Insurance for Astons

[George H]

marcelg said:

Regarding wife on insurance, again questioned it and calls recorded and form part of contract.

So she is legally insured, but isn't legal to drive it?

Seems like your getting ripped off there.

[marcelg]

Yeah she is legally insured, but not legally allowed to drive because of her license...
That is the point as she can't drive it, but actually reduces my premium

[Shmee]

marcelg said:

Yeah she is legally insured, but not legally allowed to drive because of her license...
That is the point as she can't drive it, but actually reduces my premium

My Mother is insured on both of my cars to reduce the premium, she hasn't and probably won't ever actually drive them!

[George H]

Shmee said:

My Mother is insured on both of my cars to reduce the premium, she hasn't and probably won't ever actually drive them!

Both my parents are named drivers on mine too, even though they spend about 10 months of the year living in Spain Reduced the premium massively.

My mum hasn't driven the Aston, but my dad does occasionally when he is home.

Edited by George H on Thursday 9th June 23:37

[Jockman]

George H said:

Both my parents are named drivers on mine too, even though they spend about 10 months of the year living in Spain My mum hasn't driven it but my dad does occasionally when he is home.

It's a good idea George & Shmee.

In George's case you need to be careful regarding residency. If your parent's have Spanish residency - your figure suggests they do for tax purposes ie more than 180 or so days - then any insurance here COULD be null and void as you declare that all parties are 'normally resident in the UK'

[George H]

Jockman said:

It's a good idea George & Shmee.

In George's case you need to be careful regarding residency. If your parent's have Spanish residency - your figure suggests they do for tax purposes ie more than 180 or so days - then any insurance here COULD be null and void as you declare that all parties are 'normally resident in the UK'

I think they are ex-pat status. My dad definitely is, and has been for the past 30+ years though because he works abroad, and he has always had car insurance in his own name. You could have a point though - I may have to investigate further.

[Jockman]

George H said:

I think they are ex-pat status.

What, both your parents used to be called Pat ???

My parents live in La Manga, and I know that I cannot include them on my Insurance as they are dual residents without a UK address and without being on a UK electoral role.

Hopefully your parents have something more tangible.

Either way, you and Shmee have emphasised the caveat that you should always try to include eligible low risk people on your insurance to hopefully reduce premiums

[George H]

Jockman said:

What, both your parents used to be called Pat ???

My parents live in La Manga, and I know that I cannot include them on my Insurance as they are dual residents without a UK address and without being on a UK electoral role.

Hopefully your parents have something more tangible.

Either way, you and Shmee have emphasised the caveat that you should always try to include eligible low risk people on your insurance to hopefully reduce premiums

They both used to be, but not any more

Technically they still have an address in the UK (I just house-sit, that's how I can get an Aston , or a waste of money as my mum calls it), so I'm not right sure on the intricate details of it, I will have to ask next time I speak to them.

[Murph7355]

George H said:

Both my parents are named drivers on mine too, ...

Reminds me of the massively humorous sign you often see in pubs about who they offer credit to

Is it any wonder insurance premiums are all over the place and we pay so much for it? The industry is plainly run by idiots.

Aged parents and spouses who are not legally allowed to drive a vehicle drive premiums down! Absolutely fecking stupid.

[JohnG1]

Murph7355 said:

Reminds me of the massively humorous sign you often see in pubs about who they offer credit to

Is it any wonder insurance premiums are all over the place and we pay so much for it? The industry is plainly run by idiots.

Aged parents and spouses who are not legally allowed to drive a vehicle drive premiums down! Absolutely fecking stupid.

I'd offer a different view on this....

There are two types of underwriting - underwriting at the proposal stage and underwriting at claims stage. "Good" insurers underwrite at the proposal stage. "Bad" insurers underwite at claim. Meaning - the quote from a good insurer should cover the economics and the risks. A bad insurer will offer insurance and then screw you when it comes to making a claim. So someone who has people on a policy who are not entitled to be on that policy may find that when a claim is made the insurer walks away. The person on risk has a duty of full disclosure. Fail to disclose all relevant facts and you will find the insurer can walk away when you make a claim. So although the spouse may drive down the premium - try claiming and see what happens.

Be careful out there folks...

[Adam2S]

I would agree wholeheartedly with John's post above. A lot of the insurers will refuse to pay out on your claims once they realise you have fraudulently reducing your premium by adding people who cannot possibly drive your car.

False economy in my opinion, you may well find out that you saved a few quid and ended up uninsured which defeats the whole point of insurance in the first place!

[Murph7355]

Adam2S said:

I would agree wholeheartedly with John's post above. A lot of the insurers will refuse to pay out on your claims once they realise you have fraudulently reducing your premium by adding people who cannot possibly drive your car.

False economy in my opinion, you may well find out that you saved a few quid and ended up uninsured which defeats the whole point of insurance in the first place!

I tend to agree with you both, however.

In this particular instance, the guy had made it very clear that his wife only has an auto license and the car is a manual. They've taken that on board, and accepted the policy at a reduced rate (regardless of the phone call, btw, I'd be checking the paperwork when it arrives).

The bit I definitely agree with John on are the two types of insurer.

Admiral do not appear, in this instance, to be taking much care up front. Which does not augur well for when one claims. In my opinion.

Yes, we all hope not to claim. But then if one takes that to the extreme, why not just go with TPF&T...

The whole industry needs a shake up IMO. With insurance being a legal requirement something needs to be done to rule out the hit and miss (sic) nature of premiums. There should be a common, regulated formula for the generic risk and insurers should have to price against that given risk. If insurers then want to get clever with discounts etc, they can but they should be obliged to note to the customer why the discount was offered. They'd argue this is what they do, but there needs to be transparency.

[marcelg]

Interesting to hear people's views on this subject.
I am also surprised that they allow to put a spouse on the policy with an auto licence for manual car, and therefore had a conversation with the woman in the call centre who also admitted it is strange, but is allowed.
Therefore being completely up front, having a conversation at the point of accepting the policy certainly means it cannot be taken as fraud, and given that the conversation forms part of the contract, I don't really see it as a risk.
If I did it purely online, or without mentioning on the phone what type of licence, I would agree that would be dodgy...

[Jockman]

Adam2S said:

I would agree wholeheartedly with John's post above. A lot of the insurers will refuse to pay out on your claims once they realise you have fraudulently reducing your premium by adding people who cannot possibly drive your car.

False economy in my opinion, you may well find out that you saved a few quid and ended up uninsured which defeats the whole point of insurance in the first place!

With marcelg's scenario - yup, certainly sounds strange. Other than that I would wholeheartedly disagree with John's post.

As for George and Shmee's scenario, covering parents with appropriate licenses, there is no reason why this should be a problem.

No fraud has been committed - these people could legally drive the vehicles

[JohnG1]

Jockman said:

With marcelg's scenario - yup, certainly sounds strange. Other than that I would wholeheartedly disagree with John's post.

Could you please explain why you disagree?

[Jockman]

JohnG1 said:

Could you please explain why you disagree?

Morning John.

In re-reading your comments, I actually think your posting was exclusively addressed to marcelg's methodology, something even he himself is a bit so-so about.

If I have misinterpreted it as also applying to Shmee's and George's methodology, then I should withdraw my disagreement.

I have no probs at all with the latters' insurance tactics, and I don't think you do either.

I also quite like your final 'Hill Street Blues-type' line

[JohnG1]

Jockman said:

Morning John.

In re-reading your comments, I actually think your posting was exclusively addressed to marcelg's methodology, something even he himself is a bit so-so about.

If I have misinterpreted it as also applying to Shmee's and George's methodology, then I should withdraw my disagreement.

I have no probs at all with the latters' insurance tactics, and I don't think you do either.

I also quite like your final 'Hill Street Blues-type' line

Ah, it's not just me who misses Hill Street Blues. In every press article, interview, TV piece I always try and get a line from a movie or TV show. One day I'll get into trouble...

I was really saying that in general people need to understand the two types of insurance and the implications for making a claim.

[JohnG1]

marcelg said:

Interesting to hear people's views on this subject.
I am also surprised that they allow to put a spouse on the policy with an auto licence for manual car, and therefore had a conversation with the woman in the call centre who also admitted it is strange, but is allowed.
Therefore being completely up front, having a conversation at the point of accepting the policy certainly means it cannot be taken as fraud, and given that the conversation forms part of the contract, I don't really see it as a risk.
If I did it purely online, or without mentioning on the phone what type of licence, I would agree that would be dodgy...

One piece of advice - get this agreement in writing. The lady on the phone may find that the tape recording has been lost when you make a claim.

[Neil1300R]

JohnG1 said:

One piece of advice - get this agreement in writing. The lady on the phone may find that the tape recording has been lost when you make a claim.

They can't do that. They are selling a financial product and as such is covered by FSA regulations -calls must be voice recorded, and the recording kept. The FSA take an extremely dim view of companies not keeping accurate voice recording records and and an even dimmer view of 'lost' records. The Insurance companies will be audited by the FSA every year, which usually includes random checks on voice recordings.


It is always worth playing around with online quotes- adding spouse etc (and yes mine does drive the Aston - how else does one get back from the pub) and even if it is worth insuring as being in a garage overnight. Mine is cheaper being parked on the driveway than in the garage. Did have a telephone conversation with them as to why - the agent on the end of the line couldn't explain it, but was happy for the car to be parked both on the drive and in the garage throughout the year.

[JohnG1]

Neil1300R said:

hey can't do that. They are selling a financial product and as such is covered by FSA regulations -calls must be voice recorded, and the recording kept. The FSA take an extremely dim view of companies not keeping accurate voice recording records and and an even dimmer view of 'lost' records. The Insurance companies will be audited by the FSA every year, which usually includes random checks on voice recordings.


It is always worth playing around with online quotes- adding spouse etc (and yes mine does drive the Aston - how else does one get back from the pub) and even if it is worth insuring as being in a garage overnight. Mine is cheaper being parked on the driveway than in the garage. Did have a telephone conversation with them as to why - the agent on the end of the line couldn't explain it, but was happy for the car to be parked both on the drive and in the garage throughout the year.

I know the rules and regulations - my office line is taped as well - but it does not mean that they are going to do a tape recall. And least said about the FSA the better...