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

ShaunieVW

Allianz wouldn't insure my 14yo a3, too old apparently, I can easily say that my car is in much better condition that a lot of cars under 10 years old, unfortunelty though this is just another reason to put up rates. Mine already went from 520 to 770, that's the best I could do too. Unfortunetly its in that trap of too old for them to insure not old enough for classic.

curiosity

If the insuring of vehicles 15 years & older is so unattractive to Allianz & Aviva, what are other insurance companies going to do? Follow their lead? Hike up premiums for such cars?

Also, is this legal? I'd imagine that refusing to quote someone due to their gender, home address, occupation etc would give grounds to go the the financial ombudsman, so what about being refused due to having a road legal 15 year old car?

ShadowHearth

Another one move for Ireland in a road of rich getting richer and poor getting poorer.

I can't afford brand new car, so I have to drive old one, so my tax is stupidly high and now my insurance is going stupidly high, on top of that I have to do nct every year, which according to new insurance mindset means feck all.
There are so many 00" cars in Ireland that are in better shape then a good lash of 10"++ year cars out there. I can only imagine how many perfectly good cars will be pretty much scraped, because insurance companies refuse to insure then due to number plate.
What will happen to all older performance stuff? That will be pretty much impossible to insure all together.

You get at least reasonable new car prices, very low road tax, zero %%% finances in UK and North. Here driving will be pretty much extreme luxury soon.

Special Circumstances

jimgoose wrote: »

the Illicit Minor

Thanks for that, I knew there was a term for it, couldn't remember what it was. I'd say the Illicit Minor is pretty much the cornerstone of insurers justifications for premiums.

jimgoose

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Thanks for that, I knew there was a term for it, couldn't remember what it was. I'd say the Illicit Minor is pretty much the cornerstone of insurers justifications for premiums.

Statistics, like liquor, credit-cards and firearms, should be kept away from children and imbeciles.

ironclaw

Special Circumstances wrote: »

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

Because it builds the risk profile. However the car you drive might have a lot of high risk drivers or significant claims associated with it e.g. Honda Civic, Subaru WRX, Evo's. Insurnace companies don't balance the risk as a whole, the balance it in groups. Its not uncommon for an insurance company to offload (Increase premium) or refuse certain cars for quotes to lower the risk for that bracket. The sundry things such as your points, age and claims gives them some leeway to mitigate the risk and reduce your premium, however the elephant in the room is ultimately the metal cage that propels you around.

I suspect the maths behind insurance has very little to do with logic. ...
Completely illogical but I suspect this is the case, even if they were drooling down themselves on temazepam.

It has nothing to do with logic. Its pure statistics and probability which is a terrifically difficult branch of math taking about 7 years to be fully qualified. However, its also an extremely accurate measuring stick for what we pay for insurance. If you want to never have difficulty paying for your insurance again, become an Actuary :pac:

People again and again make the mistake of thinking a quote is for you, as in personalized, its not. You are just another number in a group and they're quoting you, unfortunately, based on your peers in that group.

Special Circumstances

ironclaw wrote: »

however the elephant in the room is ultimately the metal cage that propels you around.

Yes, I get where you're coming from but I really doubt a 14 year old Polo morphs into a psychopathic killing machine when it flips over to 15yrs old. What if all the companies decide they don't want older cars?

There's something to be said for a system where there is a max amount that group should pay for the the mandatory minimum insurance - other groups then pay a little more than they would have to spread the risk. Pretty much the concept behind insurance. (Not necessarily practical or the best way to work it, but you get what I'm saying)

ironclaw wrote: »

It has nothing to do with logic. Its pure statistics and probability which is a terrifically difficult branch of math taking about 7 years to be fully qualified. However, its also an extremely accurate measuring stick for what we pay for insurance. If you want to never have difficulty paying for your insurance again, become an Actuary :pac:

To be pedantic..
Generating data and calculating statistics/probability are not difficult. Interpreting them correctly and generating sensible and useful conclusions are. :pac:

I don't think anyone would agree that ALL 15+ year old cars are deadly dangerous uninsurable killing machines, especially when vehicle age is not the only data point they have to calculate risk.

jimgoose

ironclaw wrote: »

...however the elephant in the room is ultimately the metal cage that propels you around....

