Insurers skimping to top the price comparisons?

[paddyhasneeds]

I'm spending the day trying to beat my renewal figure on my car insurance.

I don't shop solely on price and I read the small print as I've always assumed it's the small print that the insurers rely on to try and avoid paying out when you most need it.

Is it now considered the norm for almost every policy quoted by the price comparison sites to not include as standard things that I'd consider essential, such as windscreen cover, personal injury cover, legal cover, protecting your no claims?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for choice and not paying for options you don't want, but it seems to have turned into a race to the bottom and are I say that the folks who don't read the small print may be getting less cover than they perhaps expected?

[Mr Dave]

I dont care what I get with it, Im paying for the peice of paper that says I can drive really. From experience with most of my friends my age who have made claims, they got screwed over on some technicality anyway.

Windscreen cover? "Yes sir, you have that included, but that did not cover you when driving in Northern Ireland" was one I especially liked on a car belonging to a fella in NI.

[stemll]

paddyhasneeds said:

legal cover, protecting your no claims

Picking on just those two so, admittedly, skewing the reply slightly:

The only time I have claimed recently I was asked on the phone if I wanted to buy legal cover there and then so don't see the point of paying "just in case"

Protected no claims is, IMO, THE biggest scam in the insurance industry. Yes, you'll still get 65% off but it will be 65% off a increased initial quote. It will not reduce what you pay after a claim but it will make you think you are. IMO of course.

On your overall point I think you're probably right. I'd guess most people buy purely on price without reading the detail. So, if you're not cheapest you don't get the business.

[ZOLLAR]

paddyhasneeds said:

I'm spending the day trying to beat my renewal figure on my car insurance.

I don't shop solely on price and I read the small print as I've always assumed it's the small print that the insurers rely on to try and avoid paying out when you most need it.

Is it now considered the norm for almost every policy quoted by the price comparison sites to not include as standard things that I'd consider essential, such as windscreen cover, personal injury cover, legal cover, protecting your no claims?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for choice and not paying for options you don't want, but it seems to have turned into a race to the bottom and are I say that the folks who don't read the small print may be getting less cover than they perhaps expected?

Do remember that comparison sites quote for lots of insurers all whom offer different levels of cover, some offer legal cover as standard some don't the comparison site can't distinguish or offer all the options on one screen so it isn't so much a case of reducing cover to be competative but just simply not being able to accurately choose cover for the policyholder, it's the policyholders responsibility to check they have the cover they want if they don't read the small print or benefits section then that's their error not the insurers.

[ZOLLAR]

stemll said:

Picking on just those two so, admittedly, skewing the reply slightly:

The only time I have claimed recently I was asked on the phone if I wanted to buy legal cover there and then so don't see the point of paying "just in case"

Protected no claims is, IMO, THE biggest scam in the insurance industry. Yes, you'll still get 65% off but it will be 65% off a increased initial quote. It will not reduce what you pay after a claim but it will make you think you are. IMO of course.

On your overall point I think you're probably right. I'd guess most people buy purely on price without reading the detail. So, if you're not cheapest you don't get the business.

Yes you'd see an increase after a claim but without PNCB your increase would be alot higher as you're also losing the discount, also remember that you have to build that lost NCB back up which means you'll have increase claims over the next couple of renewals too.

PNCB does not protect your premium, never has never will people are getting to confused as to what it does it protects your discount if you crash yoo are a higher risk so your premium should increase.

[paddyhasneeds]

ZOLLAR said:

it's the policyholders responsibility to check they have the cover they want if they don't read the small print or benefits section then that's their error not the insurers.

I agree entirely, but using just one example part of the quote process is asking vehicle value.

Do people really insure £30k cars and not want windscreen cover?

[Deva Link]

paddyhasneeds said:

...but it seems to have turned into a race to the bottom ...

That's the mentality of most people in the UK - they want the cheapest possible price. It's very difficult for suppliers (of anything) to sell value.

I think with insurance, particularly, people think they'll never need to claim (no PHer has every had an own-fault accident, for example) so the frills are un-necessary.

[ZOLLAR]

paddyhasneeds said:

ZOLLAR said:

it's the policyholders responsibility to check they have the cover they want if they don't read the small print or benefits section then that's their error not the insurers.

I agree entirely, but using just one example part of the quote process is asking vehicle value.

Do people really insure £30k cars and not want windscreen cover?

You'd be surprised, customers are fickle and have bizzare reasons for not wanting certain cover just to save a few ££

People with expensive sometimes wish to use a repairer they know well, insurers if they can't use their own repairer will make a contribution and sometimes it can turn into a long winded affair so some people don't bother with windscreen cover and do it themselves.

[ZOLLAR]

Deva Link said:

paddyhasneeds said:

...but it seems to have turned into a race to the bottom ...

That's the mentality of most people in the UK - they want the cheapest possible price. It's very difficult for suppliers (of anything) to sell value.

I think with insurance, particularly, people think they'll never need to claim (no PHer has every had an own-fault accident, for example) so the frills are un-necessary.

This is very true, most people only look for the cheapest which forces insurers to either use cheaper products or increase mid term admin costs etc, customers drive the market and if they want things cheap then the product provided can lack benefits.

[jagnet]

I've never felt the need to have windscreen cover. I'd rather use a local-ish windscreen company that I know and trust, not have the aggravation of then having to put it through insurance as a non-preferred supplier and have the insurance company "make a contribution".

Really, anything to avoid having to leave my P&J in the hands of Gavin and Emma, with their obsessions over chips in glass.

[paddyhasneeds]

Can someone explain to me in idiot proof terms just how no claims works? Because I've never made a claim I actually have no idea.

All I know is I have 9 years no claims.

So if I take a policy out tomorrow and I don't pay to guarantee my NCD and I have an accident on Tuesday and make a claim, what happens when I renew or change insurers vs. if I've paid £30 to protect my NCD?

So far Frizzell is looking like the best option on price whilst also offering a decent looking policy.

[stemll]

paddyhasneeds said:

Can someone explain to me in idiot proof terms just how no claims works? Because I've never made a claim I actually have no idea.

All I know is I have 9 years no claims.

So if I take a policy out tomorrow and I don't pay to guarantee my NCD and I have an accident on Tuesday and make a claim, what happens when I renew or change insurers vs. if I've paid £30 to protect my NCD?

So far Frizzell is looking like the best option on price whilst also offering a decent looking policy.

Abolutely nothing. You'll pay pretty much the same but you'll have a bit of paper that says 65% discount rather than 40%.

[paddyhasneeds]

stemll said:

Abolutely nothing. You'll pay pretty much the same but you'll have a bit of paper that says 65% discount rather than 40%.

So why would I pay for a guaranteed NCD? (not being flippant but there must be some benefit?)

[ZOLLAR]

paddyhasneeds said:

Can someone explain to me in idiot proof terms just how no claims works? Because I've never made a claim I actually have no idea.

All I know is I have 9 years no claims.

So if I take a policy out tomorrow and I don't pay to guarantee my NCD and I have an accident on Tuesday and make a claim, what happens when I renew or change insurers vs. if I've paid £30 to protect my NCD?

So far Frizzell is looking like the best option on price whilst also offering a decent looking policy.

If you have 9 years and claim without protection your ncb would drop to 3 years, insurers only rate up to 5 years and you lose 2 years for a claim, any thing beyond 5 years ncb that doesn't really matter (can vary per insurer).
When you then do quotes with a new insurer you'll have to declare 3 years ncb and the new insurer probably won't allow you to protect them as you need 4 years usually to protect so you'd have to complete a year with protection and have no accidents (fault of course)

[ZOLLAR]

paddyhasneeds said:

stemll said:

Abolutely nothing. You'll pay pretty much the same but you'll have a bit of paper that says 65% discount rather than 40%.

So why would I pay for a guaranteed NCD? (not being flippant but there must be some benefit?)

Guranteed or protected as they're two different things.

Protected allows 2 fault claims in 3 years
Guranteed means you won't lose NCB regardless of how many fault claim you have (but if you have too many fault claims in a short period your insurer may decline to offer you a renewal quote)

[paddyhasneeds]

ZOLLAR said:

Guranteed or protected as they're two different things.

This is something I need to check with Frizzell I think. Their PDF's mention Protected and Guaranteed, but when doing a quote online there is only the option to add Guaranteed NCD cover.

http://www.csmaclub.co.uk/shop/carshop/carinsuranc...

[ZOLLAR]

paddyhasneeds said:

ZOLLAR said:

Guranteed or protected as they're two different things.

This is something I need to check with Frizzell I think. Their PDF's mention Protected and Guaranteed, but when doing a quote online there is only the option to add Guaranteed NCD cover.

http://www.csmaclub.co.uk/shop/carshop/carinsuranc...

Worth checking as GNCB sometimes carries a higher excess, if your happy with just protected you may be able to reduce your excess.

[F458]

ZOLLAR whilst you are around.... On Admiral Multi Car it says its a maximum of 5 cars... Well if Mr X is the policy administrator and has 5 cars on it and lives at Y address can Mrs X also become a policy administrator and have up to a further 5 cars on hers again living at the same Y address? So a max of 10 cars in total or is it 5 cars per address? But then I thought now they dont all have to be at the same address even???

[ZOLLAR]

F458 said:

ZOLLAR whilst you are around.... On Admiral Multi Car it says its a maximum of 5 cars... Well if Mr X is the policy administrator and has 5 cars on it and lives at Y address can Mrs X also become a policy administrator and have up to a further 5 cars on hers again living at the same Y address? So a max of 10 cars in total or is it 5 cars per address? But then I thought now they dont all have to be at the same address even???

You don't have to live at the same address but there can only be a maximum of 5 cars on one policy i.e. you can have 5 cars at 5 different addresses on one policy, if you have 10 cars you'd need two multicar policies.

HTH.

[F458]

But a husband and wife can have a multicar policy each?