Car insurance - is it all a big con?
Discussion
There’s often a myriad of threads on PH asking for advice for various insurance related issues, invariably when insurance companies are behaving like dictators.
They have people exactly where the want them, under their iron fist.
After all, It’s the law, so they have a captive customer base of millions of law abiding motorists who the insurance companies will then, at their own free will, s
t on. It’s disgusting.
I have insurance purely because it’s law. Unless my car was ruined to Cat A level, stolen and not recovered, or burnt out completely, I wouldn’t claim.
Consider several hypothetical scenarios:
Some tt drives into my car, and I go to the scrap yard for a few new panels and repair it. I would not be claiming from the insurer, but yet I would have to inform them of the crash anyway, and despite not costing them a penny, they’d fleece me for the next god knows how long because of the “have you been involved in an accident?” box. And if one doesn’t inform the insurers, and they find out, especially if the other party writes their car off in the process, then that’s an even bigger world of pain!
Car gets scratched, keyed, dented etc. One goes to the insurance to get it repaired, and they write the car off, or they repair the damage. Again, one now has to tick the box saying “have you had a claim in the last X number of years?” Say that adds £500 to the price of insurance for the next five years, but it only cost £2000 to get the car repaired at a body shop, or less to just live with the damage and make minor repairs…
It’s easier to stomach the costs of the repair yourself, or live with it, than see the insurance premiums rocket after having to tick the previous claims or accidents box.
You can see where I’m going with this….
There is a place when insurance is genuinely needed, for example if someone had a massive head on collision and needed six months off work and care and rehabilitation, not to mention a totally new car. Or the car gets burnt out, or someone dies. And that is why it is law to have insurance, broadly speaking.
Nonetheless, people who are not at fault for needing to claim are being punished by the very fact that they have to claim in the first place, whether out of necessity (car is undriveable, can’t be repaired, etc.) or because they don’t know any better than to claim from the insurance (if they aren’t handy enough to repair the car), or if they are too frightened to not tell the insurance company that they’ve been in a bump.
Moreover, even if insurers brought in additional criteria whereby one could tick a box and explain that, yes they have had an accident and by the clause in the policy notified the insurers, but then didn’t claim, I still think that there would be a heavy bias by the insurance company to increase the premiums/quotes, despite that person expanding and saying that they didn’t claim and/or were not at fault, thus effectively saying “I’m safe and won’t cost you anything/much”. Because that’s how these shysters work: there is the whiff of “claim” and they fleece the customer for the rest of time, and they may never have another crash or claim again, but they’re still being punished financially.
The other thing that shows how crooked/clueless insurers are is giving their “estimated” value of the car, then providing a quote that is more than the value of the car! Do they expect that the customer will write the car off twice during the year of insurance!? Everyone knows that the insurers will very rarely if ever pay out the value of the car, or even the trade value of the car, so why do they need to grab more money off the customer than it’s value?
Do they think that everyone who drives a cheap car will be more likely to crash it, statistically speaking maybe twice during their period of cover?
Yes, some people who have cheap cars treat them like st, but as many on here will understand, those with cheap ‘sheds’ aren’t going around crashing into people, having car park bumps etc, and if they did, would probably just leave the minor damage without seeking to claim to have it repaired.
Then there is also issue of the companies simply refusing or terminating policies, often for random and unfathomable reasons. Fair enough, if you don’t pay, or you lie about endorsements, convictions, modifications then you deserve to have it cancelled. But no, there are some instances where insurers will just say, no “we don’t want to insure your type of car anymore.” Think of LR’s, Japanese cars which are often targeted for cat theft, etc. There then seems to be confusion by customers as to whether they disclose this as cancellation of a policy or not. There is a big difference, but once again the companies will deceive the customers to thing they have to tick the cancelled box when getting policies in future. Let it be clear, that ticking the dreaded “cancelled” box when getting a quote is not going to leave your wallet in a very healthy position, if you can even get insurance at all, and all for something that isn’t even your fault and is a factor completely out of your hands.
It is abhorrent that the mainstream insurers are simply profiteering over the law of having to be insured.
How would a type of public liability cover system work? It would cover any injury to the individual or other parties, or their property and this would then not need to know about every minor damage only collision or scrape because it has nothing to do with a car at all!! (Not like third party only CAR insurance - it wouldn’t be CAR insurance) Then, if a person wanted to protect their car as well, they could as a separate entity, and that would be a not-for-profit option, where people can get insurance that is cheap, and through another change to the system, people would get the chance to explore and explain that they may have been involved in an accident, or had to claim, but it was not their fault, and the premiums should not rise as a result. Alternatively, there could be a change in the system where if there is an accident of minor damage, then there is no compulsory notification needed to let the insurers know.
Obviously, if you are having an accident every year, then there is a problem.
It seems as if brokers are the way to go, not only for more specialists and personal insurance needs, but for understanding and reduced bureaucratic bullst. The issue with brokers seems to be for many, they are not the cheapest option because if that extra level of service, and many are on even tighter budgets due to the cost of living crisis. And people do like to enjoy their cars when they are on tighter budgets, and paying extra on premiums is not in their reach, rendering them to the cheaper options.
Car insurance - is this the biggest scam that has yet to emerge?
Discuss…
Btw, I’m not blanketing all insurers with this, it’s mainly targeted at the big, main stream companies.
They have people exactly where the want them, under their iron fist.
After all, It’s the law, so they have a captive customer base of millions of law abiding motorists who the insurance companies will then, at their own free will, s
t on. It’s disgusting. I have insurance purely because it’s law. Unless my car was ruined to Cat A level, stolen and not recovered, or burnt out completely, I wouldn’t claim.
Consider several hypothetical scenarios:
Some t
t drives into my car, and I go to the scrap yard for a few new panels and repair it. I would not be claiming from the insurer, but yet I would have to inform them of the crash anyway, and despite not costing them a penny, they’d fleece me for the next god knows how long because of the “have you been involved in an accident?” box. And if one doesn’t inform the insurers, and they find out, especially if the other party writes their car off in the process, then that’s an even bigger world of pain! Car gets scratched, keyed, dented etc. One goes to the insurance to get it repaired, and they write the car off, or they repair the damage. Again, one now has to tick the box saying “have you had a claim in the last X number of years?” Say that adds £500 to the price of insurance for the next five years, but it only cost £2000 to get the car repaired at a body shop, or less to just live with the damage and make minor repairs…
It’s easier to stomach the costs of the repair yourself, or live with it, than see the insurance premiums rocket after having to tick the previous claims or accidents box.
