I see why people don't insure their cars now

[Wickedbad]

Rozzers said:

Last time I was looking at leasing, everything from a Golf to a Ghibli was coming in at £50 either side of £500.00, so if youre over 35 I reckon you could probably go to something more exotic/ powerful and the premium wouldn’t rise, its probably just your postcode and occupation driving it up.

This for me too. Turned 40 this year, 19 years driving, no claims or points. No NCB (been driving company cars for a decade).

I tried all sorts and could insure anything, all well within £100 either side of £500. Cheap car, slow cars, expensive cars, fast cars, doesn’t make a huge difference anymore.

I went for an ‘07 RS4, mods declared (exhaust and coilovers) and am paying £530 with Adrian Flux.

We’re paying only slightly less for a ‘15 Jeep Renegade.

[Pit Pony]

In the dim.and distant past in my late 30s with 20 years no claims, i wrote off a car, purchased the almost identical car and added 3 points to my licence. My renewal added 100% increase.
I shopped around.
I got it 25% cheaper than if I'd not had the accident or got the points.
Having paid, i asked the lady on the phone, who said it's all down to statistics.
Maybe men of a certain age, get complacent and crash. Maybe having crashed and or added points, they crash less. Maybe the statistics show this. Mathematical correlation doesn't equal causation.
Anyway at aged 50 I went from 1.6 Astra to 3.2 omega 105 Bhp to 220 bhp.
Premium went up. By 3 quid.
Discuss?
Yeah. Nobody crashes an omega. The type of people that buy them are the type of people that don't crash.
Also nobody steals them.

[Joe5y]

M3 = c£480
C350CDI = c£520

joe5y = confused!

[kiseca]

Joe5y said:

M3 = c£480
C350CDI = c£520

joe5y = confused!

I reckon the calculation has nothing to do with power, drivetrain, or anything like that. It doesn't need to.

All that would matter to the insurance company is, we've insured 10,000 M3s. They've cost us on average £300 per car per year in claims. Add operating expenses and profit and charge client £480. We've insured 6,000 C350CDIs. They've cost us on average £340 per car per year in claims. etc.

Doesn't matter why they generated claims. The expense in claims they generate is the bottom line and everything else, the power, the magnetism to thieves, the drivetrain, safety features, all of those are factors which take care of themselves to generate that bottom line.

Then you look at postcode. This post code generates £200 p.a. in claims, that postcode generates £400.
Same thing for profession, NCB, age, gender, whatever.

Throw all those results into the mix and I wouldn't be surprised if even the insurance companies couldn't tell you what difference the car's power output makes. The only time they would need to look at that kind of detail, I would think, is when they're insuring a model they don't have a lot of data on. If you try insure a car with them and they've only seen a couple of hundred examples of it, they're either going to play safe and charge a fortune, or they presumably have to look at claim performance for similar cars.

Possibly after all that, the actual make and model of the car could influence only 20% the calculation anyway, with profession, area, mileage and all that other stuff making up the majority.

That's all speculation on my part. I don't have any inside info.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

kiseca said:

Joe5y said:

M3 = c£480
C350CDI = c£520

joe5y = confused!

I reckon the calculation has nothing to do with power, drivetrain, or anything like that. It doesn't need to.

All that would matter to the insurance company is, we've insured 10,000 M3s. They've cost us on average £300 per car per year in claims. Add operating expenses and profit and charge client £480. We've insured 6,000 C350CDIs. They've cost us on average £340 per car per year in claims. etc.

Doesn't matter why they generated claims. The expense in claims they generate is the bottom line and everything else, the power, the magnetism to thieves, the drivetrain, safety features, all of those are factors which take care of themselves to generate that bottom line.

Then you look at postcode. This post code generates £200 p.a. in claims, that postcode generates £400.
Same thing for profession, NCB, age, gender, whatever.

Throw all those results into the mix and I wouldn't be surprised if even the insurance companies couldn't tell you what difference the car's power output makes. The only time they would need to look at that kind of detail, I would think, is when they're insuring a model they don't have a lot of data on. If you try insure a car with them and they've only seen a couple of hundred examples of it, they're either going to play safe and charge a fortune, or they presumably have to look at claim performance for similar cars.

Possibly after all that, the actual make and model of the car could influence only 20% the calculation anyway, with profession, area, mileage and all that other stuff making up the majority.

That's all speculation on my part. I don't have any inside info.

I reckon that just about covers it. The reason why the M3 is less than the CLS350, is because the M3 has produced that insurer better results in that area, in the hands of people of that age .

[Wacky Racer]

People tend to forget car insurance doesn't just cover the car/cars.

A careless driver pulled out in front of my son whilst out on his motorbike ten years ago, damaging his left leg badly, it cost his insurance company £85,000.

£500 is peanuts...£10pw.

[Justin Case]

I have been with the same (excellent) brokers for many years, but in the last 10 years I have been insured through them with at leasst six insurance companies, probably some of them twice. Their theory is that insurance companies can get away with the inertia of drivers and just slip in an increase and hope no-one notices (and this is from an insurance broker, remember) But even they cannot explain why a Mercedes E250 CDI coupe would cost me £450 to insure, but a 350 CDI convertible £800 :O

[SturdyHSV]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

kiseca said:

Joe5y said:

M3 = c£480
C350CDI = c£520

joe5y = confused!

I reckon the calculation has nothing to do with power, drivetrain, or anything like that. It doesn't need to.

All that would matter to the insurance company is, we've insured 10,000 M3s. They've cost us on average £300 per car per year in claims. Add operating expenses and profit and charge client £480. We've insured 6,000 C350CDIs. They've cost us on average £340 per car per year in claims. etc.

Doesn't matter why they generated claims. The expense in claims they generate is the bottom line and everything else, the power, the magnetism to thieves, the drivetrain, safety features, all of those are factors which take care of themselves to generate that bottom line.

Then you look at postcode. This post code generates £200 p.a. in claims, that postcode generates £400.
Same thing for profession, NCB, age, gender, whatever.

Throw all those results into the mix and I wouldn't be surprised if even the insurance companies couldn't tell you what difference the car's power output makes. The only time they would need to look at that kind of detail, I would think, is when they're insuring a model they don't have a lot of data on. If you try insure a car with them and they've only seen a couple of hundred examples of it, they're either going to play safe and charge a fortune, or they presumably have to look at claim performance for similar cars.

Possibly after all that, the actual make and model of the car could influence only 20% the calculation anyway, with profession, area, mileage and all that other stuff making up the majority.

That's all speculation on my part. I don't have any inside info.

I reckon that just about covers it. The reason why the M3 is less than the CLS350, is because the M3 has produced that insurer better results in that area, in the hands of people of that age .

For anyone to think that this doesn't largely cover it seems oddly deluded? To think there's a person making a judgement call on whether an M3 is more likely to be crashed than a CSL350 and that's what they base premiums on?

That'd be an absolutely laughable way to run an insurance business of any scale and would not be reliable.

It is all based on statistics, what on earth else would it be based on? They have to base it on statistics, surely that's their most reliable evidence to go on, and thus the data most likely to allow them to turn a profit, which is all they're trying to do?

There is no 'logic' or 'common sense' in there, it's statistics. If people who park in garages tend to cost more to insure because they hit their garage compared to people that park on the street, then it'll attract a higher premium.

If 'IT professionals' tend to have more accidents or cost more than lion tamers, they'll attract a higher premium. It's not based on anything else, how could it be?

All of the insurers are offering slightly different premiums based on their gamble on the odds at how they might turn a profit. Some may gamble on offering younger people lower premiums than average in the hope that they'll attract more of the market and turn a profit. Some may gamble that people in modified cars may not be as bad as the statistics suggest and offer them a slightly better deal etc. etc.

It's just statistics and the risks insurers are willing to take on the weighting of the various factors (of which there are a VAST number) in order to try and turn a profit.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Also, all the various criteria are now, thanks to computerisation, all interlinked. So whilst an M3 might be cheaper than a lesser car for someone aged 52 in Ipswich, for someone aged 42 in Colchester it might be more. You have car, age, area, occupation, use, mileage, garaging, additional drivers, accidents, convictions, bonus level, credit rating, marital status, and probably a few others I haven't thought of. All the stats working in conjunction with each other.

So it's not as simple as a car kept in a garage is more expensive than a car kept on the road. It will depend on the postcode, type of car, age of driver, etc.

[otolith]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So it's not as simple as a car kept in a garage is more expensive than a car kept on the road. It will depend on the postcode, type of car, age of driver, etc.

You can trivially see that the relative risks of a claim for theft and a claim for scraping the garage will be different for an 85 year old in rural Yorkshire and a 35 year old in London.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

otolith said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So it's not as simple as a car kept in a garage is more expensive than a car kept on the road. It will depend on the postcode, type of car, age of driver, etc.

You can trivially see that the relative risks of a claim for theft and a claim for scraping the garage will be different for an 85 year old in rural Yorkshire and a 35 year old in London.

Exactly, And the risk of scraping will be different for a Smart Car v 1959 Cadillac.

If a car can only be stolen with the keys, a car on the drive tells you which house to break into. A car on the street doesn't.

[joestifff]

Just had quote for my boring GTD estate. The renewal is £401, so up 5% on last year, no huge deal. However, my wife has just received 3 points (SP30) and that puts it up to £500! Shopping around they're all similar.

Wife is with direct line, hers only went up £25, so I try them, no wifey points £415, with 3 points £675!!!

Even taking her off makes it go even higher with my current provider!

[mike9009]

Smart Roadster £129
VW T25 £119
BMW 330i £202
Nissan Note £175

All quite reasonable for me (45 years old). Top two are on limited mileage policies, other two 10k miles + business use. The premiums seem high the first year of ownership, and then drop quite nicely. The BMW was about £350 when I first bought it about two years ago. Latest premium is far more reasonable. I always shop around and have a tendancy not to use price comparison sites as they are always more expensive now.


Mike

[dapprman]

Don't forget premium costs are also based on the price of replacement parts - so in the BMW M3 v Mercedes C350D situation, while the former may be sportier and faster, Mercedes are legendary for expensive parts and dealer costs.

[mhurley]

Try Chris Knott, they were about £310 for my 3 litre Z4

[TwigtheWonderkid]

mike9009 said:

Smart Roadster £129
VW T25 £119
BMW 330i £202
Nissan Note £175

Rip off Britain.

Another example of unregulated insurers fleecing us for fortunes because they can.

[mat205125]

Court_S said:

Ed/L152 said:

I'm amazed that insurance is so cheap, considering the huge costs of repairs these days for even quite minor damage.

This.

When my E90 was involved in a very minor bump, it was sent to BMW for repair. They did a fab job, but the bumper was replaced rather than repaired and I drove around in an F30 330d for a week. Nuts when you think about it. I didn’t request that it was sent to BMW, AXA just said that’s where it’s going.

I’m currently paying just over £600 a year on my M140 which doesn’t seem too bad having just left a company car scheme after eight years, with a claim from a few years ago on a car that’s quite quick and is at a risk of going walkies.

Total costs of claims is absolutely obscene, in relation to the true costs of parts and repairs.

What's the solution though?

Capping of courtesy car costs?

Capping of labour rates, and a rational review of the number of hours being quoted?

Reduce the proportional cost to minimum, to mean that an economic write off is more likely, with a quick pay-out and closure of the case?

Only COMPENSATE with pounds sterling, where there has been a financial expenditure that needs to be COMPENSATED for ....... end cash-for-discomfort and having to wear a neck brace for a week or so!!

[rscott]

mat205125 said:

Court_S said:

Ed/L152 said:

I'm amazed that insurance is so cheap, considering the huge costs of repairs these days for even quite minor damage.

This.

When my E90 was involved in a very minor bump, it was sent to BMW for repair. They did a fab job, but the bumper was replaced rather than repaired and I drove around in an F30 330d for a week. Nuts when you think about it. I didn’t request that it was sent to BMW, AXA just said that’s where it’s going.

I’m currently paying just over £600 a year on my M140 which doesn’t seem too bad having just left a company car scheme after eight years, with a claim from a few years ago on a car that’s quite quick and is at a risk of going walkies.

Total costs of claims is absolutely obscene, in relation to the true costs of parts and repairs.

What's the solution though?

Capping of courtesy car costs?

Capping of labour rates, and a rational review of the number of hours being quoted?

Reduce the proportional cost to minimum, to mean that an economic write off is more likely, with a quick pay-out and closure of the case?

Only COMPENSATE with pounds sterling, where there has been a financial expenditure that needs to be COMPENSATED for ....... end cash-for-discomfort and having to wear a neck brace for a week or so!!

Why shouldn't someone receive compensation for minor injuries received in a crash?
Many years ago my Citroen AX got t-boned by a drunk driver in a Datsun Maxima. The car held up surprisingly well, but had soft tissue injuries to my neck and shoulder. Nothing major and cleared up completely within a few months. But in that time, I couldn't drive, so had to rely on others for lifts everywhere, couldn't do many of the things I enjoyed, like cycling, sitting still in the cinema, etc.
I received a small payount (just into 4 figures) as compensation - what's wrong with that..

[warcalf]

I feel like running costs and car expense has drained my appreciation for cars, I soon got sick of seeing £1000 insurance premiums and £300+ in tax per annum on my 2.5 Z4 and more recent E320 CDI.

I recently downgraded to a 1.8 Avensis that still costs me just shy of £600, despite being 24, driving for just over 5 years, living in the countryside and only ever being involved in 1 accident, which I was not at fault for an no claims made!

If I was to get back in to the Merc it'd cost an eye watering £950. So I'll keep folding my 6'5 stocky frame in to my Avensis for now.

Eyes are certainly being diverted to slightly bigger estates though, praying insurance will come down by 25 so I can try and get an Accord Tourer or something similar!

[Pit Pony]

warcalf said:

I feel like running costs and car expense has drained my appreciation for cars, I soon got sick of seeing £1000 insurance premiums and £300+ in tax per annum on my 2.5 Z4 and more recent E320 CDI.

I recently downgraded to a 1.8 Avensis that still costs me just shy of £600, despite being 24, driving for just over 5 years, living in the countryside and only ever being involved in 1 accident, which I was not at fault for an no claims made!

If I was to get back in to the Merc it'd cost an eye watering £950. So I'll keep folding my 6'5 stocky frame in to my Avensis for now.

Eyes are certainly being diverted to slightly bigger estates though, praying insurance will come down by 25 so I can try and get an Accord Tourer or something similar!

It's just transport. Can you get to where you want to go cheaper?