Ricey Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Just got a quote for a Jag XK for £668.....changed the details from 'Engine Immobiliser' to 'Engine Immobiliser & tracker' and the insurance goes up to £708!!!!!!!!!!! Come on then - someone please explain the no doubt hilarious theory behind that one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebized Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 They must think if you need a tracker it is more nickable, but why anyone would want to nick one of those Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoogyRev Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 In that case if you put "none" then it should be cheaper still Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisS Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Here's another though. Phone Liverpool Victoria for a 350 quote, you must have a tracker. Quote from Chris Knot, no tracker required and it's with................ Highway which is....... LV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexx Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 This has been asked a few times in the past. And I dont think anyone has came up with a suitable answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 They must think if you need a tracker it is more nickable, but why anyone would want to nick one of those Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 In that case if you put "none" then it should be cheaper still I DO NOT BELIEVE IT! He's bloody right and I am not joking!!!!! £621 of you put none! I can't deal with the world - I'm going to footy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoogyRev Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 In that case if you put "none" then it should be cheaper still I DO NOT BELIEVE IT! He's bloody right and I am not joking!!!!! £621 of you put none! I can't deal with the world - I'm going to footy. ...... and I was only joking If thats the case just say its a Citroen 2CV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vik54 Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 It will be the cost of the actual tracker...in the case of a total loss this would be an additional cost over and above the value of the vehicle Its the usual insurance swings and roundabouts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 It will be the cost of the actual tracker...in the case of a total loss this would be an additional cost over and above the value of the vehicle Its the usual insurance swings and roundabouts really??? something that is designed to reduce insurance costs by making it quick and easy to return the car to the owner should help reduce costs not push them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Maybe they would rather see an older and former very expensive car be written down as a total loss rather than have to repair it? Perhaps they think the can get away writing it off at a lower value than they would be forced to repair at if it were found and proven to be a viable repair? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 Maybe they would rather see an older and former very expensive car be written down as a total loss rather than have to repair it? Perhaps they think the can get away writing it off at a lower value than they would be forced to repair at if it were found and proven to be a viable repair? Whilst I was busy letting my second goal in I was pondering this exact thought. Also the damage that would be caused by bypassing an immobiliser and tracker perhaps? In that case - wonder if there is an option for 'unlocked and left with doors open in the middle of deserted industrial estate' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 These strange little quirks just demonstrate how laughable the insurance industry now is. I'm sure the underwriters have saved a fortune by getting rid of all risk assesors and premium calculators etc and just replaced the lot with a random number generator with a minimum value. How difficult could it be to set up an insurance company now, with the size of premiums and daft restrictions you can put on people, it must be nigh on impossible to not turn a massive profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 These strange little quirks just demonstrate how laughable the insurance industry now is. I'm sure the underwriters have saved a fortune by getting rid of all risk assesors and premium calculators etc and just replaced the lot with a random number generator with a minimum value. How difficult could it be to set up an insurance company now, with the size of premiums and daft restrictions you can put on people, it must be nigh on impossible to not turn a massive profit. Exactly! I know I pull Ollie from Skys legabout insurance but seriously I just can't deal with it! I can't deal with the fact that someone is trying to tell me I'm more likely to have a crash because someone crashed INTO ME! How can you even begin to argue that point! Statistics may back it up but it literally HAS to just be a fluke of the numbers - its a pure and simple fact that someone being a clumsy ***** is not infectious! It doesn't rub off on your car and turn you into a careless moron too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 The numbers probably dont show that, which is why they wont be published in black and white for all to read. The insurance companies can state that because you were involved in an accident, you must therefore drive in an area where accidents are more likely to happen, therefore by default you are more likely to have another accident. Its just complete and utter tosh. They make crap up on the hoof just