Insurance for young folk

[tomcamper]

Hello there,

 

I am planning to go travelling around Europe, leaving this summer and staying for an indefinite period of time. However, I haven't acquired a motorhome yet as finding insurance is rather problematic.

Being 21 years of age, I have found that the majority of insurers will not go near me with a 10 foot bargepole! Most have an over 25s only policy.

 

I was wondering if anyone else had encountered similar problems, or if anyone knows of insurance companies that will offer a reasonable quote for young campers.

Thankyou, Tom

[Basil]

Hi tomcamper,

 

I am afraid I can't help much but I am posting to sympathise with your problem which I have experienced in that I wanted to place my son on the insurance as name driver but was refused by the insurer I was with as he is under 25. I found that Budget and Adrian Flux would put him on so they may be worth a try, but bear in mind I was asking for name driver, also SAGA, but I guess from the context of your post You won't be able to use them for another few years! B-) B-)

The stupidity of the situation for us is that he drives a LWB 3.5 tonne Iveco for a living six days a week and has done for the past five years so he probably has as much if not more experience with these size vehicles than a lot of newcomers.

 

Bas

[David Dwight]

Hi Thomas,

 

Theres a new law out now called Age Discrimination.

 

When it first came out the question was asked about age restrictions with vehicle insurance, the answer was its against the law.

 

David

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

David Dwight - 2007-01-13 8:33 PM Hi Thomas, Theres a new law out now called Age Discrimination. When it first came out the question was asked about age restrictions with vehicle insurance, the answer was its against the law. David

The law in question is actually called the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations and is nothing to do with insurance or many other things. In fact as far as I am aware insurance companies are not bound by the provisions of the age regulations.

In my opinion this is absolutely right. It is a well known fact that young male drivers are responsible for a disproportionately high percentage of accidents and it would be grossly unfair for the older and wiser ones amongst us to have to pay for their inexperience, which is what would happen if premiums were 'averaged out' without taking into account sensible actuarial experience.

[euroanchor]

Frank Wilkinson - 2007-01-13 8:49 PM

In my opinion this is absolutely right. It is a well known fact that young male drivers are responsible for a disproportionately high percentage of accidents and it would be grossly unfair for the older and wiser ones amongst us to have to pay for their inexperience, which is what would happen if premiums were 'averaged out' without taking into account sensible actuarial experience.

With all due respect Frank, the average young boy racer you are refering to, is hardly the same as a young lad wishing to go touring in a camper, is it ?That is like saying, all over 55's are doddery old gits. It's not true (?), and it's not fair.If the original poster hasn't already tried the specialist motorhome brokers, try The NFU, I have a lot of policies with them, and they did give me a good quote for the M/home, it was only the limited contents section that stopped me taking it out. And no, you dont have to be a farmer to use them

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Euroanchor, of course there are different types of young drivers. Some are responsible, some most definitely are not. However, insurance companies base their premiums on actuarial evidence and that evidence clearly states that the younger you are, the more likely you are to have an accident.

Not all of this of course is due to recklessness but it is commonsense that younger drivers are, by definition, much less experienced, which in itself can contribute to accidents.

I never even implied that our correspondent is a boy racer but was obviously talking in general terms and it is equally unfair of you to put words in my mouth.

Regrettably, the facts speak for themselves. Younger and very older people have more accidents. People who live in certain areas have more burglaries and insurance companies can only calculate their risk by the figures that are available.

Finally, if you'd like a small wager, try ringing the NFU for a policy quote and tell them that you're 21. Then ring them again and tell them that you're 26. I'll bet you whatever you like that the 26 year-old will be quoted substantially less.

[euroanchor]

Frank Wilkinson - 2007-01-15 10:07 AM

 

I never even implied that our correspondent is a boy racer but was obviously talking in general terms and it is equally unfair of you to put words in my mouth

 

Finally, if you'd like a small wager, try ringing the NFU for a policy quote and tell them that you're 21. Then ring them again and tell them that you're 26. I'll bet you whatever you like that the 26 year-old will be quoted substantially less.

 

 

Frank. Firstly I didn't put words in your mouth, I merely copied your post.

 

So you think a 21 year old with 4 years driving on the road has less experience than a 45 year old who has been driving for 6 months.

 

Secondly, Why would you want to make a bet with me ? I never suggested the NFU would quote the same for a 21 year old and a 25 year old.

