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

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Haha nice try.
You can turn the argument around once, but to keep doing it just makes you look silly. This "why aren't there queues of insurers fighting to get in" seems to be one of the cornerstones of your position but let's just turn that argument around 180, not 360 like you are trying to do.
TEB asked it, blamed all and sundry for the insurance industry losing money hand over fist.
But if ye are just giving money away why are there not queues of medical/legal/scamming people from abroad waiting to get in on it? God knows our own love a bit of ponzi scheme bonanza, why are we not all sitting around scheming ways to get rich quick as if insurance claims were the new property ladder?

Honestly now goys, ye have the whiff of a cult off ye here again. Ye make an argument (insurers never reveal where they make they losses, everybody is making piles of cash but us) expect it to be taken as gospel and then ignore that argument or contradict yerselves (which part of them revealing their losses don't you believe you thick, we never said they were making lots of money) in a stunning show of doublethink within 5 posts.

Sooner or later surely you have to wonder is it really down to all these other people you are blaming* or is the insurance industry just doing it wrong in ireland.
TEB is practically admitting it above "oh I never said everybody else was making lots of money". So... everybody else is making a modest amount of money but insurers are losing money like it was evaporating. Seriously, what is the money being invested in, chocolate fireguard companies etc???? Have ye checked yer pockets for really big holes?
*because you are qualified to blame all these other industries but NOBODY but insurance people are qualified to point the finger at insurance people.

Top banter m8, top top banter.

I know nothing of the legal profession, nor the medical profession.


A lot of people, myself included, have given a huge amount of information about the industry yet your go to argument is about 15 year old cars now been uninsurable.

I've already said it doesn't make sense, so has TEB, yet that's the only thing you can come back to.

So here's what I think, you either don't understand, and that's absolutely fine, or you are willfully ignoring everything that has been said in an effort to try and troll.

Just because I point out that people don't understand the industry doesn't make it any less true, the fact of the matter is a massive amount of people don't. Just look at the countless threads in here about insurance for proof of that.

Special Circumstances

To Elland Back wrote: »

I'll give my opinion on that because it is a very reasonable point. It is likely that insurers took a few heavy claims, which were flagged by claim handlers and analysed the circumstances. Perhaps a common factor may have been the fact that cars USED in these claims were over 15 yrs old. Nobody has said these cars are more dangerous, just that they were USED in claims that insurers were not happy with

Hypothetically, if you were to stage an accident where personal injuries are the goal, why would you good spend money on a newish car to be used in your scam? Insurers would only replace what you spent on it and the injury payout would be the same. It makes economic sense to use a (NCT'd) older car just in case the staged accident goes wrong and you miscalculate the accident. If you fail in your task, you've only lost a few bob

As always, insurers will act swiftly and without favour and turf out every risk with a similar profile and don't care if the good risks within those numbers get caught in the crossfire. They don't have the time or the inclination to try and assess each individual.

There are other problem areas where insurers would wish to take similar ruthless action but are prevented from doing so by the discrimination laws of the land. This is an easy one for them.

I don't always agree with these decisions but I understand why they do it. SC (seeing that we are now on abbreviation terms), I won't be responding to anything you have to say on my observations

Boo hoo.

Brand new Dacia. Less than the payout for one party in a staged crashed, and we all know those cars are never occupied by only one person.

So, one or other of the industry mouth pieces has already admitted that this measure will never prevent motivated scammed as the can just keep buying 13...11...9... year old cars all the way up to brand spanking Dacias.

It's a short term gain while competitors and scammed adjust to this new factor.

In a normal supply and demand industry where people are free to choose if they need the item, then the numbers game is probably worthy of a pat on the back.

In an industry where we are legally obliged to buy your product, nct our cars annually to get to work... it is morally wrong to use the magic of insurance statistics to crucify genuine but not wealthy motorists. I suppose genuine people who just have a passion for older cars aren't forced to have these cars but I would still see defending this policy as being anti car lovers, not quite morally wrong but you're never going to get a good reception here for saying this policy makes sense are you?

Summary for you high powered shot calling strategy whizzes: it won't work long term.

