nightrider Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 On the front page of the Manchester Evening News tonight is the story of a 17 year old lad who passed his driving test earlier this month. He went out and bought a 6 years old Vauxhall corsa for 3 grand on trying to insure it this is what he was faced with, the cheapest fully comp quote was almost £6,000, the second most expensive quote was for £21,000, the most expensive premium of £32,819 was quoted on behalf of the AA on the car comparison website Confused.com whaddya think of that then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 8-) You can understand why kids dont bother *-) I am suspicious of the insurance companies using this as an excuse to increase prices, by making it financially impossible for kids to insure their cars, and then blaming them as the reason to increase our premiums :D .......perhaps I've read to many books about conspiracy theories (lol) I remember when I was in my 20's I bought a 1966 3.8's Jag imported from Jersey B-) Cost me £1800 for the car and £1500 for the insurance 3rd party :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The issue is that young male drivers are the most accident prone group. As such the insurance companies have decided that they are virtually a "self insure group" - i.e. make the premiums so high that they actually reflect the liability of the group in the early years. Most insurance companies just do not want them on their books. And looking at the stats - who can blame them? As a 58 year old grey haired old f@rt I welcome this as it keeps my premiums down as i do not have to subsidise them. I pay less than £200 for a 4litre V8 Disco modified on LPG. However, subsidising the un-insured is still a problem but the latest kit the police has is tackling this problem. And the best thng? - if a car has no tax no insurance, no MOT - it can be impounded and scrapped. As for the devastation the young reckless car driver can cause - have a look at:- http://www.brake.org.uk/young-drivers-the-hard-facts If you had a 18 year old moron coming at you at 90 in a 60 zone on the wrong side of the road - I for one would think that his insurance premium in £'000's would be a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixie Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 CliveH - 2011-03-22 7:21 PM If you had a 18 year old moron coming at you at 90 in a 60 zone on the wrong side of the road - I for one would think that his insurance premium in £'000's would be a good idea. Possibly, if the effect was to keep said 18 year old moron off the road. But what it actually does is turn him into an uninsured 18 year old moron travelling at 90 mile an hour..... Its not just youngsters. I won't see fifty again and last year my insurance was abou £380. This year, having moved from employed to unemployed status, my old insurer won't take me anymore and the next best quote is £600. What's that about then? John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Dixie - 2011-03-22 7:42 PM CliveH - 2011-03-22 7:21 PM If you had a 18 year old moron coming at you at 90 in a 60 zone on the wrong side of the road - I for one would think that his insurance premium in £'000's would be a good idea. Possibly, if the effect was to keep said 18 year old moron off the road. But what it actually does is turn him into an uninsured 18 year old moron travelling at 90 mile an hour..... Its not just youngsters. I won't see fifty again and last year my insurance was abou £380. This year, having moved from employed to unemployed status, my old insurer won't take me anymore and the next best quote is £600. What's that about then? John. But these days the police can just sit by the road side and a box of tricks identifies the uninsured driver - so the chances of getting away with being uninsured is cut dramatically. I am sorry you are unemployed and even more sad to tell you that it is likely that your previous job was catagorised as a lower risk than the claimsd history for the unemployed. Being unemployed can result in higher premiums and a lot of insurer schemes will not quote for unemployed drivers, because the claims history for unemployed drivers confirms that they do present a higher than average risk. You have experienced this with your previous insurer. A lot of insurers assess their premiums using 'lifestyle' underwriting where employment status plays a large part in understanding the risk that the policyholder presents, so it certainly is important to declare your employment status accurately. It seems that overall the unemployed are more likely to submit motor claims and are so more likely to present what insurers call 'poor risk'. Of course insurers aren't saying that everyone who is unemployed is a higher risk, but on average - they are. The basis of insurance is statistics to calculate the 'average' risk per sector of the population, coupled with the "target market" that insurer wants to deal with. Sadly it seems that this is another kick in the teeth for those who have already taken a kick by losing their job. Hope you find another one soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 pelmetman - 2011-03-22 6:34 PM 8-) You can understand why kids dont bother *-) I am suspicious of the insurance companies using this as an excuse to increase prices, by making it financially impossible for kids to insure their cars, and then blaming them as the reason to increase our premiums :D .......perhaps I've read to many books about conspiracy theories (lol) I remember when I was in my 20's I bought a 1966 3.8's Jag imported from Jersey B-) Cost me £1800 for the car and £1500 for the insurance 3rd party :DWhen I was in my early 20's I had a MK2 Jag and the insurance was £200. I asked the broker why it was cheaper than normal cars and he said it was because they had a lower accident history.I was a bit of a lad as well, so you must have been a bit of a nutter Dave, to have such a high premium. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 peter - 2011-03-22 9:47 PM When I was in my early 20's I had a MK2 Jag and the insurance was £200. I asked the broker why it was cheaper than normal cars and he said it was because they had a lower accident history.I was a bit of a lad as well, so you must have been a bit of a nutter Dave, to have such a high premium. :D No I wasn't the nutter my first wife was *-) who damaged our car several times, once just parking it in the garage 8-) ..........She was later diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic 8-) ..........life was very interesting then!! for want of a better description *-) Plus I was a named driver on her policy for a long time as she had passed her test before me, and I bought the Jag after we split up so I was in effect a new policy holder as far as the insurance company was concerned :D They also charge more if you are a serviceman >:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Don't blame the insurance companies, blame the claimants. Most insurers make little or no profit on motor polices. Reason is that the number of claims has rocketted; and even moire importantly, the cost-per-claim has rocketted much much more. Not from repairs to vehicles, but because of the fad for "personal injury" compo claims, largely fuelled by the no-win-no-fee litigators. Minor bump. Payout cost 20 years ago maybe 500 quid for repairs. Minor bump 2011, payout cost maybe 800 quid for repairs, plus 4,000 quid for loss of possible earnings, pain and suffering from "whiplash" and broken nail, and post traumatic stress disorder, and nightmares, and loss of confidence forever, and counselling, plus 5,000 quid for litigators legal fees, plus 500 quid for ambulance costs, plus 500 quid for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. Who pays for every one of those inflated Personal Injury claims by policyholders? All other policyholders. This years payouts lead to next years premium charges. Honestly, do not blame insurance companies for monster renewal premium increases, blame the policyholders who make all those grasping PI claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred22 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Insurance Companies must take some of the blame for high premiums. A friend of mine was reversing out of a car parking space when the car in the opposite bay also started to reverse. The was a bump, I won't call it a collision, and my friend ended up with a paint scratch which you could have covered with a one pence piece on his bumper, the other party lost some filler out of his bumper. An insurance assessor assessed the contact speed at about 2mph. They exchanged details The other party claimed to be a Policeman but didn't want to call them as no one had been injured. Sometime later my friend received notification from his insurance company that the other party were claiming, damage to his vehicle and whiplash to the driver and his passenger. My friend and his wife made statements to the insurance company but the last they heard was that the insurance company were prepared to settle out of court because ,if they went to court and lost, it could cost far more. My friend pointed out the stupidity of the claim and suggested they called his bluff, but his insurance company didn't want to know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 You can insist that the insurance company does not "play ball with scams" such as this. You should report it to the police as a potential fraud. And you should insist that the insurance company refer the details as a financial crime. They will do this if you insist because if the don't and you report it, they are breaking the law re the reporting of a financial crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred22 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Thanks Clive. Unfortunately my friend and his wife are of such an age that they did not want the aggro of getting more involved, although I suppose by taking this way out, they could be said to have "condoned" the sham. I can see their point to some extent it should be the insurance companies job to stand up to these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.