Why a few white lies could cost you a fortune

Many of us are tempted to bend the truth a little in order to secure cheaper insurance premiums. But it's a dangerous - and potentially expensive - game to play.

Ever wondered what would happen if you told a few white lies when you applied for car insurance? After all, does it really matter who the main driver is? And does that speeding conviction from a few years back really make any difference?

You’re a good driver so surely a few little fibs to save yourself a few quid is ok in the grand scheme of things?

The truth is it does matter, to insurance companies at least. If you lie on your application for insurance you could find your policy is invalid when it comes to making a claim. In the worst case scenarios you could be prosecuted for fraud or blacklisted by insurance companies.

Fronting

The most tempting method to get cheaper car insurance is for a parent to insure a vehicle in their name as the main driver, with their son or daughter down as an occasional driver, when in fact the child is the main user. This little trick is commonly known as “fronting”.
A survey by the Association of British Insurers earlier this year found that more than half of motorists surveyed said they would not rule out doing this, despite the fact that it is fraud, could invalidate their insurance and lead to a criminal conviction.

Families tempted to “front” should be aware that insurance companies are clamping down on fronting – and have various ways of catching you out. So you’ve been warned…
For more on fronting, check out This lie could cost you thousands.

A dodgy past

Lying about your past is tempting when it comes to car insurance. Previous claims and driving offences will bump up your premium.

In some cases omitting to mention past claims will be detected when you take out the policy. If they’re not, chances are you will be found out if you have to claim again.

Insurers now have very sophisticated software, introduced to combat organised fraud, which analyses claims for patterns. All the insurance companies share the claims data so you’re likely to be caught if you lie or omit the truth about your driving history.

The same goes for motoring convictions. In some cases minor convictions won’t make a massive difference to your premium anyway so it’s best to own up.

Other lies

Lying about your address is another common fib drivers tell their insurers. It’s commonly used by young people living in high-risk inner city area but insuring their car at their parents’ address, normally a nice safe village in the country.

But if you have an accident miles away from where you say you live, claims investigators will probably look into where you - and your car – spend most of your time.


The same goes for where you park your car at night. The safest options from an insurance point of view are a garage or driveway, as opposed to on a public road. However you’ll be quickly exposed by your insurance company if you claim to park overnight in a garage - but it turns out you don’t have one.

Will you get found out?

In many cases if you lie to your insurer and don’t ever have to make a claim then you might never get found out. But is it worth the risk?

Insurers, the police, the DVLA and other bodies in the car insurance industry are increasingly sharing data in order to clamp down on those committing insurance fraud.

And don’t assume that once your application for insurance has been accepted, and you’ve been sent the policy, you’re in the clear.

Generally if you need to make a claim the insurer will do further checks. If it finds out you lied on your application form then it’s perfectly within its rights to reject your claim and cancel your policy.

As well as affecting any money you’d receive towards repairs or medical treatment, this could mean any other driver you injure or whose car you damage will pursue you through other channels to get compensation.

Serious consequences

Depending on the severity of the lie, the insurance company could prosecute you for fraud – which could land you with a prison sentence in the most extreme cases.

Once you’ve been convicted for fraud you’re likely to find you’re blacklisted by pretty much all major insurers in the future. You’ll either find it impossible to get cover or pay well over the odds for it.

Insurance fraud isn’t a victimless crime either; it costs every honest driver more money. The Insurance Fraud Bureau estimates that undetected general insurance claims fraud costs £1.9bn a year, with £350 million coming from fraudulent car insurance claims.This adds an average of £44 to the average customer’s insurance bill.

So, think again. Is that white lie you tell your insurer really as harmless as you think?

More from FININVEST MONEY ALERT UK

Receive a free copy of FININVEST e-magazine packed with advice, information and tips on how to manage your money with confidence. Visit www.fininvest.co.uk

Plan to force dog owners to pay £500 to insure their pet 'will penalise responsible owners'

Plan to force dog owners to pay £500 to insure their pet 'will penalise responsible owners'

By Niall Firth and Steve Doughty
dailymail

A plan to force dog owners to fork out for expensive insurance will penalise responsible owners who look after their pets properly, animal charities warned today.

Owners may also be required by law to have a microchip implanted on their pet under Government plans to curb the use of dangerous dogs. Insurance for dogs can cost in excess of £500 a year.

But critics today warned that the new proposals should be targeted at those who to flout the laws rather than responsible dog owners who take care of their pets.

Dog owners could soon have to pay for insurance which covers damage or injury their pet causes

Shadow Environment Secretary Nick Herbert, said: 'The problem of dangerous dogs is growing and the current legislation is clearly not working, but the Government's proposals risk penalising millions of law-abiding dog owners with the blunt instrument of a dog tax.

'We should be targeting the minority of irresponsible dog owners, not the vast majority who are responsible dog lovers.

'And we need to legislate carefully, not in haste, so that we don’t repeat the mistakes of the infamously flawed Dangerous Dogs Act.'

The measures, part of proposed changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act unveiled today, are aimed at tackling the growing problem of vicious animals being bred for use as weapons, particularly on inner-city estates.

