Dysfunctional insurance market strikes again (older used cars in the firing line)

Harry Palmr

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/insurers-refuse-to-cover-older-vehicles-31397715.html

Motorists are being blocked from getting lower insurance prices because they drive older cars.
Share

Two of the country's biggest motor insurers, Aviva and Allianz, are refusing to provide cover to new customers driving cars 15 years or older, even if they hold a valid NCT proving that their vehicles are safe to drive.

The insurers claimed these cars tended to be involved in more collisions, were used in fraud cases, had bald tyres and were poorly maintained.

The exclusion only applies to new customers, the companies said, adding that existing clients whose cars had passed the threshold would continue to get insurance cover.

But the restrictions come amid a steady increase in motor insurance premiums, which rose 12pc last year. Experts have warned motorists to expect further hikes in 2015 of between 8pc and 15pc, due to the high cost of settling claims.

The move affects almost 250,000 vehicles on the roads, or 13pc of the entire national fleet of 1.91 million cars.

Pat Kenny will be discussing this on his Newstalk programme between now and midday.

ebbsy

Dick Turpin at it again I see.

Alanstrainor

Moved to motors.

bastards. My car is in tip top order, and yet they get to tar us all with the same brush. Just have us send through valid NCT certs if they're afraid of cars not being road worthy.

Special Circumstances

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Moved to motors.

bastards. My car is in tip top order, and yet they get to tar us all with the same brush. Just have us send through valid NCT certs if they're afraid of cars not being road worthy.

As I said in another thread, they wouldn'tbe long making a big deal of no nct on a newer car if they could avoid or reduce a payout. But an annual nct seems to count for nothing on older cars.

Making it up to suit themselves as usual.

zurbfoundation

I renewed my insurance this year with one of the insurance companies mentioned in the article - it was a 2005 Avensis - 1.6 petrol -

They had already increased the quote from previous year, i got them down to what was a 10% increase and i was happy to proceed. A few days later i sold it and then put my other car back on the road, a 1996 Carina e - again 1.6 petrol - so a very similar car - they wanted another 85 euros to cover the Carina for the rest of the year.

So its not only new customers that are getting targeted - existing customers are getting a penalty too.

Alanstrainor

zurbfoundation wrote: »

I renewed my insurance this year with one of the insurance companies mentioned in the article - it was a 2005 Avensis - 1.6 petrol -

They had already increased the quote from previous year, i got them down to what was a 10% increase and i was happy to proceed. A few days later i sold it and then put my other car back on the road, a 1996 Carina e - again 1.6 petrol - so a very similar car - they wanted another 85 euros to cover the Carina for the rest of the year.

So its not only new customers that are getting targeted - existing customers are getting a penalty too.

Insurance companies are scum, showing loyalty to existing customers is never in their mindset. I'll be changing this year to AIG.

thebiglad

This is not to do with the car itself and whether or not they have to pay out due to no NCT.

These cars will be invariably insured Third Party Only or Third Party Fire and Theft so regardless of whether or not the car has an NCT the insurer will be paying out on the damages the car causes - whether they can avoid paying for the insured car is irrelevant as there is no cover on that vehicle anyhow.

The article and reason supplied is that older cars simply have more collisions - the insurers data must show that and no amount of individuals with good driving records and a 15+ year old car will change the mass data set with they have built up.

Pov06

thebiglad wrote: »

The article and reason supplied is that older cars simply have more collisions - the insurers data must show that and no amount of individuals with good driving records and a 15+ year old car will change the mass data set with they have built up.

There is absolutely no way that older cars have more collisions on a large scale. If their data set is really a "mass data set" then it would be an even spread because 90% of accidents are caused by driver error and not by a fault in the car.

zurbfoundation

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Insurance companies are scum, showing loyalty to existing customers is never in their mindset. I'll be changing this year to AIG.

and when the carina hits 20 years old i will be getting a classic policy

dodzy

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Insurance companies are scum, showing loyalty to existing customers is never in their mindset. I'll be changing this year to AIG.

I wouldn't be so sure Alan. Here's my exercise from approx 1hr on the blower attempting to hustle for a decent quote in advance of a 15th Aug renewal date.

Currently with FBD.
2005 A6 2.0tdi.
Full NCB
Full clean DL
Zero p.points.
Last year I paid €445, fully comp.

Renewal docs arrived yesterday. €666.92. Basically a 50% increase. Rang and the best I could do was €590. Adios to FBD.