 

I was trying to be helpful to a young lad who was having problems getting insurance. What help or advice did you offer ?

 

 

P.S. Good luck with your search Tomcamper, let us know how you get on.

 

[euroanchor]

Hi Tom, back to your original dilemma (?) my friend had quite a lot of problems insuring his camper because it was a home conversion, I dont know if thats your situation or not, have you tried getting quotes for pehaps an older coachbuilt. Just a thought, hope it helps and good luck

 

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

euroanchor - 2007-01-15 11:46 AM

Frank Wilkinson - 2007-01-15 10:07 AM I never even implied that our correspondent is a boy racer but was obviously talking in general terms and it is equally unfair of you to put words in my mouth Finally, if you'd like a small wager, try ringing the NFU for a policy quote and tell them that you're 21. Then ring them again and tell them that you're 26. I'll bet you whatever you like that the 26 year-old will be quoted substantially less.

Frank. Firstly I didn't put words in your mouth, I merely copied your post. So you think a 21 year old with 4 years driving on the road has less experience than a 45 year old who has been driving for 6 months. Secondly, Why would you want to make a bet with me ? I never suggested the NFU would quote the same for a 21 year old and a 25 year old. I was trying to be helpful to a young lad who was having problems getting insurance. What help or advice did you offer ? P.S. Good luck with your search Tomcamper, let us know how you get on.

Why are you so antagonistic? I was helping the original poster by telling him that the claim made by David Dwight, in which he said that charging extra for people of different ages is not legal anymore. I presumed that this would save him and others going down a road that would not help.

By explaining why insurance companies feel it necessary to charge more for younger drivers I was merely pointing out why the government has not included services in the age discrimination legislation. You then say things such as:

With all due respect Frank, the average young boy racer you are refering to, is hardly the same as a young lad wishing to go touring in a camper, is it ?

That is like saying, all over 55's are doddery old gits. It's not true , and it's not fair.

I never mentioned anything about Tomcamper, the original poster but was merely pointing out how insurance companies work out their risk. And where did I ever mention anything about older drivers in my original post? You then suggest to me that I'm criticising them and how unfair it is.

You then say:

So you think a 21 year old with 4 years driving on the road has less experience than a 45 year old who has been driving for 6 months.

Where did I ever suggest such a thing? This is an unbelieveably unintelligent accusation to make. I was obviously talking in general terms, and in general terms younger drivers have less experience than older ones. Of course you'll get the odd older one who has just started driving but he would be picked up by the insurance company anyway, because as should be obvious to anyone, companies take the years of driving experience just as seriously as they do the age of the applicant.

I really am puzzled by what motive you have for attacking me yet again and by constantly using such silly examples as the one about older people with six months' experience not being as good a driver as a 21-year-old with four years' experience. Why suggest that I would think that this isn't the case when I have never ever mentioned anything remotely like this? Unlike you I can never see any point in cluttering up the discussion with what is normally known as 'the bleeding obvious'.

I'd be really grateful if, in future, you would read my posts properly and not infer things that are simply not there. I've no desire to argue with you but for some reason you seem to delight in trying to attack what in this case was a perfectly sensible response to someone who made a complete wrong statement about age legislation.

 

 

 

[Tony Jones]

Hang on a minute, aren't we getting off the subject?

As I understood it, the problem we were asked about wasn't loaded premiums, whatever we may think about that. It was that a recognised insurer wouldn't cover the guy at all.

 

Since the LAW obliges us all to be insured with a recognised insurer, I think the LAW should insist that insurers will cover everyone legally permitted to drive. Of course, they should be free to charge what they regard as an appropriate premium, but since they get the benefit of a law which makes us all patronise them, they shouldn't have the option simply to refuse cover. It's the courts' job to disqualify bad or dangerous drivers, not the insurance industry's!

 

Tony (age 54, but I remember what it was like!)

[Vixter]

Hi Tom

 

Back on topic now, stop the pointless squabbling lads - what will this young man think of us?

 

Do you want to buy a smallish camper van (eg based on a VW T4/T5) or a fully-fledged motorhome? If it is the former, well - UK is full of youngsters whizzing around in VW campers, check out a few of the VW owners/campers clubs, there are many to choose from. I'm sure they can advise you.

 

If it is the latter, sorry, I can't help you.

 

Good luck on your adventure, where there's a will - there's a way!!

