Car insurance for >15 year old cars

corcaigh1

grogi wrote: »

It's the other way round - on average a 15 years old car is worthless. And because of that it poses far too much risk for the insurer.

Why is that? Have you valid statistics that you can allude to and share here please that vehicles of a certain age category pose too much of a risk to underwriters?

vargoo

tuxy wrote: »

There hasn't because the list is now tiny. Axa seems to be the only main broker covering cars over 15-16 years old.
Can anyone confirm if Liberty still take on new customers with old cars?

Yup they do.

They just gave me a stupid quote, so did chill.

tuxy

vargoo wrote: »

Yup they do.

They just gave me a stupid quote, so did chill.

Chill won't quote me at all, the guy on the phone actually recommended I call AXA direct. Or maybe he was just being sound and knew I would get a better quote going directly rather than using chill.

vargoo

vargoo wrote: »

Yup they do.

They just gave me a stupid quote, so did chill.

And FBD
Campion
First Ireland
Its 4 women
AXA

Im flying through these....onward.

vargoo

tuxy wrote: »

Chill won't quote me at all, the guy on the phone actually recommended I call AXA direct. Or maybe he was just being sound and knew I would get a better quote going directly rather than using chill.

AXA direct is nearly €1500 for me...hahaha

Nearly all of them are around the thousand mark, I was in the 3** last year.

vargoo

vargoo wrote: »

And FBD
Campion
First Ireland
Its 4 women
AXA

Im flying through these....onward.

Hold the phone PostInsurance are in the 4**!!! They've always been silly price for me in the past, nearly wasn't gonna bother trying.

Not bad cover either, breakdown assist/windscreen/stepback, no sign of driving other cars though...wonder does it have it...

vargoo

vargoo wrote: »

And FBD
Campion
First Ireland
Its 4 women
AXA

Im flying through these....onward.

Sheridan (crap site)
An Post
Quote Devil (Have to ring me back)

Procrastination setting in, I'll try Britton in a bit.

grogi

corcaigh1 wrote: »

Why is that? Have you valid statistics that you can allude to and share here please that vehicles of a certain age category pose too much of a risk to underwriters?

You didn't get that. It is not about age, but value.

If a vehicle is too cheap, it is far more probable to be used in fraud. Virtually nobody would crash a €50k car on purpose. Crashing a €1k banger is much more profitable business.

There are other issues with older cars, such as reduced passive and active safety - less airbags, less safety systems etc - or improper maintenance - the cheaper the car, the more string is used in keeping it on the road. But they are far less significant than the first problem.

You might expect that insurance companies would fight fraud. They do. But they also limit the expose by not insuring old cars.

corcaigh1

grogi wrote: »

You didn't get that. It is not about age, but value.

If a vehicle is too cheap, it is far more probable to be used in fraud. Virtually nobody would crash a €50k car on purpose. Crashing a €1k banger is much more profitable business.

There are other issues with older cars, such as reduced passive and active safety - less airbags, less safety systems etc - or improper maintenance - the cheaper the car, the more string is used in keeping it on the road. But they are far less significant than the first problem.

You might expect that insurance companies would fight fraud. They do. But they also limit the expose by not insuring old cars.

Nonsense, the insurance companies or nobody else for that matter has produced factual evidence to say that older vehicles of little monetary value are likely to be used in fraudulent activity or that they are more likely to be involved in road traffic accidents...

So again please point me to the evidence??

Eggs For Dinner

corcaigh1 wrote: »

So again please point me to the evidence??

The evidence is that a lot of insurance companies will not take the business at any price. Does that not prove something? Rant and rave all you like, but if an insurer thought they could make a profit on attracting older cars on their books, they would be over it like a rash

corcaigh1

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

The evidence is that a lot of insurance companies will not take the business at any price. Does that not prove something? Rant and rave all you like, but if an insurer thought they could make a profit on attracting older cars on their books, they would be over it like a rash

There are still a number of insurers quoting for older vehicles albeit at higher premium costs.

You work in the insurance industry so im sure you may have access to statistical factual evidence that older vehicles are more of a risk to insure?

tuxy

corcaigh1 wrote: »

There are still a number of insurers quoting for older vehicles albeit at higher premium costs.

Can you list the ones you know? Axa, An post and maybe liberty were all I could find. The vast majority would not quote me at any price.

Eggs For Dinner

corcaigh1 wrote: »

There are still a number of insurers quoting for older vehicles albeit at higher premium costs.

You work in the insurance industry so im sure you may have access to statistical factual evidence that older vehicles are more of a risk to insure?

I don't have access to the data, but I know how insurers operate. If they can't run their book of older vehicles at a break-even or profit, they will refuse to quote or price it at a level that they think people would be foolish to pay in the hope you will bugger off. If you pay what they ask, they will reluctantly accept it.

Also, people are fixated on the older vehicle being the sole issue. It isn't. Insurers are saying that the older car is a factor in higher than normal claims. It could be that the expensive claims involve older car, combined with a particular demographic, culture, sex, nationality etc. However, insurers are not allowed refuse cover or load for those reasons, so the age of vehicle is quoted. They will accept that they will lose good risks, if it keeps the crap off their books

corcaigh1

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

I don't have access to the data, but I know how insurers operate. If they can't run their book of older vehicles at a break-even or profit, they will refuse to quote or price it at a level that they think people would be foolish to pay in the hope you will bugger off. If you pay what they ask, they will reluctantly accept it.

Also, people are fixated on the older vehicle being the sole issue. It isn't. Insurers are saying that the older car is a factor in higher than normal claims. It could be that the expensive claims involve older car, combined with a particular demographic, culture, sex, nationality etc. However, insurers are not allowed refuse cover or load for those reasons, so the age of vehicle is quoted. They will accept that they will lose good risks, if it keeps the crap off their books

Nowhere else in the world is insurance refused on the basis of vehicle age. The insurance industry is not providing the statistical and factual evidence that older vehicles are more of a risk to underwrite because it is nonsense.

The dogs on the street know it is nothing more that a systematic attempt by the the insurance industry and government to force owners into scrapping older perfectly good roadworthy vehicles whilst bearing the cost of upgrading to newer vehicles. In turn it is a win win in terms of returns to the exchequer.

corcaigh1

tuxy wrote: »

Can you list the ones you know? Axa, An post and maybe liberty were all I could find. The vast majority would not quote me at any price.

Only know of those listed in this thread, my own is with AXA.

If you are refused take the steps outlined here...

https://www.insuranceireland.eu/consumer-information/general-non-life-insurance/declined-cases-agreement

Eggs For Dinner

corcaigh1 wrote: »

Nowhere else in the world is insurance refused on the basis of vehicle age. The insurance industry is not providing the statistical and factual evidence that older vehicles are more of a risk to underwrite because it is nonsense.

The dogs on the street know it is nothing more that a systematic attempt by the the insurance industry and government to force owners into scrapping older perfectly good roadworthy vehicles whilst bearing the cost of upgrading to newer vehicles. In turn it is a win win in terms of returns to the exchequer.

Insurance companies are only interested in the difference between premiums in and claims out. They don't give a flying fig about the age of the national fleet and why would they? Unless of course, older cars cost them more in claims.........

corcaigh1

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Insurance companies are only interested in the difference between premiums in and claims out. They don't give a flying fig about the age of the national fleet and why would they? Unless of course, older cars cost them more in claims.........

"They don't give a flying fig about the age of the national fleet and why would they?"

Huh? Well seemingly they do....

"Unless of course, older cars cost them more in claims........."

So they claim but they are not backing up these statements with any concrete evidence...

Eggs For Dinner

corcaigh1 wrote: »

"They don't give a flying fig about the age of the national fleet and why would they?"

Huh? Well seemingly they do....

"Unless of course, older cars cost them more in claims........."

So they claim but they are not backing up these statements with any concrete evidence...

They don't care about the age of the National fleet, they will just concentrate trying to secure attractive business, which apparently excludes older cars.

What evidence do you want other than NO insurer actively targeting that sector? Do you not see the logic in that statement? You could rock up to most insurers with €5k to spend and they won't take your money if it doesn't fit their brief.

corcaigh1

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

They don't care about the age of the National fleet, they will just concentrate trying to secure attractive business, which apparently excludes older cars.

What evidence do you want other than NO insurer actively targeting that sector? Do you not see the logic in that statement? You could rock up to most insurers with €5k to spend and they won't take your money if it doesn't fit their brief.

You're missing my point. I want to see the evidence why insurance companies which I might add is a legal requirement in this country for all roadworthy motor vehicles, are categorising perfectly legal and roadworthy older vehicles as not being "attractive business" ?

You already stated you have no evidence or cannot bring evidence to this argument other then what we already know of the industries refusal to cover older vehicles and the fact they are not being challenged to provide reasonable cover though I am aware that a challenge is forthcoming.

So don't come on here flying the flag for you professions industry if you cannot substantiate your views because up to now it is only waffle.

tuxy

corcaigh1 wrote: »

So don't come on here flying the flag for you professions industry if you cannot substantiate your views because up to now it is only waffle.

corcaigh1 wrote: »

The dogs on the street know it is nothing more that a systematic attempt by the the insurance industry and government to force owners into scrapping older perfectly good roadworthy vehicles whilst bearing the cost of upgrading to newer vehicles. In turn it is a win win in terms of returns to the exchequer.

Can you substantiate the alliance insurance companies has formed with the government to remove older cars from the road?
Where's the proof and what do the insurance companies have to gain?

Eggs For Dinner

corcaigh1 wrote: »

You're missing my point. I want to see the evidence why insurance companies which I might add is a legal requirement in this country for all roadworthy motor vehicles, are categorising perfectly legal and roadworthy older vehicles as not being "attractive business" ?

You already stated you have no evidence or cannot bring evidence to this argument other then what we already know of the industries refusal to cover older vehicles and the fact they are not being challenged to provide reasonable cover though I am aware that a challenge is forthcoming.

So don't come on here flying the flag for you professions industry if you cannot substantiate your views because up to now it is only waffle.

I'm not flying the flag for insurance companies and if you look at my posting history, you will see that I am often highly critical of the insurance industry where it is warranted.

I've said that I don't have the specific evidence, but I know insurers well enough to accept that if they thought they could make 50c off you, they would take the arm off you as you offered it. If they won't take your business at ANY PRICE, there's a reason for it.

I accept it's frustrating and you want to see the stats, but it won't be forthcoming (rightly or wrongly) until it is legislated for. As I said before, the real reason s probably not the car in isolation, it is likely that the older car, combined with a recent purchaser, from a certain background or sex is the combined perfect storm for higher claims, but insurers are not allowed to cite the other reasons for refusal, so they close their book

My wife's '07 car is with Aviva (I get no discounts or leeway for working in the business and I've no association with them) never costs near €350. It's been with them for years, we bought it in 2013 and never had any issues. If I sold the car to you today, Aviva might well refuse to quote you on it, as will most other insurers.

Read back over this thread from the start, I've tried to give my thoughts on his many times. I can't change the status quo and I'm not saying it's fair. The cost of insurance in this country is a disgrace, but I have a good insight in to what's causing it and it is not insurers alone

fin12

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

tuxy wrote: »

How old is your car? 123 wouldn't quote me today on a 1997 same with AVIVA they also refused to quote me today.

well that answers my question then, Aviva still refusing quotes for old car.

I’m getting insurance with Avila for this year on a OO. Getting comprehensive aswell.

tuxy

fin12 wrote: »

I’m getting insurance with Avila for this year on a OO. Getting comprehensive aswell.

New policy or renewal?

fin12

New policy, I’ve left liberty cause they were charging me more for third party fire n theft.

tuxy

It's so inconsistent, they would't quote me

evosteo

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

My wife's '07 car is with Aviva (I get no discounts or leeway for working in the business and I've no association with them) never costs near €350. It's been with them for years, we bought it in 2013 and never had any issues. If I sold the car to you today, Aviva might well refuse to quote you on it, as will most other insurers

This is what really pisses me off. You probably spent a tidy sum buying that car a few years back and now even though it still working perfectly, if yoy felt you wanted to trade up of sell on its essentially scrap because nobody could get a policy to cover it.

corcaigh1

Good article here on the issue from the Chair of the Motor Insurance Advisory Board....

https://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/why-we-need-to-move-now-to-end-this-scandal-of-no-quotes-for-older-cars-37173459.html

corcaigh1

evosteo wrote: »

This is what really pisses me off. You probably spent a tidy sum buying that car a few years back and now even though it still working perfectly, if yoy felt you wanted to trade up of sell on its essentially scrap because nobody could get a policy to cover it.

Crazy :mad:

corcaigh1

Fantastic news!


EU launches formal probe into Insurance Ireland

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/eu-launches-formal-probe-into-insurance-ireland-38110069.html

Eggs For Dinner

Be careful what you wish for. Insurance Ireland fund a central database for it's members, where they share information on fraud. It is for members only but any insurer can apply to join and, to my knowledge, no insurer has ever been refused membership. If an EU ruling comes along stating that all insurers must have access to the collective data on fraud, without being a member and contributing to the running cost, then what incentive is there for the group to continue running it?

We'll revert back to a situation where every insurer will retain it's own information and fraud detection will reduce. The solution is for every insurer (and potential insurer) to join Insurance Link and pay towards the running costs. Either that or the Regulator needs to fund a universal database scheme.