You can see where I’m going with this….
There is a place when insurance is genuinely needed, for example if someone had a massive head on collision and needed six months off work and care and rehabilitation, not to mention a totally new car. Or the car gets burnt out, or someone dies. And that is why it is law to have insurance, broadly speaking.
Nonetheless, people who are not at fault for needing to claim are being punished by the very fact that they have to claim in the first place, whether out of necessity (car is undriveable, can’t be repaired, etc.) or because they don’t know any better than to claim from the insurance (if they aren’t handy enough to repair the car), or if they are too frightened to not tell the insurance company that they’ve been in a bump.
Moreover, even if insurers brought in additional criteria whereby one could tick a box and explain that, yes they have had an accident and by the clause in the policy notified the insurers, but then didn’t claim, I still think that there would be a heavy bias by the insurance company to increase the premiums/quotes, despite that person expanding and saying that they didn’t claim and/or were not at fault, thus effectively saying “I’m safe and won’t cost you anything/much”. Because that’s how these shysters work: there is the whiff of “claim” and they fleece the customer for the rest of time, and they may never have another crash or claim again, but they’re still being punished financially.
The other thing that shows how crooked/clueless insurers are is giving their “estimated” value of the car, then providing a quote that is more than the value of the car! Do they expect that the customer will write the car off twice during the year of insurance!? Everyone knows that the insurers will very rarely if ever pay out the value of the car, or even the trade value of the car, so why do they need to grab more money off the customer than it’s value?
Do they think that everyone who drives a cheap car will be more likely to crash it, statistically speaking maybe twice during their period of cover?
Yes, some people who have cheap cars treat them like s
t, but as many on here will understand, those with cheap ‘sheds’ aren’t going around crashing into people, having car park bumps etc, and if they did, would probably just leave the minor damage without seeking to claim to have it repaired. Then there is also issue of the companies simply refusing or terminating policies, often for random and unfathomable reasons. Fair enough, if you don’t pay, or you lie about endorsements, convictions, modifications then you deserve to have it cancelled. But no, there are some instances where insurers will just say, no “we don’t want to insure your type of car anymore.” Think of LR’s, Japanese cars which are often targeted for cat theft, etc. There then seems to be confusion by customers as to whether they disclose this as cancellation of a policy or not. There is a big difference, but once again the companies will deceive the customers to thing they have to tick the cancelled box when getting policies in future. Let it be clear, that ticking the dreaded “cancelled” box when getting a quote is not going to leave your wallet in a very healthy position, if you can even get insurance at all, and all for something that isn’t even your fault and is a factor completely out of your hands.
It is abhorrent that the mainstream insurers are simply profiteering over the law of having to be insured.
How would a type of public liability cover system work? It would cover any injury to the individual or other parties, or their property and this would then not need to know about every minor damage only collision or scrape because it has nothing to do with a car at all!! (Not like third party only CAR insurance - it wouldn’t be CAR insurance) Then, if a person wanted to protect their car as well, they could as a separate entity, and that would be a not-for-profit option, where people can get insurance that is cheap, and through another change to the system, people would get the chance to explore and explain that they may have been involved in an accident, or had to claim, but it was not their fault, and the premiums should not rise as a result. Alternatively, there could be a change in the system where if there is an accident of minor damage, then there is no compulsory notification needed to let the insurers know.
Obviously, if you are having an accident every year, then there is a problem.
It seems as if brokers are the way to go, not only for more specialists and personal insurance needs, but for understanding and reduced bureaucratic bulls
t. The issue with brokers seems to be for many, they are not the cheapest option because if that extra level of service, and many are on even tighter budgets due to the cost of living crisis. And people do like to enjoy their cars when they are on tighter budgets, and paying extra on premiums is not in their reach, rendering them to the cheaper options. Car insurance - is this the biggest scam that has yet to emerge?
Discuss…
Btw, I’m not blanketing all insurers with this, it’s mainly targeted at the big, main stream companies.
The "have you been involved in any accident or incident even if you didn't claim" is an interesting question - how far the rabbit hole do you go on this ? Eg if you have a minor scrape with a wall or hit a small deer or badger you probably won't claim if the damage is slight but do you have to report it under the T&C's ?
Far and away the biggest part of the insurance premium is for the 3rd party legal requirement. How far does your few hundred quid premium go if you have an at fault accident and crash into a Ferrari, Lambo, Bugatti or similar? Or, a bus/coach with 50 people on board? Or, crash into a building causing extensive damage?
I don't think things are perfect in the UK, but in comparison to, say, the USA, I think our car insurance isn't at all bad in terms of what we get for our money.
I share some of the the OP's frustrations, though, and it's generally with the smaller things.
Having to prove the value of a car when seeking a pay out for it being written off, for example. Their request was for multiple examples, of the same registration age (so if my car were a 19 plate, they want examples that also are), and +/- 5000 miles on the mileage.
Now, I wasn't dealing with a ridiculously rare car, but this was basically impossible, and every single example of any age or mileage I could find was higher in price than their offer. I did, eventually, manage to argue a reasonable sum out of them, but it was a disproportionate amount of effort.
The argument is "well, get agreed value", but it shouldn't need an agreed value for a car that is pretty unremarkable, just to counter their ignorance (possibly proactive) of market prices.
I don't think this stuff is a complete disaster or a con, but it's definitely one of those "ugh, this is going to be a complete pain" feelings when you have to engage with them.
It also seems to be counter to my experience with other insurance products, such as home insurance, which I have found to be pretty reasonable/transparent when it comes to equivalent issues.
I'm not sure it can be made "better" without making it much more expensive, though, and I'm glad I'm at an age where I can pretty much insure anythng I want at what I'd consider to be a not unreasonable price.
I share some of the the OP's frustrations, though, and it's generally with the smaller things.
Having to prove the value of a car when seeking a pay out for it being written off, for example. Their request was for multiple examples, of the same registration age (so if my car were a 19 plate, they want examples that also are), and +/- 5000 miles on the mileage.
Now, I wasn't dealing with a ridiculously rare car, but this was basically impossible, and every single example of any age or mileage I could find was higher in price than their offer. I did, eventually, manage to argue a reasonable sum out of them, but it was a disproportionate amount of effort.
The argument is "well, get agreed value", but it shouldn't need an agreed value for a car that is pretty unremarkable, just to counter their ignorance (possibly proactive) of market prices.
