Car insurance

[Gas1883]

Apologies in advance if there’s a thread for car insurance , unbelievable, 63 yr old with a 1.0 focus , 1 claim last nov for car being hit by someone who just drove off , how do they justify these rises in prices , shopped around & got it for £340 ( still sounds a lot for a 63 yr old but half the original quote .
In comparison, wife , 62 , fiesta st , same company is £200 .

[Mr Tidy]

It's supposed to be driven by statistics - maybe they've had a few expensive claims for cars like yours in the area where you live?

Although it does seem pretty random to me these days.

I'm 65 and insured my 2005 BMW 330i in April for £284.

[alscar]

[quote=Gas1883
Apologies in advance if there’s a thread for car insurance , unbelievable, 63 yr old with a 1.0 focus , 1 claim last nov for car being hit by someone who just drove off , how do they justify these rises in prices , shopped around & got it for £340 ( still sounds a lot for a 63 yr old but half the original quote .
In comparison, wife , 62 , fiesta st , same company is £200 .
[/quote]

In isolation the first quote is indeed a punchy uplift but what was the damage cost to them and how long have you been with them ?

[119]

Simple fact is, they don’t want your business anymore.

[ingenieur]

[redacted]

[Dingu]

To paraphrase the OP, the competitive market meant you could have had a claim and have insurance cheaper the following year.

Sounds traumatic to me.

[ingenieur]

Dingu said:

To paraphrase the OP, the competitive market meant you could have had a claim and have insurance cheaper the following year.

Sounds traumatic to me.

Is it right to normalise charging customers for claims though? The point of insurance is that they take a gamble by accepting to provide you with cover for a fee in the hope you won't claim. The risk should be mutualised so costs for accidents don't fall to one customer. If this isn't the case you should start asking why you pay insurance premiums in the first place if you could save year on year and pay out from your own account in the unusual case of an accident instead?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ingenieur said:

Is it right to normalise charging customers for claims though? The point of insurance is that they take a gamble by accepting to provide you with cover for a fee in the hope you won't claim. The risk should be mutualised so costs for accidents don't fall to one customer. If this isn't the case you should start asking why you pay insurance premiums in the first place if you could save year on year and pay out from your own account in the unusual case of an accident instead?

I thought the idea was everybody should pay a premium which is obviously far less than possible bill they might face if they need to make a claim. And they do. Your policy covers £50m tp property damage and unlimited tp injury cover. But the idea isn't that we all pay a flat rate. The higher your risk, the more you pay. It seems quite reasonable to charge more for someone who has made previous claims, more for teenagers than people in their 50s, more for people in London than Shetland, and more for range Rovers than Micras.

Saving year on year to pay for possible claims isn't going to be much good when you paralyse someone.

[Condado]

I am sure it’s a lottery with insurance. I change insurer every year.
Three cars.
Audi TT 2.0 2007 Me and wife (60/59) fully comp. Zero no claims fully just got the car. £180
Fiesta 1.2 2010 me, wife son and daughter in law full no claims fully comp due now £164
Seat Ibiza 1.0fr 2020 Me and wife full no claims fully comp £160 6 months ago.
Live in Tyneside, just shows insurance is a total lottery and it pays to change provider every year so easy to do over the internet and comparison sites.

[ingenieur]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ingenieur said:

Is it right to normalise charging customers for claims though? The point of insurance is that they take a gamble by accepting to provide you with cover for a fee in the hope you won't claim. The risk should be mutualised so costs for accidents don't fall to one customer. If this isn't the case you should start asking why you pay insurance premiums in the first place if you could save year on year and pay out from your own account in the unusual case of an accident instead?

I thought the idea was everybody should pay a premium which is obviously far less than possible bill they might face if they need to make a claim. And they do. Your policy covers £50m tp property damage and unlimited tp injury cover. But the idea isn't that we all pay a flat rate. The higher your risk, the more you pay. It seems quite reasonable to charge more for someone who has made previous claims, more for teenagers than people in their 50s, more for people in London than Shetland, and more for range Rovers than Micras.

Saving year on year to pay for possible claims isn't going to be much good when you paralyse someone.

I was thinking more about the non-fault or uninsured driver claims which also seem to push up premiums.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Condado said:

I am sure it’s a lottery with insurance. I change insurer every year.
Three cars.
Audi TT 2.0 2007 Me and wife (60/59) fully comp. Zero no claims fully just got the car. £180
Fiesta 1.2 2010 me, wife son and daughter in law full no claims fully comp due now £164
Seat Ibiza 1.0fr 2020 Me and wife full no claims fully comp £160 6 months ago.
Live in Tyneside, just shows insurance is a total lottery and it pays to change provider every year so easy to do over the internet and comparison sites.

How does what you've written show it's a total lottery.

If you'd said Audi TT 2.0 2007 Me and wife (60/59) fully comp. Zero no claims fully just got the car. £2973, Ferrari F40, me and 17 y/o grandson, he's declared main user, £1.5m value, not garaged, £180, then that would show it's a total lottery.

A lottery is a completely random draw, a game of 100% chance. If it's true, there's teenagers paying £150 on a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo. Where are they?

[kambites]

ingenieur said:

Is it right to normalise charging customers for claims though?

Well it has always been a part of all forms of insurance. The whole point of the way the industry work is that they make a risk assessment based on plugging the information available into statistical models and then produce a price based on a net average profit. Like it or not, having made a claim statistically raises the odds of making another claim.

To put your question the other way around, should someone who has never made an insurance claim be expected to subsidise the increased statistical risk of those who have?

There are certainly issues with our insurance system - the fact that as soon as insurance is involved the price of repairs and hire cars seems to instantly double being the obvious one, but overall I've always thought paying a few hundred quid a year to indemnify me against the almost limitless damage I could cause with a car as something of a bargain.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 4th September 16:44

[crofty1984]

ingenieur said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

ingenieur said:

Is it right to normalise charging customers for claims though? The point of insurance is that they take a gamble by accepting to provide you with cover for a fee in the hope you won't claim. The risk should be mutualised so costs for accidents don't fall to one customer. If this isn't the case you should start asking why you pay insurance premiums in the first place if you could save year on year and pay out from your own account in the unusual case of an accident instead?

I thought the idea was everybody should pay a premium which is obviously far less than possible bill they might face if they need to make a claim. And they do. Your policy covers £50m tp property damage and unlimited tp injury cover. But the idea isn't that we all pay a flat rate. The higher your risk, the more you pay. It seems quite reasonable to charge more for someone who has made previous claims, more for teenagers than people in their 50s, more for people in London than Shetland, and more for range Rovers than Micras.

Saving year on year to pay for possible claims isn't going to be much good when you paralyse someone.

I was thinking more about the non-fault or uninsured driver claims which also seem to push up premiums.

Insurers quote on risk. The premium doesn't go up to punish you, it goes up because your car is used in an area where other drivers are clumsy. At least demonstrably more so than someone who's car has never been hit. Not only that, where said drivers fk off after the fact, meaning they're on the hook to pay for your damage.

Same as if you live in an area with a lot of vehicle theft. They're not charging you more because they think YOU'RE a bad'un, it's because your car will be in an area where the likelihood of them having to reach into their pocket is higher.

I'm not saying they aren't robbing bds, just explaining the "logic" behind it.

[Decky_Q]

Got my renewal today and mine has gone up similarly, was £400 last year and they're looking £840 this year cause my wife was hit by an uninsured driver when stationary in traffic, prick then took off with only 3 wheels after he lost one on a kerb.

Lost a £10k car and got payout of £4500 and now getting on for a grand a year to insure. I hope shopping around brings mine down too, otherwise the mrs is gonna have to cycle!

[LuS1fer]

Try using a comparison site and change the car type and model to ascertain if it is you or the type of car you drive.

I'm 65 and found that my NCB makes little impact but I dare say your claim does - if that doubles your premium then your NCB has half the effect.