Do you want the good news or the bad news?

[peterws1957]

how about this for a shocker. maybe theres 15x more Mondeos around so the chances of 10x more of them being crashed is likely?? and as others have said, why bother with insurance groups if theyre meaningless? I don't know why we don't have a system where the car isn't insured but a driver? insure a person, based on their driving license number, to drive. that way ALL vehicles are covered by whoever is driving/in charge of them. simplifies things for everyone plus your quote is directly tailored to YOU. it wouldn't be hard to add accidents etc to the driving license database, license validity and points etc could be checked as per the current system by the insurers. or bring back sensibly priced 'any car' policies like we used to have where you were covered comprehensively for ANY car. at least then we would feel like we got some decent benefits from being shafted for hundreds of pounds each year!

I know what you mean but I wouldn't say we are being shafted. Premiums are lower in real terms than they were before the market was opened up. It's the lack of transparency in the market that gets me.

 

[DREAMER NO2]

The rise in premiums is down to BREXIT . Well is it , nothing gone on yet, and you have a rise in insurance .Its like getting to the docks to pay your fair to catch a boat that arives the years to follow .

 

[flowrider]

how about this for a shocker. maybe theres 15x more Mondeos around so the chances of 10x more of them being crashed is likely?? and as others have said, why bother with insurance groups if theyre meaningless? I don't know why we don't have a system where the car isn't insured but a driver? insure a person, based on their driving license number, to drive. that way ALL vehicles are covered by whoever is driving/in charge of them. simplifies things for everyone plus your quote is directly tailored to YOU. it wouldn't be hard to add accidents etc to the driving license database, license validity and points etc could be checked as per the current system by the insurers. or bring back sensibly priced 'any car' policies like we used to have where you were covered comprehensively for ANY car. at least then we would feel like we got some decent benefits from being shafted for hundreds of pounds each year!

This is just how some other countries do it, a much better system in my opinion.

 

[turbopete]

I know what you mean but I wouldn't say we are being shafted. Premiums are lower in real terms than they were before the market was opened up. It's the lack of transparency in the market that gets me.

my insurance, compared to my wages hasn't gone down at all as regards the number of weeks wages needed to pay for my annual policy BUT my cover HAS!!!!

me aged 20, approx. 3 weeks wages to pay for 1 years car insurance, I had comprehensive (fully comp as it was known) on ANY CAR (no reg number on the policy) and had ZERO excess on the policy, it had legal cover, breakdown cover, loan car from the day/following day you have an accident/claim until your car is repaired or paid out for total loss, plus 2 weeks to find a replacement car, free NCD protection etc.

me now, aged 41, approx. 3 weeks wages (wage doesn't go as far admittedly but the comparison is still valid as 3 weeks wages is 3 weeks wages) to pay for 1 years car insurance, comprehensive policy, comprehensive on only MY car (only 3rd party on others so has a reg number on the policy) £250 excess (£80 on glass IIRC) legal cover, breakdown cover and loan cars are all optional and theres no run on to get you to view cars in the event of a total loss claim, NCD protection costs extra.

so yes I do feel I'm being somewhat shafted as the policy I had at 20 is FAR superior to the ones I can obtain now, for the same 3 weeks worth of wages to pay for the annual premium.

 

[geraldrobins]

I can understand postcodes being a fairly big factor but when a person has 10, 15 or even 20+ years claim free, why can't they be rewarded properly rather than a 'no claims' system that can be beaten if you shop around?

This is not aimed at CK btw

I suspect people with long periods of no claim are still a risk and 60% seems a pretty good discount to me.

 

[ChrisKnottIns]

So you're saying the groupings are basically meaningless. Why have them?

No, not meaningless, they help set the base rate from which all remaining risk factors are added or subtracted.

 

[MalcQV]

No, not meaningless, they help set the base rate from which all remaining risk factors are added or subtracted.

I assumed the grouping was based on the performance of the vehicle, age, theft risk and the cost of repairs/parts.
The risk is surely based on the driver and his postcode? The driver I assumed somewhat more complex as it is an individual with or without a driving record and statistics regarding the gender and age.

 

[turbopete]

No, not meaningless, they help set the base rate from which all remaining risk factors are added or subtracted.

so by that theory then, the same person in the same address SHOULD pay more to insure a higher group car, but doesn't, so in many ways they ARE meaningless. and this is the issue many people have with not so much the insurers themselves but the industry as a whole. theres just no logic to the layman about how the prices are worked out.

I grew up in a small town, car crime was pretty much zero, claims for accidents were pretty uncommon. I had max no claims years ago, low insurance group car (group 4 out of 9 at the time) alarm, locked garage for when not in use, the lot. another person, 2 years older, group 6 of 9 car (same manufacturer of car) car parked on the road, no extra security, he paid almost HALF what I paid for insurance, for the same useage and annual mileage. the ONLY difference was his job was on a road construction site, mine was a mechanic (something I still don't understand why, if its not used for business, should even make a difference) so for 2 lads driving Fords (Both Escorts mine a 1.6 carb, the other guy an XR3i) aged 22 (me) and 24, yet he paid HALF what I did (give or take about £15) it defies logic.

and that's where the problem lies. not only has cover deteriorated to keep a similar price as a figure, but nobody can give the customers a straight answer WHY such price differences exist! surely a higher risk/desirable car, no extra security, parked on the street should cost more than one parked in a locked garage, alarmed, etc? yet when the question is asked, you get the whole 'well we work out our prices out from a variety of different information and sources.....blah blah blah

in the town where I grew up, when I was 22 and my friend 24, there were 3k people according to the poll, resident in the town, so VERY small. postcode changes were only on the last 1 or 2 letters of the code so id imagine very little variation of price through postcodes yet nobody could explain the price variation. both phoning the same insurer often EXAGGERATED the price gap!

So nowadays insurers are complaining about the cost of 'personal injury claims' and 'fraudulent claims' like the crash for cash scams, but until someone can tell the public EXACTLY what makes their insurance so high and cover so poor compared to what it was in the past, then people are going to be tempted to 'get their money back' from the insurers in the event of a claim as 'they have paid for it' over the years

 

[ChrisKnottIns]

Staying on groupings for a minute and answering that one:

Insurers exist (and profit) by accurately assessing risk. Because there are some absolutes and some non-absolutes, how each insurer gets there is different.

Each insurer will have a range of actuarial models and risk calculations they use to help them get it right as far as they're concerned. Inevitably, they come up with a formula for how they're going to calculate the premium.

Let's simplify that for a second and just limit it to: base rate based on vehicle grouping (simplistically safety, security and engine performance data) x driver age x postcode claims experience factor (the claims that insurer has experienced in that area).

You might get two apparently identical scenarios: two drivers - same age, same postcode (down to the last digit), etc but one on a C220d SE saloon and the other on a C220d SE estate. The grouping numbers are the same but the base rates in terms of the actual starting £ and p differ slightly because the saloon is lighter than the estate. Still both group 20 cars but the base rate on the saloon is £100 x 1.2 factor (driver age) and 1.5 factor (postcode) = £180, compared to the estate at £101 x the same factors = £181.80. Already you have a difference.

Then the insurer adds in a factor that accounts for vehicle claims incidence - the loading for claims it has experienced on that exact vehicle. Even if both vehicles had started with the same £100 base rate, on the saloon the claims experience factor is 1.1 (total £198) but on the estate it's 1.0 because it sees fewer claims on those (total £180).

A different insurer comes along and he has a differing base rate and differing factor weightings and you get a different quote from them. They may add in an extra factor because they've data to suggest a good credit score means you'll claim less so they have a positive weighting in that regard and the whole picture changes.

Hope that helps to explain some of the differences, though apparently minor or non-existent.

 

[d215yq]

Agreed. S65 AMG - £1100 PA - C220 CDI - £900 PA......

But are you really more likely to crash in the S65 over the C220CDI? If you are sensible and avoid crashes it doesn't matter what you drive. I can't say I drive any safer since changing my E220 (0-60 in 10secs) to my 300D (0-60 in 17 secs). In fact I probably drive the 300D faster as I'm less worried about fuel

 

[LostKiwi]

Insuring drivers makes it very difficult to check insurance without stopping a vehicle. Very open to people not bothering.

 

[turbopete]

Insuring drivers makes it very difficult to check insurance without stopping a vehicle. Very open to people not bothering.

there are still people out there who don't bother even now! I mean, as long as the car shows up on a check as taxed, insured, MOTd, ANYONE could be in the car, possibly not passed their test or disqualified (so no insurance anyhow etc) and the car would show up as legit, even if the driver isn't. I see quite a lot of very young drivers around in the sorts of cars that insurance would be astronomical, if cover was available at all and wonder how they do it! (assuming theyre not relying on getting pulled over to verify that the driver is john smith senior, the 57 year old accountant, and not john smith junior, his 18 year old, unemployed son, driving)