AIG - €564 (reduced to €523 if I download a "safe driving app")
AXA- €790
Aviva-€858
First Ireland brokers -€599
25plus.ie - €503
Allianz-€451
Blue - 2yr comes in at a whopping €1590 :eek:
A 12mth contract is an unbelievable €857. Using the car for work (and I mean over and above just the commute to & from) - or not - results in a €39 difference. Still off the charts.

I'm done with that now. Allianz will have the pleasure of my company for the next 12mths.



FWIW, I was told during one of the above calls that FBD intend to leave the motor market, and are just quoting ridiculous renewal premiums because they at least have to quote.

Might be useful to others on their hunt !

Foxhole Norman

What the feck is going on in this country? How do they expect younger drivers to cope? We generally can't afford newer cars, especially when starting off, this does not bode well.

Francie Barrett

I can't say I blame them. Some folks will maintain older cars properly, but the vast majority don't bother. It's frightening seeing 1998 Polo's out there with tyres that are literally bald.

Pov06

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I can't say I blame them. Some folks will maintain older cars properly, but the vast majority don't bother. It's frightening seeing 1998 Polo's out there with tyres that are literally bald.

Well then they should not pay out claims if the car is clearly not road-worthy. Tyres don't just become bald after a crash.

zurbfoundation

Bald tyres don't pass NCT - if the car is NCT'ed its passed the same safety checks as a 2011 car - therefore I cant see why they load a premium onto anything that is over 15 years old and has passed the same checks

Harry Palmr

Its on now!

http://www.newstalk.com/

obezyana

I thought there would be at least some sort of debate on the Pat Kenny show with this, all it turned out to be was a spokeman from Aviva and AA basically saying suck it up there is nothing no one can do.

SEPT 23 1989

ironclaw

FBD refused to quote a 1999 I had with a fully comprehensive quote, only Third Party and I found this the case with many other insurers. I can somewhat see the point as the price of a fully comprehensive policy for a car of this age given the risk (Remember all insurance is probability and risk) would be close or exceed the cost of the car itself. It would actually be false economy for the driver in most instances:

Year: 1999 Avg Price: €1434.47

Year: 2000 Avg Price €1720.58

Year: 2001 Avg Price: €1783.92

Year: 2002 Avg Price: €2144.76

Year: 2003 Avg Price: €2706.49

Speaking personally, those averages are pretty close to the cost of my insurance over the years when I was starting out.

Also remembering that older cars are generally favored by those starting out e.g. Students Learners, so the risk profile is increased along with the loading. You cannot look at this in a one dimensional fashion and say that a valid NCT is an indication of a safe car, it may very well be as safe as a house, but its the driver behind the wheel and the number of them overall on the companies sheet that can may cause an extreme amount of risk, a risk they are limiting.

Special Circumstances

ironclaw wrote: »

Also remembering that older cars are generally favored by those starting out e.g. Students Learners, so the risk profile is increased along with the loading. You cannot look at this in a one dimensional fashion and say that a valid NCT is an indication of a safe car, it may very well be as safe as a house, but its the driver behind the wheel and the number of them overall on the companies sheet that can may cause an extreme amount of risk, a risk they are limiting.

So why should a fanboi with 10yrs full licence and max no claims be refused? It's obviously a driver issue rather than a car issue, so why not load/exclude the driver? There seems to be an awful lot of "that donkey is grey, all donkeys must be grey" kinda logic in the industry.

Mehapoy

dodzy wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure Alan. Here's my exercise from approx 1hr on the blower attempting to hustle for a decent quote in advance of a 15th Aug renewal date.

Currently with FBD.
2005 A6 2.0tdi.
Full NCB
Full clean DL
Zero p.points.
Last year I paid €445, fully comp.

Renewal docs arrived yesterday. €666.92. Basically a 50% increase. Rang and the best I could do was €590. Adios to FBD.

AIG - €564 (reduced to €523 if I download a "safe driving app")
AXA- €790
Aviva-€858
First Ireland brokers -€599
25plus.ie - €503
Allianz-€451



FWIW, I was told during one of the above calls that FBD intend to leave the motor market, and are just quoting ridiculous renewal premiums because they at least have to quote.

Might be useful to others on their hunt !

Allianz was by far the best quote I got after getting a massive increase in my Aviva renewal, seemed like aviva just did not want the business...motor insurance here is gone crazy again, the government needs to step in and see what can be done,

Harry Palmr

obezyana wrote: »

I thought there would be at least some sort of debate on the Pat Kenny show with this, all it turned out to be was a spokeman from Aviva and AA basically saying suck it up there is nothing no one can do.

