Mini fail
- Thread starter iaind
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
Yes. I am in fact the money police. Hand over all your money.
ok boss i got one penny is that enough to shiush you up for a min?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
How does that make insurance companies evil for not wanting to take on the risk of repairing that Mini?
It's only about £600 a month on BMW select!
Yes. I am in fact the money police. Hand over all your money.
Well it's thier money and frankly I couldn't give a toss if they spent it all buying a gold plated turd, I don't know their position and niether do you so I don't know how you can make comment.
The only issue I have is them moaning that it costs a lot of money to insure and a lot of insurers won't touch it and rightly so.
[TW]Fox;16260777 said:
Because the risk does not come from the driver stacking it into something, but from jealous ****ers - which means the insurance companies selling a product that is A LEGAL REQUIREMENT are shafting us due to the **** poor policing we have from the **** poor police service.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
What are you, the insurance police?
Since when was insurance against damage to your own car a legal requirement?
Do you ever stop ranting? News flash: Life isn't how you want it to be, get over it. Crime exists in every country and always will.
No, I'm the stupid police and you're under caution
The legal requirement is that you have at least 3rd party cover so any damage you cause to other people's property is covered. I've been driving around for two years with this cover, if someone keys my car I just have to deal with it.
Is it actually chrome plated, or a Dupont Chromalusion style paint finish? A plated finish would be harder to scratch/mark than a painted one.
Either way, I'm sure someone will insure it. Might not be as cheap as a standard BINI, might be very expensive. But it will be available.
Either way, I'm sure someone will insure it. Might not be as cheap as a standard BINI, might be very expensive. But it will be available.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
No, I'm the stupid police and you're under caution
Then you should arrest yourself immediately for walking right into that one
[TW]Fox;16260822 said:
Since when does having non performance oriented modifications impact the likelihood of you causing damage to another car?
If having a rollhoop on a convertible is sufficient to increase a purely 3rd party insurance policy, I'm pretty sure that having a chrome car will also increase 3rd party insurance (article never said if he was looking fully comp or not).
Equally 3rd party and fully comp risk is calculated exactly the same, insurance companies do not use a different criteria to price different cars based on cover type, they simply chop off a % of the price generally.
And lastly, why should he not be allowed (via over pricing) to take TPFT rather than just TP?
Since people owning these cars starting damaging other cars more frequently than other car owners.
Can you provide some sort of evidence for this new style of underwriting please?
What are you talking about now? Who mentioned anything to do with hitting another car?
Nobody will offer third party insurance on a £40,000 car.
Please stop pretending to know even the first thing about insurance, as its quite obvious you know don't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,085
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
rypt is another quality addition to OCUK rambling.
He makes crazy people who stand outside LIDL appear well rounded.
He makes crazy people who stand outside LIDL appear well rounded.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 24,290
Of course it matters - the man's obviously had a taste bypass but you seem to be insinuating that this man doesn't have a good enough job to be allowed to buy a stupid expensive car without satisfying you that he's done everything else he could possibly do with his money beforehand.
He's a builder, not a labourer. For all you know he could be a millionaire.
Nope - I've only ever been referring to damage to the car caused by the policyholder (or deemed the responsibility of the policyholder) and have not once mentioned third party insurance except in response to you.
Care to point where I did?
Or are you seeing non-existent things as well as spouting them?