Estimated Annual Mileage - Car Insurance

[photosnob]

LoonR1 said:

If we were transparent then guess what would happen? People will simy put in what they know will reduce their premiums. We get 20 year olds "accidentally" mistyping their age to be 30 years older now. We get people deliberately underestimating their mileage as they think that will make it cheaper.

Ask them for a copy of their driving licence then. I've had an insurance company do that so you wouldn't be the first.

[Randomthoughts]

LoonR1 said:

No, why do you think you should?

Strictly speaking, if you deem there to be a sweet spot where suddenly drivers become less of a risk because they drive more, wouldn't that be as bad (but a million times harder to fight, I'd imagine?) as declaring a lower mileage?

I've no idea whether such a point exists, or whether it's more a case of the premium flatlining because past a point people aren't any more of a risk, rather than actually being less of a risk.

[Al U]

Thanks for the responses, the difference on my policy between saying the vehicle would do 5,000 miles or less compared to the 15,000 miles or less that it's more likely to do in reality was only £50 so for peace of mind I've gone down the truthful route. Just wanted to see if there was anyone that could share experience of going through what would be classed as a costly claim and run into problems because of mileage declaration issues on an estimated mileage policy.

[LoonR1]

photosnob said:

Ask them for a copy of their driving licence then. I've had an insurance company do that so you wouldn't be the first.

Ermmmmm. How do you think we did out that they are lying about their age. Also we state that you should tell the truth, not blag it and hope for the best. Every additional step that we have to put in to stop fraudsters costs money that innocent policyholders have to pay for.

[LoonR1]

Randomthoughts said:

Strictly speaking, if you deem there to be a sweet spot where suddenly drivers become less of a risk because they drive more, wouldn't that be as bad (but a million times harder to fight, I'd imagine?) as declaring a lower mileage?

I've no idea whether such a point exists, or whether it's more a case of the premium flatlining because past a point people aren't any more of a risk, rather than actually being less of a risk.

If you declare what you reasonably believe to be the truth then there is no issue. Not using all your estimated mileage is not unreasonable.

[LoonR1]

Al U said:

Thanks for the responses, the difference on my policy between saying the vehicle would do 5,000 miles or less compared to the 15,000 miles or less that it's more likely to do in reality was only £50 so for peace of mind I've gone down the truthful route. Just wanted to see if there was anyone that could share experience of going through what would be classed as a costly claim and run into problems because of mileage declaration issues on an estimated mileage policy.

To paraphrase "I fancy paying less than I should if I was truthful on my application for insurance. Has anyone else lied on their proposal and if so did it hurt at claim time?"

[Al U]

LoonR1 said:

To paraphrase "I fancy paying less than I should if I was truthful on my application for insurance. Has anyone else lied on their proposal and if so did it hurt at claim time?"

No, more like "When I was younger I used to underestimate my estimated mileage on my proposal to get cheaper car insurance and it never caused me a problem as I never had to claim on my own policy or had to explain why my vehicle had done way more mileage than I had estimated on the proposal. Has anyone underestimated the estimated mileage on their insurance and been caught out?". You are quite confrontational aren't you? I've seen some of the stuff that you have written on other topics and that's why I mentioned you in my OP but looks like I've got you on one of your "I'll just be a bellend" days rather than one of your "I know a fair amount about this topic so I'll give a useful reply" days.

[LoonR1]

Al U said:

You are quite confrontational aren't you? I've seen some of the stuff that you have written on other topics and that's why I mentioned you in my OP but looks like I've got you on one of your "I'll just be a bellend" days rather than one of your "I know a fair amount about this topic so I'll give a useful reply" days.

Your post firstly admits to deliberate misrepresentation when younger and then states that you are considering doing this again, but want to check if anyone's been caught or suffered any pain from doing it. Taking the moral high ground is a bit rich here.

Oh and insults either implied or explicit aren't going to change what you have written around your intended action.

[Al U]

LoonR1 said:

Your post firstly admits to deliberate misrepresentation when younger and then states that you are considering doing this again, but want to check if anyone's been caught or suffered any pain from doing it. Taking the moral high ground is a bit rich here.

Oh and insults either implied or explicit aren't going to change what you have written around your intended action.

Not totally correct. My first post does not say that I am considering it again, what I actually said was that even with the correct mileage estimation my quote is considerably lower than last year (£300 lower in fact) and that I am happy to go with that. I said I wanted to see what the general consensus is, and the thread has proved the consensus is rather varied.

Also I don't expect insults that I make whether implied or explicit to change what I have written or my intended action as I do not wish to take back anything I have written and my intentions are totally good as I have told the truth on my proposal. Even in the cases where I have underestimated my estimated mileage in the past an estimate is exactly what it says it is, it is an estimate approximation not an exact quantity. Insurance companies should set mileage limits on all policies to prevent this type of thing happening, the reason they probably don't is as other posters have said it's yet another avenue for them to investigate as a get out clause in the event of a claim.

[Randomthoughts]

And we're back to the tinfoil hats.

As much as I don't like being spoken to/about/ignored in the way I was, sometimes I can see why...

[LoonR1]

Randomthoughts said:

And we're back to the tinfoil hats.

As much as I don't like being spoken to/about/ignored in the way I was, sometimes I can see why...

I think your original post and my "stroppy" one crossed so here's the answer as best as I can say.

