Stupid Insurance Companies

I have my Ninety with firebond. Personal use, £123.00 fully comp. They took into account :- Non-standard air filter, Chequer plate wing tops and rear corners,CB radio, Bull-bar, front and rear diff guards, jackable sills,steering gaurd, polybushes, larger tyres, off-road/greenlane use. Evrything I threw at them, they said ok!

Stew.

Weird - why have they been so awkward with me then? Iwas polite and corteous. I even was very friendly on the phone.

It's probably not Firebond themselves - they're a broker. It was probably the actual insurer you were with wouldn't cover a modified car. If you'd asked Firebond for a requote rather than maintaining the current policy then they'd probably have come back with another company who could cover you.

P.

That's about all there is to say, really.

I was getting a quote off them an I reeled off all the bits on the 110, including all the guards, the Rangie V8 in it, the sports exhaust, MT tyres and so on. All was well until I said it had a suspension lift, at which point the bloke basically said "Oh, right, we can't insure you then. Bye."

Bizzare.

I heard a snippet on the news that the European court has decided that it is unfair for insurance companies to give women favourable quotes on the basis of their gender. About time too - if they decided black people were higher risk there'd be uproar, but it's OK to act prejudicially against young men, company directors etc that they have no prior knowledge of.

They are kind to modifications, and resonably priced, but now that you have a policy with them prepare to be bombarded with letters and phone calls! They started sending me recorded delivery nagging letters telling me to hurry up and send my forms back before i'd even recieved the cover note. At the end of the policy, they wouldnt stop ringing up till i told them to bugger off and that i was never using them again! (It took 3 phone calls where i actually spoke to them, and about 5 where theyd left messages with various family members for me)

They also have a funny misprint in the letter telling you to hurry up and send the photos of your vehicle. It says that you should send the pictures 'at least 21 days after your proposal is accepted', when they clearly mean 'not more than 21 days'.

Which reminds me - I haven't sent mine in yet and they have promised to cancel my policy next week if I don't!

Try contacting "Watchdog" BBC, they come up on a net search. You may get a response. Also phone Ins. and ask for the press officer, if they put you through tell them you are going to the press and would like their thoughts before you do, if they will not simply tell the muppet at the end of the phine the same. The latter seems to have quite spectacular results in some cases, I did it with Argos and they replied and sorted out in 30 minutes after two months of fart arsing around. Keep a record of names when phoning with times.

Great, so they'll up the premiums for women and leave the rate for us blokes the same.

Nick

My insurance is high because I live in the inner city where the crowded roads often have accidents and my vehicles are kept in the street where there is chance of them being stolen, broken into or damaged by another vehicle. These high premiums are clearly unfair and the insurance company obviously has it in for people living in Hackney. Rates should be levelled so that people like me pay no more than someone living in the country or suburbs with their cars locked in the garage.

-- Keith (London, UK) Land Rover Discovery 300TDI Triumph Sprint Executive Piaggio X9

I'm OK with this, in principle. Insurance is, after all, a business, and it is fair enough that they base preimums on the likelihood of having to pay out. If you were guaranteeing to cover someone's liabilities up to a couple of million, wouldn't you want to discriminate between a 20-year-old male in a BMW and a 50-year-old woman in a Fiesta? Taken to its logical extreme, removing discrimination like this is absurd. You couldn't vary charges according to whether a car was garaged or not, as that would discriminate against poorer people who had to park on the street. Or against people with drink-driving convictions because they had an "illness". Or against people with a bad accident record because they might be just unlucky. It would also remove a deterrent (to those of us who choose to insure our vehicles, at least) - if you knew your premiums would stay the same no matter how bad your driving was, where is the incentive to improve?

I take your point, though. If you are a middle-class, middle-aged, employed, heterosexual male who pays his taxes and plays by the rules, you are fair game for any amount of discrimination these days, sadly.

In message , Tim Hobbs writes

It isn't prejudice it is detailed statistical analysis by actuaries [1]. Women are less likely to have an accident, young men under 25 are more likely to do so. [1] Actuaries - people who find accountancy too exciting.

You probably got diverted to the call centre in India or wherever.

In message , Andrew Renshaw writes

Can I just give a plug to Carloe Nash brokers? I have my bike with them and rang up everyone for the Series III. I have no no-claims on it as it's a second car and my NCB is used on the Rangey.

They have got me cover, fully comp plus legal and breakdown, for SDP and commuting, green lane and off-road use for ?111. Not too bad a I reckon.

It is prejudicial. Without any knowledge of my driving skills, my personality, the type of driving I do or any other important factor they pre-judge that I am a high risk because lots of other company directors have accidents. That is, by definition, prejudicial. If I resign my directorship tomorrow I will be no more or less likely to have an accident, I will simply belong to a different statistical grouping and my insurance will be cheaper.

Likewise, the young lady who drove me through a 30 limit at 65mph this afternoon, over a blind hill and bend in front of a factory gate pays less to insure her Golf VR6 than I do for my family Volvo estate. Because she belongs to a different statistical group, not based on any knowledge of that individual and the risk they present.

Hypothetically, if the actuaries were to find that black men had more accidents than white men and loaded premiums accordingly (or refused to quote to black men), do you think it would be accepted? What would be the difference?

While i was searching for insurance for my RRC, I telephoned, as a laugh, the female only insurance company for a quote, Diamond i think they are called (or was it 'the pink triangle'???), and they flatly refused to quote me, I complained it was sexual prejudice, the answer was they could refuse to quote anyone !!!!!!

If I look at the previous posting I have to agree totally with the unfairness of categorisation:

Up until a few years ago I was a company director and it is true the premiums were loaded, however the insurance company at that time did not take into account any of the following facts:

Driving for 25 years Not 1 single accident that was my fault (never a claim against me) HGV Class 1 held for 20 years IAM

On one quote at that time I changed my job title and the premiums dropped by about 30%.

Even now, conversely, insurance companies seem to ignore the 'safest' drivers' job titles, i am now a driving instructor (surely one of the safest drivers to insure) which is basically ignored by all but a few companies !!!!

Given my history, current job.....and in a RR, am i safer to insure than a blonde bimbo in a mini?????

The statistics can be manipulated in many ways but the facts are that there are fewer female drivers than men and female drivers travel substantially less miles, per head, than male drivers, so on the face of it, yes, women have fewer accidents, but, if you do the calculation to include miles driven etc, the result is different. I do agree, however, with the fact that new drivers between 19 and 25 do have more accidents.

AlunP

On or around Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:19:00 +0100, Tim Hobbs enlightened us thusly:

now that'd be a good 'un. Black men driving BMWs... imagine the outcry about racism... prolly find their insurance is cheaper...

I found this once. If I were married, my insurance would've been some large percentage cheaper. Annoyed me at the time and much like your company director thing, I imagine.

If I were married and had 3 screaming brats in the back seat and a nagging wife in the front, I'd be *more* likely to have accidents as a result of being distracted.