Car insurance for cars over 10 years old

To Elland Back

tanko wrote: »

Where is the evidence that older cars have featured in a disproportionately number of expensive claims?

Insurance Companies have the evidence in their claim statistics. It's not a whim, if they thought they could make any money on older cars, or even a manageable loss, they would continue to cover them.

And before you ask, they don't have to prove it, just like any private business

Liam McPoyle

tanko wrote: »

Where is the evidence that older cars have featured in a disproportionately number of expensive claims?

Insurers are not obliged to disclose sensitive market information.

If challenged they have to be able to prove the reasoning for their pricing. They cannot simply decide to stop quoting a certain demographic, they have to prove the demographic they are not quoting has proved problematic from a costs point of view.

I would urge people, as I have been doing for months, if they think they are getting a raw deal or are being treated unfairly to appeal the relevant body asking them to investigate.

Those avenues are there for a reason so people need to use them.

Greenmachine

The insurance market is gone mental.

cruizer101

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this, people saying older cars are unsafe and the likes, that doesn't matter.
The majority of your premium is based on the damage you can cause to a third party and the risk of you causing that damage. Hence why bigger more powerful cars attract bigger premium, more damage. And younger unexperienced drivers more risk.

What is happening here is insurance companies are profiling you based on the age of your car, this is no different to the profiling they used to do based on sex, or if they were to profile based on shoe size.
There is no logical link between these things however there is correlation. Generally younger inexperienced drivers will drive older cars so older cars will have more crashes, this does not mean people who drive older cars are more likely to have crashes but that is what the insurance companies are saying.

Now the insurance companies know this, or at least I would hope the people generating the equations they use to generate premiums are at least that smart. So there is some other reasoning behind this, do insurance companies have some interest in us buying newer cars, do they have shares in car companies, I don't know. At the end of the day it comes down to money there is some result of this that ends up in insurance companies making more money but being able to say it is because of the correlation.

The problem with all this is that insurance in mandatory, given that the statistics should be open to public viewing or ideally government should provide third party insurance.

FortySeven

Changed my mind about buying a 2010 fiesta and am now going from a 2000, 1.25 fiesta, to a 2007 1.8 civic vtec type s. My fully comp will be just under 300 a year cheaper.

Chris_Heilong

An insurance company should not be allowed refuse anybody for 3rd party insurance IMO, It is a legal requirement in this country. The private business end should only come into play if we then decide to also insure our cars and then we the customers call the shots, things are very skewed in this country at the moment.

The Reader of Dictionaries

AXA or AA insure old cars and you will save at least 1200 euro on depreciation each year. Mechanics are knowledgeable...get a comprehensive service with checklists more often and safety inspected then nct'd, serviced and maintained. You can buy quality tyres on oponeo.ie if you check with your tyre workshop and read carefully. Get quality tyres. I have a full license 18 years and 10 years no claims bonus. A car is a subsidised machine and you work a few days per week for it so no need to waste resources or be ostentatious. The cost of transportation equipment is massive in the Policy age. I prefer excercise and public transport and car share now. THINK and don't crash.