Insurance - Wtf Is Going On?

[AdeV]

2 years ago, I could easily get a sub-£400 quote for my LS400.

Last year, nothing under 600... but my renewal was only a shade over 400, so I went with that.

About 3-4 months ago, looking to insure a second one, and all my quotes were in the 800+ range...

Today, same car same terms etc., nothing less than £1400.

This is utterly stupid! I'm trying to insure a £600 car to sit on the road outside my house (I don't even want to drive the damn thing, I just need the space in my shed!), and the greedy thieves want £1400 for the pleasure of? That £1400, btw, was third party ONLY. Fully comp rises to a whopping £1800!

I know CH44 isn't exactly a salubrious postcode to live in, but honestly, this is just stupid money.

</rant>

[abs66]

Thats a disgusting price hike. We are so ripped off in this country.

[Parrot of Doom]

Blame the idiots who sue for whiplash, and the criminals who create false claims.

My solution would be the following:

1. Third-party insurance for all people/cars, paid for from general taxation

2. Fully-comp available through private insurers, should the driver want it

3. Make "no win no fee" illegal

4. Insurance quotes based on actual accident statistics, and not "size of engine" or "it was £50k new, yes we know it's worth £2k now but it was still a £50k car".

5. Why do we still have VED? Get rid of it, the difference to be paid for from fuel taxation.

[abs66]

I 100% agree with you Parrot, maybe we could get rid of those cringe worthy tv adverts too.

The problem is, you have used a logical common sense approach to the problem which does does not yield the same amount of cash for the government and big business so it's unlikely we will ever get a sensible and fair solution such as the one you propose.

[dave1]

Blame the idiots who sue for whiplash, and the criminals who create false claims.

My solution would be the following:

1. Third-party insurance for all people/cars, paid for from general taxation

2. Fully-comp available through private insurers, should the driver want it

3. Make "no win no fee" illegal

4. Insurance quotes based on actual accident statistics, and not "size of engine" or "it was £50k new, yes we know it's worth £2k now but it was still a £50k car".

5. Why do we still have VED? Get rid of it, the difference to be paid for from fuel taxation.

You make some good points but I can't see how your 1st point would be workable. Are you saying that everyone should pay a tax to cover 3rd party insurance and if so who would be covered by it and what would the criteria be? I firmly believe that cyclists should have to be insured too.

With regards to your final point, it would make very little difference to the cost of fuel (maybe .5p/ltr.) but would ensure that it was paid by everyone using our roads...including drivers from other countries who currently pay nothing to use our roads. It would also make it fairer for all motorists as the mileage covered and engine size would be reflected in the amount paid.

[Bluesman]

Blame the idiots who sue for whiplash, and the criminals who create false claims.

My solution would be the following:

1. Third-party insurance for all people/cars, paid for from general taxation

2. Fully-comp available through private insurers, should the driver want it

3. Make "no win no fee" illegal

4. Insurance quotes based on actual accident statistics, and not "size of engine" or "it was £50k new, yes we know it's worth £2k now but it was still a £50k car".

5. Why do we still have VED? Get rid of it, the difference to be paid for from fuel taxation.

You make some good points but I can't see how your 1st point would be workable. Are you saying that everyone should pay a tax to cover 3rd party insurance and if so who would be covered by it and what would the criteria be? I firmly believe that cyclists should have to be insured too.

With regards to your final point, it would make very little difference to the cost of fuel (maybe .5p/ltr.) but would ensure that it was paid by everyone using our roads...including drivers from other countries who currently pay nothing to use our roads. It would also make it fairer for all motorists as the mileage covered and engine size would be reflected in the amount paid.

As I have said before and will keep saying, when something is a requirement by the law of this land it should be provided by the government and thats all of it not just the Third Party element.

I agree with you where bicycles are concerned they should also carry insurance and I would also include Road Tax and be fitted with number plates.

4. Insurance quotes based on actual accident statistics, and not "size of engine" or "it was £50k new, yes we know it's worth £2k now but it was still a £50k car".

Here Here.

Mike

[dave1]

As I have said before and will keep saying, when something is a requirement by the law of this land it should be provided by the government and thats all of it not just the Third Party element.