Agree, its a was a pathetic piece of news analysis

Mehapoy

ironclaw wrote: »

FBD refused to quote a 1999 I had with a fully comprehensive quote, only Third Party and I found this the case with many other insurers. I can somewhat see the point as the price of a fully comprehensive policy for a car of this age given the risk (Remember all insurance is probability and risk) would be close or exceed the cost of the car itself. It would actually be false economy for the driver in most instances:

Year: 1999 Avg Price: €1434.47

Year: 2000 Avg Price €1720.58

Year: 2001 Avg Price: €1783.92

Year: 2002 Avg Price: €2144.76

Year: 2003 Avg Price: €2706.49

Speaking personally, those averages are pretty close to the cost of my insurance over the years when I was starting out.

Also remembering that older cars are generally favored by those starting out e.g. Students Learners, so the risk profile is increased along with the loading. You cannot look at this in a one dimensional fashion and say that a valid NCT is an indication of a safe car, it may very well be as safe as a house, but its the driver behind the wheel and the number of them overall on the companies sheet that can may cause an extreme amount of risk, a risk they are limiting.

Sorry, but That logic doesn't make sense at all! So younger drivers tend to drive older cars, younger drivers tend to have more accidents, conclusion, charge through the nose to insure older cars!

Alun

Francie Barrett wrote: »

It's frightening seeing 1998 Polo's out there with tyres that are literally bald.

It's got nothing to do with the car's age though. Take a wander through any car park and you'll find plenty of cars much newer than that, sometimes only a year or two old, often top of the range Merc's, BMW's etc. that have bald tyres, and/or cheap Chinese ditch-finders too.

Atlantic Dawn

Francie Barrett wrote: »

I can't say I blame them. Some folks will maintain older cars properly, but the vast majority don't bother. It's frightening seeing 1998 Polo's out there with tyres that are literally bald.

NCT would spot this, that's why enforcement of existing laws is important. Insurers should insist on car having valid NCT and not provide cover until it does.

Nody

zurbfoundation wrote: »

Bald tyres don't pass NCT - if the car is NCT'ed its passed the same safety checks as a 2011 car - therefore I cant see why they load a premium onto anything that is over 15 years old and has passed the same checks

Please it's easy to borrow a spare set of tires to NCT the car and then back to the real tyres afterwards; NCT passed. Same way people have plenty of quick tips to get through the other tests simply to pass the NCT. The simple fact is older cars have worse security measures, are more likely to have developed fault and are proportionally more likely to be driven by inexperienced drivers (because they are cheap).

Pov06

Nody wrote: »

Please it's easy to borrow a spare set of tires to NCT the car and then back to the real tyres afterwards; NCT passed. Same way people have plenty of quick tips to get through the other tests simply to pass the NCT.

Please it's easy for an insurance assessor to check if the tyres are bald.

Special Circumstances

Nody wrote: »

Please it's easy to borrow a spare set of tires to NCT the car and then back to the real tyres afterwards; NCT passed. Same way people have plenty of quick tips to get through the other tests simply to pass the NCT. The simple fact is older cars have worse security measures, are more likely to have developed fault and are proportionally more likely to be driven by inexperienced drivers (because they are cheap).

Imagine if there was a way they could tell if the car was being insured by a learner or an experienced driver with a good track record of safe driving....

obezyana

Nody wrote: »

Please it's easy to borrow a spare set of tires to NCT the car and then back to the real tyres afterwards; NCT passed. Same way people have plenty of quick tips to get through the other tests simply to pass the NCT. The simple fact is older cars have worse security measures, are more likely to have developed fault and are proportionally more likely to be driven by inexperienced drivers (because they are cheap).

What a load of cock. Are you seriously suggesting just because a car is older the person driving might be inexperienced?

To Elland Back

Pov06 wrote: »

Well then they should not pay out claims if the car is clearly not road-worthy. Tyres don't just become bald after a crash.

Insurers cannot refuse to pay a 3rd party if the vehicle is not roadworthy and trying to recover their outlay from the policyholder would be futile.

As the article points out, older cars are often used for staged accidents. People buying bangers and arranging to be hit etc

Also, there are countless comments on this forum from people who insure old 1 litre cars in order to avail of the driving of other cars extension to drive a 'friends' powerful car.