I don't think this stuff is a complete disaster or a con, but it's definitely one of those "ugh, this is going to be a complete pain" feelings when you have to engage with them.
It also seems to be counter to my experience with other insurance products, such as home insurance, which I have found to be pretty reasonable/transparent when it comes to equivalent issues.
I'm not sure it can be made "better" without making it much more expensive, though, and I'm glad I'm at an age where I can pretty much insure anythng I want at what I'd consider to be a not unreasonable price.
Ffordd Ar Gau said:
There’s often a myriad of threads on PH asking for advice for various insurance related issues, invariably when insurance companies are behaving like dictators.
They have people exactly where the want them, under their iron fist.
After all, It’s the law, so they have a captive customer base of millions of law abiding motorists who the insurance companies will then, at their own free will, st on. It’s disgusting.
I have insurance purely because it’s law. Unless my car was ruined to Cat A level, stolen and not recovered, or burnt out completely, I wouldn’t claim.
Consider several hypothetical scenarios:
Some tt drives into my car, and I go to the scrap yard for a few new panels and repair it. I would not be claiming from the insurer, but yet I would have to inform them of the crash anyway, and despite not costing them a penny, they’d fleece me for the next god knows how long because of the “have you been involved in an accident?” box. And if one doesn’t inform the insurers, and they find out, especially if the other party writes their car off in the process, then that’s an even bigger world of pain!
Car gets scratched, keyed, dented etc. One goes to the insurance to get it repaired, and they write the car off, or they repair the damage. Again, one now has to tick the box saying “have you had a claim in the last X number of years?” Say that adds £500 to the price of insurance for the next five years, but it only cost £2000 to get the car repaired at a body shop, or less to just live with the damage and make minor repairs…
It’s easier to stomach the costs of the repair yourself, or live with it, than see the insurance premiums rocket after having to tick the previous claims or accidents box.
You can see where I’m going with this….
There is a place when insurance is genuinely needed, for example if someone had a massive head on collision and needed six months off work and care and rehabilitation, not to mention a totally new car. Or the car gets burnt out, or someone dies. And that is why it is law to have insurance, broadly speaking.
Nonetheless, people who are not at fault for needing to claim are being punished by the very fact that they have to claim in the first place, whether out of necessity (car is undriveable, can’t be repaired, etc.) or because they don’t know any better than to claim from the insurance (if they aren’t handy enough to repair the car), or if they are too frightened to not tell the insurance company that they’ve been in a bump.
Moreover, even if insurers brought in additional criteria whereby one could tick a box and explain that, yes they have had an accident and by the clause in the policy notified the insurers, but then didn’t claim, I still think that there would be a heavy bias by the insurance company to increase the premiums/quotes, despite that person expanding and saying that they didn’t claim and/or were not at fault, thus effectively saying “I’m safe and won’t cost you anything/much”. Because that’s how these shysters work: there is the whiff of “claim” and they fleece the customer for the rest of time, and they may never have another crash or claim again, but they’re still being punished financially.
The other thing that shows how crooked/clueless insurers are is giving their “estimated” value of the car, then providing a quote that is more than the value of the car! Do they expect that the customer will write the car off twice during the year of insurance!? Everyone knows that the insurers will very rarely if ever pay out the value of the car, or even the trade value of the car, so why do they need to grab more money off the customer than it’s value?
Do they think that everyone who drives a cheap car will be more likely to crash it, statistically speaking maybe twice during their period of cover?
Yes, some people who have cheap cars treat them like st, but as many on here will understand, those with cheap ‘sheds’ aren’t going around crashing into people, having car park bumps etc, and if they did, would probably just leave the minor damage without seeking to claim to have it repaired.
Then there is also issue of the companies simply refusing or terminating policies, often for random and unfathomable reasons. Fair enough, if you don’t pay, or you lie about endorsements, convictions, modifications then you deserve to have it cancelled. But no, there are some instances where insurers will just say, no “we don’t want to insure your type of car anymore.” Think of LR’s, Japanese cars which are often targeted for cat theft, etc. There then seems to be confusion by customers as to whether they disclose this as cancellation of a policy or not. There is a big difference, but once again the companies will deceive the customers to thing they have to tick the cancelled box when getting policies in future. Let it be clear, that ticking the dreaded “cancelled” box when getting a quote is not going to leave your wallet in a very healthy position, if you can even get insurance at all, and all for something that isn’t even your fault and is a factor completely out of your hands.
It is abhorrent that the mainstream insurers are simply profiteering over the law of having to be insured.
How would a type of public liability cover system work? It would cover any injury to the individual or other parties, or their property and this would then not need to know about every minor damage only collision or scrape because it has nothing to do with a car at all!! (Not like third party only CAR insurance - it wouldn’t be CAR insurance) Then, if a person wanted to protect their car as well, they could as a separate entity, and that would be a not-for-profit option, where people can get insurance that is cheap, and through another change to the system, people would get the chance to explore and explain that they may have been involved in an accident, or had to claim, but it was not their fault, and the premiums should not rise as a result. Alternatively, there could be a change in the system where if there is an accident of minor damage, then there is no compulsory notification needed to let the insurers know.
Obviously, if you are having an accident every year, then there is a problem.
It seems as if brokers are the way to go, not only for more specialists and personal insurance needs, but for understanding and reduced bureaucratic bullst. The issue with brokers seems to be for many, they are not the cheapest option because if that extra level of service, and many are on even tighter budgets due to the cost of living crisis. And people do like to enjoy their cars when they are on tighter budgets, and paying extra on premiums is not in their reach, rendering them to the cheaper options.
Car insurance - is this the biggest scam that has yet to emerge?
Discuss…
Btw, I’m not blanketing all insurers with this, it’s mainly targeted at the big, main stream companies.
Best rant of 2024 so far :SThey have people exactly where the want them, under their iron fist.
After all, It’s the law, so they have a captive customer base of millions of law abiding motorists who the insurance companies will then, at their own free will, s
t on. It’s disgusting. I have insurance purely because it’s law. Unless my car was ruined to Cat A level, stolen and not recovered, or burnt out completely, I wouldn’t claim.
