Lightbulb Devices to decrease insurance costs
Discussion
antigon said:
Hi everyone!
So I've heard of some ways to decrease car insurance costs, like installing car tracking system or having a DVR. I do not mean the car age or cost - imagine we have two same cars, how can you equip it to decrease insurance?
<points to a Meerkat>So I've heard of some ways to decrease car insurance costs, like installing car tracking system or having a DVR. I do not mean the car age or cost - imagine we have two same cars, how can you equip it to decrease insurance?
Go and ask that. Play with the choices.
Look what I've found on the web about this:
Trackers - almost always reduce the cost of insurance as its more likely to be found if stolen
Dash cams - Some companies will give discounts for these, some dont.
Wives/GF's - does reduce the premium but no idea why. Basically put as many people on the policy with a clean accident/incident history preferably female. Probably something to do with women being "safer" drivers, although Im not so sure. I think the statistics show they are safer, simply because they drive less than men so have less "chance" of having an accident.
Comprehensive insurance - comes out cheaper nowadays compared to third party fire and theft or third party only.
Night parking - a car parked on a road is cheaper to insure than one parked in a garage or driveway. The reasoning behind this is controversial and exhausting but its to do with stealing cars with keys.
Excesses - Higher excesses give you a cheaper price BUT £500 excess doesn't necessarily mean its MUCH cheaper than £100 excess. There may only be £20 discount so its worth playing around
the driver - insurance is directly related to claims. Best not to claim unless you are in the worst of circumstances.
Area - a car in Hackney is going to be more expensive than a car in Yorkshire dales. The idea is to play around with policy addresses if you have parents/relatives. My brother in law has his policy at my house but his car is "kept" at his house in Manchester. Reduced premiums by circa £1k.
Trackers - almost always reduce the cost of insurance as its more likely to be found if stolen
Dash cams - Some companies will give discounts for these, some dont.
Wives/GF's - does reduce the premium but no idea why. Basically put as many people on the policy with a clean accident/incident history preferably female. Probably something to do with women being "safer" drivers, although Im not so sure. I think the statistics show they are safer, simply because they drive less than men so have less "chance" of having an accident.
Comprehensive insurance - comes out cheaper nowadays compared to third party fire and theft or third party only.
Night parking - a car parked on a road is cheaper to insure than one parked in a garage or driveway. The reasoning behind this is controversial and exhausting but its to do with stealing cars with keys.
Excesses - Higher excesses give you a cheaper price BUT £500 excess doesn't necessarily mean its MUCH cheaper than £100 excess. There may only be £20 discount so its worth playing around
the driver - insurance is directly related to claims. Best not to claim unless you are in the worst of circumstances.
Area - a car in Hackney is going to be more expensive than a car in Yorkshire dales. The idea is to play around with policy addresses if you have parents/relatives. My brother in law has his policy at my house but his car is "kept" at his house in Manchester. Reduced premiums by circa £1k.
antigon said:
Look what I've found on the web about this:
Area - a car in Hackney is going to be more expensive than a car in Yorkshire dales. The idea is to play around with policy addresses if you have parents/relatives. My brother in law has his policy at my house but his car is "kept" at his house in Manchester. Reduced premiums by circa £1k.
Yeh, fraud is always a good plan.Area - a car in Hackney is going to be more expensive than a car in Yorkshire dales. The idea is to play around with policy addresses if you have parents/relatives. My brother in law has his policy at my house but his car is "kept" at his house in Manchester. Reduced premiums by circa £1k.
TooMany2cvs said:
antigon said:
Look what I've found on the web about this:
Area - a car in Hackney is going to be more expensive than a car in Yorkshire dales. The idea is to play around with policy addresses if you have parents/relatives. My brother in law has his policy at my house but his car is "kept" at his house in Manchester. Reduced premiums by circa £1k.
Yeh, fraud is always a good plan.Area - a car in Hackney is going to be more expensive than a car in Yorkshire dales. The idea is to play around with policy addresses if you have parents/relatives. My brother in law has his policy at my house but his car is "kept" at his house in Manchester. Reduced premiums by circa £1k.
TooMany2cvs said:
antigon said:
Look what I've found on the web about this:
Area - a car in Hackney is going to be more expensive than a car in Yorkshire dales. The idea is to play around with policy addresses if you have parents/relatives. My brother in law has his policy at my house but his car is "kept" at his house in Manchester. Reduced premiums by circa £1k.
Yeh, fraud is always a good plan.Area - a car in Hackney is going to be more expensive than a car in Yorkshire dales. The idea is to play around with policy addresses if you have parents/relatives. My brother in law has his policy at my house but his car is "kept" at his house in Manchester. Reduced premiums by circa £1k.
Honest question, not trolling. To my mind that isn't, same as a policyholder who is not the main driver and a named younger driver declared as the main driver isn't fronting.
antigon said:
Wives/GF's - does reduce the premium but no idea why. Basically put as many people on the policy with a clean accident/incident history preferably female. Probably something to do with women being "safer" drivers, although Im not so sure. I think the statistics show they are safer, simply because they drive less than men so have less "chance" of having an accident.
if you smash it someone else can have a good moan at you for inconveniencing them. i.e.not worth the hassle.
However I am sure the rue reason is that statistics show that if you have more low risk drivers on the policy there will be less chance of a claim.
I'm confused by the title. Do you drive about without lights on so if you do have a smash nobody can see your numberplate and you can F.O. sharpish?
Fastdruid said:
Is that fraud? If you have a policy (ie a correspondence) address differing from where you live (and there are valid reasons for that) but honestly state where the car is normally kept overnight and during the day?
Honest question, not trolling. To my mind that isn't, same as a policyholder who is not the main driver and a named younger driver declared as the main driver isn't fronting.
My companies insurer asks where drivers live as they know we don't live in the office.Honest question, not trolling. To my mind that isn't, same as a policyholder who is not the main driver and a named younger driver declared as the main driver isn't fronting.
We have about 25 cars on that policy & they always request drivers address come renewal.
Makes sense really as the Partners all have expensive cars, Bentley, Range Rover etc but live in nice areas whereas some staff live in other not so nice places.
Not sure if we pay higher excess on a car in a less desirable area if a claims made though.
I think the key thing is that it doesn't matter why something decreases or increases insurance costs.
Premiums are generated by statistical analysis - the actual reason parking a car on the road is cheaper than garaging is simply that the policies of people who garage their cars result in higher average claim amounts per year than the average of those who park on the road. The insurance companies probably neither know nor care why. The only way to work out what will reduce your premium is to query the statistical databases on which it is based (for example by using their website and/or the comparison sites).
Premiums are generated by statistical analysis - the actual reason parking a car on the road is cheaper than garaging is simply that the policies of people who garage their cars result in higher average claim amounts per year than the average of those who park on the road. The insurance companies probably neither know nor care why. The only way to work out what will reduce your premium is to query the statistical databases on which it is based (for example by using their website and/or the comparison sites).
Edited by kambites on Monday 16th November 15:02
Fastdruid said:
Is that fraud? If you have a policy (ie a correspondence) address differing from where you live (and there are valid reasons for that) but honestly state where the car is normally kept overnight and during the day?
Honest question, not trolling. To my mind that isn't, same as a policyholder who is not the main driver and a named younger driver declared as the main driver isn't fronting.
The address is supposed to be indicative of where the car is kept, if you're deliberately using a different address to negate the premium of course it's fraud.Honest question, not trolling. To my mind that isn't, same as a policyholder who is not the main driver and a named younger driver declared as the main driver isn't fronting.
Theophany said:
The address is supposed to be indicative of where the car is kept, if you're deliberately using a different address to negate the premium of course it's fraud.
Funnily enough I was talking to a client last week who received welcome docs for insurance on an old Escort (he in fact drives a Focus ST) at his address. When he challenged the insurance company it turns out a family in South London was insuring their car using his Somerset address to reduce their premiums. No idea if they subsequently cancelled Mr Escort's insurance but it does take the piss a little.Why bother lying about the address - why not lie about the car, your licence record and indeed age?
