Has your insurance gone up?
Discussion
e-honda said:
LF5335 said:
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
Like a lot of people I used to assume that if you had a fully comprehensive policy then you were covered to drive any other car. It is only after looking into this I realised this was not the case, so I always check the insurance documentation to ensure it does cover DOC cover before I sign up.
I drive a shed, so in reality I am never going to claim on my insurance anyway, it is only there for legal reasons and in case I drive into someone else.
I had someone drive into the back of me about 10 years ago whilst I was stationary, I was quite relieved when they did a runner as it meant I wouldn't have to have all the hassle of making a claim and the other driver lying that I drove into them. I assume if you claim even if it wasn't your fault it effects your insurance as they ask "any accidents, claims or convictions in the last five years"
Lots of assumptions, mostly incorrect. Important to perpetuate the myths though as mentioned earlier. I drive a shed, so in reality I am never going to claim on my insurance anyway, it is only there for legal reasons and in case I drive into someone else.
I had someone drive into the back of me about 10 years ago whilst I was stationary, I was quite relieved when they did a runner as it meant I wouldn't have to have all the hassle of making a claim and the other driver lying that I drove into them. I assume if you claim even if it wasn't your fault it effects your insurance as they ask "any accidents, claims or convictions in the last five years"
You said lots, mostly incorrect, where are the other assumptions and what is incorrect about them.
LF5335 said:
e-honda said:
LF5335 said:
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
Like a lot of people I used to assume that if you had a fully comprehensive policy then you were covered to drive any other car. It is only after looking into this I realised this was not the case, so I always check the insurance documentation to ensure it does cover DOC cover before I sign up.
I drive a shed, so in reality I am never going to claim on my insurance anyway, it is only there for legal reasons and in case I drive into someone else.
I had someone drive into the back of me about 10 years ago whilst I was stationary, I was quite relieved when they did a runner as it meant I wouldn't have to have all the hassle of making a claim and the other driver lying that I drove into them. I assume if you claim even if it wasn't your fault it effects your insurance as they ask "any accidents, claims or convictions in the last five years"
Lots of assumptions, mostly incorrect. Important to perpetuate the myths though as mentioned earlier. I drive a shed, so in reality I am never going to claim on my insurance anyway, it is only there for legal reasons and in case I drive into someone else.
I had someone drive into the back of me about 10 years ago whilst I was stationary, I was quite relieved when they did a runner as it meant I wouldn't have to have all the hassle of making a claim and the other driver lying that I drove into them. I assume if you claim even if it wasn't your fault it effects your insurance as they ask "any accidents, claims or convictions in the last five years"
You said lots, mostly incorrect, where are the other assumptions and what is incorrect about them.
That is quite literally the opposite of an assumption.
e-honda said:
LF5335 said:
e-honda said:
LF5335 said:
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
Like a lot of people I used to assume that if you had a fully comprehensive policy then you were covered to drive any other car. It is only after looking into this I realised this was not the case, so I always check the insurance documentation to ensure it does cover DOC cover before I sign up.
I drive a shed, so in reality I am never going to claim on my insurance anyway, it is only there for legal reasons and in case I drive into someone else.
I had someone drive into the back of me about 10 years ago whilst I was stationary, I was quite relieved when they did a runner as it meant I wouldn't have to have all the hassle of making a claim and the other driver lying that I drove into them. I assume if you claim even if it wasn't your fault it effects your insurance as they ask "any accidents, claims or convictions in the last five years"
Lots of assumptions, mostly incorrect. Important to perpetuate the myths though as mentioned earlier. I drive a shed, so in reality I am never going to claim on my insurance anyway, it is only there for legal reasons and in case I drive into someone else.
I had someone drive into the back of me about 10 years ago whilst I was stationary, I was quite relieved when they did a runner as it meant I wouldn't have to have all the hassle of making a claim and the other driver lying that I drove into them. I assume if you claim even if it wasn't your fault it effects your insurance as they ask "any accidents, claims or convictions in the last five years"
You said lots, mostly incorrect, where are the other assumptions and what is incorrect about them.