Consider several hypothetical scenarios:
Some t
t drives into my car, and I go to the scrap yard for a few new panels and repair it. I would not be claiming from the insurer, but yet I would have to inform them of the crash anyway, and despite not costing them a penny, they’d fleece me for the next god knows how long because of the “have you been involved in an accident?” box. And if one doesn’t inform the insurers, and they find out, especially if the other party writes their car off in the process, then that’s an even bigger world of pain! Car gets scratched, keyed, dented etc. One goes to the insurance to get it repaired, and they write the car off, or they repair the damage. Again, one now has to tick the box saying “have you had a claim in the last X number of years?” Say that adds £500 to the price of insurance for the next five years, but it only cost £2000 to get the car repaired at a body shop, or less to just live with the damage and make minor repairs…
It’s easier to stomach the costs of the repair yourself, or live with it, than see the insurance premiums rocket after having to tick the previous claims or accidents box.
You can see where I’m going with this….
There is a place when insurance is genuinely needed, for example if someone had a massive head on collision and needed six months off work and care and rehabilitation, not to mention a totally new car. Or the car gets burnt out, or someone dies. And that is why it is law to have insurance, broadly speaking.
Nonetheless, people who are not at fault for needing to claim are being punished by the very fact that they have to claim in the first place, whether out of necessity (car is undriveable, can’t be repaired, etc.) or because they don’t know any better than to claim from the insurance (if they aren’t handy enough to repair the car), or if they are too frightened to not tell the insurance company that they’ve been in a bump.
Moreover, even if insurers brought in additional criteria whereby one could tick a box and explain that, yes they have had an accident and by the clause in the policy notified the insurers, but then didn’t claim, I still think that there would be a heavy bias by the insurance company to increase the premiums/quotes, despite that person expanding and saying that they didn’t claim and/or were not at fault, thus effectively saying “I’m safe and won’t cost you anything/much”. Because that’s how these shysters work: there is the whiff of “claim” and they fleece the customer for the rest of time, and they may never have another crash or claim again, but they’re still being punished financially.
The other thing that shows how crooked/clueless insurers are is giving their “estimated” value of the car, then providing a quote that is more than the value of the car! Do they expect that the customer will write the car off twice during the year of insurance!? Everyone knows that the insurers will very rarely if ever pay out the value of the car, or even the trade value of the car, so why do they need to grab more money off the customer than it’s value?
Do they think that everyone who drives a cheap car will be more likely to crash it, statistically speaking maybe twice during their period of cover?
Yes, some people who have cheap cars treat them like s
t, but as many on here will understand, those with cheap ‘sheds’ aren’t going around crashing into people, having car park bumps etc, and if they did, would probably just leave the minor damage without seeking to claim to have it repaired. Then there is also issue of the companies simply refusing or terminating policies, often for random and unfathomable reasons. Fair enough, if you don’t pay, or you lie about endorsements, convictions, modifications then you deserve to have it cancelled. But no, there are some instances where insurers will just say, no “we don’t want to insure your type of car anymore.” Think of LR’s, Japanese cars which are often targeted for cat theft, etc. There then seems to be confusion by customers as to whether they disclose this as cancellation of a policy or not. There is a big difference, but once again the companies will deceive the customers to thing they have to tick the cancelled box when getting policies in future. Let it be clear, that ticking the dreaded “cancelled” box when getting a quote is not going to leave your wallet in a very healthy position, if you can even get insurance at all, and all for something that isn’t even your fault and is a factor completely out of your hands.
It is abhorrent that the mainstream insurers are simply profiteering over the law of having to be insured.
How would a type of public liability cover system work? It would cover any injury to the individual or other parties, or their property and this would then not need to know about every minor damage only collision or scrape because it has nothing to do with a car at all!! (Not like third party only CAR insurance - it wouldn’t be CAR insurance) Then, if a person wanted to protect their car as well, they could as a separate entity, and that would be a not-for-profit option, where people can get insurance that is cheap, and through another change to the system, people would get the chance to explore and explain that they may have been involved in an accident, or had to claim, but it was not their fault, and the premiums should not rise as a result. Alternatively, there could be a change in the system where if there is an accident of minor damage, then there is no compulsory notification needed to let the insurers know.
Obviously, if you are having an accident every year, then there is a problem.
It seems as if brokers are the way to go, not only for more specialists and personal insurance needs, but for understanding and reduced bureaucratic bulls
t. The issue with brokers seems to be for many, they are not the cheapest option because if that extra level of service, and many are on even tighter budgets due to the cost of living crisis. And people do like to enjoy their cars when they are on tighter budgets, and paying extra on premiums is not in their reach, rendering them to the cheaper options. Car insurance - is this the biggest scam that has yet to emerge?
Discuss…
Btw, I’m not blanketing all insurers with this, it’s mainly targeted at the big, main stream companies.
I think the indicator as to whether they're taking the piss will be if the big insurers are all declaring record profits this year.
There has definitely been inflation of their costs with increased repair labour costs and parts supply problems, as well as increase in their staff and energy costs. If they make record profits by a big margin, then yes, they'll be yet another one of the group of most of the big companies who are behind the largest part of the cost of living crisis.
Look at most big businesses. Crying to the media about having to put prices up due to inflation of their costs, then massive record profits.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/06/w...
There has definitely been inflation of their costs with increased repair labour costs and parts supply problems, as well as increase in their staff and energy costs. If they make record profits by a big margin, then yes, they'll be yet another one of the group of most of the big companies who are behind the largest part of the cost of living crisis.
Look at most big businesses. Crying to the media about having to put prices up due to inflation of their costs, then massive record profits.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/06/w...
Ffordd Ar Gau said:
There’s often a myriad of threads on PH asking for advice for various insurance related issues, invariably when insurance companies are behaving like dictators.
They have people exactly where the want them, under their iron fist.
After all, It’s the law, so they have a captive customer base of millions of law abiding motorists who the insurance companies will then, at their own free will, st on. It’s disgusting.
I have insurance purely because it’s law. Unless my car was ruined to Cat A level, stolen and not recovered, or burnt out completely, I wouldn’t claim.
Consider several hypothetical scenarios:
Some tt drives into my car, and I go to the scrap yard for a few new panels and repair it. I would not be claiming from the insurer, but yet I would have to inform them of the crash anyway, and despite not costing them a penny, they’d fleece me for the next god knows how long because of the “have you been involved in an accident?” box. And if one doesn’t inform the insurers, and they find out, especially if the other party writes their car off in the process, then that’s an even bigger world of pain!
