To be mildly shocked at DF only insuring one twin on car?

[Partyrocks]

DF* has 18yo twin girls.

The both passed the driving test within a week of each other. And grandparents have bought a Car for them to share.

As insurance is so expensive, DF and her DH and the grandparents made a decision to just insure one daughter. With the thinking that if anything happened to the uninsured one it'll all be fine as they'll be able to pretend that they're the insured one.

The girls are going to same University and taking the car.

The girls are fully aware and a literal coin was tossed to decide which one would be It.

AIBU to think this is not on?

• [Post edited by MNHQ. OP had originally typed DD, when she meant to type DF (dear friend)]

@finebutfedup

If they clip a bollard then that’s one thing. But what if there’s a horrible accident where somebody is severely injured or even killed?

That is a very, very, very bad idea.

This. A small accident would most likely go unnoticed, but a serious one could have serious consequences.

Imtryingveryhard
Yes sure it is S.143 of The Road Traffic Act 1988.

@Imtryingveryhard

Why does DOC have to do with it?

What about the simple logistics that, if they are stopped for something like speeding, the police will ask to see the driver’s license which may not match with the name on the insurance? How would they explain that away?

It might not even have helped. Sometimes extra drivers actually bring the price down.

Can't believe anyone would be so stupid. And these two are going to university?

Fraud. Invalid insurance for both.

And imagine the uninsured one has too much to drink and gets done for drink driving ... and pretends she's her sister. Who will be facing criminal charges and prison time.

@Sarkymarky

Imtryingveryhard Yes sure it is S.143 of The Road Traffic Act 1988.

That relates to vehicle owners/insured drivers not passengers.

@Clarinet1

What about the simple logistics that, if they are stopped for something like speeding, the police will ask to see the driver’s license which may not match with the name on the insurance? How would they explain that away?

Presumably the uninsured twin is always going to have to carry around the other twin's licence. Although inevitably there will come a time when they forget.

[quote bluebaul]@Imtryingveryhard

Why does DOC have to do with it? [/quote]
It was a response to a hypothetical question raised above. It doesn’t apply here.

Tight as f*

This is the stupidest idea. Also, regardless of who paid for the lessons and the car. The eighteen year old’ should be paying at least a share of the insurance, if not all of it if the household can only afford to insure one of them it can’t afford for them to drive.

@MySecretHistory

If they are un Uni accommodation they require insurance in their name No fronting allowed.

As they’re breaking the law I don’t think flouting uni policy is going to hugely trouble them.

@Blossomtoes

Jesus. Are people seriously this stupid?

Yep.

Almost hope it does come back to bite them on the ass, will serve them all right. But that does potentially mean someone innocent dying so no one wants that.

Maybe you could tip off the dvla op?

IFB or IFIG also. With names, addresses, DOB, vehicle details. Anything to help. You have no idea how awful it is to deal with an uninsured driver with RTA insurers involved. So messy. Insured twin can have indemnity withdrawn through no fault of their own.

Wow. I would sit all of them down and ask them what they think would happen if the insured twin died. It’s utterly ridiculous and they all need a bloody wake up call.

On average, five people die every day on the road in the UK and many more are seriously injured.

Aside from the risk of serious accident or death, it’s illegal and completely irresponsible.

I can accept 18yr old stupidity but I’d have a pretty low opinion of my Dad after he said that.

Out of sheer curiosity, OP, why do the grandparents have a say in the decision about whether their granddaughters will break the law?

Am I the only one who admires the sheer cheekiness of this fraud? (probably yes) I'm not endorsing the fraud, btw, but I'll share OP's astounded feeling.

How much money is saved by only insuring one?

The twins would be in so much trouble if caught, I imagine, struggle to get any insurance for years, as accessories to fraud. Not worth it for that alone.

There is a film in this thread.

Along with all the legal repercussions in the event of an accident which they clearly haven’t thought through, they are taking a huge risk for a tiny saving. The twin who is uninsured is going to have to pay more for insurance when they eventually start paying as two people. As far as the insurance company will be aware, the uninsured twin hasn’t driven at all since passing her test and the insurance premium will reflect that. They may even end up paying more long term compared to insuring both girls right away.

I considered using the same photos for my twins’ passports when they were 4 months old (didn’t but might as well have), can’t imagine still thinking like that. They’re individual siblings who happen to share a birthday ffs.

@Nennypops

Out of sheer curiosity, OP, why do the grandparents have a say in the decision about whether their granddaughters will break the law?

Why do the parents for that matter?

Dictating to your child or grandchild that they should break the law in order to save the parents/grandparents a few hundred quid is really not fucking normal, whichever family member does it.

And if the not-named twin has an accident and the named twin says "I think the fuck not" to having the accident attached to her record?

This is being done to save money, but the uninsured twin is going to end up having to pay higher premiums in future.

I seriously hope that this is a wind-up, as I have difficulty believing that anyone would act with such crass stupidity and irresponsibility.

Clearly I’m a mug as I’ve just insured 2 kids but separately on 2 cars to spread the risk (and cost)