That is quite literally the opposite of an assumption.
I blame the cost of headlights, they are around 2k per unit on a lot of cars.
No doubt I’m late but this is also a little concerning…
https://www.reddit.com/r/Honda/comments/1bc4s7z/au...
No doubt I’m late but this is also a little concerning…
https://www.reddit.com/r/Honda/comments/1bc4s7z/au...
LF5335 said:
The bit I've highlighted is him saying he made an assumption and accepting it was wrong. You know, exactly like I was saying. The rest is him assuming what would have happened if he had made a claim. His whole post is assumption and supposition.
No that isn't even a little bit like what you were saying, let alone exactly like it.You've accused him of perpetuating a myth when he is doing the exact opposite.
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
I had someone drive into the back of me about 10 years ago whilst I was stationary, I was quite relieved when they did a runner as it meant I wouldn't have to have all the hassle of making a claim and the other driver lying that I drove into them. I assume if you claim even if it wasn't your fault it effects your insurance as they ask "any accidents, claims or convictions in the last five years"
If you go back a page my experience was that a non-fault claim against the insurer of the car that hit mine in the rear at a set of lights got me a £20 increase in premium and £50 added to the excess even though it cost them nothing. 
That's total b
ks - what justification can Twig offer for that? Mr Tidy said:
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
I had someone drive into the back of me about 10 years ago whilst I was stationary, I was quite relieved when they did a runner as it meant I wouldn't have to have all the hassle of making a claim and the other driver lying that I drove into them. I assume if you claim even if it wasn't your fault it effects your insurance as they ask "any accidents, claims or convictions in the last five years"
If you go back a page my experience was that a non-fault claim against the insurer of the car that hit mine in the rear at a set of lights got me a £20 increase in premium and £50 added to the excess even though it cost them nothing. That's total b
ks - what justification can Twig offer for that? TwigtheWonderkid said:
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
I drive a shed, so in reality I am never going to claim on my insurance anyway, it is only there for legal reasons and in case I drive into someone else.
"in case I drive into someone else" makes up 85-90% of the insurance premium, and insurers costs. So by driving a shed you're not reducing your risk to insurers by very much at all. Switch this to cover on a £100k vehicle and all risk aspects multiply as suddenly aspects other than at fault crashes have weight such as theft, vandalism, damage by owner have huge potential risk factors along with hitting another £100k car and having two write off costs to spread out amongst all the other clients.
So by driving a shed you are reducing the risk quite considerably especially if aspects such as personal injury risk is being insured elsewhere etc.
DonkeyApple said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
I drive a shed, so in reality I am never going to claim on my insurance anyway, it is only there for legal reasons and in case I drive into someone else.
"in case I drive into someone else" makes up 85-90% of the insurance premium, and insurers costs. So by driving a shed you're not reducing your risk to insurers by very much at all. Switch this to cover on a £100k vehicle and all risk aspects multiply as suddenly aspects other than at fault crashes have weight such as theft, vandalism, damage by owner have huge potential risk factors along with hitting another £100k car and having two write off costs to spread out amongst all the other clients.
So by driving a shed you are reducing the risk quite considerably especially if aspects such as personal injury risk is being insured elsewhere etc.
I'm on deadline day for insuring 5 vehicles. Three performance or sports cars, one very modified ( Mitsubishi Evo ), one classic with slight mods ( Mk1 MR2 ), a standard Boxster 3.2S 987, plus my other half's elderly IS300 Sportcross and a 2018 Ford Connect LWB work van.
I paid £1950 or so last year with Pace Ward. They want £2290 this year, nothing whatsoever has changed. I still regard it as cheap. A-Plan, now Howden have matched that, but offered breakdown cover in the UK and abroad.
My main sticking point with A-Plan being the absolutely appalling service I received from them when I last tried them. They have this on file and have assured me nothing like that will ever happen again. So far I've been very impressed with the efforts of the guy I'm dealing with in making the efforts he has, but I was left in a situation where they failed to cover me previously due to a mistake on their part, and I'm wary of being in the same position again.
