Insurance myths and a game of bingo
Discussion
A half serious, half fun thread to get SP&L in the festive spirit, as we're only a few weeks away now.
For those who want to ask a question around insurance that they ought to know the answer to, but were always afraid to ask then this may be the thread for you, as I promise to answer it without judging (for December only). Equally, if you can think of one of the many myths, or simply BS comments that are trotted out and would like to make it part of my bingo card game on future threads then post them up too.
I'll start with probably the most often posted one that's completely wrong
"The other car has to be insured for you to be able to drive it using DOC" - wrong
For those who want to ask a question around insurance that they ought to know the answer to, but were always afraid to ask then this may be the thread for you, as I promise to answer it without judging (for December only). Equally, if you can think of one of the many myths, or simply BS comments that are trotted out and would like to make it part of my bingo card game on future threads then post them up too.
I'll start with probably the most often posted one that's completely wrong
"The other car has to be insured for you to be able to drive it using DOC" - wrong
Rick101 said:
Interesting about the DOC as we are in a bit of a situation with that at the moment.
I'll go with myth, irritating one at that.
Driving with no MOT means your insurance is entirely invalid
PM me about the DOC and I'll let you know what the actual state of play is on your specific case. I'll go with myth, irritating one at that.
Driving with no MOT means your insurance is entirely invalid
Good one with the MOT, totally false.
LoonR1 said:
I'll start with probably the most often posted one that's completely wrong
"The other car has to be insured for you to be able to drive it using DOC" - wrong
No doubt disseminated through one of the Road Wars / Traffic Cops style programs, where the driver in question assumed his TP only cover extended to other vehicles."The other car has to be insured for you to be able to drive it using DOC" - wrong
DaveH23 said:
A question if may.....
Do you have access to any other vehicles?
Surely everybody does via DOC or hire cars or company pool cars etc?
Could you expand a little Loon.
The question is asked at proposal stage, at that point the insurer has not provided you cover at all, so you can't rely on DOC to answer that, nor can you say that DOC on your existing policy provides access, as that policy won't be in force at the time you incept the new policy. Do you have access to any other vehicles?
Surely everybody does via DOC or hire cars or company pool cars etc?
Could you expand a little Loon.
The question should really say "Are you insured to drive any other cars specifically and excluding DOC on any existing or future policies?"
Hire cars / pool cars is just pushing the boundaries too much.
LoonR1 said:
DaveH23 said:
A question if may.....
Do you have access to any other vehicles?
Surely everybody does via DOC or hire cars or company pool cars etc?
Could you expand a little Loon.
The question is asked at proposal stage, at that point the insurer has not provided you cover at all, so you can't rely on DOC to answer that, nor can you say that DOC on your existing policy provides access, as that policy won't be in force at the time you incept the new policy. Do you have access to any other vehicles?
Surely everybody does via DOC or hire cars or company pool cars etc?
Could you expand a little Loon.
The question should really say "Are you insured to drive any other cars specifically and excluding DOC on any existing or future policies?"
Hire cars / pool cars is just pushing the boundaries too much.
Why are multi car policies not much cheaper?
As an example if I insure my elise for say 12k kiles per year, but then I buy a small family hatchback for commuting and split the miles say 80/20. Hasn't my overall risk reduced significantly? I can only drive one at a time and much less time is in the higher risk car. The only additional risk I can see is that there are now 2 cars that could be stolen.
As an example if I insure my elise for say 12k kiles per year, but then I buy a small family hatchback for commuting and split the miles say 80/20. Hasn't my overall risk reduced significantly? I can only drive one at a time and much less time is in the higher risk car. The only additional risk I can see is that there are now 2 cars that could be stolen.
littlebasher said:
LoonR1 said:
I'll start with probably the most often posted one that's completely wrong
"The other car has to be insured for you to be able to drive it using DOC" - wrong
No doubt disseminated through one of the Road Wars / Traffic Cops style programs, where the driver in question assumed his TP only cover extended to other vehicles."The other car has to be insured for you to be able to drive it using DOC" - wrong
What is the industry std (if there is one) - on retaining no claims in this scenario:
Leaving the UK for 18 months to 2 years in practical terms (away 40+ weeks a year), what is the best (pragmatic) way to retain a no-claims bonus - the vehicle will be parked up in a garage, occasional usage with the house occupied.
What kind of policy is available in this scenario, and what should I look out for? And your non-indemnified advice?
Thanks Loon.
Leaving the UK for 18 months to 2 years in practical terms (away 40+ weeks a year), what is the best (pragmatic) way to retain a no-claims bonus - the vehicle will be parked up in a garage, occasional usage with the house occupied.
What kind of policy is available in this scenario, and what should I look out for? And your non-indemnified advice?
Thanks Loon.
98elise said:
Why are multi car policies not much cheaper?
As an example if I insure my elise for say 12k kiles per year, but then I buy a small family hatchback for commuting and split the miles say 80/20. Hasn't my overall risk reduced significantly? I can only drive one at a time and much less time is in the higher risk car. The only additional risk I can see is that there are now 2 cars that could be stolen.
You're making a lot of assumptions though. Underwriting a policy involved thousands of variables all interacting with each other to produce a price. The second car that you've bought might be a disaster for that insurer with them experiencing 1000s of claims and so they price it high to try to get you to go elsewhere. This is one example of manyAs an example if I insure my elise for say 12k kiles per year, but then I buy a small family hatchback for commuting and split the miles say 80/20. Hasn't my overall risk reduced significantly? I can only drive one at a time and much less time is in the higher risk car. The only additional risk I can see is that there are now 2 cars that could be stolen.
However, the reality is that multi car is a load of b
ks amd a supremely clever marketing trick which gets all of your renewals together at the same time and means it's a ballache to do them all separately in the following years, so most people work out that it's a bit cheaper to stick with multi car, so they do. Marketing genius IMO. Vaud said:
What is the industry std (if there is one) - on retaining no claims in this scenario:
Leaving the UK for 18 months to 2 years in practical terms (away 40+ weeks a year), what is the best (pragmatic) way to retain a no-claims bonus - the vehicle will be parked up in a garage, occasional usage with the house occupied.
What kind of policy is available in this scenario, and what should I look out for? And your non-indemnified advice?
Thanks Loon.
No industry standard, but very much the norm is described below, there may be the odd insurer that will honour NCD that's three years old ( Aviva used to do it), but they will have you by the balls as it'll be a market of one or two at most. Leaving the UK for 18 months to 2 years in practical terms (away 40+ weeks a year), what is the best (pragmatic) way to retain a no-claims bonus - the vehicle will be parked up in a garage, occasional usage with the house occupied.
What kind of policy is available in this scenario, and what should I look out for? And your non-indemnified advice?
Thanks Loon.
Your NCD remains valid for up to two years from the last renewal date, so there's a chance that you're sorted anyway. If going for longer then buy a s
tter of a group 1 car, stick it in the garage and insure it. When you return, scrap the stter amd buy a new car. If you're keeping the car then just insure it as normal, although that'll cost two years premiums more than you really need to spend. The maths there is whether the two years extra premiums is any cheaper than the cost to build 5 years NCD back up.
Who's using the car while you're away? Will they be insuring it themselves? Remember they will become the main driver. You can at a push let them be that on your policy, but if they claim then it's your policy affected
Go on then, I'll play 
SWMBO is completely hung up about DOC cover only applying "in an emergency"
I have never had a policy with wording that suggests anything like that since I insured my first vehicle in 1968. My policies have always said that DOC is available to me when driving a vehicle not owned by me or not hired to me under a hire purchase agreement (or words to that effect.)
So, the question is, is SWMBO the victim of an insurance myth, or am I an idiot who doesn't read his policy properly?
SWMBO is completely hung up about DOC cover only applying "in an emergency"
I have never had a policy with wording that suggests anything like that since I insured my first vehicle in 1968. My policies have always said that DOC is available to me when driving a vehicle not owned by me or not hired to me under a hire purchase agreement (or words to that effect.)
So, the question is, is SWMBO the victim of an insurance myth, or am I an idiot who doesn't read his policy properly?
rs1952 said:
Go on then, I'll play
SWMBO is completely hung up about DOC cover only applying "in an emergency"
I have never had a policy with wording that suggests anything like that since I insured my first vehicle in 1968. My policies have always said that DOC is available to me when driving a vehicle not owned by me or not hired to me under a hire purchase agreement (or words to that effect.)
So, the question is, is SWMBO the victim of an insurance myth, or am I an idiot who doesn't read his policy properly?
Once upon a time it was put onto policies to cover emergency situations. However, as insurers do not state this and would struggle to define one anyway then DOC is available to use all the time if your policy offers it. However, don't forget the other defined restrictions those being you must not own, hire or lease the car that you want to drive using DOC SWMBO is completely hung up about DOC cover only applying "in an emergency"
I have never had a policy with wording that suggests anything like that since I insured my first vehicle in 1968. My policies have always said that DOC is available to me when driving a vehicle not owned by me or not hired to me under a hire purchase agreement (or words to that effect.)
So, the question is, is SWMBO the victim of an insurance myth, or am I an idiot who doesn't read his policy properly?
Ooh,ooh, I have a good one, that might benefit from a view from the other side. Until April, I had three policies. I sold the third after the policy ended, leaving me two live NCD on two cars, and one years spare. Nice insurance company sent me the requisite letter.
Bought third car again (too good to refuse etc etc), and played shuffle with the NCD, so new car has 8, estate has 9, and the poor old mx5 has one, mostly because I don't want to sell it, so it has a thousand mile policy. That's a classic policy, so in my head, doesn't accrue or be impacted by NCD. Broker (wrong choice, since you are asking) demanded proof of NCD, fair enough, but are now being daft. They are asking for proof of insurance since April. Since they were rude, have told them I was compliant with CIE, and to do one. I'm not able to figure out their logic here. I have an NCD letter from April, no claims/incidents either in real life or in CUE and they are starting to properly annoy me. Am I in the wrong, and there's a valid reason for them wanting the previous insurer to write a letter for no reason?
Bought third car again (too good to refuse etc etc), and played shuffle with the NCD, so new car has 8, estate has 9, and the poor old mx5 has one, mostly because I don't want to sell it, so it has a thousand mile policy. That's a classic policy, so in my head, doesn't accrue or be impacted by NCD. Broker (wrong choice, since you are asking) demanded proof of NCD, fair enough, but are now being daft. They are asking for proof of insurance since April. Since they were rude, have told them I was compliant with CIE, and to do one. I'm not able to figure out their logic here. I have an NCD letter from April, no claims/incidents either in real life or in CUE and they are starting to properly annoy me. Am I in the wrong, and there's a valid reason for them wanting the previous insurer to write a letter for no reason?
KungFuPanda said:
If you take 14 years NCB to an insurer that only recognises a maximum of 9, how many year's NCB do you walk away with after two year's claim free with the new insurer?
NCB or NCD (they're interchangeable) is generally capped at 5 years (some insurers go to 7 by offering some very small extra discounts in those two years). As you rightly say, the years thereafter are simply claim free. What normally happens after a claim is that you lose a couple of years (some take away three) unless it's protected.
If you don't claim and leave after two years you'll probably be stuck with a letter saying 9+ years or similar. Reality is that once you get over those years the difference in premium will be negligible if there's any at all. If you want a letter saying 16 years, then you should avoid insuring with an insurer that only recognises 9 years. Of course that might mean paying a bit more to get what you want.
Don't expect big discounts, there is a limit. We get to c70% in 5 years and you have have to have two crashes as a minimum to lose it all. In many other countries it'll take you all your driving life to get to the 70%, assuming you never crash, so if that was implemented here then you'd pay a lot more over your driving life.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff