More Insurance rises
 

Re: More Insurance rises
 

:rolleyes: Bloody hell. So the tight buggers ruin it for everyone else.

Re: More Insurance rises
 

Seems silly. If you have an expensive car, it will cost a lot more if you crash with 3rd party, instead of fully copy. It will be much cheaper to go fully comp in the first place.

There is a lot of competition in the insurance market. Prices are squeezed pretty low because of it. Insurance companies are looking for incentives to lure people over, and so I think many companies will hold on to this. Last renewal, I had 3 quotes within 40 quid. If one allowed me to drive other cars, where the other wouldn't, then they'd get my money. Insurance companies don't get rich by not getting people to sign up for policies.

Re: More Insurance rises
 

Seems costs are going up for less cover all the time :(

Re: More Insurance rises
 

That linked article seems a little odd. In particular the idea that someone insures a cheap car so they can drive an expensive one 3rd party. How do they tax the expensive car, when you have to show an insurance certificate. What about fire & theft cover on your pride & joy :confused:

However this was always supposed to be a convenience perk, and undoubtedly a minority who abuse it will wreck the perk for the majority.

Re: More Insurance rises
 

My lads been ring round for quotes for his car (1st one) Norwich union wanted £2,600, he found one for £1,100, do they just pull numbers out of the air these days?

Re: More Insurance rises
 

Hmm, report them to the ASA (ofcom) for failing to "quote me happy" :erm:

Re: More Insurance rises
 

I have read my policy, and it says that i can drive any other vehicle, as long as that vehicle is insured by the owner. :confused:

Re: More Insurance rises
 

Good point... :tu:

Nah some companies, Norwich Union, and Churchill especally don't want kids or high-risk drivers. They'll fob them off with high quotes. After I had my accident, NU wanted 2,200 quid to renew. I found a quote for a kid friendly company, Admiral, for 800 quid.

Re: More Insurance rises
 

No mate, if they dont want to insure you they give a silly price. ;)

Edit> darn you punky

Re: More Insurance rises
 

Tell him to put his details into confused.com :tu:

Re: More Insurance rises
 

My only hope is that Norwich union ends up flat on its bum after cutting the cover. I hope more insurance companies dont follows suit as it means there will be even more uninsured drivers on the roads.

If you look at it that way it could be interpreted as irresponsible move by them.

Re: More Insurance rises
 

When you go to tax a car, the insurance certificate is supposed to specify the car that you are taxing. The exception is where the driver is insured for any car, but the car must then be in the insured person's name. There is a loophole in this, but that's another matter. It's worth remembering though, that this type of policy (usually motor trader policies) are very expensive.

Now, the current "driving other car" policies are a little bit sneaky. They tend to stress that the car must belong to someone else. Also, they often state in the small print that the car must already be insured. The cover granted for driving other cars is nearly always 3rd party as well. And nowadays some policies will state that you can drive other cars "in medical emergencies" and a few other scenarios.

Insurers are clamping down, to the abuse of the system in the past. Premiums do go up year on year, but people don't realise the reasons why, as they only think that they themselves haven't had a claim. But personally I think we pay way too much insurance anyway.

Re: More Insurance rises
 

It works like this, 65 yr female insures a £50k car with some 300+ hp for them ONLY to drive it, probably very cheaply and therefore they can tax it. 18yr old scrote insures a £500 70hp scrapper cheaply but never drives the car, they drive the £50k car instead, covered by their own insurance.

At the end of the day it doesnt really matter the cost of the expensive car as any accident they are laible for doesnt cover the repair of the car. What the concern is about is the 18yr old driving a high powered car and therefore any injury claims that they may be liable for.
__________________

correct they do. Any insurance company needs a balanced risk in order to survive. Therefore to balance their book they under cut other companies on the risk they need and give ridiculous quotes on the type of risk they have too much off.

Plus the statistics show that a 1st car owned by a young males is a high risk therefore the high cost. At the end of the day all the insurance company is doing is making a bet that there isnt an accident. They only thing is they set the odds (the premium)

Re: More Insurance rises
 

Insurance is about the only product sold, where the supplier, doesn't know how much the product they supply is going to cost them when they supply it. Underwriters make judgements on their own statistical analysis, along with a judgement as to what type of risks they want to take on.

Motor underwriters work on the basis that a 17 year old male, will have an accident in the first year. Not all will of course, and those that do will have varying degrees of severity, but it gives you an idea of statistically bad young drivers are (I am a case in point having had an accident within a few weeks of passing my test)

IN respect of the Driving Other Cars (DOC) extension I have to say I am surprised it has lasted as long as it has. It was introduced to cover policy holders having to use another car in an emergency for the legal minimum. Is is supposed to be third party cover only (so if you were the last driver and the car was stolen then no cover), cover for pure SDP only (i.e. doesn't even cover you travelling to and from work) and the vehicle must have another policy on it, as the moment you get out of the car, you are leaving a vehicle uninsured on the public highway, which is an offence. It is also designed to be a contigency measure and not something to be used routinely.

Needless to say this has been abused by all and sundry as outlined above, and hence it is being withdrawn from a lot of policies.

The point about uninsured drivers is a valid one, but by insisting on insurance certificates now having the reg no on and the only insured drivers, it is supposed to make policing easier.

AN idea that has been mooted by the industry for many a long year is a Windscreen Insurance Disk, rather like a tax disk. They have them in Jersey. Good idea if you ask me