Special Circumstances

Business Cat wrote: »

Top banter m8, top top banter.

I know nothing of the legal profession, nor the medical profession.


A lot of people, myself included, have given a huge amount of information about the industry yet your go to argument is about 15 year old cars now been uninsurable.

I've already said it doesn't make sense, so has TEB, yet that's the only thing you can come back to.

So here's what I think, you either don't understand, and that's absolutely fine, or you are willfully ignoring everything that has been said in an effort to try and troll.

Just because I point out that people don't understand the industry doesn't make it any less true, the fact of the matter is a massive amount of people don't. Just look at the countless threads in here about insurance for proof of that.

If the thread topic, refusals or hikes for 15 year old car, doesn't suit you then maybe you could start a "nobody likes us nobody understands us we keep losing money waaaawaaawaa" thread? I guarantee it will be a Special Circumstances free zone.

If ye keep coming in here telling car enthusiasts deserve these refusals and hikes and hoping we'll eventually agree.... expect more "banter m8".

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

If the thread topic, refusals or hikes for 15 year old car, doesn't suit you then maybe you could start a "nobody likes us nobody understands us we keep losing money waaaawaaawaa" thread? I guarantee it will be a Special Circumstances free zone.

If ye keep coming in here telling car enthusiasts deserve these refusals and hikes and hoping we'll eventually agree.... expect more "banter m8".

Blah

Blah

Blah

Interslice

Business Cat wrote: »

Blah

Blah

Blah

FortySeven

Business Cat wrote: »

Interesting, where did you get this quote, link please.

You see just for shyts and giggles I went onto a motor insurance comparison site for Switzerland (just google cost of car insurance Switzerland, the site is something like comparison.en) and for a 1999 2l beemer, licence for 10 years, age 39, no a/c/c, fully comp, full bonus protection, one driver only, based in Bern, the best price was 810 francs, or about €740.

That's with a property damage excess of 300 francs and 500 francs for liability.

I did minimum requirement, as I did for the Irish quote. No point being fully comp on a 1999 5er really is there? Any damage will be an economic write off and the excess will take anything after that.
I was in Geneva, not Bern. Maybe Bern is full of 15 year old cars? Bound to push up premiums. :rolleyes:

Forgot the link,

https://www.baloisedirect.ch/insurance/car/getaquote.html

toptom

Still use an old 95 corolla the odd time, nothing wrong with it, the thick ignorants will try to ban old cars next

Wibbs

Hmmm I tried the Swiss link(for Berne), fully comp for mine just over 600, third party just over 400. Here? Just over 1000.

Special Circumstances

Wibbs wrote: »

Hmmm I tried the Swiss link(for Berne), fully comp for mine just over 600, third party just over 400. Here? Just over 1000.

Imagine trying to get insured by irish insurers to drive on roads used as emergency runways for fighter aircraft. That's a loadin!

"The Swiss Air Force operates from several fixed bases (see current status) but its personnel are also trained to carry out air operations from temporary highway airstrips. In case of crisis or war, several stretches of road are specially prepared for this option."

dr.fuzzenstein

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Imagine trying to get insured by irish insurers to drive on roads used as emergency runways for fighter aircraft. That's a loadin!

"The Swiss Air Force operates from several fixed bases (see current status) but its personnel are also trained to carry out air operations from temporary highway airstrips. In case of crisis or war, several stretches of road are specially prepared for this option."

The real loading would be from the fact that a lot of roads and tunnels are rigged to be blown up in case of enemy invasion.
Imagine trying to explain that to an Irish insurer.

http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-military-defenses-2012-6?IR=T

Plus almost every house in the country has a high powered military rifle stowed away:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

Gotta love those crazy Swiss!
So the problem in the USA is not the fact that everyone is armed, but the fact that they are Yanks. 'Murica!

Special Circumstances

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The real loading would be from the fact that a lot of roads and tunnels are rigged to be blown up in case of enemy invasion.
Imagine trying to explain that to an Irish insurer.

http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-military-defenses-2012-6?IR=T

Plus almost every house in the country has a high powered military rifle stowed away:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

Gotta love those crazy Swiss!
So the problem in the USA is not the fact that everyone is armed, but the fact that they are Yanks. 'Murica!

