Insurance

Insurance has been in the spotlight again and we all know we are paying too much for it as once again rip off Britain rears its ugly head, but why?

Insurers claim its the cost of repairs which have risen, they also blame the cost of using various handling agents charging exhorbitant management fees, but still retain their use; they are now also blaming the claims for personal injuries and no win no fee companies for pursuing claims which are often fraudulent claims, so why aren't they challenging them and refusing to pay out when they are fraudulent. In many cases insurers cite the fact its cheaper to pay out rather than dispute it, so they pay out without question and we pick up the bill.
Recently insurers have been told to assist the elderly by the UK Government, many refuse to insure those above a certain age, but why when evidence shows them to be the safest group of drivers with the lowest cost per claim; and when they refuse to insure them they have to assist them with insurance so they refer them to companies who will insure them, but is this helping them? in my opinion its not, from what I can conclude from this they are pasing the buck by sending them to a limited number of companies who will insure them for highly inflated prices, they are a lower risk than the 18-23 year old categories yet they are paying premiums on a par with this group. To me it seems they are dividing the elderly for profit.

If we look at this in a little more detail we note that people are living longer, are fitter, and will have to work beyond the currently accepted retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men, so how will they get insurance to continue working.

In a recent study in car gadgets are now to blame for a rising number of claims, the results of the research were interesting as they claimes vehicles such as BMW with their i drive navigation system is much easier and safer to use tham many other manufacturers systems. They also claimed that with a BMW system a driver only needs to glance away from the road for a fraction of a second, other manufacturers systems require the driver to take their eyes off the road for in excess of 12 seconds to perform a function, so are all the in car gadgets really worth it, and will this be the next tactic of insurers to raise premuims.

Sorry Sir, you drive a wackyjacky GTI sport with an integrated navigationCDMP33DDVDiphonrcompatiblebluetooth infotainment system fitted as standard, thats just raised your premuims by an additional £1000 because you have that system fitted.

What does everyone else think.

I know that I was stupid enough to leave a Garmin Nuvi SatNav stuck to the windscreen of my Rangie when parked in a side street whilst at a football match. Needless to say it resulted in a smashed driver's window, a missing SatNav(complete with a lot of off-road routes in Southern Spain) and a cold drive home.

Totally my fault, I was in a hurry so completely forgot about it. Ever since then I not only remove the replacement unit from the windscreen, I hide the suction holder and lead, plus the SatNav comes with me. I've so many off-road tracks saved in it now from across Europe, it would be a total disaster to lose it. Yet another reason to lock the doors when in paying for fuel ... we were talking about this on another post the other day.

I never claimed on the insurance for the window (Range Rover Classic glass is dirt cheap) or the SatNav for that matter, but I wonder how many do? This again helps push up premiums, not to mention expensive CD players, etc. As you say, insurance is yet another example of 'rip-off Britain'.

Totally agree with you guys. It is about time the insurance industry in the UK was overhauled. Their systems are often very unfair and there is also much favouritism going on; I will explain with an example:

I am 53 with maximum no claims. I drive an SUV (Slow Underpowered Vehicle) with AWD so it is considered by those very same comanies to be a safer vehicle. I drive less than 25,000 miles these days and it is not used for business.
My premium, full comp. with protected no claims= £273.00

A lady known to me who has been convicted of drink driving, banned and fined less than five years ago, goes to a well known insurance comany that only insure sheilas, sorry I mean women, and gets her vehicle which is the same insurance grouping as mine for......gets full comp. for..........(admittedly lower mileage)......£153.00

For the life of me I cannot see the logic here - can you?

Also agree with the way older drivers are treated... I know that they reckon our reaction times are slower, but at least we react, unlike some of the youngsters who are too busy texting etc!

Every day I see people around here with their 'phone glued to their ear which means one hand on the wheel - Bluetooth is so cheap now!!! I have an excellent system in my car ( as a backup) which cost less than £20. And when I am driving I use a Bluetooth earpice. Even then, if called I keep it short because it still distracts you from the task of driving.


On to the BMW's of this world. I have driven BMW's with these systems -- I TURN THEM OFF!!! They are so distracting it is lethal. TOO MANY GADGETS IN MODERN CARS TO BE SAFE



rant over

Maadmaan, have to disagree with one of your excellent points. Reaction times in real world driving conditions of older people are not slower than youngsters, they are only slower when they are tested on test rigs away from driving conditions as the youngsters know something is to happen and can react faster.

In actual driving conditions it was found that older people actually have less visibility, but far better hazard perception than youngsters, basically they can physically see less, react slower, but actually identify a potential hazard far more quickly then youngsters and identify far more potential hazards than youngsters, which means they are prepared and react to something and by being prepared they actually react faster than youngsters, and react to more hazards. Interesting.

Can't disagree with, couldn't have put it better mysefl!

Interesting point about premuims, one of my family has a son who is 20 and drives, his next door but one neighbour has a daughter with an identical car, same make, model, and year, and the exact same engine, they are identical in age except she is one day younger than him, and with the same insurer. They are both insured fully comp and have the same annual mileage for pleasure only yet she pays nearly £600 less per annum, so they are penalising him solely on gender instead of risk.

Neither has any convictions, no claims, and both started driving within days of each other, ironically they both took and passed their driving tests on the same day.

Well, that's pretty damming evidence. Surely he could (a) contact the company to see if they can reduce his premium, or if that doesn't work, (b) contact a government insurance ombudsman or whatever they call themselves.

Has to be worth investigating.

They have contacted the Ombudsman and the response was the way they applied their rules as insurance policies were taken out several days apart, he claimed the insurers would simply say they changed their policies during this time and nothing could be done.

Why am I not surprised, they are a law unto themselves.