Options
how do insurance firms get away with ripping us all off?
![[Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f3662495f68d9f896ce3122ae0ed332a.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 515 Forum Member
✭✭
if you are a first time driver you pay thousands even though you have passed a test saying you are up to standard. if you have the wrong post code you pay over the odds.
how does the goverment not look into this?
how does the goverment not look into this?
0
Comments
Younger drivers who have just passed their test have a higher probability of having an accident than older drivers with more experience, the chances rise if you are male rather than female.
There is a greater risk of your car being stolen in some areas than in others therefore some people have higher premiums than others based on where they live (although it is true that post codes don't always align with car crime hotspots).
The government don't need to look into it because it's pretty obvious how it works and there are lots of insurance firms on the market that provide the competition needed to make sure that firms can't just charge what they want.
It's all based on risk, young drivers have a higher probability of having an accident than anyone else so pay more. Simple really.
To be fair to Insurance Companies, they're not the only ones out there ripping us off.
So you think it should be optional?
No.
I think they should stop taking the piss out of people.
I think it's called extortion, I'm not totally sure though.
My insurance is very reasonable.
all resonable points but they are charging well over top speaking as a 36 year old man driving a 1.2 litre corsa who has not claimed, has three points, lives in a quiet area but close to a rough area accordind to post code, why is the cheapest quote £280? whereas a relative aged 60 with a drink driving conviction driving a 2 litre saab £200 ?
Yeah, simple, but flawed.
The OP is right, the original idea of Risk Insurance was that the sensible, older, risk-free driver's premiums ( the drivers who have had 20 years of no claims, like me ) would underwrite and therefore subsidise the young and the impetuous and the riskier drivers .
This doesn't happen, never has for yonks, young drivers are given completely unreasonable premiums, the Insurance companies are taking no risks and pocketing vast profits.
The Government should investigate this anomaly.
Cheapest I got was £410, which still seems excessive to me, but I've no choice but to pay it.
Because of this, I can't get a car. If my insurance was £1 or 2k, I would have a car by now. As it stands, I can't afford £400 a month for insurance.
What I don't understand is how am I any more likely to cause an accident than a person with my same details, but who goes on their parents insurance. It's unfair.
Insurance premiums aren't great, but they are based on risk. It also helps stop 17 year olds buying high-performance cars and stacking them 5 minutes into their first drive (although some do that anyway, but with a Nova).
in fairness most people who drive forget most of what was taught them on their test. most of us would not pass if we resat again.
surely your insurance should start off cheap and get more expensive the more accidents you have where you are at fault?
you don't pay silly money for house insurance just because you are a first time buyer.
We're 'whinging' with good reason, and as much for your benefit as ours; I think that it is completely wrong that motorists of your age are being asked for silly money to insure basic, small cars as it is only going to lead to one of a few things happening:
- being insured on parents insurance, and therefore not able to build up any no-claims of their own, besides the risk that the insurer will wriggle out of any claim on the basis of 'fronting'
- can't afford insurance at all, so can't drive, therefore are not gaining any experience (most if not all of us learned more after our driving test than we did before it)
- can't afford insurance at all, so drive without it (and these are the ones that really worry me)
Besides anything else, all the time they are quoting young drivers like you premiums that should carry a mortgage application, premiums for drivers like me are also inordinately high as our premiums are a discounted version of yours.
Also don't forget, I've been paying insurance for 17 years, so will have paid something in the region of £8k in premiums in that time, yet have never claimed for anything more than a windscreen - so their premiums are hardly risk based.
Insurance can rise if you have too many accidents. The risks aren't comparable though, as house insurance is mainly about 1 in 100 years events, whereas car accidents are far more frequent.
What are you driving?
You are more likely as the people on their parent's insurance aren't the main driver. Of course they may be lying about that fact, but in the insurance company's eyes they are just using it at nights and weekends.
Second year it went down to £750 though.
3rd year is coming up in November...
It doesn't seem to matter at the moment as insurance has been hiked up in the last year due to uninsured drivers (see the irony there).
If it wasn't for AXA this year my renewal would have been the cheapest by £120. Last year there were 5-6 insurance companies under my renewal. This year 1.
BTW I drive a Ford Focus Zetec Climate 1.6 with 10 years ncb. Not exactly sporty but if I swapped it for a BMW Z3 2.2i its only £150 more.