Insurers discriminate against certain age groups

[Will86]

Although probably more skilled and safer on the road, drivers above a certain age are discriminated against.

 

Its impossible to change companies or barter with them.

 

Health risks lead to a higher premium which is an acceptable cost. BUT at the end of an insurance period a payback should be given for having no claims.

 

The whole system is a con against certain groups.

 

Will

 

 

[flicka]

Especially annoying when all the media warning of big Car Insurance hikes being imminent & then yesterday's biggest riser in the FT250 was an Insurer, Esure, due to 18% rise in annual pre-tax profits.

[StuartO]

The word discriminate simply means choose and although it's illegal to choose on the basis of sexual orientation etc, it is perfectly legal to discrimniate against drivers on the basis of age.  Insurers tell us that older drivers (as younger drivers) cause more claims, so they charge higher premiums.  If that's all there is to it, and the excess is in proprtion, we would have no grounds for complaint.

 

Unfortunately it isn't as simple as that an insurers do sneakily discriminate in an unfair way against older people, for example by refusing (and presumable all agreeing to refuse) new applications from older proposers, so they are stuck with their existing insurer, who hikes the premiums as they get older with impunity.  Older people become a captive market.

 

I don'tknow whether it would be possible to tackle this as running a cartel, but denying older people access to a free market might be in some way illegal.  If it happens to you, write to your MP.

 

Alternatively forming a older drivers' pressure group to campaign against specific insurers might have impact.  Such a group might have value in securing fair rates or even discounts in other areas.  Whether it would succeed would depend on numbers - how many would join.

 

An individual driver came exercise some leverage by using the same insurer for as many policies as possible, especially including those for which no age restriction on new applicants applies.  I rang LV, my motor insurer, last year to tell them that I had clashed door mirrors with someone (but no claim was likely) and when renewal time came around they more than doubled the premium - because "the file was still open" in case a claim was made.  I wrote to the Chief Executive complaining about unfair treatment and also pointing ut that if I had to leave LV for motoring insurance they would lose half a dozen other policies too - and the file was quickly closed and I got a replacement renewal notice at the same premium as last year.

 

Moaning on a forum such as this will have no impact at all.  Writing to the Chief Executive does no harm at all as long as you have a logical argument and stay polite.

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

This link may be of interest

 

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/age-discrimination

 

If there were to be an age cut-off point for driving, I believe 80 would be realistic. I’ve known quite a few people who were competent drivers in their 70s, but became increasingly unsafe once they had passed 80.

 

If it were to be argued that some elderly drivers will retain their competence well after 80, let any driver who believes they are in that position agree to be medically examined at age 80 and regularly afterwards (as now happens at age 70 if you want to retain a C1 driving-licence entitlement) and also agree to take a driving test.

[starvin marvin]

It appears to be a fact that older and younger drivers have more accidents. So who would you charge more if you were taking the risk? Get real, Simples.

[StuartO]

starvin marvin - 2017-03-12 10:07 AMIt appears to be a fact that older and younger drivers have more accidents. So who would you charge more if you were taking the risk? Get real, Simples.

 

It's not really as simple, nor as black and white, as that though is it?

 

Insurers have started using black boxes to monitor the driving performance of younger drivers and they also apply constraints like excluding driving with a bunch of other young people on board or a late evening curfew, as a way of controlling risk.  The whole business is shades of grey rather than black or white.

 

Insurers don't publish their accident statistics and different companies will have adopted different age thresholds for premium increase or exclusion, because commercial considerations come into their decision making as well as accident-risk-by-age.

 

Holding a driving licence is currently an all-or-none-thing and older drivers cannot be given a restricted licence.  But, for example, daylight driving only might be quite a powerful way of reducing risk for older drivers whose eyesight isn't what it was, such as those developing a cataract. 

 

Lots of older drivers self-regulate already by driving only on a restricted basis, for example they may really only need their car for local area driving.  I often hear of older drivers being advised by their consultant opthalmologist just to restrict their driving, even though the law says they should still declare the problem to DVLA so that they an decide.

 

There is lots of scope for making better checks on older drivers, including using black boxes as well as requiring driving tests.  Unfortunately our driving test system focuses on testing people who are becoming drivers for the first time and we don't currently have any official driving tests suitable for test whether older drivers are still safe at all.

 

I did a voluntary driving assessment/tuition session provided by my County Council to help older drivers stay safer on the roads and it was extremely useful but that sort of thing requires funding and standardisation if it were to be adopted nationally.  I think my County Council only ran the scheme for a while for funding reasons but a scheme of that sort would have tremendous potential to help older drivers both prove they were still safe and help them realise when they weren't really staying safe again too.