Quick insurance question- changing car mid-policy

[Byard]

McSam said:

Brokers really do make me laugh sometimes. 26? For a diesel BMW? Who the hell do they think they are?

I remember Adrian Flux telling me, at 19, that they wouldn't have anyone to insure me on anything with a larger engine than a 1.4. I was asking them about an Audi with exactly twice as much engine, and I had other companies more than willing to give me good prices!

If the NCB is that vital, wait out. Even if you persuade your broker to take the 5er, which you most likely won't, you'll get so violently walletraped you might as well have bailed out anyway.

You should have insured an RX-8

[Noger]

Classic Grad 98 said:

The broker is '1st Central Insurance Services', and they're underwritten by 'Lloyds Sydicate'. To my shame I just plumped for the cheapest company, If I'd gone for the cheapest reputable brand I probably wouldn't be having this problem and it would've cost me maybe £6/month more.
Is it worth me trying to take this higher to a supervisor/manager type person at 1st Central or maybe contact the underwriters directly?

Aha. It becomes clearer.

There isn't really an underwriter as such, but a group of Lloyd's syndicates who have taken lines on a single policy. Think of it like an very large Admiral multicar policy !

1st central are not like flux etc, they don't go out to the whole market, they just bind your car to the Lloyd's policy.

The syndicates wont know much if anything about you, they will simply set the criteria for the delegated authority.

Which means they can't really re-broke unless they have other binder policies that will accept you.

Not ideal.

[McSam]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Firstly, it's not the broker, it's the insurer. The broker is mearly passing on their decision.
And as a company, if they don't want to insure an under 26 y/o on a certain car, why should they? They entered into an annual contract with the OP, I assume quoting the best price for a years cover on the car the OP had. He's the one who now wants to alter the terms of the contract, not the insurer.

Honestly, I don't get some of the mindless hostility to insurance companies on PH, even when they've done nothing wrong.

I know a travel agent who only does trips to the USA and S. America. Nothing else. If I went to him and asked me to sort out a trip to France, he'd say no thanks, that's not what I do. Why should he?

McSam, would you then post "travel agent doesn't want to sell me a holiday to France, who does he think he is?"

I'm not so sure about the distinction between the insurer and the broker - in my example with AF, no quotes were ever generated, so it was never referred to insurers, the broker staff themselves told me straight away that they would have nothing to do with it. That's besides the point, though.

The annual contract business is also quite irrelevant - if they won't insure the OP on this particular car until he's 26, this would be the case whether or not he was in the middle of a policy, wouldn't it?

I don't actually consider myself hostile to insurance companies as a whole, quite the reverse - I've had one well-handled claim and three years of good, satisfying service regarding renewals, price-matching and car changes with my current insurers. I think they're great, and plenty of them are.

However, unreasonable discrimination on the basis of age has always been one that pisses me off royally. Plenty of cars are uninsurable to those under the age of 21, and that's far enough to be a little "interesting" - but 26? What if the OP was a dithering idiot who'd just passed his test at 26, is he less of a risk than someone who's been driving without fault or claim for eight years but is not 26 for six months? It's honestly ridiculous to disregard people purely on the basis of age when you get to that sort of age. 21 is something a lot of the industry does, I don't like it but playing the percentages is what insurers do. This 26 thing, though, that really did raise my eyebrow.

Your travel agent example really isn't fitting to the case and paints me as unreasonable. If an insurer said "we do not insure BMWs", I'd think they were a bit mental, but whatever floats their boat. That's the same as your travel agent not wanting to send people to France.

If on the other hand, an insurer said to me "we don't want to insure you because despite your wonderful previous history and best efforts to make yourself as safe and insurable as possible, we think purely on the basis of your pitiful age of 25 you are unsuited to drive such a ridiculously dangerous car as a diesel E34", yes, I would complain.

I have no beef with an insurer not wanting to accept a change of car - if they have a decent reason. This, in my eyes, is a completely ridiculous reason, hence my previous post.

And I'll stop diverting the OP's thread now, just wanted to clarify my points



ETA - RX-8s are registered as double their capacity, 2600cc, probably for insurance reasons! Shame

[Classic Grad 98]

RIGHT, change of tack;
I've decided that if I want the car, I don't care about 7.5 months of NCB- I would just cancel and go back to four years. So what can I do about the cancellation fee? Do I have reasonable grounds to have it reduced/waived?
FYI I am 22 years of age but have acheived reasonable quotes to insure the BMW elsewhere and I haven't contacted any specialists yet (Is this a 'classic car'?)