Car gets scratched, keyed, dented etc. One goes to the insurance to get it repaired, and they write the car off, or they repair the damage. Again, one now has to tick the box saying “have you had a claim in the last X number of years?” Say that adds £500 to the price of insurance for the next five years, but it only cost £2000 to get the car repaired at a body shop, or less to just live with the damage and make minor repairs…
It’s easier to stomach the costs of the repair yourself, or live with it, than see the insurance premiums rocket after having to tick the previous claims or accidents box.
You can see where I’m going with this….
There is a place when insurance is genuinely needed, for example if someone had a massive head on collision and needed six months off work and care and rehabilitation, not to mention a totally new car. Or the car gets burnt out, or someone dies. And that is why it is law to have insurance, broadly speaking.
Nonetheless, people who are not at fault for needing to claim are being punished by the very fact that they have to claim in the first place, whether out of necessity (car is undriveable, can’t be repaired, etc.) or because they don’t know any better than to claim from the insurance (if they aren’t handy enough to repair the car), or if they are too frightened to not tell the insurance company that they’ve been in a bump.
Moreover, even if insurers brought in additional criteria whereby one could tick a box and explain that, yes they have had an accident and by the clause in the policy notified the insurers, but then didn’t claim, I still think that there would be a heavy bias by the insurance company to increase the premiums/quotes, despite that person expanding and saying that they didn’t claim and/or were not at fault, thus effectively saying “I’m safe and won’t cost you anything/much”. Because that’s how these shysters work: there is the whiff of “claim” and they fleece the customer for the rest of time, and they may never have another crash or claim again, but they’re still being punished financially.
The other thing that shows how crooked/clueless insurers are is giving their “estimated” value of the car, then providing a quote that is more than the value of the car! Do they expect that the customer will write the car off twice during the year of insurance!? Everyone knows that the insurers will very rarely if ever pay out the value of the car, or even the trade value of the car, so why do they need to grab more money off the customer than it’s value?
Do they think that everyone who drives a cheap car will be more likely to crash it, statistically speaking maybe twice during their period of cover?
Yes, some people who have cheap cars treat them like st, but as many on here will understand, those with cheap ‘sheds’ aren’t going around crashing into people, having car park bumps etc, and if they did, would probably just leave the minor damage without seeking to claim to have it repaired.
Then there is also issue of the companies simply refusing or terminating policies, often for random and unfathomable reasons. Fair enough, if you don’t pay, or you lie about endorsements, convictions, modifications then you deserve to have it cancelled. But no, there are some instances where insurers will just say, no “we don’t want to insure your type of car anymore.” Think of LR’s, Japanese cars which are often targeted for cat theft, etc. There then seems to be confusion by customers as to whether they disclose this as cancellation of a policy or not. There is a big difference, but once again the companies will deceive the customers to thing they have to tick the cancelled box when getting policies in future. Let it be clear, that ticking the dreaded “cancelled” box when getting a quote is not going to leave your wallet in a very healthy position, if you can even get insurance at all, and all for something that isn’t even your fault and is a factor completely out of your hands.
It is abhorrent that the mainstream insurers are simply profiteering over the law of having to be insured.
How would a type of public liability cover system work? It would cover any injury to the individual or other parties, or their property and this would then not need to know about every minor damage only collision or scrape because it has nothing to do with a car at all!! (Not like third party only CAR insurance - it wouldn’t be CAR insurance) Then, if a person wanted to protect their car as well, they could as a separate entity, and that would be a not-for-profit option, where people can get insurance that is cheap, and through another change to the system, people would get the chance to explore and explain that they may have been involved in an accident, or had to claim, but it was not their fault, and the premiums should not rise as a result. Alternatively, there could be a change in the system where if there is an accident of minor damage, then there is no compulsory notification needed to let the insurers know.
Obviously, if you are having an accident every year, then there is a problem.
It seems as if brokers are the way to go, not only for more specialists and personal insurance needs, but for understanding and reduced bureaucratic bullst. The issue with brokers seems to be for many, they are not the cheapest option because if that extra level of service, and many are on even tighter budgets due to the cost of living crisis. And people do like to enjoy their cars when they are on tighter budgets, and paying extra on premiums is not in their reach, rendering them to the cheaper options.
Car insurance - is this the biggest scam that has yet to emerge?
Discuss…
Btw, I’m not blanketing all insurers with this, it’s mainly targeted at the big, main stream companies.
Is your name Leo? They have people exactly where the want them, under their iron fist.
After all, It’s the law, so they have a captive customer base of millions of law abiding motorists who the insurance companies will then, at their own free will, s
t on. It’s disgusting. I have insurance purely because it’s law. Unless my car was ruined to Cat A level, stolen and not recovered, or burnt out completely, I wouldn’t claim.
Consider several hypothetical scenarios:
Some t
t drives into my car, and I go to the scrap yard for a few new panels and repair it. I would not be claiming from the insurer, but yet I would have to inform them of the crash anyway, and despite not costing them a penny, they’d fleece me for the next god knows how long because of the “have you been involved in an accident?” box. And if one doesn’t inform the insurers, and they find out, especially if the other party writes their car off in the process, then that’s an even bigger world of pain! Car gets scratched, keyed, dented etc. One goes to the insurance to get it repaired, and they write the car off, or they repair the damage. Again, one now has to tick the box saying “have you had a claim in the last X number of years?” Say that adds £500 to the price of insurance for the next five years, but it only cost £2000 to get the car repaired at a body shop, or less to just live with the damage and make minor repairs…
It’s easier to stomach the costs of the repair yourself, or live with it, than see the insurance premiums rocket after having to tick the previous claims or accidents box.
You can see where I’m going with this….
There is a place when insurance is genuinely needed, for example if someone had a massive head on collision and needed six months off work and care and rehabilitation, not to mention a totally new car. Or the car gets burnt out, or someone dies. And that is why it is law to have insurance, broadly speaking.
Nonetheless, people who are not at fault for needing to claim are being punished by the very fact that they have to claim in the first place, whether out of necessity (car is undriveable, can’t be repaired, etc.) or because they don’t know any better than to claim from the insurance (if they aren’t handy enough to repair the car), or if they are too frightened to not tell the insurance company that they’ve been in a bump.
Moreover, even if insurers brought in additional criteria whereby one could tick a box and explain that, yes they have had an accident and by the clause in the policy notified the insurers, but then didn’t claim, I still think that there would be a heavy bias by the insurance company to increase the premiums/quotes, despite that person expanding and saying that they didn’t claim and/or were not at fault, thus effectively saying “I’m safe and won’t cost you anything/much”. Because that’s how these shysters work: there is the whiff of “claim” and they fleece the customer for the rest of time, and they may never have another crash or claim again, but they’re still being punished financially.
