have been removed from source

Midnight_EG

vectra wrote: »

Not really
Quoting posts is one thing.
Displaying images of other peoples personal Propertyy is a different matter altogether.

Pics have been removed from source

No they haven't? :P

vectra wrote: »

Bought the civic

mickdw

Whatever the law regarding ownership & being the insured, ALL insurers Ive dealt with have a standard clause stating that the insured must be the owner of the vehicle or spouse. NO exceptions apart from temporary cover where they dont get too concerned.

irishejit

why not just register the car in your dads name???? you can always transfer ownership at a later date when the prices are more favourable

saves any of this argument and the insurance company cant do a thing about it, i work in insurance so i've a brave idea what i'm on about!!!

vectra

mickdw wrote: »

Whatever the law regarding ownership & being the insured, ALL insurers Ive dealt with have a standard clause stating that the insured must be the owner of the vehicle or spouse. NO exceptions apart from temporary cover where they dont get too concerned.

Which was exactly my point until Roverjames decided to go and get all hot and bothered
back to the OP's question

I myself have 2 cars registered in my name.


The second car I bought out of my own money was a Civic.
This was bought specifically to keep the mileage down on my other car as I am changing it this year and to teach my son how to drive.( No Law against that )

I am insured in that car.

I insured the second car using None of my NCB as I can only use it on one car.

The second car ( Civic which I often refer to as my sons as it will eventually be his when he passes his driving test and I change my other car )

I am insured as the main driver and my son as a named driver.
As it happens I do actually drive the Civic more than he does and as a result put more mileage in it than he does.
This makes him the Temporary driver and as such does make him an insured driver.

I dont really see how anyone can say any different.
I am insured and he is according to my insurer.

mickdw

Thats all well and good if that is the situation.
This thread was started by a young guy wondering would it be ok to insure his car in his dads name which he (the young driver) would be the owner of.
That is not ok & you have been leaving comments on this thread giving the impression that it is ok & 'worth it' to go this route. Your own case looks fine but 99% of young drivers insured this way are the main drivers & will likely be found out come claim time when the insurers get to work on figuring out what ws really going on.
Even in your case vectra, you can expect much form filling & cross examination by insurers should your son crash. I know yours seems to be a genuine case but it will be a pain in the arse all the same.
The main point is though that it is not correct for the OP to be insured this way.

also anyone with 2 brain cells would smell something fishy in vectras case, essentially he has put forward a situation that justifies why he has two cars insured and registered to him, such a coincidence that 6 months back he started a thread about insurance costs for his son in his own name. Regarding the pics, i mentioned to mods last night that i had no issue with them editing my post to remove them if they thought it necessary, there is no way i was going to after the tone of your post, this isnt a prison and you're not chief bitch, you should really be very grateful for all the help you got in this thread to get your story straight for the future should you need to explain it.

vectra

vectra wrote: »

Pics have been removed from source

Midnight_EG wrote: »

No they haven't? :P

That's funny

vectra

mickdw wrote: »

Thats all well and good if that is the situation.
This thread was started by a young guy wondering would it be ok to insure his car in his dads name which he (the young driver) would be the owner of.
That is not ok & you have been leaving comments on this thread giving the impression that it is ok & 'worth it' to go this route. Your own case looks fine but 99% of young drivers insured this way are the main drivers & will likely be found out come claim time when the insurers get to work on figuring out what ws really going on.
Even in your case vectra, you can expect much form filling & cross examination by insurers should your son crash. I know yours seems to be a genuine case but it will be a pain in the arse all the same.
The main point is though that it is not correct for the OP to be insured this way.

I never intended to give the illusion that is OK to insure a car in anyone elses name and be the main driver afterwards. Or did I ?
I dont recall saying it was ok to Lie and falseify documents

RoverJames wrote: »

also anyone with 2 brain cells would smell something fishy in vectras case, .

Mainly you.
For your information.
I did ring the insurance company and stated my case prior to insuring a second car.
I was 100% up front with them and used word to the effect of:
{ME}
"I intend buying a second car to keep the mileage down on my current one as I will be changing it this year under the disabled drivers scheme, I also intened to use this second car to teach my son (18) to drive as it is a cheap and cheerful car, Will this be a problem?"

{Operator}
That is no problem.

{ME}

I will not need to modify this car as I have my current car modified to suit my disability and will only be using this on a Temp basis until I change.

{Operator}

Yes, That is ok, Would you like me to quote you now?

{ME}
Yes, Sure.
Answered all questions honestly.
.................................................

Quote accepted and Policy paid for.

Where am I supposed to be Wrong Mr' Rover.

But then again,
You are of one of three professions.

1) Insurance Agent

2) Solicitor

3) Internet Expert.

Personally I think option 3 hits the nail on the head.
Maybe you could enlighten us on your expertise on Assessing my honesty ? ( Or Lack of as you are insinuating)

PeakOutput

you own both cars you havnt done anything wrong i dont know why people are giving out about you but what you did is not the same as what the op asked about so maybe thats why they have an issue

you can own and insure as many cars as you like

you can own and insure as many cars as you like and have other people driving them as long as you tell the insurance company

the point is you HAVE to own the car to get insured on it this thread is ridicolous now the op has been answered pages ago and you guys are bickering for no apparent reason