Still, there's dangerous and then there's driving a 15 year old Honda Accord.

"1.8 pertol with the veee tech? Lord bless us and save us!"

FortySeven

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Imagine trying to get insured by irish insurers to drive on roads used as emergency runways for fighter aircraft. That's a loadin!

"The Swiss Air Force operates from several fixed bases (see current status) but its personnel are also trained to carry out air operations from temporary highway airstrips. In case of crisis or war, several stretches of road are specially prepared for this option."

Don't they also have steep, winding roads with hundred foot drops? Also, I believe quite heavy snow every winter?
Also, their average wage seems to be more than double ours so their insurance is actually a hell of a lot more affordable too.

Still, there's dangerous and then there's driving a 15 year old Honda Accord.

"1.8 pertol with the veee tech? Lord bless us and save us!"

This made me laugh so hard! Then I remembered I am having my hard earned cash gouged out of my back pocket by a bunch of greedy scumbags. Still, they can't tax laughter yet!
Now where are those apologists?

FishOnABike

FortySeven wrote: »

Don't they also have steep, winding roads with hundred foot drops? Also, I believe quite heavy snow every winter

Aaah, but dem dar hundert foot drops and all dat snow makes dem very careful drivers, focuses the mind don't you know.

Trouble is our roads make drivers too complacent and that's when all these accidents happen.;)

FortySeven

FishOnABike wrote: »

Aaah, but dem dar hundert foot drops and all dat snow makes dem very careful drivers, focuses the mind don't you know.

Trouble is our roads make drivers too complacent and that's when all these accidents happen.;)

You should see my commute, the margin for complacency is, well, marginal.

Kintarō Hattori

The insurance industry here really infuriates me. In 2013 the missus upgraded from a 1999 K11 Micra to a 2005 BMW. Rather than sell the car we gave it to my sister who's a single mother and she used it for about 18 months before upgrading herself.
The car is now back with us, taxed and nct'd until next year. The missus tried to get a quote with AIG (who insure her BMW) and their response was breathtaking. As it's a 15 year old car they won't give out a quote on the phone or web. Instead they'll send out a form which she has to fill out. They'll send it onto their underwriter who'll decide whether to insure the car or not.

Infuriating. She has 4+ years of clean driving. The car has always been well serviced. What's the point of the NCT if insurers can write off thousands of cars willy nilly. I hate being forced into upgrading when there is nothing wrong with the car we have other than someone somewhere doesn't like its age.

Sh1tbag OToole

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

The insurance industry here really infuriates me. In 2011 the missus upgraded from a 1999 K11 Micra to a 2005 BMW. Rather than sell the car we gave it to my sister who's a single mother and she used it for about 18 months before upgrading herself.
The car is now back with us, taxed and nct'd until next year. The missus tried to get a quote as with AIG (who insure her BMW) and their response was breathtaking. As it's a 15 year old car they won't give out a quote on the phone or web. Instead they'll send out a form which she has to fill out. They'll send it onto their underwriter who'll decide whether to insure the car or not.

Infuriating. She has 4+ years of clean driving. The car has always been well serviced. What's the point of the NCT if insurers can write off thousands of cars willy nilly. I hate being forced into upgrading when there is nothing wrong with the car we have other than someone somewhere doesn't like its age.

It's a terrible way to treat customers who have been shovelling money into these companies for years and never asked for anything in return but a slip of paper to put on the dash

dr.fuzzenstein

And in my mind they're insuring the wrong people.
I don't believe that scam bollox for one minute. Its Mary from Cork in her brand new feckin' Yaris bought on finance. If anyone as much as tips into her, she'll put in a €20k claim faster than you can say Halswirbelsäulenschleudertrauma.
While most people who actually own their car even if its a bit older will say "don't worry, its just a scratch" when crawling from the wreckage.