What pi$$es me off is that insurance costs are pushed up by chav types who do precisely this - lying about your details is only one up from having no insurance in my book.
Buy the car, give em your details and pay the man. End off.
What pi$$es me off is that insurance costs are pushed up by chav types who do precisely this - lying about your details is only one up from having no insurance in my book.
Buy the car, give em your details and pay the man. End off.
Theophany said:
Fastdruid said:
Is that fraud? If you have a policy (ie a correspondence) address differing from where you live (and there are valid reasons for that) but honestly state where the car is normally kept overnight and during the day?
Honest question, not trolling. To my mind that isn't, same as a policyholder who is not the main driver and a named younger driver declared as the main driver isn't fronting.
The address is supposed to be indicative of where the car is kept, if you're deliberately using a different address to negate the premium of course it's fraud.Honest question, not trolling. To my mind that isn't, same as a policyholder who is not the main driver and a named younger driver declared as the main driver isn't fronting.
Theophany said:
Fastdruid said:
Is that fraud? If you have a policy (ie a correspondence) address differing from where you live (and there are valid reasons for that) but honestly state where the car is normally kept overnight and during the day?
Honest question, not trolling. To my mind that isn't, same as a policyholder who is not the main driver and a named younger driver declared as the main driver isn't fronting.
The address is supposed to be indicative of where the car is kept, if you're deliberately using a different address to negate the premium of course it's fraud.Honest question, not trolling. To my mind that isn't, same as a policyholder who is not the main driver and a named younger driver declared as the main driver isn't fronting.
I'm sure insurers will ask the question "where is the car usually kept/parked overnight" or similar. Which is a very different question from where you live.
The one that annoys me the most is "profession".
What does my profession have to do with how much of a risk I have of crashing, UNLESS I happen to use the vehicle to perform my job (i.e. taxi driver, courier, etc)?
There can be a significant difference in premiums between certain types of employment. That hardly seems fair if the only work-related use I may have for my car is to drive it to my place of work, in which case it should just be covered by the "Social Domestic and Pleasure including Commuting" category.
I reckon it should be compulsory for every insurance policy to state the exact formula and workings used to calculate their premiums, so that people who are paying for insurance can see exactly why the policy costs as much as it does.
What does my profession have to do with how much of a risk I have of crashing, UNLESS I happen to use the vehicle to perform my job (i.e. taxi driver, courier, etc)?
There can be a significant difference in premiums between certain types of employment. That hardly seems fair if the only work-related use I may have for my car is to drive it to my place of work, in which case it should just be covered by the "Social Domestic and Pleasure including Commuting" category.
I reckon it should be compulsory for every insurance policy to state the exact formula and workings used to calculate their premiums, so that people who are paying for insurance can see exactly why the policy costs as much as it does.
406highlander said:
The one that annoys me the most is "profession".
What does my profession have to do with how much of a risk I have of crashing, UNLESS I happen to use the vehicle to perform my job (i.e. taxi driver, courier, etc)?
There can be a significant difference in premiums between certain types of employment. That hardly seems fair if the only work-related use I may have for my car is to drive it to my place of work, in which case it should just be covered by the "Social Domestic and Pleasure including Commuting" category.
I reckon it should be compulsory for every insurance policy to state the exact formula and workings used to calculate their premiums, so that people who are paying for insurance can see exactly why the policy costs as much as it does.
I can understand this but the simple fact is that different types of professions do have different claim rates. Accountants are generally safer than professional entertainers for example. In the absence if everyone having a black box they have to distinguish somehow. I'm not apologist for the insurance industry not do I work within it but until someone proposes a better system that's how it will workWhat does my profession have to do with how much of a risk I have of crashing, UNLESS I happen to use the vehicle to perform my job (i.e. taxi driver, courier, etc)?
There can be a significant difference in premiums between certain types of employment. That hardly seems fair if the only work-related use I may have for my car is to drive it to my place of work, in which case it should just be covered by the "Social Domestic and Pleasure including Commuting" category.
I reckon it should be compulsory for every insurance policy to state the exact formula and workings used to calculate their premiums, so that people who are paying for insurance can see exactly why the policy costs as much as it does.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff