Silly insurance prices

My insurance reduced last year, but has nearly doubled this year with no changes and full NCB.

2022 - £390
2023 - £320
2024 - £560

I also tried comparison websites and the cheapest I could find was £600, so have stayed with LV.

I’ll have to do a phone round. Although I’m beginning to wonder if it is because I have a Luton postcode, despite the fact I actually live in a different county to Luton.

jlines wrote:

All of mine have gone up over the past year when up until then it had been getting lower as I've got older. My SZ5 went up by £114 which I managed to haggle back down by £70 but still didn't leave me happy. Comparison sites were even more! My new commerical was a right headache to insure as that needs Van insurance and modified insurance with most refusing. Adrian flux wanted over 1k when I basically have the same car in SZ5 form for around £426. After searching around I managed to get it insured for under £700 which I'm not happy with but didn't have much choice due to needing it the next day whereas now to get the best comparison price you need to be shopping around 2 months before your renewal. I also think its one big scam at the moment and possibly even trying to get people out of cars. I can see though why it has potentially gone up when you see things like thefts (dependant on area you live), new fancy cars which are written off easily or are very expensive to repair nowadays, general idiots damaging or flooding out their cars from what you see on youtube so its no surprise its gone up. I heard someone explain how basically insurance is a big pot of money which everyone feeds into and that your not paying for just your car but also everyone elses. My SJ is up for renewal soon so will be interesting to see how much that has gone up although it has such a low value similar to bigjimny so shouldn't be too bad. For my newer Jimnys which are due for renewal in september I plan to shop around early august. Don't forgot you can quote Bigjimny as a car club/Organisation you belong to help lower insurance.



 

For obvious reasons, any insurance company will refuse to pay a claim if you do not abide by their rules and regulations and one of these is that you must drive in a responsible manner. Some years ago an acquaintance drove his brand new BMW 5 series through a local ford and effectively destroyed it. His insurance company refused the claim because he acted recklessly. 

Roger 

Gadget wrote:

My insurance reduced last year, but has nearly doubled this year with no changes and full NCB.

2022 - £390
2023 - £320
2024 - £560

I also tried comparison websites and the cheapest I could find was £600, so have stayed with LV.
 

My Gen3 went from £200 (inc breakdown) to £250 (inc breakdown), fully comp, but limited mileage (6k miles), with 4 years no claims, renewing with Churchill last October.  I know it's a lot less than you guys are paying, but my Gen 3 is worth a lot less than your Gen 4s.

Basically I haven't had a claim in about 25 years, but my no claims is used on my other car, you can't use it twice, which had been about £170 (inc breakdown) for the last few years, but was £150 (inc breakdown) fully comp, but limited mileage (5k miles) last March with Dial Direct.  I would have insured my Jimny with them, but it seems you can only have one policy. 

A bit crazy, this, I can only drive one car at once and only need breakdown services on one vehicle at once, but have to pay twice.  Also if I am unlucky enough to have a claim, I assume both policies will take a hit on the NCB?

I fully expect both to go up this year, based on what everyone is saying.

Robin

Any NCB is associated to a policy, not the individual.
If you are unlucky enough to make a claim every policy is impacted, not directly by loss of NCD on any one (you can protect it), but the favourite question "have you had an accident or made a claim in the past 5 years". You say yes they shove your premium up, even if it wasn't your fault and you got your excess back, which appears to be an indicator of liability. 

Scimike wrote:

Any NCB is associated to a policy, not the individual.
If you are unlucky enough to make a claim every policy is impacted, not directly by loss of NCD on any one (you can protect it), but the favourite question "have you had an accident or made a claim in the past 5 years". You say yes they shove your premium up, even if it wasn't your fault and you got your excess back, which appears to be an indicator of liability. 

 

Insurers have about a hundred years of statistics, and can extract the data to model pretty much anything.(31 year olds who drive green cars crash more often, and the average cost per crash is £3500 etc)

They have found that people who have an accident or make a claim- even if it is not their fault ( in the true sense of fault, rather than there was no-one to claim off) go on to have further claims, so they bump up the any premium offered to that driver to reflect the increased risk.

Think of insurance as a bet, you are betting that your car gets written off in the next 12 months, the insurer is setting the odds, so they lower the odds if they think it is more likely!

 

Except that I'm not betting on anything as that implies choice on my part, but in fact I'm being legally forced to have a product at my expense which in principle is supposed to meet the potential costs I might Incur in the event of a collision or other financial loss. These costs being artificially inflated by the practices of the very industry that I have to buy the initial product from thus making it impossible for me to cover the costs without purchasing the product. That the suppliers of these products then attempt to become a quasi-judicial authority imposing sanctions over and above any that the criminal justice system may see fit in the event of liability in the form of entirely arbitrary premiums based on demographics, geographical and statistical manipulation is frankly offensive.

Lambert wrote:

Except that I'm not betting on anything as that implies choice on my part, but in fact I'm being legally forced to have a product at my expense which in principle is supposed to meet the potential costs I might Incur in the event of a collision or other financial loss. These costs being artificially inflated by the practices of the very industry that I have to buy the initial product from thus making it impossible for me to cover the costs without purchasing the product. That the suppliers of these products then attempt to become a quasi-judicial authority imposing sanctions over and above any that the criminal justice system may see fit in the event of liability in the form of entirely arbitrary premiums based on demographics, geographical and statistical manipulation is frankly offensi



 

If you want something you invariably need to pay for it and the higher the quality the higher the cost and it's no different in buying insurance. You have a choice and you look for the one that will supply your needs and you pay the money. You bet that they will come up trumps if you have an accident and they bet you will be a careful driver and not have an accident. If at the end of the year you are accident free then they breath a sign of relief and you should be happy that you had insurance for that lapse of concentration. Costs incurred in an accident, based on comments from forum members seem inflated because of costs of parts and labour prices. Your insurance company is hardly likely to want these figures to be inflated when it is they who are paying the bills so it seems to me unfair that you are blaming the insurance companies.

Roger

Roger Fairclough wrote:

Lambert wrote:

Except that I'm not betting on anything as that implies choice on my part, but in fact I'm being legally forced to have a product at my expense which in principle is supposed to meet the potential costs I might Incur in the event of a collision or other financial loss. These costs being artificially inflated by the practices of the very industry that I have to buy the initial product from thus making it impossible for me to cover the costs without purchasing the product. That the suppliers of these products then attempt to become a quasi-judicial authority imposing sanctions over and above any that the criminal justice system may see fit in the event of liability in the form of entirely arbitrary premiums based on demographics, geographical and statistical manipulation is frankly offensi




 

If you want something you invariably need to pay for it and the higher the quality the higher the cost and it's no different in buying insurance. You have a choice and you look for the one that will supply your needs and you pay the money. You bet that they will come up trumps if you have an accident and they bet you will be a careful driver and not have an accident. If at the end of the year you are accident free then they breath a sign of relief and you should be happy that you had insurance for that lapse of concentration. Costs incurred in an accident, based on comments from forum members seem inflated because of costs of parts and labour prices. Your insurance company is hardly likely to want these figures to be inflated when it is they who are paying the bills so it seems to me unfair that you are blaming the insurance companies.

Roger

Unfortunately I don't have 5 million plus pounds in my current account so therefore I am unable to choose to self insure. So I have to choose from maybe a thousand insurance brokers. They in turn have product available from a few hundred insurance companies. These companies products are then held by a handful of underwriters. Those underwriters base their cover on the information on the singular insurance industry database and all this is hidden behind statutory regulation. That is not a choice, it is the illusion of choice. Just like a hustler making you take the card they want you to from the deck fanned before you.

As for the costs coming from labour and parts, again the industry nominates repairers purportedly to maintain standards but you go to one and get a quote and then say oh no this is private work not insurance and the price falls in pieces. And yet I'm expected to believe that insurance companies who have entire teams of people set to minimise costs are somehow unable to see through this and suspend approved status and investigate further. Sorry but the other one has bells on.

Of course the problem is going to come when the bubble bursts which is inevitable eventually. There is going to be a tipping point whereby the public in enough quantities decides that the penalty for driving without insurance is less than the premium and they assess the risk in favour of not having insurance which then leaves the insurance industry unable to cover its costs from the remaining premium revenues and so the bubble pops. Just like every other financial institution when people lose faith, stock market crashes, runs on banks etc etc.

There's an old adage in shepherd circles, you can shear a sheep every year but you can only cut its throat once.

Many years ago I was given two options, get a decent education, spend as much of my life working for myself so as to accrue the money to live well, and realise that the world was not utopia and it was therefore far better to accept what was what and become a realist. This way I don't need to worry about insurance rates as they are what they are.

Or,

Become a pessimist, believe everybody is trying to con you and close down anybody who disagrees with your doctrine.

I chose the former.

Roger

I'm late 20s, 07 automatic, £750 with 0 NCB given I had a write-off last year... All things considered it could have been much worse.

I have to say I'm with Lambert and his views but have found that Suzuki's own insurance has been very competitive and has even allowed me to specify the agreed value of my gen 4 . They also don't require me to tell them of every little change I make to the car, not that I have. Mine is agreed at £28K as that was the price Suzuki dealers were asking for a car in similar condition to my own. Cost this year was just under £400 fully comp if I remember correctly. Thankfully I have not had to make a claim to see how they handle that but when I took the policy out they did assure me they would find a similar vehicle in similar contition to my own should the very worst happen and a replacement be needed. They record everything if done over the phone as all insurers do so Ithey have a record of the conversation. As an anacdote I had to change my house insurer this year, they had allowed me an extra year on their policy as when I took out the original policy about five years ago I made it very clear over the phone exactly what I wanted and made specific requests that they agreed to. A year ago they said theyn should not have agreed to some of the conditions I specified but as it was on record (a telephone call) they agreed to keep covering me for an extra year at a competitive price. I have found house insurance in the intervening time that addresses all my needs and it's actually cheaper than my previous insurer. My advice is to forget comparison sites and do your own research, talk to them and state exactly what you want, it becomes part of the contract if they agree to what you ask, play them at their own game, you may win of find a better company.