Insurance companies that won't stick you for changes?

[switch007]

Hey,

I've found in the past that insurance companies have screwed me with mid-policy changes, owing to address or minor job title changes.

I won't name them because it will attract their astro-turfers, but I wonder if anyone else has had similar experiences?

I know there are many factors (of course, they won't tell you), but I found it really hard to swallow last time when they wanted an extra £175 for the remaining few months when I moved house.

Are there any "good guys" (can't believe I typed that)? Is it a result of picking the cheapest policies (the other quotes are always more than double - such disparity...)?

[wd888]

welcome to the postcode lottery!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

switch007 said:

I know there are many factors (of course, they won't tell you), but I found it really hard to swallow last time when they wanted an extra £175 for the remaining few months when I moved house.

Where did you move to and from? If you move to a much higher rated area, why shouldn't they charge you. You've entered into an annual contract, and then you want to alter the terms of the deal during the course of the year.

Suppose the boot was on the other foot. 9 months into your policy your insurers ring you and say "you've got a £100 excess, but we've decided we'd like to increase it to £500." They can't do that, unless you agree with them a refund in premium to compensate you for the alteration in the contract.

[switch007]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Where did you move to and from? If you move to a much higher rated area, why shouldn't they charge you. You've entered into an annual contract, and then you want to alter the terms of the deal during the course of the year.

Diviser pour régner...

My point is around the fairness of the increase and justifiability. Life's not fair you say - a contract is a contract? In English contract law, it is accepted that parties often have unequal bargaining power. In the case of motor insurance, the consumer is obliged to have insurance.

I moved from an impoverished estate, parking on the road, to a quiet cul-de-sac in a nicer part of Surrey, parking on a drive. No mileage change.

What risks went up? More accidents in that area? Higher risk of theft? Well, it wasn't an expensive car. There were probably slightly more newer cars in the new area in to which I may crash, but surely most of that risk is my age, the time I have held a licence and my gender - two of which increased in my favour and one that certainly did not change.

Does the supposed increase of risk, as a result of a seemingly minor change, considering the huge number of risk categories, justify a 50% increase in premium? I don't believe so. It seems more like opportunistic gouging, having implicitly contractually agreed to pay whatever increase.

[TV8]

RH Insurance have been very fair to me over the last few years. Not always the cheapest in day 1 now days but good overall.

[danjama]

I don't know if it's any use to you, but i'm with classicline. Despite their name they don't only deal in classics but check a series of brokers. They never seem to care if i change house or car mid term, regardless of how drastic the change. £20 fixed admin fee seems fair to me.

[sebhaque]

switch007 said:

I moved from an impoverished estate, parking on the road, to a quiet cul-de-sac in a nicer part of Surrey, parking on a drive. No mileage change.

Just playing Devil's advocate - let's say your old estate also housed the drug lord of Europe. Nobody dicked around with cars in the area for fear of having their kneecaps removed. Therefore, vehicle crime rates were nonexistant in the estate and premiums were cheap.

You then moved to a nice area that was full of middle-class people all beavering away to afford a few luxuries in life. The local scrotes from the estate knew they'd get nothing from breaking into cars on the estate, and decided to spend four nights nicking sat navs and radios from the "posh" 14-plate cars in your cul-de-sac.

As an insurer, what would you think? The nice area with the respectable cars obviously gets broken into four times as much as the benefits breeding ground, and henceforth is a much higher risk. Like I said, just playing Devil's advocate so you can appreciate there's another side to it.

Another point - if your car's parked on the street, there's generally nothing really identifying it as belonging to the house it's parked outside. If your car's parked on your drive, realistically the keys to it are going to be inside that house. Another reason why parking on the drive can sometimes be more expensive than parking on the road; if you're parked three doors down and some thieves break in to that house to steal your keys, they'll be disappointed and your car will be unharmed. If you're parked on your drive, then there's only one place that the keys are likely to be.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

switch007 said:

I moved from an impoverished estate, parking on the road, to a quiet cul-de-sac in a nicer part of Surrey, parking on a drive. No mileage change.

Nicer areras tend to have more financially astute people living in them. Maybe the area you moved to had a higher incidence of third parties claiming for injury in minor accidents. Your more likely to hit someone in the area you live, as that's the area you drive in.

Whatever the reason, I doubt the insurer class it as a riskier area out of spite. They must have had stats to back it up.

[rongagin]

There is a site that gives the 'risk factor' against postcodes. I can't remember it but someone will no doubt.

edit try this (or others)

http://www.motorcarinsuranceuk.co.uk/post-code-rat...

[sjj84]

Don't know if it counts as good guys, but privilege didn't charge an admin fee to swap number plates. Admiral did.