Random Car Insurance Quotes

poosemon

poosemon

poosemon

Associate
Joined
16 May 2004
Posts
1,905
Location
Near Chester
Im sure this has been discussed many times before, but sometimes the randomness of car insurance quotes really leave me miffed.

In the annoying position when my policy runs out at the end of the month, however moving house at the end of august so going to have to change my address just after the policy begins.

Have been getting myself worried as the address we are moving too seems to attract a significantly higher premium (was a great suprise to me as it seems far nicer area then we are now, and lower crime statistics etc) and in a lot of cases companies not offering a quote.

i.e Esure; Current Address: £280 - New Address: £580
Hastings (current insurer); Current Address: £360 - New Address: Wont Quote
Most others around £400 mark for current address and then either no quote or crazy prices for the new address

After making my way through most of the major companies tried Co-Op. Whilst £360 for current address, will be £370 for new address. Surely they must use the same statistics etc so why are others raising so significantly compared to just £10 with Co-op!

Most annoyingly the car in question is a Puma 1.7, nothing spectacular enough to warrant not providing a quote!

/Rant over....
 
The fact the new area looks a lot nicer is irrelevant. It could be a lot of cars get stolen there because it is a nice area, hence higher premiums.
 
i've said it before and i'll say it again, if insurance for cars is going to be mandatory, then there really should be either serious regulation, or a state alternative. doesn't need to be fancy just a basic 3rd party only insurance set at a sensible rate so that the private firms have to justify their costs with additional benefits.

for example if i went into a shop and ordered a burger, but they charged me quadruple the normal price just because i live in a certain street or because i'm a certain age that'd be a daily mail headline right there.

every year we get the same bs, higher premium "because uninsured drivers innit", followed by the usual comparison websites, then phoning them back up and being given £200's worth of discounts, well why didn't you do that the first time?
 
How is that sensible? People who live in areas with low crime, low accidents, etc, will be charged artificially high insurance premiums just to support the high crime, high accident areas.

We're not talking a few quid burger which is optional (you don't need a burger..), you are talking a mandatory increase of hundreds of £.
 
killsta said:
How is that sensible? People who live in areas with low crime, low accidents, etc, will be charged artificially high insurance premiums just to support the high crime, high accident areas.

We're not talking a few quid burger which is optional (you don't need a burger..), you are talking a mandatory increase of hundreds of £.
Click to expand...

because basic 3rd party only insurance won't cover you if your car gets nicked?
 
adolf hamster said:
because basic 3rd party only insurance won't cover you if your car gets nicked?
Click to expand...

OK, so say they create a new 'basic' non fire/theft third party policy. You'll still be looking at a hell of an increase in premiums just for the low risk folk to balance out the high risk drivers.

Why should I pay more just because someone else is a crapper driver?
 
Welcome to my life. Getting a quote here is difficult! Everything is around 2000/year due to postcode.
 
You're missing my point.

Forget about the premium weighting due to postcode risk, I'm talking about premium weighting due to individual risk. If there was a 'basic rate', I, as a relatively low risk driver would have to have my premiums increased to pay for the lower premiums (the basic cap you talk about) given to a high risk driver.
 
poosemon said:
Surely they must use the same statistics etc so why are others raising so significantly compared to just £10 with Co-op!
Click to expand...

They may well use the same statistics but they are just inputs, they run it through a model which will vary from company to company, putting different weightings on different aspects etc.
 
killsta said:
You're missing my point.

Forget about the premium weighting due to postcode risk, I'm talking about premium weighting due to individual risk. If there was a 'basic rate', I, as a relatively low risk driver would have to have my premiums increased to pay for the lower premiums (the basic cap you talk about) given to a high risk driver.
Click to expand...

i'm not saying that someone who has an accident isn't going to get higher basic premiums, just that the overall level being set to something reasonable, lets face it the only way to determine for a particular individual if they're high risk is the number of accidents they've had, and if that number is zero then the **** insurers pull is wrong.

basically an alternative to putting up with crap like refusing to quote, or insane quotations for cars.
 
So you want to force insurance companies to quote for you?

If there is a basic rate as you say, then insurance companies will only quote where they think the basic rate is too high.

That means the government will end up with all the places where the basic rate is too low, and lose lots of money. Who will pay for all these losses?

In the burger example, its akin to the government selling burgers for £3 each everwhere, ignoring what the cost of rent is for a shop in that area, how much material costs are changing and how much it actually costs to employ someone in that area. Where do you think the government will end up selling all it's burgers? It will be where no once else can sell a burger for £3 because the costs are too high.
 
no, it will force the insurance companies to justify their product if they wish to sell at a higher cost, by adding in all the normal extras like comprehensive, legal cover, breakdown cover etc that they currently do.

in the case of the burger example think of it like mcdonalds- basic price across all ranges, but not a good quality product, that constitutes in a loose sense a meal. the fact that mcdonalds exists doesn't stop "gourmet" restaurants from existing and doing a good trade.

the insurance companies have a wonderful market- they get to charge hundreds if not thousands of pounds a year for a service 99.999% of people will never use, and indeed will go out of their way to avoid using, excuse me for having zero sympathy for them.
 
I live in a fairly crap postcode area, which is fair enough, why then is my 1999 Volvo V70 diesel estate snot box that's worth sod all more expensive to insure than my Current e38 735i V8, an e39 M5, an e46 M3 or a Honda S2000?

The insurance industry needs reform from top to bottom, alas, until it is, we're all just getting taken for a ride for the privilege of going for one!
 
Scania said:
I live in a fairly crap postcode area, which is fair enough, why then is my 1999 Volvo V70 diesel estate snot box that's worth sod all more expensive to insure than my Current e38 735i V8, an e39 M5, an e46 M3 or a Honda S2000?

The insurance industry needs reform from top to bottom, alas, until it is, we're all just getting taken for a ride for the privilege of going for one!
Click to expand...

exactly my point, especially so considering the v70 doesn't suffer from the same issue that the 306 has (ie being a chav car with a higher accident statistic)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom