new insurance pains

8

8866nk

New Member
was i hearing correct about anyone having cars must insure them wether they use them or not??
anyone else hear this??
 
yes -completely true. I wrote to my MP on the subject a while back. ( I must annoy my MP but i'm a great believer in 'if you dont complain you're complicit')

You have to insure it for it to be not sorned. whether it has MOT or not.

Idea is to stop the people that SORN their car then go out driving.

Seems ridiculous to me.
 
This is where anyone with a trade policy could bring this new system to the point of collapse, by removing (particularly tax exempt cars, as you won't be paying for the tax) vehicles on and off the policy, as you are supposed to by law, but continously putting the cars on and off SORN every time you want to use it. So as an example, you tax one up after adding it to the insurance, use it for a couple of weeks, remove it from the insurance , put it on SORN and send the tax disc back, but oh dear, two days later I realise I need the car again, so re-insure, re tax and off you go all over again, a week later cash it all in and put it on SORN again, and as you can do it all online the whole system wouldn't know whether it was having a sh*t shave or shampoo if enough people did it for a month or so.......Do it with 3 or 4 cars at the same time and the whole thing will go into meltdown, and there's nothing they can do about it.
 
Not quite sure how this scheme prevents people from sorning then driving, in fact it encourages it, as if you don't sorn you automatically get a fine, so you sorn it to keep them off your back, then carry on driving.

Of course the second you pass an ANPR camera you're screwed.

I also don't understand why people are moaning about it, just sorn the car, it takes about 30seconds online.

One article I read had a guy that didn't insure his car due to the high price of insurance, drove it without insurance for 12 months before he got caught, they gave him 6 points and a fine that was less than the cost of his insurance, hardly a deterant !

The other problem is people driving cars insured by others, say you're 18 and it's £3k to insure a car, you get somebody else to insure it for £400 say, then just drive it and pretend to be them. (I'm not talking about having you as a named driver, as this would bring the price back up). As long as you don't draw attention to yourself, by speeding etc, and make sure the car is otherwise legal, (taxed, tested etc), it'll never show up on an ANPR, so you'll never get stopped.

I was wondering the other day why the insurance companies hadn't fought the recent sexism ruling, seemed obvious to me that they can prove women are a lower risk so they must be able to differentiate the pricing, it's not sexist it's just statistics and risk management. Then I realised that it simply means they can up the prices for women, and just blame it on the courts, so they're quids in.

The real problem here is the high cost of insurance, especially for young drivers, when I bought my first car it cost me £600 and the insurance was £250, now if a 17/18 year old bought a similar car (which would still be roughly the same price strangely enough), he'd be looking at £2k+ insurance. It's no wonder a lot of them don't bother, or try every scam they can.
I'm not sure what the answer is though !
 
webmaster said:
One article I read had a guy that didn't insure his car due to the high price of insurance, drove it without insurance for 12 months before he got caught, they gave him 6 points and a fine that was less than the cost of his insurance, hardly a deterant !
Click to expand...

A good friend of mine had his own Insurance Brokers business for years, and he was always saying that very thing. While the fine is less than the insurance some people will always do it, and if they get caught, they get points, so their insurance goes up, so it's even more worthwhile for them not to bother. The problem with all these measures is they gradually make things harder for the law abiding person, and do absolutely nothing to stop those who don't give a toss anyway.
 
webmaster said:
The real problem here is the high cost of insurance, especially for young drivers, when I bought my first car it cost me £600 and the insurance was £250, now if a 17/18 year old bought a similar car (which would still be roughly the same price strangely enough), he'd be looking at £2k+ insurance. It's no wonder a lot of them don't bother, or try every scam they can.
I'm not sure what the answer is though !
Click to expand...

I gave this some thought, as really the majority of younger drivers aren't the real idiots that cause the problems, so if now they had a quote of say £2K for a years insurance, but half was like a deposit that they lost if they had a claim. If they had a claim free year, then the insurance renewal for the sake of argument could be the same, £2K, but the deposit could be brought forward from the year before and so it could go on. If you want to drive like an idiot you pay for it, if you drive sensibly you can prove it over the first year, and get the benefit of it immediately. The deposit would mean the insurance companies would be getting the higher premium only if they need it. Mind you, it is late and I am tired so there's got to be a flaw in that somewhere.....
 
