Being forced onto newer cars by insurance companies

paralysed

I've a 1996 car, and last September, the insurance went from €450ish, up to €1,125. I'm pretty sure that it's because it was officially a 'classic', that the price goes up. On the phone to liberty insurance, I asked was this the reason, and couldn't get a straight answer - but I presume it was.

So it's quite unfair, that a car over 20 years old is deemed as unsafe, even though it can pass the NCT. I'm surprised I haven't heard enough people complain about this. What's the motive for this? It's as if the car manufacturers have cut a deal with the insurance companies! I've also heard a few stories about cars as new as 2003 and 2004 being scrapped because of this.

I'm attached to my car, I feel there's dignity to it by now. And by the end of the summer, it seems I'll be forced onto something like, just another golf, or a focus. Bloody annoys me. I've a good mind to go off and buy 5 vintage cars, as I'd have cheaper insurance on all of them.

It's a lot more fair in the U.S, where car insurance is far cheaper, and insurance isn't mandatory. In this country, the insurance companies have the monopoly, which also explains the recent surge in prices. And I simply don't believe that it because of injury claims. And as far as I know, the injuries boards has come out to say that what the insurances companies are claiming, isn't true... that there aren't far more claims than before.

This is actually worse than the "bailing out the banks" issue. People are being ripped off for far more in this case. Is there really no way of avoiding this dilemma? Do I have to be a pawn in someone else's game.

km79

paralysed wrote: »

I've a 1996 car, and last September, the insurance went from €450ish, up to €1,125. I'm pretty sure that it's because it was officially a 'classic', that the price goes up. On the phone to liberty insurance, I asked was this the reason, and couldn't get a straight answer - but I presume it was.

So it's quite unfair, that a car over 20 years old is deemed as unsafe, even though it can pass the NCT. I'm surprised I haven't heard enough people complain about this. What's the motive for this? It's as if the car manufacturers have cut a deal with the insurance companies! I've also heard a few stories about cars as new as 2003 and 2004 being scrapped because of this.

I attached to my car, I feel there's dignity to it by now. And by the end of the summer, it seems I'll be forced onto something like, just another golf, or a focus. Bloody annoys me. I've a good mind to go off and buy 5 vintage cars, and have cheap insurance on all of them.

It's a lot more fair in the U.S, where car insurance (as well as cars themselves) is far cheaper, and insurance isn't mandatory. The insurance companies have the monopoly, hence the recent surge in prices. I simply don't believe that it because of injury claims. And as far as I know, the injuries boards has come out to say that what the insurances companies are claiming, isn't true... that there aren't far more claims than before. It's actually worse than the "bailing out the banks" issue. People are being ripped off for far more in this case.

Is there really no way of avoiding this dilemma? Do I have to be a pawn in someone else's game.

Wife had 2000 focus and had gotten renewal quite before nct
It failed nct
Got a 2010 golf
Insurance went UP

We can't win

paralysed

km79 wrote: »

Wife had 2000 focus and had gotten renewal quite before nct
It failed nct
Got a 2010 golf
Insurance went UP

We can't win

She could've went for the re-test though. There'll pass on their losses either way I suppose, but it's unfair that most of the burden is passed onto the people with car of 20 years or more old.

It seems quite random too. Some people's insurance has went up 20%, but others' 70%!!!! Freaking bizarre. I'd love to know what's going on, and am surprised as to why others aren't mad.

If I wasn't getting an €11k payout due to a cretin driving into my car, I'd be even more mad!

km79

paralysed wrote: »

She could've went for the re-test though. There'll pass on their losses either way I suppose, but it's unfair that most of the burden is passed onto the people with car of 20 years or more old.

It seems quite random too. Some people's insurance has went up 20%, but others' 70%!!!! Freaking bizarre. I'd love to know what's going on, and am surprised as to why others aren't mad.

If I wasn't getting an €11k payout due to a cretin driving into my car, I'd be even more mad!

Oh I know she could have
My point was she was told that one of the main reasons for a big jump in her premium was the age of the car !
We were going to change the car at some stage anyway that's not the issue

paralysed

km79 wrote: »

Oh I know she could have
My point was she was told that one of the main reasons for a big jump in her premium was the age of the car !
We were going to change the car at some stage anyway that's not the issue

Oh, so they wouldn't give a straight answer as to why they wouldn't bring price back down, once she'd gotten the new car?

km79

paralysed wrote: »

Oh, so they wouldn't give a straight answer as to why they wouldn't bring price back down, once she'd gotten the new car?

The old car was a 1.4 petrol new car was 1.6 diesel so that was a factor
However the premium had jumped nearly 50% and the reason I was given was the age of the car !

paralysed

km79 wrote: »

The old car was a 1.4 petrol new car was 1.6 diesel so that was a factor
However the premium had jumped nearly 50% and the reason I was given was the age of the car !

But surely the call agents must know something about this conspiracy!? I mean what do they think of it all? having to be evasive, all so that someone higher up can make more money.

Nody

paralysed wrote: »

I've a 1996 car, and last September, the insurance went from €450ish, up to €1,125. I'm pretty sure that it's because it was officially a 'classic', that the price goes up. On the phone to liberty insurance, I asked was this the reason, and couldn't get a straight answer - but I presume it was.

So it's quite unfair, that a car over 20 years old is deemed as unsafe, even though it can pass the NCT. I'm surprised I haven't heard enough people complain about this. What's the motive for this? It's as if the car manufacturers have cut a deal with the insurance companies! I've also heard a few stories about cars as new as 2003 and 2004 being scrapped because of this.

I'm attached to my car, I feel there's dignity to it by now. And by the end of the summer, it seems I'll be forced onto something like, just another golf, or a focus. Bloody annoys me. I've a good mind to go off and buy 5 vintage cars, and have cheap insurance on all of them.

It's a lot more fair in the U.S, where car insurance is far cheaper, and insurance isn't mandatory. In this country, the insurance companies have the monopoly, which also explains the recent surge in prices. And I simply don't believe that it because of injury claims. And as far as I know, the injuries boards has come out to say that what the insurances companies are claiming, isn't true... that there aren't far more claims than before.

This is actually worse than the "bailing out the banks" issue. People are being ripped off for far more in this case. Is there really no way of avoiding this dilemma? Do I have to be a pawn in someone else's game.

Where to start... First of all the cut off age is 15 years, not 20 usually and NCT means pretty much sod all because the tests are so poor. Secondly the reason is older cars are the most common used cars faked accidents and hence insurance companies don't want them on their books as you don't want to fake it in your 60 grand BMW but that 500 EUR might not make NCT is grand for it.

Third accident cost has sky rocketed; the injury board has also recommended an basically across the board increase in pay outs which are already significantly higher than pretty much any other country. This is not helped by the government raising the amount courts can award which directly lead to another 20% awarded for the same type of injury as previously. Add in that Irish people have the worlds weakest necks with 80% of all claims of injury being whiplash (normal rate would be 3%) at that which pays out 15.000 EUR for a MINOR full recovery whiplash and more in courts (compared to for example 5.000 EUR in UK and 1.500 in Germany). So yes; Ireland has very weak necks which costs a lot to fix...

Fourth the insurance companies back in 2015 were still making losses on the Irish markets due to the underselling that happened the years before with Santos etc. (there was a reason why they all went bankrupt) coupled with very poor returns on bonds (mainstay to be used in insurance premiums to buy bonds to ensure profit to lower prices) means the cost per driver also goes up. The rates a few years ago was not sustainable; they were loss leaders.

Now here's the part you don't seem to grasp though; if this was this huge money grab why are not other insurance companies rushing in here to cash in? In fact the only companies that have come in have not only failed to make a profit but they actually went bankrupt when trying and you get to pay for their failure in higher premiums because the state charges 50 quid per premium to cover their losses basically.

The simple fact is if you want lower premiums there is one very simple and easy route to take, remove the injury board because they are useless, require any and all rewards to be paid out over time for medical recovery only and directly to the hospital/doctor on a certified list (to remove the bogus doctors who'll bill for anything, the 50 EUR 5 day cough etc.) only on proof of invoice rather than a free cash dump in hand. Any lost salary etc. should be matched to salary only and for that exact same duration, any claims for stress etc. to require independent court appointed review rather than pay to get diagnosis doctors. Finally limit the courts ability to set grossly exaggerated claims amount and require them to align with UK and German awards instead. Suddenly you'll find the Irish necks will drastically improve and stiffen up...

But that means that the solicitor money train would stop and since most of the politicians are tied into that gig in the first place it will never happen. Funnily enough that was also on the list of suggestions from EU to fix back when they bailed out Ireland...

ted1

Is a classic not 30 years?

Skatedude

ted1 wrote: »

Is a classic not 30 years?

only for motor tax, classic insurance starts at 15

zapata

Skatedude wrote: »

only for motor tax, classic insurance starts at 15

Classic Insurance seems to be gone to +20 years. (with First Ireland anyway)

Special Circumstances

zapata wrote: »

Classic Insurance seems to be gone to +20 years. (with First Ireland anyway)

Also... Japanese cars seem to be verboten. Extending the logic that cars over 10 years old are more likely to have faults, and that older european cars can be insured easier than Japanese cars... we arrive at the conclusion that Japanese cars are far more likely to be unreliable and faulty than European cars of the same age... believe it. They have statistics to prove this.

No. You can't see the stats.

SpitItOut

Nody wrote: »

Now here's the part you don't seem to grasp though; if this was this huge money grab why are not other insurance companies rushing in here to cash in? In fact the only companies that have come in have not only failed to make a profit but they actually went bankrupt when trying and you get to pay for their failure in higher premiums because the state charges 50 quid per premium to cover their losses basically.

This i the crux of it. Who set it up in such a way that we've have to pay for their losses? It's not like that with others businesses that fail! And I'm guessing it's not like this in other countries!

Sue Pa Key Pa

SpitItOut wrote:

This i the crux of it. Who set it up in such a way that we've have to pay for their losses? It's not like that with others businesses that fail! And I'm guessing it's not like this in other countries!

Insurance is a pooling of risks, always has been. If the group has not paid in enough to cover what the group claim for, then the contributions have to increase. Your guess that it not the same in other countries is incorrect.

Resverathrole

km79 wrote: »

Wife had 2000 focus and had gotten renewal quite before nct
It failed nct
Got a 2010 golf
Insurance went UP

We can't win

So unfair

galwaytt

zapata wrote: »

Classic Insurance seems to be gone to +20 years. (with First Ireland anyway)

depends on the car and the insurance company: I have a 2003 & a 2001 on classic atmo.