I agree with you where bicycles are concerned they should also carry insurance and I would also include Road Tax and be fitted with number plates.

4. Insurance quotes based on actual accident statistics, and not "size of engine" or "it was £50k new, yes we know it's worth £2k now but it was still a £50k car".

Here Here.

Mike

Regarding insurance, the ONLY requirement of "the law of this land" is for Third Party insurance. Fire and Theft or Fully Comp (own vehicle damage) are optional "extras" sold by Insurance providers but are not a legal requirement.

[Bluesman]

As I have said before and will keep saying, when something is a requirement by the law of this land it should be provided by the government and thats all of it not just the Third Party element.

I agree with you where bicycles are concerned they should also carry insurance and I would also include Road Tax and be fitted with number plates.

4. Insurance quotes based on actual accident statistics, and not "size of engine" or "it was £50k new, yes we know it's worth £2k now but it was still a £50k car".

Here Here.

Mike

Regarding insurance, the ONLY requirement of "the law of this land" is for Third Party insurance. Fire and Theft or Fully Comp (own vehicle damage) are optional "extras" sold by Insurance providers but are not a legal requirement.

I dont think you understood what I put but to clarify I would do away with Third Party insurance and have comprehensive insurance which is supplied by the government.

Mike

[dave1]

I dont think you understood what I put but to clarify I would do away with Third Party insurance and have comprehensive insurance which is supplied by the government.

Mike

Thank you for clarifying what you meant. I honestly think that if that was implemented it would be a terrible move. Everyone being insured for damage to their own cars would surely not provide any incentive to drive sensibly if you know that any damage will be rectified at no cost to you.

I could possibly agree with 3rd Party insurance by the Government because drivers would not want to damage their own cars. I can just see it with fully comp......guy has a tatty rear wing so just reverse into another car in a carpark and claim on government insurance for a nice new shiny rear wing.

[ManicMark]

2 years ago, I could easily get a sub-£400 quote for my LS400.

Last year, nothing under 600... but my renewal was only a shade over 400, so I went with that.

About 3-4 months ago, looking to insure a second one, and all my quotes were in the 800+ range...

Today, same car same terms etc., nothing less than £1400.

This is utterly stupid! I'm trying to insure a £600 car to sit on the road outside my house (I don't even want to drive the damn thing, I just need the space in my shed!), and the greedy thieves want £1400 for the pleasure of? That £1400, btw, was third party ONLY. Fully comp rises to a whopping £1800!

I know CH44 isn't exactly a salubrious postcode to live in, but honestly, this is just stupid money.

</rant>

Try Sky insurance they normally have the best deals or Adrian flux not to shabby either.

[Bluesman]

I dont think you understood what I put but to clarify I would do away with Third Party insurance and have comprehensive insurance which is supplied by the government.

Mike

Thank you for clarifying what you meant. I honestly think that if that was implemented it would be a terrible move. Everyone being insured for damage to their own cars would surely not provide any incentive to drive sensibly if you know that any damage will be rectified at no cost to you.

I could possibly agree with 3rd Party insurance by the Government because drivers would not want to damage their own cars. I can just see it with fully comp......guy has a tatty rear wing so just reverse into another car in a carpark and claim on government insurance for a nice new shiny rear wing.

I wouldnt get rid of the No Claims Bonus either. That would take care of that problem. The trouble is no matter what system you put in place either by the government or privately someone will always find a way of dubiously making a claim for damage.

All those things you mention are done on a daily basis now.

There is allot of money to be made out of Motor insurance, if there wasn't there wouldn't be so many wanting to get in on the act.

Your premiums are high because the Insurance companies are just plain greedy.

Mike

[dave1]

I wouldnt get rid of the No Claims Bonus either. That would take care of that problem. Mike

But if the insurance is funded by taxation how can you implement a No Claims Discount for individuals.

Sorry to sort of hijack original thread but I'm intrigued by how this idea could ever work.

[Canoehq]

There is allot of money to be made out of Motor insurance, if there wasn't there wouldn't be so many wanting to get in on the act.

Your premiums are high because the Insurance companies are just plain greedy.

Mike

I certainly don't want to turn this into a 'Party Political Broadcast' as I have worked in financial markets for the past 25 years, but completely agree with Mike.

It is pure greed by the various companies involved, nothing more and nothing less, with companies such as car insurer Admiral already forecast to make almost £300 million of profit next year. No doubt this greed also extends to other vital services we cannot do without, such as water, gas and electricity, where it is almost morally obscene that our news seems to be filled with stories of ever constant price rises to levels that ordinary people can no longer afford in these difficult economic times, yet where Scottish & Southern Energy report pre-tax profits of £2.1 billion last year, Centica (gas) £2.8 billion, National Grid (Elec) £2.6 billion.

When is enough enough and will car insurance go the same way, as we have no choice but to buy it, whatever the cost ?

........OK, soapbox away now !

[Bluesman]

I wouldnt get rid of the No Claims Bonus either. That would take care of that problem. Mike

But if the insurance is funded by taxation how can you implement a No Claims Discount for individuals.

Sorry to sort of hijack original thread but I'm intrigued by how this idea could ever work.

By car owners paying Insurance premiums as they do at present.

Straight across the board taxation is unfair and penalises those who do not own vehicles.

When did you last hear of an motor insurance co going busy dispite their bleating about young driver etc

Mike

[Parrot of Doom]

You make some good points but I can't see how your 1st point would be workable. Are you saying that everyone should pay a tax to cover 3rd party insurance and if so who would be covered by it and what would the criteria be? I firmly believe that cyclists should have to be insured too.

With regards to your final point, it would make very little difference to the cost of fuel (maybe .5p/ltr.) but would ensure that it was paid by everyone using our roads...including drivers from other countries who currently pay nothing to use our roads. It would also make it fairer for all motorists as the mileage covered and engine size would be reflected in the amount paid.

Yes, just like anything else that's free at the point of use. It would ensure that everyone is insured, saving police time dealing with uninsured drivers, and significantly reducing instances of failure to stop.

Cyclists have a common law right to use the roads, just like pedestrians and horse riders. If cyclists are to be insured (and a great many already are), then the same would apply to the other two groups. Frankly though, cyclists don't need insurance, because cyclists don't tend to be at the centre of massive, expensive accidents.

[Parrot of Doom]

I agree with you where bicycles are concerned they should also carry insurance and I would also include Road Tax and be fitted with number plates.

Impossible to enforce.

[Bluesman]

There is allot of money to be made out of Motor insurance, if there wasn't there wouldn't be so many wanting to get in on the act.

Your premiums are high because the Insurance companies are just plain greedy.

Mike

I certainly don't want to turn this into a 'Party Political Broadcast' as I have worked in financial markets for the past 25 years, but completely agree with Mike.

It is pure greed by the various companies involved, nothing more and nothing less, with companies such as car insurer Admiral already forecast to make almost £300 million of profit next year. No doubt this greed also extends to other vital services we cannot do without, such as water, gas and electricity, where it is almost morally obscene that our news seems to be filled with stories of ever constant price rises to levels that ordinary people can no longer afford in these difficult economic times, yet where Scottish & Southern Energy report pre-tax profits of £2.1 billion last year, Centica (gas) £2.8 billion, National Grid (Elec) £2.6 billion.

When is enough enough and will car insurance go the same way, as we have no choice but to buy it, whatever the cost ?

........OK, soapbox away now !

Thanks for the profit figures.

When is enough enough and will car insurance go the same way, as we have no choice but to buy it, whatever the cost ?

Its already happening.

When will we as a country turn round and say a big loud NO

Mike

[DaveB]

Just renewed my insurance. LS460, clean licence, good NCD, 56 year old. Price was 467 on Admiral multi car policy.

[Bluesman]

Just renewed my insurance. LS460, clean licence, good NCD, 56 year old. Price was 467 on Admiral multi car policy.