Anyone had more recent experience of the new A-Plan with regard to service, claims etc?
I paid £1950 or so last year with Pace Ward. They want £2290 this year, nothing whatsoever has changed. I still regard it as cheap. A-Plan, now Howden have matched that, but offered breakdown cover in the UK and abroad.
My main sticking point with A-Plan being the absolutely appalling service I received from them when I last tried them. They have this on file and have assured me nothing like that will ever happen again. So far I've been very impressed with the efforts of the guy I'm dealing with in making the efforts he has, but I was left in a situation where they failed to cover me previously due to a mistake on their part, and I'm wary of being in the same position again.
Anyone had more recent experience of the new A-Plan with regard to service, claims etc?
Mr Tidy said:
ThingsBehindTheSun said:
I had someone drive into the back of me about 10 years ago whilst I was stationary, I was quite relieved when they did a runner as it meant I wouldn't have to have all the hassle of making a claim and the other driver lying that I drove into them. I assume if you claim even if it wasn't your fault it effects your insurance as they ask "any accidents, claims or convictions in the last five years"
If you go back a page my experience was that a non-fault claim against the insurer of the car that hit mine in the rear at a set of lights got me a £20 increase in premium and £50 added to the excess even though it cost them nothing. That's total b
ks - what justification can Twig offer for that? DonkeyApple said:
syndicate premium and profit will be accounting for potentially a larger proportion than risk premium. If the client hits a £100k car and totals it then there is £100k+ of loss to be paid by everyone in the syndicate, it's not just paid by the single at fault client. You, me and everyone else shares that cost, so we all pay for the estimated cost of everyone's claims.
Syndicate? Who said anything about it being a Lloyd's syndicate. You, me and everyone else are not part of the syndicate, even if we insure thru Lloyds (which most of us don't). The customers are not syndicate members, and the syndicate members are not customers. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Syndicate? Who said anything about it being a Lloyd's syndicate. You, me and everyone else are not part of the syndicate, even if we insure thru Lloyds (which most of us don't). The customers are not syndicate members, and the syndicate members are not customers.
?It's not going to matter how you term who is underwriting the risk for the premium, the mechanism for pricing remains constant and your customer risk is spread amongst all the customers and you pay your share of that collective risk as well as any loadings for personal anomalies that cause you to deviate from the basic profile set out.
DonkeyApple said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Syndicate? Who said anything about it being a Lloyd's syndicate. You, me and everyone else are not part of the syndicate, even if we insure thru Lloyds (which most of us don't). The customers are not syndicate members, and the syndicate members are not customers.
?It's not going to matter how you term who is underwriting the risk for the premium, the mechanism for pricing remains constant and your customer risk is spread amongst all the customers and you pay your share of that collective risk as well as any loadings for personal anomalies that cause you to deviate from the basic profile set out.
By using terms like syndicate, you've gone down a rabbit hole that's nothing to do with the topic in hand.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
DonkeyApple said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Syndicate? Who said anything about it being a Lloyd's syndicate. You, me and everyone else are not part of the syndicate, even if we insure thru Lloyds (which most of us don't). The customers are not syndicate members, and the syndicate members are not customers.
?It's not going to matter how you term who is underwriting the risk for the premium, the mechanism for pricing remains constant and your customer risk is spread amongst all the customers and you pay your share of that collective risk as well as any loadings for personal anomalies that cause you to deviate from the basic profile set out.
By using terms like syndicate, you've gone down a rabbit hole that's nothing to do with the topic in hand.
. I know some people think that if you make a claim then the industry seeks to take that back from the individual across 20 years of increased premiums but I don't think you believe that so you appreciate how the cost is spread across the client pool. DonkeyApple said:
When someone makes a large claim who do you think pays? .
It's factored into that insurance companies results, meaning lower dividends for shareholders, lower bonuses and pay rises for staff etc. And future premiums for all that insurance co's customers are adjusted to make sure profitability is maintained. . Now, if I've paid this years premium, and my insurance company get hit with loads of large claims and lose a packet, and i decide to stop driving so don't insure next year, explain to me how I'm paying for their losses this year?