To Elland Back

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And in my mind they're insuring the wrong people.
I don't believe that scam bollox for one minute. Its Mary from Cork in her brand new feckin' Yaris bought on finance. If anyone as much as tips into her, she'll put in a €20k claim faster than you can say Schleudertrauma.
While most people who actually own their car even if its a bit older will say "don't worry, its just a scratch" when crawling from the wreckage.

You are right. Exaggerated claims (fraud) is not confined to any gender, class, nationality or location. It is widespread

cruizer101

Since insurance companies have decided to profile driver risk based on car age, something with no link, is there any reason why they can't start to profile based on other criteria, hair colour, BMI, shoe size.
Ok these are extreme examples but can anyone, Buisness Cat maybe if you are still reading thread, advise are there any regulations or guidelines on what insurance companies can and cannot use to profile a driver.

To Elland Back

cruizer101 wrote: »

Since insurance companies have decided to profile driver risk based on car age, something with no link, is there any reason why they can't start to profile based on other criteria, hair colour, BMI, shoe size.
Ok these are extreme examples but can anyone, Buisness Cat maybe if you are still reading thread, advise are there any regulations or guidelines on what insurance companies can and cannot use to profile a driver.

The only restrictions on profiling are gender, race, nationality etc, basically the laws of the land. Insurers do profile in detail you wouldn't normally think of, including car colour.

Sh1tbag OToole

To Elland Back wrote: »

The only restrictions on profiling are gender, race, nationality etc, basically the laws of the land. Insurers do profile in detail you wouldn't normally think of, including car colour.

Would a car with an undesirable colour be less likely to get robbed and therefore cost less to insure?

dr.fuzzenstein

To Elland Back wrote: »

The only restrictions on profiling are gender, race, nationality etc, basically the laws of the land. Insurers do profile in detail you wouldn't normally think of, including car colour.

I well believe it and after that article I'm sure star signs will be taken into account soon enough.
It's funny though how this seems to fly into the face of assertions that "Insurers can't do such detailed analysis, impossible, can't be done" when it comes to 15 year old cars.
So they do such analysis, even though it's impossible and can't be done in such details?

edit:
On the car color, it's bollocks of course. There are a great number of silver cars, therefore silver cars will be involved in more incidents.
Therefore are probably classed as a higher risk.
It's pure Tiger Rock reasoning. This rock keeps tigers away and I base this on the fact that I don't see any tigers here.
I said it before and I say it again. The people who come up with this sh*t obviously have missed classes on how to properly interpret data. It also looks like they're missing a few logic circuits in their head. Insurance companies would do better to hand risk analysis over to a bunch of monkeys throwing feces at a wall and the pattern will determine who gets loaded this year. I am not joking:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-hedge-fund-geniuses-got-beaten-by-monkeys-again-2015-06-25

Special Circumstances

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I well believe it and after that article I'm sure star signs will be taken into account soon enough.
It's funny though how this seems to fly into the face of assertions that "Insurers can't do such detailed analysis, impossible, can't be done" when it comes to 15 year old cars.
So they do such analysis, even though it's impossible and can't be done in such details?

"You don't understand"

"Pay up, you thick"

To Elland Back

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Would a car with an undesirable colour be less likely to get robbed and therefore cost less to insure?

Red and black, for example, combined with a youngish driver, is a profile insurers have used in the past to load a quote as opposed to the same driver, with a shilty green colour. I'm just saying how it is, not that it is right

To Elland Back

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I well believe it and after that article I'm sure star signs will be taken into account soon enough.
"Insurers can't do such detailed analysis, impossible, can't be done" when it comes to 15 year old cars.
So they do such analysis, even though it's impossible and can't be done in such details?