The own damage aspect of a claim never really concerns an insurer, it's the damage a car/driver can cause is the problem. Don't forget, passengers in a car can sue the driver for injuries if he is at fault and an older vehicle is rarely as safe as a newer one.

mhackett102

Nody wrote: »

Please it's easy to borrow a spare set of tires to NCT the car and then back to the real tyres afterwards; NCT passed. Same way people have plenty of quick tips to get through the other tests simply to pass the NCT. The simple fact is older cars have worse security measures, are more likely to have developed fault and are proportionally more likely to be driven by inexperienced drivers (because they are cheap).

That last sentence, seriously? I was stuck in deciding what car to buy a few weeks ago, either a 2003 Toyota or 2008 Volkswagen. If I bought the Volkswagen would that mean I would be more of an experienced driver? Both cars were the same price.

Bio Mech

mhackett102 wrote: »

That last sentence, seriously? I was stuck in deciding what car to buy a few weeks ago, either a 2003 Toyota or 2008 Volkswagen. If I bought the Volkswagen would that mean I would be more of an experienced driver? Both cars were the same price.

You are missing the point. its not dictated by your personal experience its based on tendency across a market of nearly 2 million cars. I would imagine its correct but a lot of people miss the point of statistics and how market analysis works. They seem to think its dictated by their own position (in line with your question above). It isn't of course.

Bio Mech

Pov06 wrote: »

Please it's easy for an insurance assessor to check if the tyres are bald.

It doesn't matter as they will have to pay out third party costs anyway. They are legally obliged to. Comp on an old car costs little but costs for injuring a third party are where the big numbers are.

Pov06

To Elland Back wrote: »

Insurers cannot refuse to pay a 3rd party if the vehicle is not roadworthy and trying to recover their outlay from the policyholder would be futile.

As the article points out, older cars are often used for staged accidents. People buying bangers and arranging to be hit etc

Also, there are countless comments on this forum from people who insure old 1 litre cars in order to avail of the driving of other cars extension to drive a 'friends' powerful car.

The own damage aspect of a claim never really concerns an insurer, it's the damage a car/driver can cause is the problem. Don't forget, passengers in a car can sue the driver for injuries if he is at fault and an older vehicle is rarely as safe as a newer one.

Bio Mech wrote: »

It doesn't matter as they will have to pay out third party costs anyway. They are legally obliged to. Comp on an old car costs little but costs for injuring a third party are where the big numbers are.

Indeed the insurance company has to pay the third party. However they can recoup the payout from the insured because they did not adhere to the terms of the policy which is having a roadworthy car (if they implemented it).

Bio Mech

Pov06 wrote: »

Indeed the insurance company has to pay the third party. However they can recoup the payout from the insured because they did not adhere to the terms of the policy which is having a roadworthy car (if they implemented it).

They could try but in practice its costly because it has to go via the courts and its a messy process. Not cost effective for them to do it unless the costs to recoup are huge and at that point it becomes less likely that the pursued party could pay them back anyway.

Its a nice idea but it is difficult to actually enact. Thus its easier and more cost effective to minimise their risks by raising premiums or pricing the risk out of their portfolio. Unfortunately, as companies there for profit, that's how they see it.

wotzgoingon

I have a 1998 car and it passed the NCT without me having to do anything for it. Well I got 4 tyres.

They give out cheap tax rates to newer cars now the insurance companies won't insure older cars. It's a money monopoly. I would not be surprised if it was the government who brought in this legislation. Ireland does not have a car manufacturer so I do not know where they are making out it is good for everybody if everyone drives new cars. The only countries making money off this is countries who manufacturer cars.

Just to add my car is fine and I cannot afford a new car so if they want to provide free 5-7 year old cars to people like off they go.

galwaytt

thebiglad wrote: »

This is not to do with the car itself and whether or not they have to pay out due to no NCT.

These cars will be invariably insured Third Party Only or Third Party Fire and Theft so regardless of whether or not the car has an NCT the insurer will be paying out on the damages the car causes - whether they can avoid paying for the insured car is irrelevant as there is no cover on that vehicle anyhow.

The article and reason supplied is that older cars simply have more collisions - the insurers data must show that and no amount of individuals with good driving records and a 15+ year old car will change the mass data set with they have built up.

Sorry, unless I get personal visibility on those records, and the veracity of them, I call BS - I simply do not believe that the age of cars is a factor.

What is more likely is now that older cars represent the majority of the national fleet, then as surely as night follows day, the majority as a % of those involved in accidents are in older cars.

Issue us all with spanking new 152-reg cars and all that will happen is that the majority of accidents will be in new cars.

Cars don't crash - people do. That's why we have and maintain a drivers licence and a driving history -otherwise, what's the point ?

galwaytt

zurbfoundation wrote: »

Bald tyres don't pass NCT - if the car is NCT'ed its passed the same safety checks as a 2011 car - therefore I cant see why they load a premium onto anything that is over 15 years old and has passed the same checks

..wasn't that the big sales job they did on us having the NCT in the first place ??

dasa29

dodzy wrote: »

FWIW, I was told during one of the above calls that FBD intend to leave the motor market, and are just quoting ridiculous renewal premiums because they at least have to quote.

Might be useful to others on their hunt !

Hi guys there might be something to this I went to the FBD centre close to me and the person I was talking to was unable to give me a new quote.

Currently with FBD.
2001 Yaris 1l.
Full NCB
Full clean DL
Zero p.points.
Last year I paid €457.93, fully comp.

Renewal docs arrived yesterday. €615.03 or €584.28 if renewed online with 5% off

have been looking around and the best is around €500, but did notice something with 25plus.ie and that is
1 Quote saying I work was €350.03
2 Quote saying I don't work was €497.51
now I am not saying to do this I just wanted people to know the difference between them.

ironclaw

obezyana wrote: »

What a load of cock. Are you seriously suggesting just because a car is older the person driving might be inexperienced?

Mehapoy wrote: »

Sorry, but That logic doesn't make sense at all! So younger drivers tend to drive older cars, younger drivers tend to have more accidents, conclusion, charge through the nose to insure older cars!

You're missing the math behind insurance. If you have 100 older cars on the books, and 75 of them are driven by 'high risk' drivers (Young, Inexperienced), you need to load the other 25 irregardless of age / experience because the majority of your risk is caused by the other 75. Your risk profile for that age of car is high, hence you need to make up the cover for that group.

On the flip side, if you have 100 newer cars driven by 'low risk' groups (Likely someone of good driving experience being a shade older and a suitable income to support the newer car), the insurance in that bracket will be lower.

Insurance is not about the individual. Its about the risk bracket you fall into. And if you happen to have a older car that sits in with a 'high risk' group, you're going to pay through the nose or not be quoted at all. The older Bora and Audi TDI's are classic examples of this. I'm not for one second implying that someone in a 1995 is a worst driver than a 2015, I'm saying the mathematical probability is higher that the 1995 is a higher risk. Its pure math. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters to the insurance company

(I say all this as someone under 30 who has had cars as old as 1999 up until recently)

To Elland Back

Pov06 wrote: »

Indeed the insurance company has to pay the third party. However they can recoup the payout from the insured because they did not adhere to the terms of the policy which is having a roadworthy car (if they implemented it).

In fairness, there is little chance of recovering anything from a person who owns a car of that age

(Not being arrogant, mine is a 1999)

To Elland Back

wotzgoingon wrote: »

I would not be surprised if it was the government who brought in this legislation.

It's not legislation, it is 2 private businesses deciding what they want (or don't want) to sell to the public

Special Circumstances

To Elland Back wrote: »

In fairness, there is little chance of recovering anything from a person who owns a car of that age

(Not being arrogant, mine is a 1999)

I was going to mention a recently passed bill but it might drag the thread into liveline territory...

jimgoose

To Elland Back wrote: »

In fairness, there is little chance of recovering anything from a person who owns a car of that age

(Not being arrogant, mine is a 1999)

There's still less chance of recovering anything from many people with €30,000 number-plate-carriers because they're aytin' the mortar off the walls paying the finance on the sodding thing. :pac:

Cuddlesworth

ironclaw wrote: »

Insurance is not about the individual. Its about the risk bracket you fall into. And if you happen to have a older car that sits in with a 'high risk' group, you're going to pay through the nose or not be quoted at all. The older Bora and Audi TDI's are classic examples of this. I'm not for one second implying that someone in a 1995 is a worst driver than a 2015, I'm saying the mathematical probability is higher that the 1995 is a higher risk. Its pure math. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters to the insurance company

Yeah damm math.

At the end of the day, both companies have decided that insuring cars over 15 years old isn't going to make them money and are happily giving the business to others who want to take on the risk.

Whats the problem?

Special Circumstances

ironclaw wrote: »

You're missing the math behind insurance. If you have 100 older cars on the books, and 75 of them are driven by 'high risk' drivers (Young, Inexperienced), you need to load the other 25 irregardless of age / experience because the majority of your risk is caused by the other 75. Your risk profile for that age of car is high, hence you need to make up the cover for that group.

On the flip side, if you have 100 newer cars driven by 'low risk' groups (Likely someone of good driving experience being a shade older and a suitable income to support the newer car), the insurance in that bracket will be lower.

Insurance is not about the individual. Its about the risk bracket you fall into. And if you happen to have a older car that sits in with a 'high risk' group, you're going to pay through the nose or not be quoted at all. The older Bora and Audi TDI's are classic examples of this. I'm not for one second implying that someone in a 1995 is a worst driver than a 2015, I'm saying the mathematical probability is higher that the 1995 is a higher risk. Its pure math. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters to the insurance company

(I say all this as someone under 30 who has had cars as old as 1999 up until recently)

So why ask people's age, experience and claims history if the deciding factor is the cars age?

I can understand a situation where the overall "risk factor" , experience X age X claims history X car age X car type would be unacceptable.


I suspect the maths behind insurance has very little to do with logic.
Say the main cause of accidents is bad driving, and is statistically linked to inexperienced drivers, prescription medication or loss of faculties.
I would say that when the numbers are crunched, the fact that an unaccompanied learner driver in a purple 1999 ford focus has a crash due to driver error it doesn't just count against learner drivers, it also loads purple cars, all ford focuses, and all 1999 cars.
Completely illogical but I suspect this is the case, even if they were drooling down themselves on temazepam.

Bio Mech

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Yeah damm math.

At the end of the day, both companies have decided that insuring cars over 15 years old isn't going to make them money and are happily giving the business to others who want to take on the risk.

Whats the problem?

The problem is a lot of people don't understand the problem. Also conspiracy theory.

Special Circumstances

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Yeah damm math.

At the end of the day, both companies have decided that insuring cars over 15 years old isn't going to make them money and are happily giving the business to others who want to take on the risk.

Whats the problem?

The problem is a legal and moral obligation on drivers to have 3rd party insurance, but little restriction on what the private insurance industry can require of us before they will give it to us.

We can't all be 40yr old accountants from Wexford driving a 2009 1.0L Yaris or whatever the "best case" customer they use for calculating minimum premium is.

Cuddlesworth

Special Circumstances wrote: »

The problem is a legal and moral obligation on drivers to have 3rd party insurance, but little restriction on what the private insurance industry can require of us before they will give it to us.

We can't all be 40yr old accountants from Wexford driving a 2009 1.0L Yaris or whatever the "best case" customer they use for calculating minimum premium is.

So you want them to subsidise your insurance? Or would you like the government to set up a Levy for the poor oul sods who can't afford their 2009 1.0L Yaris in Wexford.

Special Circumstances

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

So you want them to subsidise your insurance? Or would you like the government to set up a Levy for the poor oul sods who can't afford their 2009 1.0L Yaris in Wexford.

So you think it's ok if they want us to drive Micras less than 5yrs old, while dressed as Cinderella?

Actually, they can want that all day, as long as we have the option not to and are not subject to ridiculous costs to drive a roadworthy car with a full licence and max no claims bonus. My problem is if the industry DEMANDS that we only drive Micras less than 5yrs old, while dressed as Cinderella...

jimgoose

Special Circumstances wrote: »

So why ask people's age, experience and claims history if the deciding factor is the cars age?

I can understand a situation where the overall "risk factor" , experience X age X claims history X car age X car type would be unacceptable.


I suspect the maths behind insurance has very little to do with logic.
Say the main cause of accidents is bad driving, and is statistically linked to inexperienced drivers, prescription medication or loss of faculties.
I would say that when the numbers are crunched, the fact that an unaccompanied learner driver in a purple 1999 ford focus has a crash due to driver error it doesn't just count against learner drivers, it also loads purple cars, all ford focuses, and all 1999 cars.
Completely illogical but I suspect this is the case, even if they were drooling down themselves on temazepam.

It would certainly appear to be a method of insurance-rating cars of various ages that suffers from a number of formal fallacies - the Illicit Minor at least springs to mind.

jimgoose

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

So you want them to subsidise your insurance? Or would you like the government to set up a Levy for the poor oul sods who can't afford their 2009 1.0L Yaris in Wexford.

Strawman. I suspect he wants premiums to be calculated on the basis of a deeper and more correct analysis of the statistical data by more skilled analysts with a bit of cop-on.