[Noger]

You should get pro-rata minus admin fee, rather than any quoted short rates if they won't insure the new vehicle. May be worth a complain but not sure you will get far.

[Nedzilla]

Classic Grad 98 said:

RIGHT, change of tack;
I've decided that if I want the car, I don't care about 7.5 months of NCB- I would just cancel and go back to four years. So what can I do about the cancellation fee? Do I have reasonable grounds to have it reduced/waived?
FYI I am 22 years of age but have acheived reasonable quotes to insure the BMW elsewhere and I haven't contacted any specialists yet (Is this a 'classic car'?)

If you are cancelling your policy because you are changing car and your current insurer cannot/will not insure your new car they CANNOT charge you a cancellation fee.You have every right to change your car and if they cannot insure the new one that is not your fault.I have been through this several times in the past and it is the case with all insurance companies.

Make sure you tell them this is why you are cancelling with them though and you will be fine.

[McSam]

Nedzilla said:

If you are cancelling your policy because you are changing car and your current insurer cannot/will not insure your new car they CANNOT charge you a cancellation fee.You have every right to change your car and if they cannot insure the new one that is not your fault.I have been through this several times in the past and it is the case with all insurance companies.

Make sure you tell them this is why you are cancelling with them though and you will be fine.

This is useful knowledge - so as long as the OP starts the conversation by asking for a quote on the E34, then when he cannot get one says "in that case I must cancel my policy", he gets a complete pro rata refund with no charges?

Awesome

[TwigtheWonderkid]

McSam said:

The annual contract business is also quite irrelevant - if they won't insure the OP on this particular car until he's 26, this would be the case whether or not he was in the middle of a policy, wouldn't it?

But my point is he wanted to insure a Modeo, and took out an annual contract. Part way thru the OP wants to amend the terms of the contract. The insurers are quitre happy with the contract as it stands.

If he had the BMW to begin with, he never would have been with that insurer in the first place.

Better example than my travel agent. You book a taxi to take you from London to Oxford. Halfway to Oxford, you get a phone call telling you you're needed in Birmingham instead. The deal you have with the taxi is to take you to Oxford. If you then want to change that to Birmingham, he is with his rights to say "yes, that'll be an extra £50" or he can say "no, I never go to Birmingham, I hate it. I'll drop you off in Oxford and you can find someone else who is happy to go to Birmingham, because I'm not doing it."

[McSam]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But my point is he wanted to insure a Modeo, and took out an annual contract. Part way thru the OP wants to amend the terms of the contract. The insurers are quitre happy with the contract as it stands.

If he had the BMW to begin with, he never would have been with that insurer in the first place.

Better example than my travel agent. You book a taxi to take you from London to Oxford. Halfway to Oxford, you get a phone call telling you you're needed in Birmingham instead. The deal you have with the taxi is to take you to Oxford. If you then want to change that to Birmingham, he is with his rights to say "yes, that'll be an extra £50" or he can say "no, I never go to Birmingham, I hate it. I'll drop you off in Oxford and you can find someone else who is happy to go to Birmingham, because I'm not doing it."

No, you misunderstand. I said in my second post, I have no issue at all with the insurer not wanting to cover that car - like I said, if they say "we don't insure BMWs" or something like that, odd but fair enough. I am taking issue only with the reason for the OP's particular rejection, ie, that restricting a car like that (any car really, but especially when it isn't even vaguely high-risk) to the age of 26 is laughably ridiculous.

[Noger]

McSam said:

his is useful knowledge - so as long as the OP starts the conversation by asking for a quote on the E34, then when he cannot get one says "in that case I must cancel my policy", he gets a complete pro rata refund with no charges?

Awesome

Nope, it isn't knowledge it is incorrect guesswork.

ICOBS 7.2.3 (1) allows for a reasonable admin charge that reflects the cost incurred in setting up the policy.

A fact written in B&W by the FSA.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

McSam said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But my point is he wanted to insure a Modeo, and took out an annual contract. Part way thru the OP wants to amend the terms of the contract. The insurers are quitre happy with the contract as it stands.

If he had the BMW to begin with, he never would have been with that insurer in the first place.

Better example than my travel agent. You book a taxi to take you from London to Oxford. Halfway to Oxford, you get a phone call telling you you're needed in Birmingham instead. The deal you have with the taxi is to take you to Oxford. If you then want to change that to Birmingham, he is with his rights to say "yes, that'll be an extra £50" or he can say "no, I never go to Birmingham, I hate it. I'll drop you off in Oxford and you can find someone else who is happy to go to Birmingham, because I'm not doing it."

No, you misunderstand. I said in my second post, I have no issue at all with the insurer not wanting to cover that car - like I said, if they say "we don't insure BMWs" or something like that, odd but fair enough. I am taking issue only with the reason for the OP's particular rejection, ie, that restricting a car like that (any car really, but especially when it isn't even vaguely high-risk) to the age of 26 is laughably ridiculous.

If that particular company's stats show a rise in claims for cars of that type for the under 26 age bracket, then it's perfectly sensible.

Many insurers have different minimum age brackets for different cars. That's their choice. My insurance company will not cover drivers under 25 on anything whatsoever. They just don't insure under 25s at all. But I'm 49 and my wife is 48, and their price for us was excellent.

[Nedzilla]

Noger said:

McSam said:

his is useful knowledge - so as long as the OP starts the conversation by asking for a quote on the E34, then when he cannot get one says "in that case I must cancel my policy", he gets a complete pro rata refund with no charges?

Awesome

Nope, it isn't knowledge it is incorrect guesswork.

ICOBS 7.2.3 (1) allows for a reasonable admin charge that reflects the cost incurred in setting up the policy.

A fact written in B&W by the FSA.

Admin charge yes,cancellation fee no.I re-newed the policy on my westfield at the end of last june for £245 paid in full.Soon after i decided I to sell and the car was sold by early september.I wasn't replacing the car and my daily driver was on another policy with a different company.Two and a half months the car was insured for and all i got back was £31!!

Cancellation fee and brokers comission i was told was where it went.I would expect an admin charge to cancell a policy to be around £20.

[Classic Grad 98]

Noger said:

McSam said:

his is useful knowledge - so as long as the OP starts the conversation by asking for a quote on the E34, then when he cannot get one says "in that case I must cancel my policy", he gets a complete pro rata refund with no charges?

Awesome

Nope, it isn't knowledge it is incorrect guesswork.

ICOBS 7.2.3 (1) allows for a reasonable admin charge that reflects the cost incurred in setting up the policy.

A fact written in B&W by the FSA.

Thought that was too good to be true. Will I have any success asking them to reduce it? and before you say "just phone them and ask", I don't want to go through with anything yet so it's purelyu speculative.

[Noger]

Yes, you could tell them that as they will have already recouped some of the administration costs due to the length of time you have held the policy that they should reduce it accordingly.

May work !

[so called]

saaby93 said:

Buy a car and keep it SORN and under wraps until your policy is about to run out. Then buy the new insurance for the new car.
Sell old car

I think a recent law change means even sorn cars must be insured ??
Or am I mistaken ?

[Shaw Tarse]

so called said:

I think a recent law change means even sorn cars must be insured ??
Or am I mistaken ?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696?CID=Continuous_Insurance&PLA=DM&CRE=Furl

[Classic Grad 98]

UPDATE: well, good news and bad. I managed to persuade my insurance company to agree to halving the cancellation fee. Buoyed by my success, I smashed the insurance sites and eventually got a great quote. Excellent. Feeling even more confident, I performed the obligatory registration check.
This is where it went wrong. The car was subject to a total loss claim last August and was recorded a CAT 'C'. The seller had lied about their duration of ownership too. Not happy.

E34 SEARCHERS: M343 WYD M343WYD is a WRITE OFF.

Back to square one then. Luckily I hadn't actually cancelled my policy and my current car is in good order, so I suppose I'm just going to have to resume my search and hope to find a suitable car by the end of June.

[blearyeyedboy]

Classic Grad 98 said:

UPDATE: well, good news and bad. I managed to persuade my insurance company to agree to halving the cancellation fee. Buoyed by my success, I smashed the insurance sites and eventually got a great quote. Excellent. Feeling even more confident, I performed the obligatory registration check.
This is where it went wrong. The car was subject to a total loss claim last August and was recorded a CAT 'C'. The seller had lied about their duration of ownership too. Not happy.

E34 SEARCHERS: M343 WYD M343WYD is a WRITE OFF.

Back to square one then. Luckily I hadn't actually cancelled my policy and my current car is in good order, so I suppose I'm just going to have to resume my search and hope to find a suitable car by the end of June.

That's a shame. Sorry to hear that M343WYD is a write off. *cough*

Maybe it's a blessing in disguise. Now you can hopefully find an E34 that wasn't smashed and not lose your NCB.

[Classic Grad 98]

True that, I do hope I can find the right Beemer though, been trying since September and it's gutting that the first car I have been seriously interested in is no good

[.blue]

Byard said:

You should have insured an RX-8

I tried that with Flux too, but with insurance groups! Then they changed their excuse to something else...