I renewed by LS400 1998 last month over 60 live in the middle of the Hampshire countryside £307 FC with an excess (£200)

Mike

[Scribe]

I think we all have to accept that the world of motor insurance is not like it was when many of us started motoring 30+ years ago. In those days it was either cheap from the high street 'bucket shops' or more expensive from the bigger-name, supposedly more reputable companies such as Norwich Union, General Accident etc. Prices went up slightly each year but not by much, and as you built up your no claims discount the price you paid gradually went down. All that seems to have changed, partly because things like age, occupation, type of car and level of cover no longer seem to have such an obvious effect on the premium. The whole thing seems more random - prices vary wildly from year to year, for no obvious reason, which is why most of us change insurer every 12 months.

I may be wrong, but I think this is connected to the expansion of the financial services sector. Now that we manufacture so little in this country, people are forced to sell services rather than products, which is why we're pressurised to buy all different types of insurance that we never bought in the old days - personal accident cover, loss of income etc. etc. And it's sold to us by generating fear and making us feel unsafe without it. The same is true of breakdown cover, which used to be either AA or RAC, and usually you stuck with the same company for years. Today, all these companies are desperate to sell us a service (which we hope we won't need), which is why the best deals are always for new customers, not loyal existing ones. That's another reason why we change insurer every year. When I had car insurance through the AA it was cheaper for me to take out a new policy than renew an existing one - until I complained, at which point they offered to price-match the new policy.

The proof that this is more profit-driven than before is that there are no fixed premiums any more. If you ring for a quote, the company doesn't tell you its price. They ask, 'How much have you been quoted already?' and then try to match it. In other words, their best price is flexible, which means that some people MUST be overpaying for the same level of cover.

End of sermon.

[Boozybloke]

[snip]

End of sermon.

Amen brother

[Kerja]

see, from where I'm from, we have two insurance's one is Third Party ONLY which is obligatory, and you can go for fully comp if you want. The third party one depends on your NCB etc... and fully comp depends on the market price of the car ONLY. so as an example, my folks CLK Merc 06 plate cost them £120 (A YEAR) to insure third party, and additional £500 on top for fully comp (a year again) and only the car needs to be insured, so I can drive it, or whoever has the drivers license and our V5 of the car present (we have a small laminated V5 card) if you stopped by the plod, you are free to drive it. No need to be insured on it as a named driver or such.

When I used-to have Smart ForTwo back home (Latvia I'm talking about, not what you thought) I used to pay £50 a year for third party insurance, and that was me. Now I'm paying smth like a grand for lexus here, which is still a lot, but i'm under 25. Hope to get better quote when I'm 25 though.

[submarinewasher]

"The proof that this is more profit-driven than before is that there are no fixed premiums any more. If you ring for a quote, the company doesn't tell you its price. They ask, 'How much have you been quoted already?' and then try to match it. In other words, their best price is flexible, which means that some people MUST be overpaying for the same level of cover."

= Rug dealers from Morocco to Indonesia. The difference is that the rug delaer's word is their bond and they have personal accountability.

"When will we as a country turn round and say a big loud NO"

You can't. It's illegal. We will get stun-tazed and sent to Guantanamo if we speak up.

However, if what we're protesting about isn't too important (fuel and road and insuance and taxes) then we will be tolerated and then forgotten.

In the end, most of us moan a bit and then acquiesce, whilst harbouring dreams of leaving the country but not doing so.

Now I'm depressed, time to go for a (over taxed, over-insured) drive.

[MJM444]

Hi

I pay £317.00 for my LS400 Mk4 fully comprehensive this was achieved on renewal by Saga by them agreeing to match any other like for like quotation - which meant a £100 reduction on previousy quoted price.

I also received a reduction of £50 on renewal for my wife payng £227.00 for her 2005 Vauxhall Corsa 1.4 under the same arrangement both of these premiums to be paid with 4 quarterly payments interest free.

As a matter of interest I also got a £50 reduction from Saga for buildings and content insurance paying £107.00 on a 3 bedroom detached bungalow

Yours

MJM444

[Scribe]

Saga were by far the cheapest for me, too, for the Lex. Very competitive on home insurance, too, and about the same for my other car (a smart). But who knows what will happen at next renewal? The whole thing is so unpredictable.