 

Vixter

 

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

Tony Jones - 2007-01-15 1:39 PM Hang on a minute, aren't we getting off the subject? As I understood it, the problem we were asked about wasn't loaded premiums, whatever we may think about that. It was that a recognised insurer wouldn't cover the guy at all. Since the LAW obliges us all to be insured with a recognised insurer, I think the LAW should insist that insurers will cover everyone legally permitted to drive. Of course, they should be free to charge what they regard as an appropriate premium, but since they get the benefit of a law which makes us all patronise them, they shouldn't have the option simply to refuse cover. It's the courts' job to disqualify bad or dangerous drivers, not the insurance industry's! Tony (age 54, but I remember what it was like!)

Tony, if you read his post thoroughly you will see that he said that 'a majority of insurerers won't touch him with a bargepole'. To me this implies that some of them will, but I suspect that he may have been quoted mouth-watering premiums.

I'm not sure that it is just to force insurance companies to insure people whom they consider not worth the risk. If a man has three convictions for reckless driving whilst under the influence for instance, why should anyone be forced to insure him?

Most insurers (apart from the obvious specialist ones like Saga for instance) will insure a young driver. It just costs a lot of money!

Tomcamper is I'm sure a perfectly respectable and sensible young man but he is going to drive a motorhome, which he's never driven before, on the Continent, where he may never have driven before, so it is fairly clear to me that his chances of having a prang are substantially greater than if he were to be driving his ordinary car in the U.K. I can well understand an insurance company being cautious, or demanding a higher than normal premium.

[Basil]

So frank,

 

How does that stack up with my son's position, he has driven vans as large as the motorhome continuously for a living since he was 17 thats five years, accident free and his company's national driver of the year two years running, has full no claims bonus on his own car yet only two or possibly three would entertain him as a name driver on my policy, sorry does not stack up.

 

How is this young person, I mean Tom here, ever going to be able to start up and prove his record with cherry picking practises by insurance companies, he should be given the oportunity to prove his skills he isn't being given any.

 

Bas

[Mel E]

Basil,

 

Most insurance companies will take expeience such as your son's into account, and he'll get a lower premium as a result. Many young people, such as your son, manage tyo build up such experience using company vehicles with company-wide insurance.

 

Tomcamper's best move to achieve the same thing would be to contact his local branch of the Institute of Advanced Motorists and take their training and test.

 

As far as insurance companies are concerned, I have pointed out several times before in this forum that they are BUSINESSES that must make a PROFIT. They are basically gambling and the actuarial tables enable them to calculate the odds for particular driver groups in specific home locations. If the actuarial data says an x-year old living in y-postcode has a 90% chance of having an accident every year, they really would be fools to take on this gamble, wouldn't they? I exaggerate to make the point.

 

One quarter of all deaths on the road involve drivers in the 17 to 25 age group. That makes them extremely expensive to insure because death and serious injury accidents cost insurance companies far, far more than simply repairing a bit of auto hardware. I admit it: I had a car write-off accident when I was 22 and my son did when he was 18. Neither of us has had even a scrape since then - in my case for over 40 years. The statistics do not lie!

 

Which is why so many drivers, expecially young and irresponsible ones, now drive without insurance. Something like 1 in 15 drivers on British roads is uninsured. But when it costs several times more than the banger's worth to insure it, you can see why. When caught, they get a criminal record which will follow them for the rest of their lives, of course.

 

These averages are, of course, unfair to those under-25s who are sane and very careful. Which is why I suggest Tom demonstrates his sanity with a Advance Motorists Course.

 

=====

Mel E

 

[euroanchor]

Frank.

 

In future I will refrain from contributing to any thread you have posted on. Your answers are pedantic and contradictory. You persistently twist others words to suit your own arguements. And it's no wonder people fall out with you, however do I really care ? I hope the following explains it all....

 

[Clive]

You could always get a parent as the first named driver and get yourself added to the policy as another named driver. That,s if they trust you though!

 

[Basil]

Hi MelE and Clive,

 

I do understand what you are saying Mel but, and in answer to Clive here as well, I could not get my son put on my insurance until he is 25 despite his good and proven track record, at any price. So Clive's post although trying to be helpful won't help with most companies until the young person is 25.

There has to be a better way. I know that I will never give my business to Comfort or any of the other companies that unfairly refused to insure my son, I hope also that Tom will remember those that have not helped him and not give them his busness in the future, fortunately in my experience they have never been the best value for me anyway.