The other thing that shows how crooked/clueless insurers are is giving their “estimated” value of the car, then providing a quote that is more than the value of the car! Do they expect that the customer will write the car off twice during the year of insurance!? Everyone knows that the insurers will very rarely if ever pay out the value of the car, or even the trade value of the car, so why do they need to grab more money off the customer than it’s value?
Do they think that everyone who drives a cheap car will be more likely to crash it, statistically speaking maybe twice during their period of cover?
Yes, some people who have cheap cars treat them like s
t, but as many on here will understand, those with cheap ‘sheds’ aren’t going around crashing into people, having car park bumps etc, and if they did, would probably just leave the minor damage without seeking to claim to have it repaired. Then there is also issue of the companies simply refusing or terminating policies, often for random and unfathomable reasons. Fair enough, if you don’t pay, or you lie about endorsements, convictions, modifications then you deserve to have it cancelled. But no, there are some instances where insurers will just say, no “we don’t want to insure your type of car anymore.” Think of LR’s, Japanese cars which are often targeted for cat theft, etc. There then seems to be confusion by customers as to whether they disclose this as cancellation of a policy or not. There is a big difference, but once again the companies will deceive the customers to thing they have to tick the cancelled box when getting policies in future. Let it be clear, that ticking the dreaded “cancelled” box when getting a quote is not going to leave your wallet in a very healthy position, if you can even get insurance at all, and all for something that isn’t even your fault and is a factor completely out of your hands.
It is abhorrent that the mainstream insurers are simply profiteering over the law of having to be insured.
How would a type of public liability cover system work? It would cover any injury to the individual or other parties, or their property and this would then not need to know about every minor damage only collision or scrape because it has nothing to do with a car at all!! (Not like third party only CAR insurance - it wouldn’t be CAR insurance) Then, if a person wanted to protect their car as well, they could as a separate entity, and that would be a not-for-profit option, where people can get insurance that is cheap, and through another change to the system, people would get the chance to explore and explain that they may have been involved in an accident, or had to claim, but it was not their fault, and the premiums should not rise as a result. Alternatively, there could be a change in the system where if there is an accident of minor damage, then there is no compulsory notification needed to let the insurers know.
Obviously, if you are having an accident every year, then there is a problem.
It seems as if brokers are the way to go, not only for more specialists and personal insurance needs, but for understanding and reduced bureaucratic bulls
t. The issue with brokers seems to be for many, they are not the cheapest option because if that extra level of service, and many are on even tighter budgets due to the cost of living crisis. And people do like to enjoy their cars when they are on tighter budgets, and paying extra on premiums is not in their reach, rendering them to the cheaper options. Car insurance - is this the biggest scam that has yet to emerge?
Discuss…
Btw, I’m not blanketing all insurers with this, it’s mainly targeted at the big, main stream companies.
I didn't read most of this, but just to pick up on a couple of points that jumped out when I was skimming it...
So anyone who compares the cost of an insurance policy to the value of the car is really just displaying the fact that they don't have the first idea of what car insurance actually covers.
Ffordd Ar Gau said:
The other thing that shows how crooked/clueless insurers are is giving their “estimated” value of the car, then providing a quote that is more than the value of the car! Do they expect that the customer will write the car off twice during the year of insurance!? Everyone knows that the insurers will very rarely if ever pay out the value of the car, or even the trade value of the car, so why do they need to grab more money off the customer than it’s value?
Do they think that everyone who drives a cheap car will be more likely to crash it, statistically speaking maybe twice during their period of cover?
Yes, some people who have cheap cars treat them like st, but as many on here will understand, those with cheap ‘sheds’ aren’t going around crashing into people, having car park bumps etc, and if they did, would probably just leave the minor damage without seeking to claim to have it repaired.
At that end of the market the risk is nearly all third party claims, so the value of the car is completely irrelevant to the premium. The insurer isn't charging £600 because they're worried that they might have to replace your £500 snotter. They're charging £600 because they're worried that you might paralyse someone for life, leaving them to pick up a bill for £23 million. You're just as likely to do that in a crappy old car as you are in an expensive new car. In fact if anything you're more likely to do it in the crappy old car which doesn't have modern safety features and is more likely to be in poor mechanical condition than the expensive new one. Do they think that everyone who drives a cheap car will be more likely to crash it, statistically speaking maybe twice during their period of cover?
Yes, some people who have cheap cars treat them like s
t, but as many on here will understand, those with cheap ‘sheds’ aren’t going around crashing into people, having car park bumps etc, and if they did, would probably just leave the minor damage without seeking to claim to have it repaired.So anyone who compares the cost of an insurance policy to the value of the car is really just displaying the fact that they don't have the first idea of what car insurance actually covers.
Ffordd Ar Gau said:
through another change to the system, people would get the chance to explore and explain that they may have been involved in an accident, or had to claim, but it was not their fault, and the premiums should not rise as a result.
You already have that option. If you want bespoke underwriting you can go to Lloyds of London, sit down for tea and biscuits with your underwriter, chat to him in detail about the circumstances of your accident and see if you can persuade him that it doesn't mark you out as higher risk. But you will inevitably have to pay extra for that level of personalised service - probably a lot more than the extra 10% that Direct Line's computer might want to charge you when you tick the "accident - non fault" box. Which is why nobody actually chooses that option.porterpainter said:
Ffordd Ar Gau said:
There’s often a myriad of threads on PH asking for advice for various insurance related issues, invariably when insurance companies are behaving like dictators.
They have people exactly where the want them, under their iron fist.
After all, It’s the law, so they have a captive customer base of millions of law abiding motorists who the insurance companies will then, at their own free will, st on. It’s disgusting.
I have insurance purely because it’s law. Unless my car was ruined to Cat A level, stolen and not recovered, or burnt out completely, I wouldn’t claim.
Consider several hypothetical scenarios:
Some tt drives into my car, and I go to the scrap yard for a few new panels and repair it. I would not be claiming from the insurer, but yet I would have to inform them of the crash anyway, and despite not costing them a penny, they’d fleece me for the next god knows how long because of the “have you been involved in an accident?” box. And if one doesn’t inform the insurers, and they find out, especially if the other party writes their car off in the process, then that’s an even bigger world of pain!
