Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Limpet

Car Insurance

Recommended Posts

About a year and a half ago I scrapped my old Proton and started a period of being carless. Basically I`m a bit lazy, I don`t like spending money and I couldn`t be bothered to look around for one.

During this time I was a named driver on the wifes car which we shared about 50/50.

Anyway just the other week I took the leap and bought another motor. While browsing the web for insurance quotes it surprised me to discover that if I`d gone without personal motor insurance for another 5 months or so all my previous No Claims Bonus was likely to become void and I would have to start again from square one.

I`ve been a driver for about 30 years ( accident free ) and I wasn`t aware of this, I suppose because It never became an issue, although further investigation seems to show that it`s pretty much standard procedure.

So basically this is just for information in case anyone out there is in a similar situation. Something to watch out for. It certainly took me by surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About a year and a half ago I scrapped my old Proton and started a period of being carless. Basically I`m a bit lazy, I don`t like spending money and I couldn`t be bothered to look around for one.

During this time I was a named driver on the wifes car which we shared about 50/50.

Anyway just the other week I took the leap and bought another motor. While browsing the web for insurance quotes it surprised me to discover that if I`d gone without personal motor insurance for another 5 months or so all my previous No Claims Bonus was likely to become void and I would have to start again from square one.

I`ve been a driver for about 30 years ( accident free ) and I wasn`t aware of this, I suppose because It never became an issue, although further investigation seems to show that it`s pretty much standard procedure.

So basically this is just for information in case anyone out there is in a similar situation. Something to watch out for. It certainly took me by surprise.

Had similar. Went without vehicle for five years. Discovered that NCD lapses. Been driving since mid 1970s so one of the companies offered a 60% introductory discount.

Very worthwhile warning though. I think that the insurance industry sleeps with the banks.

p-o-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero

Had similar. Went without vehicle for five years. Discovered that NCD lapses. Been driving since mid 1970s so one of the companies offered a 60% introductory discount.

Very worthwhile warning though. I think that the insurance industry sleeps with the banks.

p-o-p

Insurance companies are thieves.

If you want proof, do a stock screen for dividend yield.

Insurance companies come right up the top.

Is that because the companies are cheap or because the profits are obscene? I think the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The time NCB is lost depends on the company, More Than is 6 months while Direct Line it was 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

So if you do stop driving for a couple of years, but know that you are going to start up again, it actually saves you money in the long term if you keep insuring the car you haven't got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - how many years is it you have to NOT own a car before losing your NCB?

It appears to be 2 years of not being insured for all the insurance firms I looked at.

Being a named driver on another policy doesn`t count.

I have heard there is a company that will take it to 3 years but I didn`t need to check as I had only been without insurance for a year and a half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience was that Direct Line will honour their NCB for up to 3 years. However you are stuck with them when you start driving again and the max NCB is ">5 years", i.e. no increased discount for 8 years NCB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one example of what a bunch of amoral, souless b4stards insurance companies are

Yes, I know it's the Mail , but it's the quote bellow that taks the piss.

Direct line told him that it keeps all quotes generated by customers - so if someone initially got a quote for themselves, decided it was too expensive and got a new quote with their parent as the main driver instead, the insurer would not pay out on this policy because it has obviously been fronted.

"yes, we knew you were lying and took your money and no your not insured because you lied" :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Yup. Same make and model and engine of car, in 2007 premium was £280, now been away it's . . . £1100!!!

Same insurer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Same make and model and engine of car, in 2007 premium was £280, now been away it's . . . £1100!!!

Same insurer.

Kin hell Noodle. What have you been up to? That's a 17 year old's premium, so either you have a Ferrari or a very dirty licence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - how many years is it you have to NOT own a car before losing your NCB?

Used to be 2 years..

An option for bikers is simply insure a non existent 50cc bike, and when putting in the miles put on <500, put a MASSIVE excess on it and the insurance comes out uber cheap...

I must be getting on a bit as my CBR600 costs me less than 25p a day. Though the maintenance and fuel costs are somewhat higher of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Kin hell Noodle. What have you been up to? That's a 17 year old's premium, so either you have a Ferrari or a very dirty licence.

Never had any points. Ever. It's the loss of NCB because I've been away. No claims for 13 years.

Van was quote was much cheaper than car this time and for private use too, changed from before when it used to be extortionate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience was that Direct Line will honour their NCB for up to 3 years. However you are stuck with them when you start driving again and the max NCB is ">5 years", i.e. no increased discount for 8 years NCB.

I believe Direct Line let you accumulate NCB while a named driver on another (the wife's) policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never had any points. Ever. It's the loss of NCB because I've been away. No claims for 13 years.

Van was quote was much cheaper than car this time and for private use too, changed from before when it used to be extortionate.

Even so it seems very high, 60% NCB IIRC so £340 with full NCB which is a lot for someone with a clean driving record. I do find those comparison sites to be very useful and chopped a lot off my premium a couple of years back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Even so it seems very high, 60% NCB IIRC so £340 with full NCB which is a lot for someone with a clean driving record. I do find those comparison sites to be very useful and chopped a lot off my premium a couple of years back.

It was the cheapest from a comparison site, happened to be my same old insurer.

I was getting quotes of £600-£700+ on a 1.5 dCi Clio or 1.3 Corsa.

Corsavan came in at £373.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vehicles rather than drivers of vehicles are insured here.

Didn't think you'd been away that long. I'm sure that you were having your bottom repaired no more than 18 months back.

p-o-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Didn't think you'd been away that long. I'm sure that you were having your bottom repaired no more than 18 months back.

p-o-p

It's what 18 months now? Anyway, apparently the NCB is void after 2 years so by the time I get back . . . if I get back . . .

I hate driving and I loathe owning a car in that country, real ball and chain. Where I do exist temporarily there, all is in easy reach by bike (peddle type, not Ducati 1198R) . . . to go to site, hire van, load and go . . . one day set up on site (living and wotnot), bruv takes van back . . . he's got a fleet anyway. End of job, load, go, unload, attic, airport.

Always have a site vehicle which can go on the road in any case, have bike there too . . . no point in car.

This works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one example of what a bunch of amoral, souless b4stards insurance companies are

Yes, I know it's the Mail , but it's the quote bellow that taks the piss.

"yes, we knew you were lying and took your money and no your not insured because you lied" :angry:

I have no problem with this practice. Basically, they're trying to prevent 'fronted' insurance: 17 year-old gets quote to insure banger, Mummy and Daddy don't want to cough up, so they get another quote in Mummy and Daddy's name, with the 17 year-old as an extra named person on the insurance. If the 17 year-old is going to be driving the banger most of the time, this is a form of fraud (by misrepresenting the level of risk to the insurer) that just pushes premiums up for the rest of us.

The cost of insurance for newly qualified drivers is another issue, and I think there's an argument for regulating that in order to reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the road. If, for example, an insurer was required by law to sell a third, party, fire and theft policy to a newly qualified driver (assuming that he has no convictions or caused accidents) for a maximum of, say, £750, then if the alternative is that teenager deciding to take the risk and drive uninsured, that's £750 more than nothing the insurance industry would be taking in, with hopefully a consequent downward impact on everyone else's premiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

You have no problem with Direct line taking the premium and then when it comes to having to pay out on it saying that the insurance is invalid? This just adds to the number of uninsured drivers. If they were never going to pay out on the insurance then taking on the policy is fraud.

Absolutely correct. Both parties criminally negligent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with this practice. Basically, they're trying to prevent 'fronted' insurance: 17 year-old gets quote to insure banger, Mummy and Daddy don't want to cough up, so they get another quote in Mummy and Daddy's name, with the 17 year-old as an extra named person on the insurance. If the 17 year-old is going to be driving the banger most of the time, this is a form of fraud (by misrepresenting the level of risk to the insurer) that just pushes premiums up for the rest of us.

The cost of insurance for newly qualified drivers is another issue, and I think there's an argument for regulating that in order to reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the road. If, for example, an insurer was required by law to sell a third, party, fire and theft policy to a newly qualified driver (assuming that he has no convictions or caused accidents) for a maximum of, say, £750, then if the alternative is that teenager deciding to take the risk and drive uninsured, that's £750 more than nothing the insurance industry would be taking in, with hopefully a consequent downward impact on everyone else's premiums.

Sorry if you thought I was condoning this 'fronting' practice, I wasn't. The issue is the legality of taking someone's money for an insurance premium that you know to be invalid and the knock on effects to third parties. Surely this is criminal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if you thought I was condoning this 'fronting' practice, I wasn't. The issue is the legality of taking someone's money for an insurance premium that you know to be invalid and the knock on effects to third parties. Surely this is criminal?

If you know it to be invalid.

This strikes me as a pretty grey area: if someone successfully buys a fronted policy, misrepresenting what they're doing to the insurer (e.g. Mummy or Daddy buys an insurance policy on a banger with their kid as an additional named driver), and then there's a claim, I guess it's up to the loss adjuster to establish whether it's genuine or not. If the car actually was driven around by the parent most of the time with the kid just making an occasional trip and then wrote off six Ferraris and injured their occupants for life during one of those occasional trips, then the insurer should pay up. But if the kid was basically treating it as his car with a fronted policy, they'd be within their rights to declare the policy invalid.

It's an accepted fact of car insurance life that it's the policyholder's responsibility to ensure that he is complying with the terms and conditions for the policy to be valid. There are other situations in which an insurer can refuse to pay up, e.g. if the vehicle had a defect that would cause it to fail an MoT at the time of the accident, or if the policyholder had acquired a motoring conviction and not told the insurer about it. I can't see how this scenario is any different, except that it proving whether a policy is fronted or not would be very difficult, unlike, say detecting if a car would have failed an MoT at the time of the accident (you can examine the tyres and see if they're bald, for example). Therefore, Direct Line's approach (having their computer recognise and flag up two attempts by different people to get quotes to insure the same vehicle) of trying to detect fronting before the policy is sold strikes me as a sensible one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 145 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.