Who ever said it can't be done? Insurers are just not going to release their data in to the public domain for competitors to benefit on. It is a compulsory cover, but no insurer is obliged to explain it's pricing or it's reasons for targeting or exiting certain types of risk. Perhaps the statistics show that a certain gender, race or nationality are the root of the problem with cars over 15 years. They can't discriminate, so the baby goes out with the bathwater I know that infuriates everyone but that's the way it is

dr.fuzzenstein

To Elland Back wrote: »

Who ever said it can't be done? Insurers are just not going to release their data in to the public domain for competitors to benefit on. It is a compulsory cover, but no insurer is obliged to explain it's pricing or it's reasons for targeting or exiting certain types of risk. Perhaps the statistics show that a certain gender, race or nationality are the root of the problem with cars over 15 years. They can't discriminate, so the baby goes out with the bathwater I know that infuriates everyone but that's the way it is

The problem is, the problem will still exist and just move to different, more accepted type of car.

koutoubia

dr.fuzzenstein wrote:

The problem is, the problem will still exist and just move to different, more accepted type of car.

That's the long term problem.
What happens if some underwriting/ insurance firm claim to spot a trend of x year old cars being such an unacceptable risk that they won't offer insurance to anything older then that. It's a dangerous precedent that our sleeping politicians have missed.

Skatedude

if you do less then 6k a year, then just go for classic insurance and save cash. not much you can do if you do high millage

To Elland Back

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The problem is, the problem will still exist and just move to different, more accepted type of car.

Of course, but the insurers kicking out the older cars now are hoping it will become a competitors problem and every insurer out there genuinely wishes that their rivals get their arses well and truly spanked. There is no collective agenda here. When one moves, the others react so as not to get caught holding the shlty end of the stick.

When the fraudsters come up with the next cunning plan, the process will be repeated

5W30

To Elland Back wrote: »

When the fraudsters come up with the next cunning plan, the process will be repeated

So I take it the point of this 15 year old car rule is to reduce costs on personal injury claims by making sure people are driving around in newer (safer) cars? Perhaps also to avoid people buying bangers only to brake check someone and make a claim (not that it's really popular or heard of in Ireland)?

Is there actually anyway in proving the a personal injury claimer is hurt as much as they say they are?

Liam McPoyle

cruizer101 wrote: »

Since insurance companies have decided to profile driver risk based on car age, something with no link, is there any reason why they can't start to profile based on other criteria, hair colour, BMI, shoe size.
Ok these are extreme examples but can anyone, Buisness Cat maybe if you are still reading thread, advise are there any regulations or guidelines on what insurance companies can and cannot use to profile a driver.

As TEB said, insurers cannot discriminate on things like gender, nationality, sexual orientation, the biggies really however one could argue that charging a 24 year old with 5 years claims free driving more than a 44 year old with the same number of years claims free driving is discrimination.

While insurers would be loath (in serious trouble) to outright say that they aren't insuring someone due to who they are, it does happen.

In a previous job there was an ongoing issue with members of a societal subgroup that had a long and checkered history of fabricating claims.

We would get calls from them and they would give all the right answers ie saying they had a full bonus, no claims etc etc but we were still instructed to not quote them. In those instances, when they were saying all the right things but we knew that there was something dodgy afoot, we would tell the caller they needed to send in a manual proposal form, proof of bonus, copies of licence and copy of the log book then we could consider quoting them. Surprisingly enough the information was never forthcoming. So while were not outright discriminating ie saying we are not quoting you because you are a member of X family, "insider" knowledge that they could potentially be a troublesome customer was used to dissuade them from proceeding.

I have no issue with that tbh, at the end of the day an insurer is a business and has to do its best to protect its interests.

Liam McPoyle

5W30 wrote: »

Is there actually anyway in proving the a personal injury claimer is hurt as much as they say they are?

Nope, thats the problem with soft tissue claims which would make up a large amount of claims insurers see.

There is no way of telling the genuine cases where the claimant has suffered a life effecting injury or someone has a bit of soreness for a couple of days and has no long term after effects.

The problem is that the courts will always land on the side of the claimant unless clear and unequivocal proof of the injury being feigned is provided, and for a whiplash claim that is neigh on impossible unfortunately.

FortySeven

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The people who come up with this sh*t obviously have missed classes on how to properly interpret data. It also looks like they're missing a few logic circuits in their head. Insurance companies would do better to hand risk analysis over to a bunch of monkeys throwing feces at a wall and the pattern will determine who gets loaded this year. I am not joking:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-hedge-fund-geniuses-got-beaten-by-monkeys-again-2015-06-25

I'm way too cynical to believe they are not good at this, I personally believe they are brilliant at extracting just as much money as they can from everyone while not haveing the government intervene. They are very, very clever.

Pedro K

I've just remembered a case I dealt with, years ago, when I worked in the claims department of a large insurer.

I worked closely with the engineers. I sent them out on their routes each day and got their reports back in. Chased up reports where they weren't forthcoming, and did the same with the approved garage networks for a part of the country.

One time a dude was making a claim for malicious damage to his Honda Civic. He had it insured as a bog standard 1.4 civic.

Pictures came in of the damage, and it had SiR badges and stuff all over it. I also noticed the exhaust headers were modified. So I took a punt and sent out a second engineer to clarify whether this was actually an SiR, or a standard Civic as it was insured. In the meantime I told the claims handler to stall the claim

Sure enough, it was an SiR and he had lied about it.

So the claims floor manager came over to my desk, quite unhappy with me for having spent money on a second engineer report. I had all the info and told him we have basis to reject his claim. The claims manager did a bit of an embarrassing climb down and my immediate manager commended me on a job well done.

So I go about my business as I do and a week or two later I decided to check back in and see what happened to that particular claim.

The company paid out. They fecking paid out. They informed him they were aware of the type of car it was, and he would have to pay a loading.... AT NEXT RENEWAL!!!!

I remember thinking how they were originally mad at me for spending less than a couple hundred euro on an engineer report, yet they happily paid out a lower region 4 figure sum to a person who lied to obtain insurance.

There were many cases of the insurer throwing money at a problem to make it go away too.

To Elland Back

Pedro K wrote: »

I've just remembered a case I dealt with, years ago, when I worked in the claims department of a large insurer.

I worked closely with the engineers. I sent them out on their routes each day and got their reports back in. Chased up reports where they weren't forthcoming, and did the same with the approved garage networks for a part of the country.

One time a dude was making a claim for malicious damage to his Honda Civic. He had it insured as a bog standard 1.4 civic.

Pictures came in of the damage, and it had SiR badges and stuff all over it. I also noticed the exhaust headers were modified. So I took a punt and sent out a second engineer to clarify whether this was actually an SiR, or a standard Civic as it was insured. In the meantime I told the claims handler to stall the claim

Sure enough, it was an SiR and he had lied about it.

So the claims floor manager came over to my desk, quite unhappy with me for having spent money on a second engineer report. I had all the info and told him we have basis to reject his claim. The claims manager did a bit of an embarrassing climb down and my immediate manager commended me on a job well done.

So I go about my business as I do and a week or two later I decided to check back in and see what happened to that particular claim.

The company paid out. They fecking paid out. They informed him they were aware of the type of car it was, and he would have to pay a loading.... AT NEXT RENEWAL!!!!

I remember thinking how they were originally mad at me for spending less than a couple hundred euro on an engineer report, yet they happily paid out a lower region 4 figure sum to a person who lied to obtain insurance.

There were many cases of the insurer throwing money at a problem to make it go away too.

Sounds like incompetence all round (except yourself). Why was there a need to send a 2nd engineer, the 1st one should have spotted it? As for paying out, I can only think that they found a weak link in the chain of disclosure by the policyholder and the person who wrote the policy

Pedro K

To Elland Back wrote: »

Sounds like incompetence all round (except yourself). Why was there a need to send a 2nd engineer, the 1st one should have spotted it? As for paying out, I can only think that they found a weak link in the chain of disclosure by the policyholder and the person who wrote the policy

To be fair, the first engineer was sent out to assess the damage. He didn't know that the car was insured as a 1.4

Skatedude

Mind you, not all the engineers seem to be trained properly, one of the biggest insurance companies in ireland came out to value my car after it was wrote off by been rear ended,
accessed it as a financial write off and valued it at a quarter of the cheapest second hand cars of the same model. And even showing them every sales advertisements available wouldn't budge them.

guil

Sorry if I've missed it but fbd refused to quote me on a 02 focus saloon. They told me they only insure 03 or newer.

Chris_Heilong

guil wrote: »

Sorry if I've missed it but fbd refused to quote me on a 02 focus saloon. They told me they only insure 03 or newer.

LOL! unbelievable.

5W30

guil wrote: »

Sorry if I've missed it but fbd refused to quote me on a 02 focus saloon. They told me they only insure 03 or newer.

FBD have given me stupid reasons in the past for insurance. NoNonsense quotes fine :pac:

jimgoose

guil wrote: »

Sorry if I've missed it but fbd refused to quote me on a 02 focus saloon. They told me they only insure 03 or newer.

OK, that clinches it - I call Shenanigans! The insurance companies are being paid by VAG to reef people away from their cars and onto 0% Volkswagenbanken PCP. 'Cat, what say you?!?

To Elland Back

On another thread, the BOI rep suggested that they can do older cars. I just got a quote online there on my '99 vehicle, with RSA

CJhaughey

jimgoose wrote: »

OK, that clinches it - I call Shenanigans! The insurance companies are being paid by VAG to reef people away from their cars and onto 0% Volkswagenbanken PCP. 'Cat, what say you?!?

Not by VAG group but by SIMI I reckon, a few nice bonuses for a couple of top people in the two biggest insurers and you get what you want, more sales of new cars.;)

kupus

jimgoose wrote: »

OK, that clinches it - I call Shenanigans! The insurance companies are being paid by VAG to reef people away from their cars and onto 0% Volkswagenbanken PCP. 'Cat, what say you?!?

Ah here, that kind of thinking belongs in the conspiracy forum. :pac:
nice thinking all the same, and not beyond the bounds of possibility:p

twinsen

BOI insurance, AIB, 25 over, AA,aviva.
All refused to give me quote for my 96 honda civic.
Driving licence for 18 years, 7 years no claims bonus, car just passed nct ffs...
I barely even use this thing.

Caliden

twinsen wrote: »

BOI insurance, AIB, 25 over, AA.
All refused to give me quote for my 96 honda civic.
Driving licence for 18 years, 7 years no claims bonus, car just passed nct ffs...
I barely even use this thing.

Refused you a quote or gave you a highly inflated one?

If it's the former you can get a quote from the first insurer who refused you.

Here's a link for more information:

http://www.insuranceireland.eu/consumer-information/general-non-life-insurance/motor

under the heading 'What can I do if I am unable to obtain motor insurance?'


Some more information there where a committee can determine if the quote given is so high it's the same as a refusal (info which I never knew about).

To Elland Back

twinsen wrote: »

BOI insurance, AIB, 25 over, AA,aviva.
All refused to give me quote for my 96 honda civic.
Driving licence for 18 years, 7 years no claims bonus, car just passed nct ffs...
I barely even use this thing.

With 7 years NCB, you must have a current or last insurer. They are obliged to quote you. The declined cases committee won't be able to assist unless your current/last insurer is trying their luck by standing by their decision not to quote

Liam McPoyle

twinsen wrote: »

BOI insurance, AIB, 25 over, AA,aviva.
All refused to give me quote for my 96 honda civic.
Driving licence for 18 years, 7 years no claims bonus, car just passed nct ffs...
I barely even use this thing.

Any named drivers?

twinsen

To Elland Back wrote: »

With 7 years NCB, you must have a current or last insurer. They are obliged to quote you. The declined cases committee won't be able to assist unless your current/last insurer is trying their luck by standing by their decision not to quote

My current insurer is AIG, but after they sent me a quote I decided to look somewhere else. Last year my insurance was 340e, this year they quoted me 720. I onestly do not understand this at all.
Clearly someone must have done a deal with car dealers or something, since for a test I did a quote for 2013 1.6d vw golf and the quote for me was 330.

To Elland Back

twinsen wrote: »

My current insurer is AIG, but after they sent me a quote I decided to look somewhere else. Last year my insurance was 340e, this year they quoted me 720. I onestly do not understand this at all.
Clearly someone must have done a deal with car dealers or something, since for a test I did a quote for 2013 1.6d vw golf and the quote for me was 330.

If you have a current insurer, you have to do the leg work yourself to find a better quote or use a broker