to try and justify ridiculous prices. Its the only item you are legally forced to have, that can only be bought from private companies that have to make a profit for shareholders. Exactly what did people think would happen when private companies needing to generate a profit for shareholders after a large financial crisis hit are selling a product that all drivers legally have to buy? Its a license to print money. Looking at the financial records for some of the insurance companies, its blatantly obvious where these high premiums are going, and if they say its going on "higher cost of claims", then they must thinkI fell off a Christmas tree. Its a perfect line for Karl Pilkingtons "bullshit" man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyinsurance Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 This has been asked a few times in the past. And I dont think anyone has came up with a suitable answer. The answer is driven by statistics.. this particular insurer will have a worse claims/loss ratio from cars with trackers fitted to those without. Madness when you common sense check it but that applies to a lot of things in this industry Ollie Sky Insurance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 The only logical reason I can see this being the case is that the insurer has had a spate of cars recovered using trackers that have then been write-offs. In that case they'd have had to pay for tracking/recovery and then paid out for the loss, whereas if there was no tracker they'd just pay out for the loss. That is mental though for something that is meant to make it easier and cheaper to recover a car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 This has been asked a few times in the past. And I dont think anyone has came up with a suitable answer. The answer is driven by statistics.. this particular insurer will have a worse claims/loss ratio from cars with trackers fitted to those without. Madness when you common sense check it but that applies to a lot of things in this industry Ollie Sky Insurance +1, as we have all said before its down to statistics, and those statistics only concern what is an increased risk to the insurer and not what actually reduces the risk to them. So in this case, they may have had to pay out more for cars which have trackers fitted than not, so they jack the premium up. Sad but a way of life really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sasha@lazytrips Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 These strange little quirks just demonstrate how laughable the insurance industry now is. I'm sure the underwriters have saved a fortune by getting rid of all risk assesors and premium calculators etc and just replaced the lot with a random number generator with a minimum value. How difficult could it be to set up an insurance company now, with the size of premiums and daft restrictions you can put on people, it must be nigh on impossible to not turn a massive profit. Exactly! I know I pull Ollie from Skys legabout insurance but seriously I just can't deal with it! I can't deal with the fact that someone is trying to tell me I'm more likely to have a crash because someone crashed INTO ME! How can you even begin to argue that point! Statistics may back it up but it literally HAS to just be a fluke of the numbers - its a pure and simple fact that someone being a clumsy ***** is not infectious! It doesn't rub off on your car and turn you into a careless moron too! Unfortunately, statistically that is very true. In some cases, a good driver would be able to avoid being crashed into through better awareness, etc, etc. Hence if you get crashed into, you are slightly more likely to crash into something yourself... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyinsurance Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 +1, as we have all said before its down to statistics, and those statistics only concern what is an increased risk to the insurer and not what actually reduces the risk to them. So in this case, they may have had to pay out more for cars which have trackers fitted than not, so they jack the premium up. Sad but a way of life really. Indeed, same applies to insurers charging more for cars kept in garages than kept on the street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 +1, as we have all said before its down to statistics, and those statistics only concern what is an increased risk to the insurer and not what actually reduces the risk to them. So in this case, they may have had to pay out more for cars which have trackers fitted than not, so they jack the premium up. Sad but a way of life really. Indeed, same applies to insurers charging more for cars kept in garages than kept on the street. Exactly, and when I tried to insure a Honda Fireblade worth £1200, the insurance companies wouldnt touch me, but they happily allowed me to insure a Yamaha R1 which was more powerful and more expensive. Not to mention Third Party Only insurance.... why do insurance companies still bother with that? It used to be that was the only way you could afford to insure your car when you were younger, as obviously 3rd Party only meant a lot less payout for the insurance company as if your car was nicked, they didnt pay out, if it caught fire, it didnt pay out, if you crashed it, it didnt pay out etc... and so lower risk = lower premium. But the last few years when ive got quotes, Fully Comp is *always* cheaper than Third Party. In fact with one quote I got the other month, Third Party Only was 3 times the price of Fully Comp! - again that must be purely a mad statistics thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.