But a spokesman for the Kennel Club said: 'We believe that any new legislation must tackle the root cause of the problem which is irresponsible ownership.

'This sort of proposal will not work in isolation.

'Any new proposals must be targeted at those who continue to flout the laws rather than the majority of responsible dog owners.'

An RSPCA spokesman said: ‘It is important that the right people are targeted with this.

‘The crux of these proposals is that the Government is trying to tackle anti-social behaviour with dogs but it’s important that the vast majority of fantastic dog owners are not penalised for the small minority.’

'But in the end nothing has ever happened. If Labour are re-elected in May all we'll get is the same tired-out old approach and none of the changes the country really needs.'

Another measure being considered is the use of Dog Control Notices for misbehaving animals - known as 'Dogbos'.

Chris Laurence, vetinerary director at the Dog's Trust said that insurance for dogs was of relatively little value.

‘Far more important are control orders and compulsory micro-chipping,’ he said.
muzzle the devil dogs.jpg

Control notices would allow police officers and council officials to force miscreant owners to muzzle, leash or even neuter their pets.

‘It is control orders that are important because they mean legislation in a private place rather than just in public places,' said Mr Laurence

Ministers are suggesting making it compulsory to have only third party insurance to cover attacks by dogs on bystanders, neighbours or workers.

Dogs may be implanted with a microchip to identify their owner.

The price of microchipping and insuring a dog means that families could face bills of £100 and more to legally own a pet under the new rules.

The proposals come in the wake of outcries over incidents like the death of four-year-old John-Paul Massey, savaged by a pit bull at his home in Liverpool last November, and protests by employers and unions over the rate of attacks by dogs on workers such as postmen.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: 'The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but there is no doubt that some people breed and keep dogs for the soul purpose of intimidating others, in a sense using dogs as a weapon.

'It is this sort of behaviour that we will not tolerate; it is this sort of behaviour that we are determined to stop.'

The plans for curbing the use of intimidating dogs were put forward in a Department of the Environment consultation over changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act, the 1991 law often cited as an example of hastily-made and unworkable legislation.

The Act names four breeds, including pitbull-terriers, which are banned.

However the law also allows the banned breeds to be kept in some cases, if they are neutered, tattooed with the owner's details, microchipped, and are allowed out in public only if on a lead and muzzled.

Figures uncovered by the Tories have suggested 100 people every week are treated in hospital after being bitten by a dog, with the number of cases rising from 3,079 in 1997-8 to 5,221 last year.

In London alone, the number of dangerous dog cases going to court increased from 35 in 2002-3 to 719 in 2008-9.

The rise in the so-called 'status dog' has prompted the Metropolitan Police to set up a new unit to handle a surge in the number of attacks and to kennel hundreds of seized animals.

Terrible cases to make the headlines in recent years include that of John-Paul Massey, a four-year-old who died at his grandmother's house in Liverpool last year after suffering 'massive injuries' inflicted by a dog later found in tests to be a pitbull, a breed banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

In February last year, three-and-a-half-month-old Jaden Mack was killed by a Staffordshire bull terrier and a Jack Russell at his grandmother's home in Ystrad Mynach, South Wales, devastating the local community.

The previous summer there was a rash of attacks by dogs on children in different parts of the country.

Victims: John-Paul Massey, four, died after suffering 'massive injuries' inflicted by a dob. Right, 13-month-old Archie-Lee Hirst was killedby a rottweiler

There were reports of children being bitten in Guisborough, Cleveland; Killingworth, North Tyneside; Chesterfield, Derbyshire; and Grimsby, Lincolnshire.

At the start of 2008, nine-year-old Chloe Grayson was left scarred after she was attacked by a 10-stone rottweiler in Rotherham, South Yorkshire. She was attending a New Year's Eve party with her parents at a neighbour's house.

The attack came just three days after 13-month-old Archie-Lee Hirst was killed by a rottweiler in the back yard of his grandparents' home in Wakefield, West Yorkshire.

Two weeks earlier, kennel worker Mandy Peynado's arm was amputated because of injuries she suffered trying to protect her throat when she was mauled by a rottweiler at Knightwood Kennels, near Salisbury, Wiltshire.

On January 1, 2007, five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson was found bleeding to death in the living room of her grandmother's home in Merseyside after attending a family party.

The dog involved, named Reuben, was shot at the scene by Merseyside Police. It was later confirmed that the animal was a 'pitbull terrier-type' banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

In September 2006, five-month-old Cadey-Lee Deacon was fatally attacked by a pair of rottweiler guard dogs at the Rocket pub in Leicester, which was run by her grandparents.

In March last year, an 11-year-old boy's ear was torn off in an attack by a pitbull-type terrier in the Alway area of Newport, South Wales.

Adults were also attacked - including railway engineer James Rehill, 78, who was 'dragged like a doll' through the street in a fatal attack by his own dog in January last year.

Witnesses looked on in horror as Mr Rehill was savaged by his rottweiler in Newham, east London.

• To receive updates, please visit http://www.fininvest.co.uk/ to register your eMail address.