Respectfully disagree, and propose that it is in fact as the old radio guys used to say, a short between the headphones. Or a loosening of the nut behind the steering-wheel.

To Elland Back

curiosity wrote: »

If the insuring of vehicles 15 years & older is so unattractive to Allianz & Aviva, what are other insurance companies going to do? Follow their lead? Hike up premiums for such cars?

There will be a domino effect of sorts. Even the insurers who have had a reasonable claims experience with older cars and are happy to still take them, won't want ALL of them to tilt the balance on their books. That and adding a margin because they can.

This is business, as they see it. Every insurer is identifying where they are getting hit hard and trying to remove their exposure. The title of the thread is Dysfunctional Insurance Market and that is correct to a great extent. The motorist has to take out insurance, is being made to to pay high premiums and insurers (believe it or not) are getting ridden by claims, both genuine and fraudulent/exaggerated. Insurers are highly regulated in most of the areas they conduct business and will exploit areas where they have freedom to operate. This is one such area.

As a nation, we reap what we sow

Liam McPoyle

ironclaw wrote: »

Because it builds the risk profile. However the car you drive might have a lot of high risk drivers or significant claims associated with it e.g. Honda Civic, Subaru WRX, Evo's. Insurnace companies don't balance the risk as a whole, the balance it in groups. Its not uncommon for an insurance company to offload (Increase premium) or refuse certain cars for quotes to lower the risk for that bracket. The sundry things such as your points, age and claims gives them some leeway to mitigate the risk and reduce your premium, however the elephant in the room is ultimately the metal cage that propels you around.



It has nothing to do with logic. Its pure statistics and probability which is a terrifically difficult branch of math taking about 7 years to be fully qualified. However, its also an extremely accurate measuring stick for what we pay for insurance. If you want to never have difficulty paying for your insurance again, become an Actuary :pac:

People again and again make the mistake of thinking a quote is for you, as in personalized, its not. You are just another number in a group and they're quoting you, unfortunately, based on your peers in that group.

Nice to see that at least a few people in here understand the fundamentals of insurance.

Do people really think insurers are doing this to try and screw people over?

If so, I'd suggest they go to the ombudsman with their complaints / concerns and let them investigate.

I can guarantee that if and when the ombudsman investigates the complaints that the insurers will have more than enough empirical data to back up their decisions and you can bet your bottom dollar that decisions like this go through their legal teams too.

Special Circumstances

Business Cat wrote: »

Nice to see that at least a few people in here understand the fundamentals of insurance.

Do people really think insurers are doing this to try and screw people over?

If so, I'd suggest they go to the ombudsman with their complaints / concerns and let them investigate.

I can guarantee that if and when the ombudsman investigates the complaints that the insurers will have more than enough empirical data to back up their decisions and you can bet your bottom dollar that decisions like this go through their legal teams too.

As cars have become better engineered for safety, the cars that are 15yrs old today are more dangerous than 15yr old cars in 2005?

You are correct that they are entitled to do this, the point is that the system is wrong and this is the thin end of the wedge. The future for irish motoring looks even more bleak and uninteresting if someone with 10 years driving experience and full no claims cannot drive a car of their choice daily if it is more than 15yrs old.

Edit, I realise that my utopian idea of 3rd party being somehow automatic will be a problem in ireland despite working in other countries. Unfortunately we seem to have a significant number of criminals protected by PC codology who make a nice living from cash for crash.

jimgoose

Business Cat wrote: »

...Do people really think insurers are doing this to try and screw people over?....

Not "trying" per sé, no. I would however humbly suggest that many undeserving ratepayers are taking buckshot due to the dumbass way some of the statistical analysis seems to be done.

GvidoR

Shopping around for quotes right now since my insurance is due in 2 weeks.

Just called FBD and they also refused to give me a quote on my 01 Punto because of the age of the car.

VeVeX

Business Cat wrote: »

Do people really think insurers are doing this to try and screw people over?