If the law says we have to insure when its off the road,then those who decide just to nip to the shops in it,and have an accident will find the insurance invalid!
So what are we insuring for?
We can already buy a very cheap laid up insurance for classics,thats not got road use but covers fire,theft,damage etc
It wont stop the scroats who drive without anything,coz they aint the registered owner,or even the owner in most cases,as there are what they call community cars out there,and its all to easy to bung a reg plate on that matches a known legal car!
 
ooer!
how do i deal with my long term projects then that were projects before the sorn thing?
do i need to sorn them too?
i never have done because they are below the radar as they are and years ago i got fined for i thought once sorned a car was ok until it was roadworthy.
how wrong i was was!
so i was fined for not taxing a car that was tax free!
that always rankles!
do i need to sorn my spares car ???
do i need to insure it??
 
I gave this some thought, as really the majority of younger drivers aren't the real idiots that cause the problems, so if now they had a quote of say £2K for a years insurance, but half was like a deposit that they lost if they had a claim. If they had a claim free year, then the insurance renewal for the sake of argument could be the same, £2K, but the deposit could be brought forward from the year before and so it could go on. If you want to drive like an idiot you pay for it, if you drive sensibly you can prove it over the first year, and get the benefit of it immediately. The deposit would mean the insurance companies
Click to expand...

That's actually not a bad idea... I havent heard anybody else come up with something that constructive!

Rich
 
webmaster said:
I was wondering the other day why the insurance companies hadn't fought the recent sexism ruling, seemed obvious to me that they can prove women are a lower risk so they must be able to differentiate the pricing, it's not sexist it's just statistics and risk management. Then I realised that it simply means they can up the prices for women, and just blame it on the courts, so they're quids in.
Click to expand...

Your dead right there Richard

However, the ruling is on the basis that it is a form of indirect discrimination against men. Someone tried to make the argument that insurance companies are also guilty of discrimination on age grounds because they apply weight premiums or benefits on age. This might be true, but because we all age, we all benefit at some time as we pass throught that age group. It's a bit more tricky, but not impossible, to change sex to take advantage of lower premiums therefore it's unfair to use this as a factor when determining premiums.

Dave
 
I have a van and the insurance last year was £560. In January a woman ran into the side of me. They wrote my van off, but I was allowed to buy it off them. They said repairs were going to be nearly £2000 I got the repairs done for £400. Had to get a new mot and thought all was well. Then got my renewal notice £1785. Apparently although the third party has admitted liability my ins company have not received the monies from hers. So it goes down on ins forms as my fault. I only clear my name when the funds are paid. In the meantime I have to pay the new premium. What an absolute con. I hate insurance companies.
 
That's where having fully comp isn't a good thing. You are claiming off your insurance, rather than theirs, on the basis that they will get the money back. On the basis that they have put your premium up due to the claim, there's no reason for them to chase the 3rd parties insurer anyway, they'll get their money back from you !!, I'd change insurers just for the sake of it.

3rd Party F&T with legal protection is a safer bet as your insurer won't pay you at all, so you only lose your no-claims if it was actually your fault. You use the legal cover to make the claim against the 3rd party.

We had this with an old 216 that was written off, ended up having to go to court to get the money, but we got all the expenses etc, and it never went down as a claim. Of course it meant we had to use the P6 for 6 months while the claim was going through, but that was a bonus :LOL:
 
Don't forget, you still only need insurance if the vehicle ISN'T SORN, so it has no effect on your long term projects / spares cars etc, which already need to be sorn to avoid tax fines. Just keep the vehicles sorn, it only takes a minute or two online.

I'm not entirely sure how it affects the really old - pre sorn vehicles, I've got one like that, I tried to sorn it and they wouldn't let me !
 
webmaster said:
I'm not entirely sure how it affects the really old - pre sorn vehicles, I've got one like that, I tried to sorn it and they wouldn't let me !
Click to expand...

They wouldn't let me sorn my project either. But what I will need to sort out anyway (one day) is that my car, although '72 registered, has not automatically been put onto the historic vehicle tax class, so I'll need to sort that out anyway.


rockdemon said:
I gave this some thought, as really the majority of younger drivers aren't the real idiots that cause the problems, so if now they had a quote of say £2K for a years insurance, but half was like a deposit that they lost if they had a claim. If they had a claim free year, then the insurance renewal for the sake of argument could be the same, £2K, but the deposit could be brought forward from the year before and so it could go on. If you want to drive like an idiot you pay for it, if you drive sensibly you can prove it over the first year, and get the benefit of it immediately. The deposit would mean the insurance companies


That's actually not a bad idea... I havent heard anybody else come up with something that constructive!

Rich
Click to expand...


Once flicking through tv programs, I noticed The One Show were discussing a similar topic to this last year. What a sensible first time driver had done, for cheap insurance, was have his car fitted with 'an insurance approved' box of magic... The idea was that the insurance then cost him say £500. The box then, via radio control, told the insurance company everywhere he went, his speed etc - and if he went on bendy/country (fast dangerous) roads, or above the speed limit of any and every road, or went out driving during about 10pm to 6am, then it's a £40 fine for every "offence". To me, a 15 year old classic car enthusiast, I think that's perfectly fair for first time drivers - But there are the drawbacks: Because of the electricals, it needs to be a modern car - not good. But in theory it could be fitted to a classic, however who'd want to see a nasty box of wires in their pride and joy? And also - who would want to, in effect, be spied upon until they can afford to rid the machine?

This then goes back to Harvey's idea - I can't fault that in any way. If the half price 'deposit' is payed, and no claims are made, then the young driver can then fairly pay the other half as the next years insurance. But I do suppose that the insurers could argue that that's what the NCB is for... Interesting topic.

I have recently been thinking about a first car - maybe a project to get ready for my 17th Birthday. What Nick and Duncan suggested to me last year was I could have a P6 as my first car, but because of the lack of driving experience I'd be bound to crash it, they then suggested I had a cheap car to use as a hack-a-bout, and then insure my P6 for low limited mileage, for me to use on weekends, and taking to shows. So now I've been thinking what to use as my main first car - a classic would be more enjoyable and cheaper to insure. I have been thinking along the lines of Vauxhall Chevette 1.3 or Triumph Acclaim 1.3 and similar - something that's ultra cheap. Even an Austin Allegro... do I need a straight jacket? :LOL: Maybe not as I'd still have a P6, whatever happens. Any way, I've got 2 years to think about that, so hmmm... :)

Cheers, Adam.
 
The Cheveette and the Acclaim are really excellent cars to drive - when in good condition. The Allegro marginally less so.

Chris
 
Adam Birch said:
They wouldn't let me sorn my project either. But what I will need to sort out anyway (one day) is that my car, although '72 registered, has not automatically been put onto the historic vehicle tax class, so I'll need to sort that out anyway.
Click to expand...

It won't be. If it's been off the road since before the historic class/sorn was introduced, you'd have to pay for your disc as it will still be PLG registered. To have the class changed on your logbook for your free tax disc, you'll have to MoT it & then take it to your local DVLA office for inspection, which will be Chelmsford in your case. I had this with our P4 which had been off the road for over twenty years when I bought her.
It's no problem, they'll check it's the car the logbook says it is & change the tax class & give you your free disc while you wait.
 
I had a Chevette as my first car, although at the time they weren't particularly old !! :oops:

I had a 4 door saloon in what we affectionately called "sh*t brown", actually it was "coppertone starfire", a sort of metalic sh*t brown. :LOL:

I loved that car, went everywhere in it, not a bad motor at all, although they did rot quite badly, I replaced both sills and did a few other welding repairs to the floorpan.

I'd be happy to recommend one to anybody. Although I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning behind not having a P6, I you drive reasonably carefully you won't write it off, after all they were the safest car in the world when new !
 
I'm inclined to agree with Richard. I learnt to drive on a '65 2000SC without accident. Except that the first time I was allowed to take it out on my own I felt the need to see how fast it would go (92 and still climbing) and that wrote off the gearbox bearings. It was old by then - 7 years and 80k mls.

Chris
 
+1 First car was a grey 2000 on a C plate :D

I did crash it once being a fool but soon repaired it :oops:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top