Insurance Question! (DOC)

OllyM · 31 May 2009 at 23:29

scott212 said:
They're offering basic level of insurance for very little and THAT is why it does mean a lot too the insurer if people start abusing it and that is why Bell have obviously increased the cost of adding DOC to a policy. When I took out my policy I was told on the phone it is supposed to only be used for emergencies. It is still miles cheaper to drive a car like that than it is to take out a dedicated third party policy with an insurer.

That argument failing, why do you think most insurers insist that the driver has to be over 25 to use DOC on a policy. Because they don't want young drivers who would not be able to obtain a dedicated third party quote on high insurance group cars (let alone fully comp) driving them with their DOC policy. They are statistically massively more likely to crash and there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to reflect this in terms of price on the policy or to cover the extra risk incurred by young drivers driving such cars.

If that was the case then why do they not put restrictions on the use of DOC? For example Quinn says that you can only use DOC on cars under 3 litres and not 2 seater sports cars or 4x4's. Therefore out of the two cars I've driven under my DOC, one would be a total no-no.

Barks · 31 May 2009 at 23:30

Occupation seems irrelevant over what cars your family, relatives or mates might posses. In my household there could be my insured car, a 1.2 Polo and a Saxo, or there could be my insured car, a GTR and an RS4. How the hell are they supposed to know.

It just makes no sense to me and none of you can offer an explanation to win me over. Why bother charging younger drivers £2k+ to drive a crappy old banger if, practically for free, your then let them drive daddy's M3 on a third party basis. It just doesn't add up. It's absolutely staggering Bell offer this facility to younger drivers, I guess it's only a matter of time before more and more people find out about this and start taking advantage of it.

I guess to be fair my arguments have been with younger drivers in mind and I hope you can see my point where by a younger driver might take advantage of Bell's offering.

OllyM · 31 May 2009 at 23:32

But most people won't go out and drive expensive high performance cars using their DOC, so it's a moot point. It's legal but it's no better than having no insurance at all.

Barks · 31 May 2009 at 23:32

OllyM said:
If that was the case then why do they not put restrictions on the use of DOC? For example Quinn says that you can only use DOC on cars under 3 litres and not 2 seater sports cars or 4x4's. Therefore out of the two cars I've driven under my DOC, one would be a total no-no.

I don't know but I'd imagine statistics have shown that 2 seater sports cars, 4x4s and cars above 3 litres are more likely to be crashed when driven on a 3rd party basis. Makes sense really, all 3 are extremely desirable and some people may only drive them third party to keep costs down so they can afford the car. I don't know, I'm only guessing?

Barks · 31 May 2009 at 23:33

OllyM said:
But most people won't go out and drive expensive high performance cars using their DOC, so it's a moot point. It's legal but it's no better than having no insurance at all.

But at the end of the day there are plenty of high performance cars that can be had for £1-3k and if insurance isn't an issue, practically anyone of any age could afford to buy and run one.

benjo · 31 May 2009 at 23:35

I'm 19 and took out a policy with Bell about 3 weeks ago. I originally didn't have DOC cover, but the next day I phoned up and got it added on for £40. They said they normally wouldn't do it but because I was within 30 days of purchasing they said it was ok :confused:

RoysonBobson · 31 May 2009 at 23:40

scott212 said:
Occupation seems irrelevant over what cars your family, relatives or mates might posses. In my household there could be my insured car, a 1.2 Polo and a Saxo, or there could be my insured car, a GTR and an RS4. How the hell are they supposed to know.

It just makes no sense to me and none of you can offer an explanation to win me over. Why bother charging younger drivers £2k+ to drive a crappy old banger if, practically for free, your then let them drive daddy's M3 on a third party basis. It just doesn't add up. It's absolutely staggering Bell offer this facility to younger drivers, I guess it's only a matter of time before more and more people find out about this and start taking advantage of it.

I guess to be fair my arguments have been with younger drivers in mind and I hope you can see my point where by a younger driver might take advantage of Bell's offering.

Firstly, not everyone is going to want to let someone (even their own child) drive their car third party at all, but that's not really the point.

The insurance companies will have (i hope) done an analysis into the statistics and costs and this will be reflected in the price they quote. Of course occupation makes a difference in some cases - hence why many of the people earlier (who one assumes have differing occupations) had a roughly similar quote, yet some occupations, we discovered, had a much higher cost.

If the insurance companies weren't going to make money on it, they wouldn't do it. Simple as.

I understand the points you're thinking about, but realistically, how many people are going to be a in position where they have a powerful car and are happy to let their child (who is, in this hypothetical case, the young driver you mention) and how much damage do they cause, when compared with the many people who take out the cover and hardly ever drive another car, and when they do, cause no damage.

One person might cause lots of damage (remembering it's only third party so the damage to the car being driven by the insured person in question isn't covered) but the other thousands of people with the cover are covering the cost.

What are you actually unhappy about?

OllyM · 31 May 2009 at 23:41

They're weird like that, they don't let you add it on part way through for some reason!

RoysonBobson · 31 May 2009 at 23:41

benjo said:
I'm 19 and took out a policy with Bell about 3 weeks ago. I originally didn't have DOC cover, but the next day I phoned up and got it added on for £40. They said they normally wouldn't do it but because I was within 30 days of purchasing they said it was ok

I guess you didn't choose your occupation as 'student' then?

OllyM · 31 May 2009 at 23:45

Bell want £150 now for DOC on a new quote and I'm not a student - it must be a really recent age-related change I guess?

Barks · 31 May 2009 at 23:45

RoysonBobson said:
Firstly, not everyone is going to want to let someone (even their own child) drive their car third party at all, but that's not really the point.

The insurance companies will have (i hope) done an analysis into the statistics and costs and this will be reflected in the price they quote. Of course occupation makes a difference in some cases - hence why many of the people earlier (who one assumes have differing occupations) had a roughly similar quote, yet some occupations, we discovered, had a much higher cost.

If the insurance companies weren't going to make money on it, they wouldn't do it. Simple as.

I understand the points you're thinking about, but realistically, how many people are going to be a in position where they have a powerful car and are happy to let their child (who is, in this hypothetical case, the young driver you mention) and how much damage do they cause, when compared with the many people who take out the cover and hardly ever drive another car, and when they do, cause no damage.

One person might cause lots of damage (remembering it's only third party so the damage to the car being driven by the insured person in question isn't covered) but the other thousands of people with the cover are covering the cost.

What are you actually unhappy about?

You make some perfectly reasonable and valid points. I can't really argue.

At the end of the day I think the key thing you said is "If the insurance companies weren't going to make money on it, they wouldn't do it. Simple as." They're never going to do anyone any favours

Not sure why I'm complaining, I got to drive my dad's 330d round the block today but just like you said, he would never let me drive it on a motorway or other high-risk areas unless I was fully insured

Barks · 31 May 2009 at 23:46

OllyM said:
Bell want £150 now for DOC on a new quote and I'm not a student - it must be a really recent age-related change I guess?

I honestly did take out my policy 2-3 days ago and I'm a Student - Uni living away and it was £19.95. They must have put it up in the last few days. I tried to login now and have a look but as I've already taken out a policy I'd have to start the quote from scratch.

OllyM · 31 May 2009 at 23:47

Just make up some details, that's what I did yesterday. Maybe they use a random number generator.

Barks · 31 May 2009 at 23:48

Maybe statistics show that drivers named Olly are more likely to crash whilst driving cars on a third party basis

RoysonBobson · 31 May 2009 at 23:54

scott212 said:
You make some perfectly reasonable and valid points. I can't really argue.

At the end of the day I think the key thing you said is "If the insurance companies weren't going to make money on it, they wouldn't do it. Simple as." They're never going to do anyone any favours

Not sure why I'm complaining, I got to drive my dad's 330d round the block today but just like you said, he would never let me drive it on a motorway or other high-risk areas unless I was fully insured

Thank you.

One last nit-picky point, motorways are relatively low-risk areas, but I completely take your point

Have fun driving the 330d - it's more than I get to drive!

scott212 said:
Maybe statistics show that drivers named Olly are more likely to crash whilst driving cars on a third party basis

lol!

Barks · 1 Jun 2009 at 00:09

RoysonBobson said:
One last nit-picky point, motorways are relatively low-risk areas, but I completely take your point

I'm sure this is indeed the case but you can appreciate it is pretty easy to perceive motorways as high risk areas, especially when you're putting a younger driver in a fast car. Higher speeds, more temptation to floor it in a more powerful car etc

Suppose it's similar to when people claim aeroplanes are dangerous, whilst there's more stuff that could go wrong, you're still statistically much more likely to die in a train/car accident.