When the insurance companies reduce or eliminate this risk will they lower prices to the remaining customers? I think not.

GvidoR

Called Quote Devil, and they were the third place to tell me that I'm wasting my time calling around because nobody will beat my renewal price.

Car: 2001 Fiat Punto, 1.2 petrol
Me: 20, full licence, 2 years NCB
Cover: Third party only, €1112.60

VeVeX

GvidoR wrote: »

Called Quote Devil, and they were the third place to tell me that I'm wasting my time calling around because nobody will beat my renewal price.

Car: 2001 Fiat Punto, 1.2 petrol
Me: 20, full licence, 2 years NCB
Cover: Third party only, €1112.60

But you're not going to get that for €250.

Pov06

GvidoR wrote: »

Called Quote Devil, and they were the third place to tell me that I'm wasting my time calling around because nobody will beat my renewal price.

Car: 2001 Fiat Punto, 1.2 petrol
Me: 20, full licence, 2 years NCB
Cover: Third party only, €1112.60

You should try get a quote on a 1999 car on QuoteMe.ie.

The system is specifically built not to accept cars below 2000 because the year comes up as 2099 if you put in 1999 and the system doesn't give you a quote :pac:

Chris_Heilong

The fact we have a road worthiness test yearly makes the insurance companies argument fall on its nose. Car enthusiasts favor older cars so this is a kick in the face for most of us.

Ilikesheep

Most of the boy racer cars are in this age bracket now as well.

Pov06

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The fact we have a road worthiness test yearly makes the insurance companies argument fall on its nose. Car enthusiasts favor older cars so this is a kick in the face for most of us.

I was on the phone to an insurance assessor the other day and this is how it went:

Me: "The Revenue say the OMSP of this vehicle is €5,100"
Assessor: "The Revenue say a high price so they can charge more VRT"

Assessor: "It's a bad car. The clutch is badly worn and the flywheel needs replacing"
Me: "The parts were replaced 2 years ago and there is no chance that the clutch is badly worn"
Assessor: "Well it was done badly"

Assessor: "The handbrake goes up way too many clicks"
Me: "It passed the NCT a month ago"
Assessor: "They must not have checked it then"

What does this scream? Insurance companies blaming everything and everyone around them. Apparently the Revenue are scammers, mechanics are sh*te and NCT testers are blind. Aren't we all fcuked?

alsace royal

just opened renewal from fbd, from 465.23 euro to 1,495.10 euro on a 99 vw passat 1.9tdi (90bhp) no claims/points/convictions in12 years driving and a 200% renewal premium is my reward, furious to say the least, 2 years ago on a 03 lexus sport i was paying under 400 euro

GvidoR

alsace royal wrote: »

just opened renewal from fbd, from 465.23 euro to 1,495.10 euro on a 99 vw passat 1.9tdi (90bhp) no claims/points/convictions in12 years driving and a 200% renewal premium is my reward, furious to say the least, 2 years ago on a 03 lexus sport i was paying under 400 euro

I think they're basically telling you to f**k off, since they said my 01 Punto is too old and refused to give me a quote.

Pov06

GvidoR wrote: »

I think they're basically telling you to f**k off, since they said my 01 Punto is too old and refused to give me a quote.

Are you crazy? It's calculated by some guy working at an insurance company who would be able to back up the calculations no problems!

hattoncracker

A different spin, which I have taken because I work in the industry and spend a lot of my time thinking about this. I work in sales for insurance and last month I sold over €40k in premiums. And 3 of those policies were TPFT.

When I started it didn't make much sense to me either as to why they would not quote for older cars but as ive grown in experience this is the conclusion I've come to.

People who drive older cars generally have less money, a lot of them are taking comprehensive cover now because there's feck all in the difference, and also because if they have an accident on a TPFT policy their own vehicle damage is not covered and they won't be able to afford a grand or two to buy a new one.

Because of the recession, stuff that people wouldnt have bothered making claims for and paid for in cash has to go through insurance because they simply can't afford to pay for the damages. Because there is no difference really in TPFT cover premium and comp (maybe €20 if you're over 30 with full NCB), they take comp... And when they claim, they claim for their own damages aswell....

The majority of claims I see are quite small, under 5 grand mostly. But they are more common with older cars. And that is what they base it on, unfortunately. It's not a conspiracy, it's not in line with the NCT or whatever, it's just statistics.


Companies have to keep themselves profitable and compliant in a market that is rife with fraudulent activity, (both from customers and companies... See RSA and FBD as examples of massive corruption), they will limit their risk how they see fit in order to do that. Allianz and Aviva do have very competitive rates, but not for everyone. It's the same with all companies.

Eric Cartman

I own a 16 year old car insured with aviva, every year the premium goes up and I have to talk them back down just to match the last years premium , I tried to get classic insurance this year but an e38 isn't quite exotic enough for most of the 15 or over classic providers.

there are a lot of sh*tboxes on our roads at the moment but the 15 year mark has very little to do with them , I can understand modern standards for instance my car despite being 16 years old is better equipped in safety terms than a 'new' ssanyong or dacia (4 wheel disk brakes, abs, dsc, curtain air bags, parking sensors , seatbelt pre-tensioners) . from a theft point of view I have a proximity alarm, dead locks, immobiliser , coded keyless entry.

I would say to the insurance companies, if you want to lower risk , get customers to submit the nct pass sheet at every renewal , put in a clause that the car is only insured for repairs and trips to the nct if the nct is out, deny insurance on cars that barely pass or have a load of advisories (cars just barely kept legal) and then set down a list of safety features the car has to have (drivers airbag, abs and immobiliser i think would be a fair check list) then insure those cars and let the dirt boxes disappear.

batskat

EEEEKKKK were all FOOKED
we give in to this stick em up and soon insurance will be €10,000 a year

My FBD for 1999 car insurance tripled but lucky I found Brady insurance in Cavan who got me the same price I normaly pay using some underwitter cant remember the name .

However that is due to run out soon so I am giving up on this rRp of Republic

I am gonna go to my mates meet up where they say that Sovereign Irish peoples dont need insurance to drive as insurance is only for commercail trafic

I dont care if they jail me for no car Insurance these insurance bandits stole enough from me over decades

The line in the sand has been passed

batskat

hattoncracker

batskat wrote: »

EEEEKKKK were all FOOKED
we give in to this stick em up and soon insurance will be €10,000 a year

My FBD for 1999 car insurance tripled but lucky I found Brady insurance in Cavan who got me the same price I normaly pay using some underwitter cant remember the name .

However that is due to run out soon so I am giving up on this rRp of Republic

I am gonna go to my mates meet up where they say that Sovereign Irish peoples dont need insurance to drive as insurance is only for commercail trafic

I dont care if they jail me for no car Insurance these insurance bandits stole enough from me over decades

The line in the sand has been passed

batskat

WTF?! No car insurance for private cars?! Is that even a thing?!

I can get by no tax or nct, but having no ****ing car insurance makes you the lowest of the low. Do you know that a lot of people who are hit by an uninsured driver lose their Ncb? Do you have any idea the process of going through the MIBI??

You're scum if you do that. Having no insurance means you are putting other people's time and money at risk, and health, etc. And if more people do what you do, it's only going to drive everyone else's premiums up because they have to pay for your arrogance.


Can't afford insurance? Don't drive. Seriously. Don't be that guy.

Eric Cartman

hattoncracker wrote: »

A different spin, which I have taken because I work in the industry and spend a lot of my time thinking about this. I work in sales for insurance and last month I sold over €40k in premiums. And 3 of those policies were TPFT.

When I started it didn't make much sense to me either as to why they would not quote for older cars but as ive grown in experience this is the conclusion I've come to.

People who drive older cars generally have less money, a lot of them are taking comprehensive cover now because there's feck all in the difference, and also because if they have an accident on a TPFT policy their own vehicle damage is not covered and they won't be able to afford a grand or two to buy a new one.

Because of the recession, stuff that people wouldnt have bothered making claims for and paid for in cash has to go through insurance because they simply can't afford to pay for the damages. Because there is no difference really in TPFT cover premium and comp (maybe €20 if you're over 30 with full NCB), they take comp... And when they claim, they claim for their own damages aswell....

The majority of claims I see are quite small, under 5 grand mostly. But they are more common with older cars. And that is what they base it on, unfortunately. It's not a conspiracy, it's not in line with the NCT or whatever, it's just statistics.


Companies have to keep themselves profitable and compliant in a market that is rife with fraudulent activity, (both from customers and companies... See RSA and FBD as examples of massive corruption), they will limit their risk how they see fit in order to do that. Allianz and Aviva do have very competitive rates, but not for everyone. It's the same with all companies.

i would agree with this. A €1500 excess on cars over 15 years or banning fully comp on any car worth under 2k would solve this, and would be a fair way to go.

Eric Cartman

hattoncracker wrote: »

WTF?! No car insurance for private cars?! Is that even a thing?!

I can get by no tax or nct, but having no ****ing car insurance makes you the lowest of the low. Do you know that a lot of people who are hit by an uninsured driver lose their Ncb? Do you have any idea the process of going through the MIBI??

You're scum if you do that. Having no insurance means you are putting other people's time and money at risk, and health, etc. And if more people do what you do, it's only going to drive everyone else's premiums up because they have to pay for your arrogance.


Can't afford insurance? Don't drive. Seriously. Don't be that guy.

I hope that users post was 'freeman of the land' satire , i really hope it was.

Sheep Lover

Newer cars have more safety features and have better safety standards generally. It makes sense and I fully support it.

BohsCeltic

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Newer cars have more safety features and have better safety standards generally. It makes sense and I fully support it.

My 15 YO old car has more safety features than a lot of newer cars out there.
99% of the time it has nothing to do with the car, it's the person behind the wheel.

hattoncracker

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i would agree with this. A €1500 excess on cars over 15 years or banning fully comp on any car worth under 2k would solve this, and would be a fair way to go.

Yeah, but the customer sets the value not the insurance company, so that would be a loophole to the higher excess. And (from experience) if they tell you one thing and you decline them, they try and back track. And when you still won't quote, they curse you out of it.

Eric Cartman

hattoncracker wrote: »

Yeah, but the customer sets the value not the insurance company, so that would be a loophole to the higher excess. And (from experience) if they tell you one thing and you decline them, they try and back track. And when you still won't quote, they curse you out of it.

the customer can set the value but thats not what will get paid out, otherwise i could buy a k11 micra for a few hundred quid, fully comp it for 50k and put it into a wall. a 1500 quid excess would keep nuisance claims away for older cars and stop payouts on economic write-offs for low value cars.

To Elland Back

I don't have any stats, but I'd say insurers have more breakdown callouts for cars over 15 years old than newer vehicles

Special Circumstances

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Newer cars have more safety features and have better safety standards generally. It makes sense and I fully support it.

I realise from your tone what you're at, but for the benefit of anyone taken in by your post:

A 1998 mazda 626 has 4 airbags, disc brakes all round and ABS as standard. What does a 02 focus have as standard. One airbag? Two? ABS wasnt standard until 2003? 2004? Which one can you insure with any insurance company tomorrow?


Aside from that...

At this stage I'm wondering should I don the tinfoil hat... I've never seen media focus like this on some of the daft and cynical rubbish from insurance companies. Makes me wonder is it all a little choreographed effort to focus the authorities minds on the amount of fraud going on.

Or is this the thin end of the wedge, testing the waters for further limitations on what can be insured in ireland by experienced and safe drivers.

Old diesel

Is there any chance of a SENSIBLE proactive discussion with insurance experts/industry and others involved.

Can we differentiate AT ALL the different drivers and cars that are affected on this issue.

There MIGHT even be an opportunity to perhaps explore the idea that some older cars and drivers of said cars are actually a good risk - or at least a risk that opens up an opportunity for an insurance company to do good business with some drivers and their older cars.

Been sensible here - TWO Saab 9 5s - one a 1999 model - the other a 2002 - both owned by the SAME type of people - for the crack - lets say they are two TWIN brothers - both VERY similar people - same sort of attitude to doing things - same job - same address. Exact same risk - never made a claim.

But one car can't get insured - because its a 1999 - but the other CAN because its a 2002 - this suggests that because this is all down to a strict age of the car scenario - that the insurance companies find risk assessing older cars - too much hard work.

They don't need the business of older cars - because theres a) enough under 15 year old cars on the road to do business on - and b) if you can't get insurance on a 16/17 year old cars - owners will simply upgrade to whatever the newest under 15 year old car thy can afford - just to get insurance.

Eric Cartman

To Elland Back wrote: »

I don't have any stats, but I'd say insurers have more breakdown callouts for cars over 15 years old than newer vehicles

thats roadside assistance rather than insurance, some insurers include it but a lot don't.

To Elland Back

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats roadside assistance rather than insurance, some insurers include it but a lot don't.

And the ones that do include it probably get more callouts for older cars than newer cars

Old diesel

galwaytt wrote: »

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 ?

Part of the issue here as well - is that the old vehicle fleet and the owners of the vehicles are wide and varied.

To PROPERLY risk assess - you would need to be able to understand the variety of vehicles and people involve.

Take two vehicles.

1) 1990 Nissan Bluebird - owned in SAME family since new - minded like a new born baby - its as clean underneath as the day it left the factory - its off huge sentimental value.

2) Random 1998 Fiesta owned by some dodgy buck who thinks scamming is perfectly okay if you can get away with it. Barely passed its NCT - will almost certainly fail its next due to rust.

The risk assessment on the hypothetical Bluebird and Fiesta if PROPERLY done would surely have to have a different outcome in terms of risk calculation. But this approach announced today assumes BOTH Bluebird and Fiesta and their owners are the same risk - which they clearly aren't.

Btw I assume the Bluebird can probably be classic insured - but for the purposes of the example - im assuming its a daily driver and thus can't be classic insured.....*

*Don't you normally have to have ANOTHER car insured in your name as a daily driver to be able to insure a car under classic insurance????

Special Circumstances

To Elland Back wrote: »

And the ones that do include it probably get more callouts for older cars than newer cars

And...? I don't think banning all 15yrs old cars from mandatory minimum insurance is the logical fix for people with old cars taking out optional breakdown cover. It's nowhere near the reason for this.


If it's fraud they wanted to tackle, asking for some P60* details to prove you have or have ever had a job for a reasonable amount of time and actually paid tax at some stage would weed out quite a few of the usual fraud suspects. (*Self employed etc substitute sensible equivalent documents )

But that would really get the lobby groups gnashing their teeth...

To Elland Back

Special Circumstances wrote: »

And...? I don't think banning all 15yrs old cars from mandatory minimum insurance is the logical fix for people with old cars taking out optional breakdown cover. It's nowhere near the reason for this.


If it's fraud they wanted to tackle, asking for some P60* details to prove you have or have ever had a job for a reasonable amount of time and actually paid tax at some stage would weed out quite a few of the usual fraud suspects. (*Self employed etc substitute sensible equivalent documents )

But that would really get the lobby groups gnashing their teeth...

I've already given other possible reasons for this decision by Insurers. I was just including breakdowns as an additional cost probably weighted against the older vehicle

Can I ask what you mean by getting P60 details? What has having or not having a job got to do with insurance fraud?

Special Circumstances

To Elland Back wrote: »

Can I ask what you mean by getting P60 details? What has having or not having a job got to do with insurance fraud?

Recent court cases would suggest a certain element account for a majority of cash for crash payouts. I'd say a given extended family's payouts per year would eclipse all costs for breakdown callouts for a decade.

Chris_Heilong

Just to also point out The cars that are 15 years older now are safer than they have ever been, so why are the insurance companies only coming up with these stupid polices now.

Also the majority of call outs would be from people needing a tyre change which also effects newer cars. I am glad this has come to light and most people have a problem with it as it may mean some action is taken to set the insurance companies straight.

wotzgoingon

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Also the majority of call outs would be from people needing a tyre change which also effects newer cars. I am glad this has come to light and most people have a problem with it as it may mean some action is taken to set the insurance companies straight.

Best thing to do is get someone to call Joe Duffy in the morning.

To Elland Back

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Recent court cases would suggest a certain element account for a majority of cash for crash payouts. I'd say a given extended family's payouts per year would eclipse all costs for breakdown callouts for a decade.

Ah, I see what you mean. That particular problem is the reason a lot of insurers insist on a VAT number to insure a commercial vehicle and it has worked to a certain extent. The problem is that they had to do that to everyone in order to tackle the section causing the problem. They are having to do similar now to deal with the sector staging accidents. All or nothing is the only way insurers can avoid the wrath of the Financial Regulator

Old diesel

Special Circumstances wrote: »

And...? I don't think banning all 15yrs old cars from mandatory minimum insurance is the logical fix for people with old cars taking out optional breakdown cover. It's nowhere near the reason for this.


If it's fraud they wanted to tackle, asking for some P60* details to prove you have or have ever had a job for a reasonable amount of time and actually paid tax at some stage would weed out quite a few of the usual fraud suspects. (*Self employed etc substitute sensible equivalent documents )

But that would really get the lobby groups gnashing their teeth...

Its definitely not a logical fix.

But is there a logic with some people involved in this - that old cars "are unsafe" and that "we should be moving to newer cars" for road safety and accident survival reasons. I think its nonsense myself - but you can see why some would say its logical - and the right thing to do.

You might remember that poor unfortunate woman Paula who lost her daughter in a tragic car accident - and who was on the media criticising the NCT test done on her daughters car.

Paulas view on older cars - was that they are noting but trouble - and should all be demolished.

Its not hard to imagine someone thinking about safety and looking to promote safety - or reduce risk - in an insurance company - to figure out that if you impose an effective age limit on what can be insured or driven legally on the roads - you will end up "eventually" with the oldest section of the vehicle fleet on national roads been "safer" newer cars.

Meaning that if you keep going at this idea - the oldest car that can be insured with a number of insurance companies - is year 2000 cars. In ten years time - the oldest car insurable as a daily drive will be a 2010 car - a car that will be seen as "safer" "more modern" - and "road safety" will benefit from better safer cars.

Btw - I think this is all nonsense myself - but im just trying to grasp the logic behind this - and figure out that YES there is an arguable case behind this - even if you or I disagree.

btw - for what its worth im trying to look at the logic behind it - with a view to arguing AGAINSED it rather then selling out as a car enthusiast

mikeym

And will Labour/Fine Gael care about the lower income families and young people.

They dont give two Sheds about the poor :mad:

Insurance companies are getting away with murder in this joke of a country.

Sam Kade

zurbfoundation wrote: »

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

Do you intend to have it parked up most of the time

Cuddlesworth

jimgoose wrote: »

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.

Are you a trained actuary with full access to claim data from a large scale insurance company? I'm not, so I'm not questioning their figures.

Pov06 wrote: »

Are you crazy? It's calculated by some guy working at an insurance company who would be able to back up the calculations no problems!

Damm their actual figures. How dare they try to make money in the open market.

In this case somebody in the market will either clean up(because the others were wrong on their figures) or they will find themselves with a high proportion of claims and will lose money heavily.

Special Circumstances

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Are you a trained actuary with full access to claim data from a large scale insurance company? I'm not, so I'm not questioning their figures.



Damm their actual figures. How dare they try to make money in the open market.

In this case somebody in the market will either clean up(because the others were wrong on their figures) or they will find themselves with a high proportion of claims and will lose money heavily.

I don't know if we have a "nice cup of tea and toe the line" forum, but this is a forum for motoring enthusiasts, many of whom have very well looked after cars that fall foul of the recent trends in the insurance market.

Tis a wonder anyone could get insured in 1998 or 1988. Imagine, in 1998 the very best and newest cars on the road were apparently deathtraps. I mean if it's a safety features thing, I guess people in the last century must have been paying at least half their take home pay on car insurance and it has come down in relative figures as safety improved?

No? Really? I'm shocked.

It's a wonder the human race survived 20th century automobiles at all.