Car gets scratched, keyed, dented etc. One goes to the insurance to get it repaired, and they write the car off, or they repair the damage. Again, one now has to tick the box saying “have you had a claim in the last X number of years?” Say that adds £500 to the price of insurance for the next five years, but it only cost £2000 to get the car repaired at a body shop, or less to just live with the damage and make minor repairs…
It’s easier to stomach the costs of the repair yourself, or live with it, than see the insurance premiums rocket after having to tick the previous claims or accidents box.
You can see where I’m going with this….
There is a place when insurance is genuinely needed, for example if someone had a massive head on collision and needed six months off work and care and rehabilitation, not to mention a totally new car. Or the car gets burnt out, or someone dies. And that is why it is law to have insurance, broadly speaking.
Nonetheless, people who are not at fault for needing to claim are being punished by the very fact that they have to claim in the first place, whether out of necessity (car is undriveable, can’t be repaired, etc.) or because they don’t know any better than to claim from the insurance (if they aren’t handy enough to repair the car), or if they are too frightened to not tell the insurance company that they’ve been in a bump.
Moreover, even if insurers brought in additional criteria whereby one could tick a box and explain that, yes they have had an accident and by the clause in the policy notified the insurers, but then didn’t claim, I still think that there would be a heavy bias by the insurance company to increase the premiums/quotes, despite that person expanding and saying that they didn’t claim and/or were not at fault, thus effectively saying “I’m safe and won’t cost you anything/much”. Because that’s how these shysters work: there is the whiff of “claim” and they fleece the customer for the rest of time, and they may never have another crash or claim again, but they’re still being punished financially.
The other thing that shows how crooked/clueless insurers are is giving their “estimated” value of the car, then providing a quote that is more than the value of the car! Do they expect that the customer will write the car off twice during the year of insurance!? Everyone knows that the insurers will very rarely if ever pay out the value of the car, or even the trade value of the car, so why do they need to grab more money off the customer than it’s value?
Do they think that everyone who drives a cheap car will be more likely to crash it, statistically speaking maybe twice during their period of cover?
Yes, some people who have cheap cars treat them like st, but as many on here will understand, those with cheap ‘sheds’ aren’t going around crashing into people, having car park bumps etc, and if they did, would probably just leave the minor damage without seeking to claim to have it repaired.
Then there is also issue of the companies simply refusing or terminating policies, often for random and unfathomable reasons. Fair enough, if you don’t pay, or you lie about endorsements, convictions, modifications then you deserve to have it cancelled. But no, there are some instances where insurers will just say, no “we don’t want to insure your type of car anymore.” Think of LR’s, Japanese cars which are often targeted for cat theft, etc. There then seems to be confusion by customers as to whether they disclose this as cancellation of a policy or not. There is a big difference, but once again the companies will deceive the customers to thing they have to tick the cancelled box when getting policies in future. Let it be clear, that ticking the dreaded “cancelled” box when getting a quote is not going to leave your wallet in a very healthy position, if you can even get insurance at all, and all for something that isn’t even your fault and is a factor completely out of your hands.
It is abhorrent that the mainstream insurers are simply profiteering over the law of having to be insured.
How would a type of public liability cover system work? It would cover any injury to the individual or other parties, or their property and this would then not need to know about every minor damage only collision or scrape because it has nothing to do with a car at all!! (Not like third party only CAR insurance - it wouldn’t be CAR insurance) Then, if a person wanted to protect their car as well, they could as a separate entity, and that would be a not-for-profit option, where people can get insurance that is cheap, and through another change to the system, people would get the chance to explore and explain that they may have been involved in an accident, or had to claim, but it was not their fault, and the premiums should not rise as a result. Alternatively, there could be a change in the system where if there is an accident of minor damage, then there is no compulsory notification needed to let the insurers know.
Obviously, if you are having an accident every year, then there is a problem.
It seems as if brokers are the way to go, not only for more specialists and personal insurance needs, but for understanding and reduced bureaucratic bullst. The issue with brokers seems to be for many, they are not the cheapest option because if that extra level of service, and many are on even tighter budgets due to the cost of living crisis. And people do like to enjoy their cars when they are on tighter budgets, and paying extra on premiums is not in their reach, rendering them to the cheaper options.
Car insurance - is this the biggest scam that has yet to emerge?
Discuss…
Btw, I’m not blanketing all insurers with this, it’s mainly targeted at the big, main stream companies.
Best rant of 2024 so far :SThey have people exactly where the want them, under their iron fist.
After all, It’s the law, so they have a captive customer base of millions of law abiding motorists who the insurance companies will then, at their own free will, s
t on. It’s disgusting. I have insurance purely because it’s law. Unless my car was ruined to Cat A level, stolen and not recovered, or burnt out completely, I wouldn’t claim.
Consider several hypothetical scenarios:
Some t
t drives into my car, and I go to the scrap yard for a few new panels and repair it. I would not be claiming from the insurer, but yet I would have to inform them of the crash anyway, and despite not costing them a penny, they’d fleece me for the next god knows how long because of the “have you been involved in an accident?” box. And if one doesn’t inform the insurers, and they find out, especially if the other party writes their car off in the process, then that’s an even bigger world of pain! Car gets scratched, keyed, dented etc. One goes to the insurance to get it repaired, and they write the car off, or they repair the damage. Again, one now has to tick the box saying “have you had a claim in the last X number of years?” Say that adds £500 to the price of insurance for the next five years, but it only cost £2000 to get the car repaired at a body shop, or less to just live with the damage and make minor repairs…
It’s easier to stomach the costs of the repair yourself, or live with it, than see the insurance premiums rocket after having to tick the previous claims or accidents box.
You can see where I’m going with this….
There is a place when insurance is genuinely needed, for example if someone had a massive head on collision and needed six months off work and care and rehabilitation, not to mention a totally new car. Or the car gets burnt out, or someone dies. And that is why it is law to have insurance, broadly speaking.
Nonetheless, people who are not at fault for needing to claim are being punished by the very fact that they have to claim in the first place, whether out of necessity (car is undriveable, can’t be repaired, etc.) or because they don’t know any better than to claim from the insurance (if they aren’t handy enough to repair the car), or if they are too frightened to not tell the insurance company that they’ve been in a bump.
