KyleR Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 The whole no fault thing is a complete joke. If it's been proven that you're not at fault then your insurance company claims from the others insurance company and it in effect costs them nothing, so they really have no bloody right to charge extra for the next 5 years. Even if the other car at fault was with the same insurance company as you are, then they should be the one paying for their error, no one else. This is another of the many things that someone really needs to stand up to insurance companies about and get it sorted, just like they now "can't" price premiums based on sex, apparently. Argh, I needed that rant, sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bounty Bar Kid Posted July 19, 2012 Author Share Posted July 19, 2012 The whole no fault thing is a complete joke. If it's been proven that you're not at fault then your insurance company claims from the others insurance company and it in effect costs them nothing, so they really have no bloody right to charge extra for the next 5 years. Even if the other car at fault was with the same insurance company as you are, then they should be the one paying for their error, no one else. This is another of the many things that someone really needs to stand up to insurance companies about and get it sorted, just like they now "can't" price premiums based on sex, apparently. Argh, I needed that rant, sorry Can't base it on sex? Rubbish. They still do it. Tried out some quotes to test that theory. They failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyinsurance Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 30 years old. Decent area I thought. Car as in signature, all mods covered. 3 points from last year SP30. No accidents. 5 years no claims. £742 But this was the cheapest I could find it. Shame. But anyways Thanx to Sky Insurance! You're welcome, thanks for the feedback Ollie Sky Insurance http://www.skyinsurance.co.uk/car-club-insurance.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Zed was insured separately from our Focus but both going through Diamond, they said they could add the Zed to a multicar option along with the focus to save us money. Last year Zed was £590 insurance, now they want us to add it to a multicar policy to save us money and quoted us at £825. Thanks Mr and Mrs coldel, one year of safe driving, let us put it up for you on this deal by about 40% Will be doing the usual ringing around this week to get the quote down as we wont be one of those lazy/uniformed types that get completely ripped off by this industry called insurance that thinks its so hard done by - bunch of jokers. That sounds just like Admiral. I had them phoning me up nearly every other day claiming they could insure all the cars in our household to "save you money". Every time they wouldnt believe it when I told them they wouldnt be cheaper. So they go through all the details and sure enough they always came back more expensive. One vehicle in particular i was quoted 80quid fully comp and they came back at 400quid fully comp. 80 quid for what?! sinclair c5? 1988 Renault 5 GT Turbo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 The whole no fault thing is a complete joke. If it's been proven that you're not at fault then your insurance company claims from the others insurance company and it in effect costs them nothing, so they really have no bloody right to charge extra for the next 5 years. Even if the other car at fault was with the same insurance company as you are, then they should be the one paying for their error, no one else. This is another of the many things that someone really needs to stand up to insurance companies about and get it sorted, just like they now "can't" price premiums based on sex, apparently. Argh, I needed that rant, sorry The whole thing about pricing on gender was an utter farce - Euro Court Human Rights once again makes a call on something they seem to have little understanding of. If this is a precedent then surely young people can claim ageism, people in Manchester can claim locationism and people with sports cars can claim they are discriminated against because of the car they drive. I have also seen this effect of peoples cars being hit, not their fault, claiming off another the other insurance and then seeing their premiums go up. As people have alluded to, the models used in Insurance I suspect are poor and biased towards the insuring company. Every time I hear people who have no statistical background quoting stats I cringe 'you are more likely to have an accident if you are in one not of your fault so premiums go up' what sort of stat are we looking at here? Are we looking at big numbers such as 500 times more likely or are we looking at something like for every 10 people that havent had a no fault claim that have an accident we see 11 people who have had a no fault accident then having an accident? Both qualify the same statement but both massively different. The funny thing is that people seem to think because you compare two numbers like that its, comparable, which it isnt unless you do some massive driver analysis, straight correlations are usually pretty pointless, the amount of intercorrelation going on is immense. 'Men are more likely to have an accident than woman' how many times do I hear that completely ridiculous statement by so called experts...what if the woman was a 17 year old alcoholic from moss side driving a pagani zonda and the guy a 50 year old school teacher from Berkshire driving a Toyota Prius. Unless they have compared comparable data across all attributes at all levels ie 17 year old alcoholic moss side lady in a zonda vs the same but male, there is massive scope for error. /end rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KyleR Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 The whole no fault thing is a complete joke. If it's been proven that you're not at fault then your insurance company claims from the others insurance company and it in effect costs them nothing, so they really have no bloody right to charge extra for the next 5 years. Even if the other car at fault was with the same insurance company as you are, then they should be the one paying for their error, no one else. This is another of the many things that someone really needs to stand up to insurance companies about and get it sorted, just like they now "can't" price premiums based on sex, apparently. Argh, I needed that rant, sorry The whole thing about pricing on gender was an utter farce - Euro Court Human Rights once again makes a call on something they seem to have little understanding of. If this is a precedent then surely young people can claim ageism, people in Manchester can claim locationism and people with sports cars can claim they are discriminated against because of the car they drive. I have also seen this effect of peoples cars being hit, not their fault, claiming off another the other insurance and then seeing their premiums go up. As people have alluded to, the models used in Insurance I suspect are poor and biased towards the insuring company. Every time I hear people who have no statistical background quoting stats I cringe 'you are more likely to have an accident if you are in one not of your fault so premiums go up' what sort of stat are we looking at here? Are we looking at big numbers such as 500 times more likely or are we looking at something like for every 10 people that havent had a no fault claim that have an accident we see 11 people who have had a no fault accident then having an accident? Both qualify the same statement but both massively different. The funny thing is that people seem to think because you compare two numbers like that its, comparable, which it isnt unless you do some massive driver analysis, straight correlations are usually pretty pointless, the amount of intercorrelation going on is immense. 