You need to learn about insurance syndicates, Lloyd's of London, and understand why your talk of syndicates is completely off track here.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Wednesday 1st May 19:25
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's factored into that insurance companies results, meaning lower dividends for shareholders, lower bonuses and pay rises for staff etc. And future premiums for all that insurance co's customers are adjusted to make sure profitability is maintained.
Now, if I've paid this years premium, and my insurance company get hit with loads of large claims and lose a packet, and i decide to stop driving so don't insure next year, explain to me how I'm paying for their losses this year?
You need to learn about insurance syndicates, Lloyd's of London, and understand why your talk of syndicates is completely off track here.
Now, if I've paid this years premium, and my insurance company get hit with loads of large claims and lose a packet, and i decide to stop driving so don't insure next year, explain to me how I'm paying for their losses this year?
You need to learn about insurance syndicates, Lloyd's of London, and understand why your talk of syndicates is completely off track here.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Wednesday 1st May 19:25
You've still got your years mixed up and fabricating the scenario that someone ceases to drive doesn't magically solve the hole in your logic.
. And do keep focussing on the word 'syndicate'. . But I see that you're conceding to the logic of the premiums being adjusted. Sorry, but you made an incorrect statement, or rather not quite right and are just digging around the edges. My insurance is due towards the end of the month. My insurance is one very much based on miles. You declare your normal annual mileage and they work it out on a basic charge plus so much per mile. Last year it was £360 based on 3000 miles , unfortunately last summer I trapped the sciatic nerve and haven't driven much and am due a rebate of just over £200 . The renewal has been based on last year's mileage and would have been £20 more , I asked for a quote based as before on 3000 miles . £879 ! Previous charge per mile 9p new charge 27p per mile, reason given,supply chain problems for parts .
It's on a shed 2009 Mercedes CLC 220cdi sport . Anything more that a replacement bumper and it's a write off. Shopped around and got a best quote of £368 .
So often first year with a new company is very reasonable 2nd year it sky rockets .
I'm old enough to remember when a car hit ten years old the insurance really dropped because they wouldn't be paying big repair bills on a vehicle only worth very little.
Like many businesses that are self governed these days they bump everything up as much as they want .
People blame the modern system of accident management and compensation claims. In Germany in the 80s all claims went through an Arbiter , basically an independent claims manager. You were phoned by him and he dealt with everything.
Value of the car was based on retail prices.
They paid for deregistration of your car .
They paid for the registration of your replacement car.
They paid for the removal of audio system and then fitting in the replacement.
You got a hire car for two weeks or a cash equivalent.
You were paid a nominal sum for phone calls and postage .
This was all based on German retailers prices.
Injuries had a fixed initial payment to cover immediate medical expenses then periodic reviews by independent specialists until healthy or nothing more could be done . They compensation was fair and generous. Vehicles were settled within 6 weeks via bank transfer.
Medical compensation was paid periodically on set scales .
It's on a shed 2009 Mercedes CLC 220cdi sport . Anything more that a replacement bumper and it's a write off. Shopped around and got a best quote of £368 .
So often first year with a new company is very reasonable 2nd year it sky rockets .
I'm old enough to remember when a car hit ten years old the insurance really dropped because they wouldn't be paying big repair bills on a vehicle only worth very little.
Like many businesses that are self governed these days they bump everything up as much as they want .
People blame the modern system of accident management and compensation claims. In Germany in the 80s all claims went through an Arbiter , basically an independent claims manager. You were phoned by him and he dealt with everything.
Value of the car was based on retail prices.
They paid for deregistration of your car .
They paid for the registration of your replacement car.
They paid for the removal of audio system and then fitting in the replacement.
You got a hire car for two weeks or a cash equivalent.
You were paid a nominal sum for phone calls and postage .
This was all based on German retailers prices.
Injuries had a fixed initial payment to cover immediate medical expenses then periodic reviews by independent specialists until healthy or nothing more could be done . They compensation was fair and generous. Vehicles were settled within 6 weeks via bank transfer.
Medical compensation was paid periodically on set scales .
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff