no claims bonus - a shady area for me

[Frontstep]

Insurance payouts and the Courts that govern them often fail to address your financial loss, the Insurance companies turn a blind eye to dishonest employees and experts seeking to ingratiate themselves.
Even with all that in mind and intimate knowledge of the above it is still better than no insurance.
I am constantly suprised by the low tariffs the Courts hand down for persistent offenders.
A parking misdemeanour and none payment of the penalty often leads to higher costs than driving intentionally without Insurance, unfortunately the "honest motorist" is an easy target.
Maybe the target country of visit can offer Insurance for long term trips.
But to reiterate the main point please get insured legitimately.

 

[d215yq]

There is NO alternative imperfect or otherwise

I cannot see your point in advocating having no insurance nor risking having the insurance voided by telling downright LIES.
The point of having insurance is to REDUCE the impact of some Wan*ker causing a catastrophic accident and the injured/murdered third party not having a claim so as to reduce the impact of the mindless moron's actions who caused the accident in the first place.
Insurance is nothing to do with safe or good driving but a means of reducing the impact caused in an accident and preventing the innocent party being made destitute due to some scum bag who thinks he is above the law.
I would make sure every un-insured driver was jailed for a minimum of 15 years and banned FOR LIFE so that they should never be able to drive EVER.
As for sueing the driver if they do not see fit to have insurance then they will have nothing worth sueing for.
Not having insurance is the worst crime a driver can commit and anyone who knows of such a person should call the police and be proud to do it, as I know I would.
People who break the law and do not have their car insured WILL also break other laws without a single thought.
I am sure you would no be over happy if some un-insured pri*k ran into your car writing it off and causing you to be confined to a wheel chair as a paraplegic, would you still say well that is life and forgive them.

Fully Insured

Mike

15 years jail for anyone who may slightly lie on their insurance or even inadvertently so (maybe insurance expired the day before they drove without knowing, or like on another thread the car failed an MOT and it was driven home?)...so given 10%-15% of motorists are in this category and there are 32 million cars that will be 4 million+ in jail for 15 years...umm except there are no places remaining at 80,000 jail inhabitants and even if they were, it is of course great economic sense to have 8% of a population in jail (awaits Daily Mail Response of "build more prison places then and keep going until the whole population is in jail"). I wasn't expecting sympathy with my position, afterall my hard earnt money should of course be in the pockets of unreasonable insurance cos shareholder's pockets, but i really wasn't expecting nonsense like this.

I don't normally engage in so much debate in one thread but I am only trying to get across the point to let anyone who hasn't already been brainwashed from sensationalist media out there that with things the way they are there can be really unfair scenarios out there for some drivers who are young/have different from average requirements and the fact that some may be tempted to not play wholly by the rules is one that I think can be understood. Such "foulplay" obviously leads to imperfections, but i do not believe automatically makes people terrible people, and certainly does not in itself cause any horific injuries or dangerous driving.

I see that as insurance becomes more expensive, more and more people will avoid it, leading to higher and higher insurance premiums for those who do buy it, which will lead to a viscious circle of more people "opting out" for good. With the police budget stretched and prison places at maximum it is unlikely that in the real world prevention/punishment will be raised enough to avoid this. Whether this overall is a good or bad thing, or whether a better alternative can be found remains to be seen, but as more and more ordinary otherwise ordinary and honest folk get stretched to the limit I think hatred for those who do it will become harder and harder. Society can only function with a vast majority following the rules - if everyone ignores them en mass then there will never be enough police/state resources to enforce the rules.

I think the OP sums it up nicely for many ordinary people that getting insurance for their vehicle is indeed a "shady area"

 

[dieselman]

I think they are getting help, but they are 'getting by' in life, it has completely changed the whole families life for ever.
All I am saying is if the guy had been insured they might have received enough to make their life a little easier.

You would think so and the poor Girl deserves better than suffering with inadequate finances to make it easier.

People forget that this is what insurance is really for, not when a car gets damaged.

 

[muller1]

Insurance or not

Original, extracted from posting by d215yq


Quote) slightly lie on their insurance.



ANSWER - I do not think you can SLIGHTLY LIE, either it is a LIE or not, Just like being SLIGHTLY PREGNANT.

Quote) afterall my hard earnt money should of course be in the pockets of unreasonable insurance cos shareholder's pockets,

ANSWER. I think it is you who has been brainwashed, as there are so many insurance companies out there it is easy to find a fair and resonably priced by using a broker. (I got fully comprehensive cover for my 4 cars, ML 270, VW Passat, Peugeot 407 and VW Golf for £1020 per year all in via Tradex.



Quote) but i really wasn't expecting nonsense like this.

ANSWER nonsense like what ?

Quote) Such "foulplay" obviously leads to imperfections, but i do not believe automatically makes people terrible people, and certainly does not in itself cause any horific injuries or dangerous driving.

ANSWER No it makes them a law breaker and criminal



Quote) I see that as insurance becomes more expensive, more and more people will avoid it, leading to higher and higher insurance premiums for those who do buy it, which will lead to a viscious circle of more people "opting out" for good. With the police budget stretched and prison places at maximum it is unlikely that in the real world prevention/punishment will be raised enough to avoid this. Whether this overall is a good or bad thing, or whether a better alternative can be found remains to be seen, but as more and more ordinary otherwise ordinary and honest folk get stretched to the limit I think hatred for those who do it will become harder and harder. Society can only function with a vast majority following the rules - if everyone ignores them en mass then there will never be enough police/state resources to enforce the rules.

ANSWER It looks like you are advising NO ONE to have insurance and this will let everyone off having insurance as the powers that be will not be able to lock up the whole country, this leads to civil uprising and is the beginning of the end for everyone.


No amount of scenarios will convince me that it is a cool and correct thing to have no third party insurance, which is what you seem to be advocating,
if you feel that you should drive without insurance be my guest, and I hope you own NOTHING in your name as you will be sued for everything you have if you injure someone or cause any third party damage, I would not run the risk for the sake of 2 or 3 hundred pounds for peace of mind.


Fully insured and will always be.

Mike

 

[Rory]

I think they are getting help, but they are 'getting by' in life, it has completely changed the whole families life for ever.
All I am saying is if the guy had been insured they might have received enough to make their life a little easier.

For 3rd party personal injury, it really doesn't make any difference. If there's no insurance company then the MIB pay.

 

[mandrake]

For 3rd party personal injury, it really doesn't make any difference. If there's no insurance company then the MIB pay.

you mean we pay ...... not only do we pay for our insurance ,we also pay to get someones life back to some sort of stability after a criminal act ie no insurance cover

 

[d215yq]

Original, extracted from posting by d215yq


ANSWER - I do not think you can SLIGHTLY LIE, either it is a LIE or not, Just like being SLIGHTLY PREGNANT.

REPLY Yes you are technically right, I used the phrase as its very unlikely that it would be found out, so a "slight lie" is a lie unlikely to be found out...but i concede this one...

ANSWER. I think it is you who has been brainwashed, as there are so many insurance companies out there it is easy to find a fair and resonably priced by using a broker. (I got fully comprehensive cover for my 4 cars, ML 270, VW Passat, Peugeot 407 and VW Golf for £1020 per year all in via Tradex.

REPLY I spent hours on phone/internet, cheapest quote if car in EU for 30 days (legal minimum), £430, cheapest with EU use for 6 months, £4890. Never had a crash, 26 years old, good postcode. perhaps you could take out the insurance in your name and add me as a named driver ;o)

ANSWER nonsense like what ?

Like sending someone to 15 YEARS in prison (more than many murderers) for not having insurance or having insurance invalidated as facts change/mot expires/many other reasons people fall foul of insurance companies

ANSWER No it makes them a law breaker and criminal

Correct, but there are many law-abiding citizens (fred "the shed" goodwin, insured people who drive recklessly, etc) causing much more cost and adverse consequences to people than people who drive without insurance. Just because someone breaks the law they are not automatically a bad person (except in the eyes of people too stupid to make a judgement for themselves)

ANSWER It looks like you are advising NO ONE to have insurance and this will let everyone off having insurance as the powers that be will not be able to lock up the whole country, this leads to civil uprising and is the beginning of the end for everyone.

REPLY: No, just "thinking aloud" with alternatives to stimulate debate. I think civil uprising against many things wouldnt be a bad thing - I have done much travelling in 3rd world countries where money and posessions arent the be all and end all, where there is little insurance enforcement regarding "trivial matters" like insurance and most people are happier than in the UK/europe despite having very little money. I am not saying no-one should insure, just there are reasons when it is preposterous to do so (unfortunately) due to our greedy insurance companies and bent system.

ANSWER: No amount of scenarios will convince me that it is a cool and correct thing to have no third party insurance, which is what you seem to be advocating,
if you feel that you should drive without insurance be my guest, and I hope you own NOTHING in your name as you will be sued for everything you have if you injure someone or cause any third party damage, I would not run the risk for the sake of 2 or 3 hundred pounds for peace of mind.

REPLY: Well if i wanted to be a cool 26 year old do you think i'd drive a 15yr old e220 estate?! I don't believe it's cool or correct to drive without insurance. I own considerably more than most people my age and stand to lose a lot in an event of anything happening. I would love to get insured fully for me and for others sake but will not pay a tenth of my savings each year (and over ten times original premium) for going to europe for over 30 days. If you are so adamant we must all be insured you can always cough up the "2 or 300 pounds" (in real money "£4,300") for peace of mind and i will amend my policy.

CONCLUSION: When people are hit with unfair, unjust and unaffordable premiums they will lie to reduce them. Otherwise law abiding, good citizens like myself (worked full time since 17 years old , self funded through university, qualified accountant, current charity worker in Spain, no handouts from parents), will lie to not lose everything they've ever earned for in insurance premiums. And so will many less law abiding citizens. Yes this has a possible downside in very extreme cases, but so does driving insured (i.e. you can still kil/injure yourself/others everytime you get behind the wheel). Insurance may mitigate risk to others and compensate for injury caused (because of course everything is OK if you have no legs and £1,000,000 in the bank), but the best way to mitigate such risk to others is to not drive dangerously in the first place!

Mike

I understand this is an emotive topic, as is anything where people can potentially get maimed/injured/killed. But i do believe that emotions (particularly when inflamed in the press) often cause ill thought out reactions and posts/policies which do not confer any benefit to society.

We live in an imperfect society and many people will die and be killed with or without insurance, always have, always will. The insurance system at present is complex and has benefits/issues. The way to improve it (as with any policy) is an open minded discussion of the system and understanding of the original cause of the problems it is designed to compensate for, not a knee jerk "put em all in jail for 15 years" reaction which wouldn't be out of place on a daily mail forum

 

[cleverdicky]

Criminal injuries is another Gov. joke. Hardly to be relied upon for its intended purpose, never mind a road crash. Just ask any soldier or any one who's claimed as a victim of terrorism. Although if your maimed, you do have a better chance of receiving anything, than your family might if your killed. But not nearly as much as you get through the courts though for having a facial tick after cosmetic surgery.

But it is more about compulsory profit than fairness.
Otherwise. it would be state funded from road tax, and ways would be found to improve the standard of ALL drivers, and ensure there were no uninsured. It wouldnt matter then what people drove.

 

[chizzel89]

Why not buy a group 1 car like Metro, Nissan Micra etc. It doesn't even need to be MOT'd or Taxed for you to insure it with the Co-op or NFU Mutual who offer a 3rd party extension for drivers of ANY age (they are the only insurers who will do this... usually you have to be atleast 21 or 25 yrs old to get a DOC extension). Then you can get an oldie to unsure the Merc and be the registered keeper (you pay them to insure it) and drive the car 3rd party on your extension. It'll work out a lot cheaper I reckon.

This is how I had a 2ltr Ford Capri for my first car. Bought a knackered Citreon AX for £50 and insured it with the NFU, which cost me £800 3rd party in my name (The NFU offer 3rd party DOC extension even on 3rd party only policies!). I even asked them if there was any limit to how much I could use the 'DOC Extension' and they said I could use it as much as I wanted. So that is what I did for about 3 years. I never drove the Citroen, but my brother eventually did as a named driver a year later when we'd replaced the rear axle and head gasket (the reason for it being a scrapper) and MOT'd it.

 

[chizzel89]

... my dear late mother was the registered keeper of the Capri, and it cost her £155 fully comprehensive per year which I paid to her. So all in all I got to drive a beasty 2ltr car which looked a bit like a Mustang for my first car, and I managed to insure it all for under £1000.
During my first year, someone reversed into the side of the capri as I was leaving a car park and I succesfully claimed off their insurance using my 3rd party DOC extension... no questions asked.

Aged nearly 22 now and with almost 5yrs NCB, I can just about afford to insure my C250. That is £750 per yr fully comprehensive. Too much in my opinion. I feel I proved my driving prowess managing to keep a 2ltr Ford Capri on the road for so long!

 

[cleverdicky]

... my dear late mother was the registered keeper of the Capri, and it cost her £155 fully comprehensive per year which I paid to her. So all in all I got to drive a beasty 2ltr car which looked a bit like a Mustang for my first car, and I managed to insure it all for under £1000.
During my first year, someone reversed into the side of the capri as I was leaving a car park and I succesfully claimed off their insurance using my 3rd party DOC extension... no questions asked.

Aged nearly 22 now and with almost 5yrs NCB, I can just about afford to insure my C250. That is £750 per yr fully comprehensive. Too much in my opinion. I feel I proved my driving prowess managing to keep a 2ltr Ford Capri on the road for so long!

Great cars, I once had a 3.ltr Ghia auto. They did rust though.
What surprises me is that you had one (working) just five years ago.
Wouldn't that have been a classic insurance policy.

 

[chizzel89]

Great cars, I once had a 3.ltr Ghia auto. They did rust though.
What surprises me is that you had one (working) just five years ago.
Wouldn't that have been a classic insurance policy.

They are so cool. And they feel super solid compared to todays cars. I'd say they easily compare with my current Merc in terms of solidity. Some rust worse than others. The later German built ones (like my old one) arent bad. I discovered that it was more or less granted that every Capri would have a gammy area. With mine it was the drivers side sill. The rest of it was remarkable though. Original unwelded inner wings, chassis legs etc. No visible rust. I paid £800 for it in 2005. It had had new wings, rear arches, rear valence and a respray. As well as a rebuilt cylinder head, new clutch, rear springs, refurbed alloys and a load of other stuff I've forgotten. I basically spent my 16th summer underneath it exposing every bit of dodgyness. I welded everything that a screwdriver went through (I used to hit the end of the screwdriver with a hammer to be sure the metal was good), and ground back or treated everything else. Then sprayed about 10ltrs of waxoyl over the whole underside/ innerside/ everywhere.

It didn't need any more body work during the time I owned it other than top-ups of waxoyl here and there, stone chip repairs and regular cleaning of the various mud traps. I sold it March before last for £1600, probably in better overall condition than when I first bought it.... then spent £1300 of that on a W202.
As far as I know, my old Capri is still fine, blatting between Brecon and Norfolk every weekend

Yeah your'e right it was on a classic policy, with Lancaster.

 

[grober]

Trade it for a car with the lowest insurance rating possible till you build up an insurance record/ get older. Choose carefully - do a bit of discrete modding appearance wise and you will have a car that makes you stand out from the crowd.

 

[chizzel89]

Trade it for a car with the lowest insurance rating possible till you build up an insurance record/ get older. Choose carefully - do a bit of discrete modding appearance wise and you will have a car that makes you stand out from the crowd.

Agreed. But the OP should get one as cheap as possible (like scrap value), insure it with the NFU or Co-op in his name (even 3rd party with the NFU), have his aunt as the registered keeper of the Merc and get the cheapest possible insurance policy for that. He need not be mentioned on the Mercs policy at all... then he can drive the Merc as much as he wants with his 3rd party extended cover. It is a completely legal way for new drivers to drive high performance/ higher risk cars and not have to pay the premiums... providing they are happy with 3rd party only cover.

 

[Frontstep]

Its just not "completely legal" and would entail telling lies on you Insurance proposal, voiding the Insurance.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/7/july-innocent-non-disclosure.htm


07/18
motor – misrepresentation – owner of vehicle – father insuring son’s car – whether insurer entitled to cancel policy.
Mr H insured his car, with his son as a named driver. After the car was stolen from a supermarket car park, the insurer investigated Mr H’s theft claim and discovered the car was, in fact, registered in the name of the son, and the son was also responsible for the financing arrangement. The insurer refused to meet the claim and cancelled the policy from its start date.

Mr H admitted that he had taken out the policy in order to reduce the premium by using his no claims discount, but he argued that his son was the main user of the car.

complaint rejected
We accepted that the fact the son was the registered owner of the car was not conclusive. However, the evidence showed clearly that the son – rather than Mr H – was the main user. Mr H had misrepresented the position to the insurer and its decision to treat the policy as if it had never come into force was fully justified

 

[chizzel89]

"Mr H insured his car, with his son as a named driver. After the car was stolen from a supermarket car park, the insurer investigated Mr H’s theft claim and discovered the car was, in fact, registered in the name of the son, and the son was also responsible for the financing arrangement"

This does not represent the arrangement I was suggesting.
I suggested that the OP's M.B C180 became ENTIRELY his aunts car, so that he has nothing to do with it at all on paper. He can help her finance it off the books if he wants, so there is no paper trail.
He buys a super cheap group 1 car (metro for example) of which he is the registered keeper, for which he buys an insurance policy in his name with either the NFU Mutual or the Co-op, who will include with the policy a 3rd party 'drive any car' extension whereby he can drive ANY car not owned by him as much as he wants, providing said car is legal (MOT'd, Taxed, insured) and so long as he has permission from the owner. Note- the NFU will include this extension to him the policy holder even if he only insures the metro (or whatever it may be) 3rd party. The co-op only sell fully comprehensive policies, so for this purpose (which is for a very young driver to get himself a 'drive any car with 3rd party cover extension' with his policy) they may be more expensive.
Both the NFU and the Co-op have confirmed to me several times that you can use the 3rd party 'drive any car' cover as much as you want. All day every day if you want, which is what I did for 3 years. I now merely use it every other day. And when someone crashed into 'my mums Ford Capri 2ltr Laser' I had no trouble at all in using my 3rd party extension cover to claim off the idiot who smashed in the front wing... no questions asked, simply because it is legal.

What it boils down to is whether you mind driving around with basic insurance cover. However, when it came down to it I wanted to save hundreds and hundreds of pounds and be able to drive a really cool car for my first motoring experiences in exchange for an increased risk of my having to repair accident damage out of my own pocket, replace a cracked windscreen etc etc.

 

[chizzel89]

I got pulled over a few times in the Capri- driving around looking for raves at 3am etc, and sometimes the police were ill informed, which is why I always carried a copy of my insurance certificate stashed under the carpet so I could point to the 'has 3rd party cover in other peoples cars' bit. Thankfully they never phoned my mum up at 3am to find out if she'd given me permission. A popular belief is that there is a set in concrete rule whereby drivers under the age of 25 (or sometimes 21 if it suits them) cannot have 3rd party cover in cars not owned by them. Actually the insurance company decides what extra cover they want to give, so it is just a matter of finding a company who offers it.

 

[S500 Pete]

Hi,

As none of you know, im actually a very young mercedes driver, only at the age of 19.
Before you all make obvious judgements like; 19, drives an mb, starting a thread in the insurance area.. I actually bought the car for 'banter', my friend paid for the car when my astra was classed as an mot failure 'not fixable'.

I managed to dodge insurance quotes of £3000+, but i couldnt get it any lower than £2400 (affordable for myself)
But in the end i decided to get insured on a relatives policy to save myself the extra hundred pounds.

Yes, i know, stupid.

It eventually came to £2100 with my aunt as the main driver with 9+ years no claims and myself as the named driver with 1 years no claims and pass plus.

We mentioned to the lovely lady on the phone that she IS on another policy for her nissan almera with the no claims in use. But she had claimed that this is not an issue so we went ahead with the quote.

We recently got an email through (ecarinsurance.co.uk) telling us that the no claims bonus proof is valid but 'is still in use' therefore classed void.

Where did we go wrong?

Have you looked in to the idea that some companies now have where they fit a tracker type device in to the car that measures how you are driving and how many miles you do. They say that it allows them to charge less

 

[AdamRT]

For 3rd party personal injury, it really doesn't make any difference. If there's no insurance company then the MIB pay.

WRONG - The MIB only cover uninsured drivers not untraceable and if you don't have insurance you ain't going to hang around or give out your correct details so people like me who was hit by a guy and he gave me a false name address, the car was still registered to the previous owner lose out.

With the Motor Insurance Database it is a lot easier for the police to spot an uninsured vehicle and once you have points for 'no insurance' just wait till you get your next insurance quote!

If you insure a vehicle in someone elses name they must be the owner, the main user and you can't use it for commuting but most insurance companies arent stupid and will rate it on the young driver, also the young driver never earns any NCB whilst driving normally a smaller car and when they buy a nice one and want it in their name they don't have any NCB and pay more! its false ecomony

 

[chizzel89]

You'd be surprised about NCB's too... they're a bit bollocksy.
I forked out in a big way to have my own insurance policy from the day I started driving when I was 17. My brother was a named driver for the same length of time that I owned my own policy (5 years). When it was no longer possible for my brother to be a named driver anymore, the insurance company (NFU, and no we don't own a farm!) just said, 'its ok, seeing as you never caused us any trouble as a named driver we'll start you off on your policy as though you've been the policy holder all along- here's 5 years NCB!'. Lucky bugger...