If you're going to insure it on a mainstream policy then you're likely to lose out as you would need to declare all mileage. However TD mileage is, as rightly said previously, a lot lower than you'd expect. I've got a track / race ike and even in a 6 hour endurance I only ride for 2 hours doing c130 miles. A TD is about 150miles tops.

However given its a special car you might be he better taking it somewhere that might mirror your NCD and do a more tailored policy thus removing the mileage element completely.

[Randomthoughts]

Thanks kindly for the explanation, appreciated.

I anticipated as much, I'm just figuring that for all intents and purposes it's going to be a snotter of a 2-litre Clio doing 500 miles on the road (figuring around 20-25 track days a year, 10 miles each way there and back) and on a conservative estimate of 75 miles per track day I'm going to be knocking on for 2000 miles on top.

Now the easy answer I suppose that has been eluded to earlier is that less than 5000 miles on most cooking policies nobody really differentiates on premium, so what odds is it if I increase the mileage, but should I be faced with £100 to insure for a limited mileage, 1000P.A. tops or £500 for 5000P.A. then I'd not want them saying 'but you did 3000 last year'!

Anyway, fk it. I'll worry about it if I do it, it was just one of those questions that I wondered but never really wondered hard enough to ask, and thought this seemed like a good place to ask it!

[Derek Smith]

FiF said:

Pure speculation but maybe it's just one of the factors which they assess you on risk at time on first quote and later work out how honest you are.

I rang my last insurer up because when taking the cover out had completely underestimated the mileage. Genuine cock up, change of circumstances plus thinking I would be driving another vehicle more as not realising that would enjoy the insured one as much or find it so useful.

Basically told them that that my mileage would double and was informing them and wondered what the extra premium would be. Oh that's ok thanks for letting us know....

So reasonably happy. Though they tried to take the piss at renewal time which was another story.

Same thing happened to me. Estimated my annual mileage on the previous year's - 6k. My MoT 9 months into the year showed I would probably do 2k over. Phoned insurance company, told them I would be nearer 8, was told no charge. As a joke, I said, Oh! It'll be near 10k, and I was told that was OK. In the end I was just under the 8k.

No problems with renewal, although I went for the 10k.

[photosnob]

LoonR1 said:

Ermmmmm. How do you think we did out that they are lying about their age. Also we state that you should tell the truth, not blag it and hope for the best. Every additional step that we have to put in to stop fraudsters costs money that innocent policyholders have to pay for.

Why do you have to go on the attack every time someone says something? Are you like this in real life?

And frankly I can live with the "cost" of someone having to open an email and tick a box to say it's the correct information.

[LoonR1]

photosnob said:

Why do you have to go on the attack every time someone says something? Are you like this in real life?

And frankly I can live with the "cost" of someone having to open an email and tick a box to say it's the correct information.

For several million policies and the cost of continually chasing and processing this and then cancelling insurance when people fail to send it and the complaints and the rest of the costs. I don't go "on the attack" I tire of the "solutions" that are about a decade out of date.

[photosnob]

LoonR1 said:

For several million policies and the cost of continually chasing and processing this and then cancelling insurance when people fail to send it and the complaints and the rest of the costs. I don't go "on the attack" I tire of the "solutions" that are about a decade out of date.

If it upsets you that much you can stop coming onto a general car forum and flying the flag for the insurance industry. You want to justify your rudeness and arrogance as being tired of talking about these things, yet whenever there is a sniff about insurance you post away in a frenzy.

[Dodsy]

I guess this depends on the insurer. My wife has a new job further away from home so when the renewal came up I changed it from 5k pa to 10k pa plus upped it to class 1 business. No extra charge.

[Jon1967x]

Randomthoughts said:

LoonR1 said:

No, why do you think you should?

Strictly speaking, if you deem there to be a sweet spot where suddenly drivers become less of a risk because they drive more, wouldn't that be as bad (but a million times harder to fight, I'd imagine?) as declaring a lower mileage?

I've no idea whether such a point exists, or whether it's more a case of the premium flatlining because past a point people aren't any more of a risk, rather than actually being less of a risk.

You're typically asked if you have access to other cars, either own or use. To a point that's establishing if you drive more than stated.

They create a rough profile of you.. someone that drive 100 miles a year and never drives otherwise is probably a greater risk than someone that does 16k a year. Someone that does 40k a year is going to be knackered and the risk goes back up again. The formula is whatever they want it to be as its for the insurance company to rate the risk.

Its not tricky all this - be truthful at the time you take out a policy, understand the difference between an estimate and a contractual term and then apply a dose of common sense.

Now... what happens if I drive backwards for 3k a year around a track... (LoonR1.. I'm joking)

[LoonR1]

Jon1967x said:

Now... what happens if I drive backwards for 3k a year around a track... (LoonR1.. I'm joking)

Easy, find out what the premium would be and charge it back to the insurer

[SV8Predator]

photosnob said:

you can stop coming onto a general car forum and flying the flag for the insurance industry. You want to justify your rudeness and arrogance as being tired of talking about these things, yet whenever there is a sniff about insurance you post away in a frenzy.

I can honestly say that I don't think Loon "flies the flag" for the insurance industry. The reason he gets miffed (as I see it) is that he knows that the insurance industry is actually pretty clever and "has seen it all before". So all these ridiculous scenarios that PHers come up with to try and (A) get cheaper premiums, and (B) get themselves out of the mire because they've bullstted to their insurance company in the proposal form, are plainly not going to work.

And the same old chestnuts are brought out again, and again, ad finitum (and beyond!).

He simply points this out,

And he's at fault?