 

Bas

[Norma]

When the insurance company - Saga! - wouldn't insure our kids we changed company. Both of our children have driven our Merc Sprinter van since passing their tests 10 years ago. Oddly I considered the van far more dangerous than our turbo Volvo.

However, on purchase of the motorhome he asked very quickly to borrow it! Thankfully it's insured for over 35s so, shame, we had to refuse him. No chance of him getting our toy to play with. Though with his perfect driving record I would trust him to drive it, so we haven't tried to extend the insurance.

 

Good luck Tom. And sorry for the sniping. Some of us do manage to keep the toys in the pram...

!

[David Dwight]

Frank.

 

I suggest you read what people say before you knock them, I did not say it was illegal to charge them more. I said that age discrimination comes into this.

 

We had an example at work recently where an under 25 was not allowed to drive a Minibus, now they can because it was discrimination. OK so it costs the organisation more, thats there problem.

If you are under 25 you normally have to pay more for insurance.

 

My son when he was an apprentice actualy drove a vehicle as big as a motohome, no one said you cant because your under 25.

 

David

 

 

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

euroanchor - 2007-01-15 4:25 PM Frank. In future I will refrain from contributing to any thread you have posted on. Your answers are pedantic and contradictory. You persistently twist others words to suit your own arguements. And it's no wonder people fall out with you, however do I really care ? I hope the following explains it all....

Thank God for that! One less thicko giving examples that are totally irrelevent!

Once again, when you cannot come up with a good argument for the nonsense that you've spouted about my perfectly sensible post you come up with your old trick of saying how I'm twisting your words and that you're going to take your bat and ball home.

You were the one who attacked my response, which was purely advising about what the age discrimination law was really about.

You were the moron who came up with the self-evident nonsense about 17 year-olds with four years' experience being less risk than 45 year olds with six months.

I would just ask anyone wishing to see who's at fault here to read my post and then read your antagonistic response to it.

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

David Dwight - 2007-01-15 8:11 PM Frank. I suggest you read what people say before you knock them, I did not say it was illegal to charge them more. I said that age discrimination comes into this. We had an example at work recently where an under 25 was not allowed to drive a Minibus, now they can because it was discrimination. OK so it costs the organisation more, thats there problem. If you are under 25 you normally have to pay more for insurance. My son when he was an apprentice actualy drove a vehicle as big as a motohome, no one said you cant because your under 25. David

I'm sorry but I wasn't knocking you, but simply stating that what you appeared to say was wrong. This is what you said:

When it first came out the question was asked about age restrictions with vehicle insurance, the answer was its against the law.

This quite clearly implies that it is illegal to charge different rates for different ages. This is not the case. The age discrimination legislation is purely an employment law. It is not illegal to discriminate (if that's even the correct word) in the supply of services. If it were then train companies for instance would not be allowed to give discounts for senior citizens or even students.

I'm sorry if you thought that I was knocking you. There is a big difference between knocking someone and merely disagreeing with them. I was simply disagreeing you.

Knocking is what euroanchor does with me when he takes a perfectly sensible post and twists what I've said for the pure point, as far as I can make out, of having a go at me.

Finally, I am an employer with a fleet of fifteen vehicles and there are certain vehicles that cannot be driven on my fleet policy by young and inexperienced drivers. As far as I am aware there is no legislation that forces me to allow a 17 year old who has just passed his test to be allowed to drive on of our more powerful cars.

[michele]

Well just for the record I agree with what Mel E say's, Basils summing up& euroanchor .

When I was a bus Driver at the ripe young age of 21 I got a reduced premium for what was known in the trade as a professional driver.

How can these kid's get a start ? I am having the same problem with my daughter in the sense of we have bought her a car need's must she has a long way to travel for her job .

She really needs a van I asked the insurance company if they would insure her on our VW 8 seater and they did not want to know . Now what I don't understand is the VW is diesel slower and has good vision high up . The car I cannot say the same for, how are these youngsters to get a chance. I understand what Mel E is saying and yes they are a business but not every business should be allowed to pick and choose who and what . This is discrimination in it's own right . If she choose to drive a bus as a living that would be recognised just because she had a PSV licence?

but not because she wants to be a Farrier ? weird ...... Most of the people I worked with did not even have a car licence and had only sat a PSV test because they were conductors on the back of buses and moved on.

 

No car experience No driving licence just a provisional stamped with the relevant stamp after they have passed their PSV test . I know who I would rather have . It's a silly law one should only be penalised after an event and if it was proven to be your fault which they do anyway .

 

I suppose we are in an all loose situation really they get us what everway they can . Just out of interest I bet I pay more than all of you people for our camper insurance I wonder why age again I hold PSV Full D Licence

and class one HGV He holds Met Police advanced ...........

 

Believe me it's not for the lack of shopping around so it must be age ?

At MY Age .....

 

 

*-)

[euroanchor]

Frank Wilkinson - 2007-01-15 11:03 PMThank God for that! One less thicko giving examples that are totally irrelevent!

Once again, when you cannot come up with a good argument for the nonsense that you've spouted about my perfectly sensible post you come up with your old trick of saying how I'm twisting your words and that you're going to take your bat and ball home.

You were the one who attacked my response, which was purely advising about what the age discrimination law was really about.

You were the moron who came up with the self-evident nonsense about 17 year-olds with four years' experience being less risk than 45 year olds with six months.

I would just ask anyone wishing to see who's at fault here to read my post and then read your antagonistic response to it.

That's it, I'm telling my mum on you, you are so mean and nasty on here, However, I refuse to be drawn into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.Here's me. Thats so you can ignore me when you see me.

[Guest Frank Wilkinson]

euroanchor - 2007-01-16 8:11 AM

Frank Wilkinson - 2007-01-15 11:03 PM Thank God for that! One less thicko giving examples that are totally irrelevent!

Once again, when you cannot come up with a good argument for the nonsense that you've spouted about my perfectly sensible post you come up with your old trick of saying how I'm twisting your words and that you're going to take your bat and ball home.

You were the one who attacked my response, which was purely advising about what the age discrimination law was really about.

You were the moron who came up with the self-evident nonsense about 17 year-olds with four years' experience being less risk than 45 year olds with six months.

I would just ask anyone wishing to see who's at fault here to read my post and then read your antagonistic response to it.

That's it, I'm telling my mum on you, you are so mean and nasty on here, However, I refuse to be drawn into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Here's me. Thats so you can ignore me when you see me.

Regrettably, you are incapable of completing any argument. Time and time again you spurt some nonsense and having painted yourself into a corner and having no intelligent reponse, you revert to the old trick of complaining that you've had you're words twisted.

Members should note that your antagonism towards me, which is clearly revealed in the post about my explanation of the age discrimination laws, stems from an earlier debate in which once again, you were left with egg on your face.

In a topic about Talex speed camera detectors some weeks earlier, I mentioned that one of my staff had elected to take three points and a £60 fine rather than attend a full day speed awareness course at a cost of £100.

You waded in, completely unaware of the facts and implied that he mustn't be very bright. Even after I told you that he drove a van on our fleet policy, and that he wouldn't be affected in any way by the points, you persisted in trying to convince everyone that he was in error as his private car policy would be affected. Again I informed you that he didn't have a private car and that he drove my small van as his personal vehicle but still you persisted!

Again, you eventually painted yourself into a corner and again you ended up looking stupid, not by me, but by your own silly pronouncements.

Now you're doing it again! Since then you seem to delight in having a go at me. Well I'm sorry if you were hurt, but get over it for God's sake.

Do us all a favour, if you want an intelligent debate, debate intelligently. Answer my points, points that are quite clear, but most of all, please stop this juvenile and pathetic posting of silly little images that do nothing but prove what a vindictive little idiot you are.

[Basil]

Hi Tom,

 

If you are still bothering to look with all the sillyness going on here! I was thinking about your predicament and it occurred to me, obviously not knowing your buying circumstances, if you were to buy a van ten or more years old you may well be able to insure it under a 'Classic' policy I know it is ten years or less now for cars. Someone like Adrian Flux should be able to help, the advantage of this is they are a fixed cost policy on an agreed sum insured and generally (in my experience) have no built in age (of the policy holder that is) discrimination being more focussed on the vehicle. The disadvantage is that they normally are a flat rate policy that attracts no NCB so what you pay this year is what you pay for ever, plus inflation of course, but it may tide you over until you break the 25 years hurdle. I insure two historic vehicles, the first cost £76 and the second was added on for £19.90, they are both Excise free as well! :-D :-D :-D

 

Just a thought in the hope of being helpful!

 

Bas