'Men are more likely to have an accident than woman' how many times do I hear that completely ridiculous statement by so called experts...what if the woman was a 17 year old alcoholic from moss side driving a pagani zonda and the guy a 50 year old school teacher from Berkshire driving a Toyota Prius. Unless they have compared comparable data across all attributes at all levels ie 17 year old alcoholic moss side lady in a zonda vs the same but male, there is massive scope for error. /end rant I was thinking the same thing about age, location etc. But, aren't insurance companies likely to raise womens insurance rather than lower ours? I have to agree with what you're saying, another spanner gets thrown into this rant when you take into account that even if you don't claim a no fault accident because the repairs were sorted between you and the other driver, your premium still goes up. We can't even justify that with the argument that insurance companies logic is based on if you make one claim, you're more likely to make another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Welp. Quotes for over £2000 from both Sky and Prestige. It's not going well is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B3n5253 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 25 - 3 points £766 - with exhaust declared. Admiral have always been cheap for me. They seem to be good with mods as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Yes Kyle, they will raise womens insurance, but by their rhetoric you cant discriminate on gender then why stop there? We should all be paying £5000 per year insurance regardless of age, location, car, job etc. The whole thing is a farce. ...and just to prove the point, a couple of online quotes and a phone call to Diamond and lo and behold their quote drops by over £200. Am I the only one that feels like insurance companies are just out to rip consumers off by massively overcharging and hoping to 'get away with it' by not being challenged. I mean we live in the UK, I am not in a Marrakech market haggling for a piece of tourist tat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B3n5253 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 They always try to rip you off. My renewal come through at just under £1500! I ran a quote on confused and the same insurance company came out at £700 cheaper!! They just hope you can't be bothered to challenge your renewal and accept it!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bounty Bar Kid Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 Well I ran quotes for an unmodified car, just to get an idea of the costs from different insurance companies, and mine ranged from £650 to £4000. Directline quoted £1500, which for a major company I thought was ridiculous! Anyways, then going to £742 with all mods declared and covered doesn't seem so bad now looking at some of the horror quotes out there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwantone Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Yes Kyle, they will raise womens insurance, but by their rhetoric you cant discriminate on gender then why stop there? We should all be paying £5000 per year insurance regardless of age, location, car, job etc. The whole thing is a farce. ...and just to prove the point, a couple of online quotes and a phone call to Diamond and lo and behold their quote drops by over £200. Am I the only one that feels like insurance companies are just out to rip consumers off by massively overcharging and hoping to 'get away with it' by not being challenged. I mean we live in the UK, I am not in a Marrakech market haggling for a piece of tourist tat. Not quite n the same subject, but I guess that it is still insurance. I recently had my reminder come for me and my wife's combined AA breakdown cover. It was a very nice letter thanking us for two year's membership and putting us onto a special loyalty deal. It said nothing about the premium rising from £68 to £98. I understand rising costs and inflation, but not that amount. A moaning phone call telling them that it was not on and would not be renewed and the new offer was £71.99. We were now haggling so I told the guy to make it a round £70 and we had a deal. £70 was the sum paid. The AA is not the organisation it was when it was founded, saluting motorcyclists and all. It's a hard nosed business who will lift your leg given half a chance. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Guys, insurance is not alone on having to haggle. That is pretty much how 99% of business works, as any business person in here will tell you: You never pay the first price. It's always about haggling, and getting the best deal on big purchases. For most people on here you're looking at spending between £700 to £1000 on insurance, but if you walked into a furniture store and wanted to buy a particular sofa marked up at £950, you'd haggle. If you were buying a secondhand car for that money, you'd haggle. For anything above the usual £100 weekly shop in Tesco, you haggle. Companies work on the principle that you set a price but you don't expect everyone to pay that. You might get a few that do that are too lazy/stupid/rich to care about the cost and on them you make a lovely great profit, but you expect the majority of people to try and knock 5-20% off. You barter as much as you can without wanting to lose the sale but still retaining a good profit (see: selling secondhand cars). Insurance companies aren't evil or money-grabbing tosspots or trying to fleece you out of every penny. They're simply a company in business to make a profit, and if you were trying to make a profit you wouldn't be offering your best price straight off either. If they give you a silly quote of £2K then it's because they don't want your business, and the extra cost/risk involved in taking you on is why they're charging so high. I've done that before, put in a daft high price for a job because I didn't really want it, but if I got it then I wanted to make a nice little earner on it to account for the ballache. That's life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 And on the subject, we've just had the renewal notice come through for the Impreza. First price was £1090, one Meerkat search and one phonecall later and we're down to £814. Job = carrot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I have no idea what the hell just happened... I told Admiral that I didn't want to auto renew, so they cancelled that for me. Then they sent me an email saying my renewal price is... £1200 odd quid! They have just beaten every quote I have found so far on a renewal price! Without even asking! That just doesn't happen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 ...there are also people, generally older and maybe more vulnerable , who are unaware of the principle of haggling down insurance prices who those insurance companies quite happily overcharge to make a bigger profit which is wrong. I would agree 99% of business involves haggling but a lot of that is through bulk order processing, relationship effects and various other reasons not much of it is for single purchase one off purchases which insurance pretty much is which is where this is different ekona - I challenge anyone for instance to walk into a car showroom, look at a car and then get the salesman to knock off 30%-40% within a couple of minutes...Im sorry but the way insurance works is not like a lot of business in that haggling sense, to me if they can offer insurance for 40% less after just a couple of minutes on the phone they are going in with extortionate rates in the first instance and quite literally ripping people off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I still maintain if people are too dumb, lazy or rich to haggle, then that's their own fault. Very, very unlikely to get 40% off though, unless you've got experience of that. 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.