Moreover, even if insurers brought in additional criteria whereby one could tick a box and explain that, yes they have had an accident and by the clause in the policy notified the insurers, but then didn’t claim, I still think that there would be a heavy bias by the insurance company to increase the premiums/quotes, despite that person expanding and saying that they didn’t claim and/or were not at fault, thus effectively saying “I’m safe and won’t cost you anything/much”. Because that’s how these shysters work: there is the whiff of “claim” and they fleece the customer for the rest of time, and they may never have another crash or claim again, but they’re still being punished financially.
The other thing that shows how crooked/clueless insurers are is giving their “estimated” value of the car, then providing a quote that is more than the value of the car! Do they expect that the customer will write the car off twice during the year of insurance!? Everyone knows that the insurers will very rarely if ever pay out the value of the car, or even the trade value of the car, so why do they need to grab more money off the customer than it’s value?
Do they think that everyone who drives a cheap car will be more likely to crash it, statistically speaking maybe twice during their period of cover?
Yes, some people who have cheap cars treat them like s
t, but as many on here will understand, those with cheap ‘sheds’ aren’t going around crashing into people, having car park bumps etc, and if they did, would probably just leave the minor damage without seeking to claim to have it repaired. Then there is also issue of the companies simply refusing or terminating policies, often for random and unfathomable reasons. Fair enough, if you don’t pay, or you lie about endorsements, convictions, modifications then you deserve to have it cancelled. But no, there are some instances where insurers will just say, no “we don’t want to insure your type of car anymore.” Think of LR’s, Japanese cars which are often targeted for cat theft, etc. There then seems to be confusion by customers as to whether they disclose this as cancellation of a policy or not. There is a big difference, but once again the companies will deceive the customers to thing they have to tick the cancelled box when getting policies in future. Let it be clear, that ticking the dreaded “cancelled” box when getting a quote is not going to leave your wallet in a very healthy position, if you can even get insurance at all, and all for something that isn’t even your fault and is a factor completely out of your hands.
It is abhorrent that the mainstream insurers are simply profiteering over the law of having to be insured.
How would a type of public liability cover system work? It would cover any injury to the individual or other parties, or their property and this would then not need to know about every minor damage only collision or scrape because it has nothing to do with a car at all!! (Not like third party only CAR insurance - it wouldn’t be CAR insurance) Then, if a person wanted to protect their car as well, they could as a separate entity, and that would be a not-for-profit option, where people can get insurance that is cheap, and through another change to the system, people would get the chance to explore and explain that they may have been involved in an accident, or had to claim, but it was not their fault, and the premiums should not rise as a result. Alternatively, there could be a change in the system where if there is an accident of minor damage, then there is no compulsory notification needed to let the insurers know.
Obviously, if you are having an accident every year, then there is a problem.
It seems as if brokers are the way to go, not only for more specialists and personal insurance needs, but for understanding and reduced bureaucratic bulls
t. The issue with brokers seems to be for many, they are not the cheapest option because if that extra level of service, and many are on even tighter budgets due to the cost of living crisis. And people do like to enjoy their cars when they are on tighter budgets, and paying extra on premiums is not in their reach, rendering them to the cheaper options. Car insurance - is this the biggest scam that has yet to emerge?
Discuss…
Btw, I’m not blanketing all insurers with this, it’s mainly targeted at the big, main stream companies.
The biggest issue I see is the lack of transparency in the industry, you get a renewal through and it has gone up but no clue why.
Nothing has changed from last year apart from everything is a year older but you still get stiffed.
I sympathise with the OP but best advice is start an insurance company so you can understand first hand and give yourself a better quote.
Nothing has changed from last year apart from everything is a year older but you still get stiffed.
I sympathise with the OP but best advice is start an insurance company so you can understand first hand and give yourself a better quote.
InitialDave said:
I don't think things are perfect in the UK, but in comparison to, say, the USA, I think our car insurance isn't at all bad in terms of what we get for our money.
I share some of the the OP's frustrations, though, and it's generally with the smaller things.
Having to prove the value of a car when seeking a pay out for it being written off, for example. Their request was for multiple examples, of the same registration age (so if my car were a 19 plate, they want examples that also are), and +/- 5000 miles on the mileage.
Now, I wasn't dealing with a ridiculously rare car, but this was basically impossible, and every single example of any age or mileage I could find was higher in price than their offer. I did, eventually, manage to argue a reasonable sum out of them, but it was a disproportionate amount of effort.
The argument is "well, get agreed value", but it shouldn't need an agreed value for a car that is pretty unremarkable, just to counter their ignorance (possibly proactive) of market prices.
I don't think this stuff is a complete disaster or a con, but it's definitely one of those "ugh, this is going to be a complete pain" feelings when you have to engage with them.
It also seems to be counter to my experience with other insurance products, such as home insurance, which I have found to be pretty reasonable/transparent when it comes to equivalent issues.
I'm not sure it can be made "better" without making it much more expensive, though, and I'm glad I'm at an age where I can pretty much insure anythng I want at what I'd consider to be a not unreasonable price.
What's so bad about car insurance in the USA?I share some of the the OP's frustrations, though, and it's generally with the smaller things.
Having to prove the value of a car when seeking a pay out for it being written off, for example. Their request was for multiple examples, of the same registration age (so if my car were a 19 plate, they want examples that also are), and +/- 5000 miles on the mileage.
Now, I wasn't dealing with a ridiculously rare car, but this was basically impossible, and every single example of any age or mileage I could find was higher in price than their offer. I did, eventually, manage to argue a reasonable sum out of them, but it was a disproportionate amount of effort.
The argument is "well, get agreed value", but it shouldn't need an agreed value for a car that is pretty unremarkable, just to counter their ignorance (possibly proactive) of market prices.
I don't think this stuff is a complete disaster or a con, but it's definitely one of those "ugh, this is going to be a complete pain" feelings when you have to engage with them.
It also seems to be counter to my experience with other insurance products, such as home insurance, which I have found to be pretty reasonable/transparent when it comes to equivalent issues.
I'm not sure it can be made "better" without making it much more expensive, though, and I'm glad I'm at an age where I can pretty much insure anythng I want at what I'd consider to be a not unreasonable price.
InitialDave said:
You... don't?
Isn't third party cover all that's mandated?
It might be all that s mandated but why is Third Party only more than Comprehensive?Isn't third party cover all that's mandated?
40 years ago insurance made sense, far less corupted. Third Party was the cheapest by two thirds of comprehensive and TPFT was about 50% of Comprehensive.
The whole thing is a racket.
Edited by kestral on Saturday 3rd February 23:34
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff