I am currently renewing my car insurance (currently with Admiral) and telephoning around for new quotes. I was thinking about contacting Esure, Churchill and Norwich Union Direct. Has anyone any specific recommendations? I also have just been hit with my first speeding charge in 23 years of driving (73mph in a 50mph zone - very stupid - my fault entirely - lost track of my speed), so advice on an insurer that would take a reasonably lenient view of this lapse once the points and fine appear (does anyone know what I should expect?) would be appreciated.
As a side issue, one factor that always appears to put my insurance up is that I had optional alloy wheels, off the maufacturer's options list, factory fitted to my car when I bought it two years ago. Insurers appear to view this as a "modification". Can anyone explain the logic of this as it appears to add approx 20% to my insurance and as the standard model has alloys anyway, it appears a bit OTT.
Thanks for your help
|
|
Try www.confused.com - enter your info once and they'll find the best online quote for you from the companies you mention.
|
The non-option alloy wheels make you appear to be a committed boy racer; few people spend £500+ on a set of aftermarket alloys without flattering themselves that their driving needs them unfortunately. Consequently they tend to crash more as well as making their car more attractive to thieves, at least in theory. My father actually had something similar on a Rover he had in the late 90s and although he declared them, his insurers, CIS, were happy to overlook the premium. The fact that he was in his early 70s at the time may have helped.
A lot depends on your age (40+, obviously), claims history, location and of course the car you're driving. Tesco, Direct Line www.directline.com , Elephant www.elephant.co.uk and Budget Insurance (the latter being my insurer) www.budgetinsurance.com are all very good in my experience. I found confused.com to be offering the same service as other online brokers but with a higher commission, or maybe they just have a different risk profile.
By the way, I am 24 and in London, driving a 14 year old Renault 19 1.7 which is group 12 but very staid looking. Some people take it to be equivalent to a performance car, others look at the power output and value and assess it much more cheaply.
|
David
Thanks for that but the wheels were off the standard options list and were factory fitted before the car was delivered. It was an aesthetic thing, I just thought they looked better. I could understand more if I fitted a specialist body kit and in hindsight had I realised it would incur a 20% incremental insurance premium, I probably would not have bothered. As you have correctly gathered from my age, I am a tad old to be a boy racer.
I will follow up on your insurance recommendations.
|
I should just clarify a couple of things. When you said 'off the list' I took it to mean 'not on the list' rather than 'from the list'... my car actually has factory fitted alloy wheels (steels where standard) and my last insurers were completely nonplussed by that.
Also, I have only used Budget (so far so good, no claims though) and they are far better than my last insurers, whom I would neither name nor recommend. I haven't heard anything bad about any of the others though.
|
|
The non-option alloy wheels make you appear to be a committed boy racer; few people spend £500+ on a set of aftermarket alloys without flattering themselves that their driving needs them unfortunately. Consequently they tend to crash more as well as making their car more attractive to thieves, at least in theory.
David
I am in no way a 'boy racer'
I do like having a nice looking car, which can and does include alloys.
I do not crash more often (one minor bump in 13 years driving, currently 8 years ncb).
People like to personalise their possessions, things like alloy wheels do that. I agree that boy racers can be a menace, but you don't have to have a nice car to be a boy racer. If someone spends all their spare money on their car, to personalise it and takes good care of the car, why doesn't it follow that they might actually drive it well and crash less often because they want to take care and keep it?
Jonathan
|
It doesn't follow on automatically, but at least to a certain extent cars that are modified cosmetically or for performance must attract higher claims as a group.
I accept that there's an element of profiteering (at least from some insurers) but if there were no difference at all in the risk then insurers that didn't charge extra would thrive and be known for it.
Maybe it's just that by spending money on the car you've shown that you're willing to pay a premium, in both senses of the word?
|
|
|
Jonathan said
I am in no way a 'boy racer' >>
The key words in DavidHM's post were ">> make you appear >> ".
The insurance industry is one where they are legally allowed to discriminate and have prejudices. If they think a certain type of behaviour is stereotypical of a a certain risk category, that's where you will be typecast. It is up to you then to prove them wrong with your 8 yrs ncd and be put out of their "box". take an extreme example: A newly qualified 17 year old male driver is classed as high risk even though he has never driven before on his own. This young man may go on, never to have any accidents or convictions in his life.
Also, if you fit the additional suspension mod as discussed by HJ today in
www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/index.htm?news_id=1043
the insurance company might consider you a higher risk, even though according to HJ, " .... Fitting a suspension muscle spring kit is likely to improve road safety and increase the life of a vehicle. ..... "
|
|
|
|
|
daveyjp
Well done. Ive just saved 30% on my renewal via www.confused.com
Have a virtual pint on me (no driving after of course)
Cheers
|
|
|
|
As a side issue, one factor that always appears to put my insurance up is that I had optional alloy wheels, off the maufacturer's options list, factory fitted to my car when I bought it two years ago. Insurers appear to view this as a "modification". Can anyone explain the logic of this as it appears to add approx 20% to my insurance and as the standard model has alloys anyway, it appears a bit OTT.
Seems possible to me that you may have confused your Insurer in the same way that you did DavidHM. My car has a factory fitted "sports-pack, which includes modified suspension and 17" alloy wheels" from the standard options list. This has never caused my Insurer any problem and I always notify them in writing after every renewal that "car has following extras fitted from manufacturers standard options list, and you have agreed that these do not constitute a modification".
As for your first question, sorry I cannot be of help as I have fortunately never been in that situation. I would imagine that companies such as E-sure are looking for people with 4 year plus clean records.
|
Since we are on the topic of insurance thought I ask two questions which I had in mind to put to the wisdom of the back room. First, a friend of mine went to have his insurance renewed, and the premium on TPFT was `more expensive? by couple of hundred pounds, than full comprehensive. What is the logic in that? I have failed to find any scenarios which would make it more cost effective for the insurer to insure full comprehensive rather than TPFT. Am I missing something?
Secondly, supposing you have two cars, A and B, A is group 10, B is group 5. Further suppose you are fully insured to drive car A. Now why do you need insurance to drive car B? I ask this because since car B is obviously a less powerful and less `risky? car, every time you are driving B, you have less of a chance to have an accident. The point is at any one time you cannot drive both cars, so you must be in one. Therefore if the insurance has accepted the risk , that you drive a group 10 car `all the time?, then surely I can?t see the reason you must pay even more money NOT to drive that car all the time and drive a less powerful one instead?!?! So I can?t understand why rather than encouraging you to drive your less powerful car, you end up paying more if you want to use it? again, am I missing something? Or there is a known logic for this? I ask this because I have three cars, two of which are fully road worthy, as in, MOT and everything is fine. One is an AX diesel 14 TGD (group 6), the other AX petrol 14 TZX (group 7). Apart from the engine, the cars are exactly the same, same colour, same number of doors, same tyres, same trim, same radio, even down to bumper colour. I would think then if I was insured for the TZX, I could drive the TGD as well, but apparently not, even thought, as I said the ONLY difference is that the other car has a `less powerful? diesel engine. So why is that I have to get two times insured? so there you go, my two questions to you, hope I get enlightened. Cheers..
|
My car has factory-fitted metallic paint from the options list, but I've never heard of anyone declaring that to an insurance company as a modification.
Ian
|
Liverpool Victoria seem to be very fair with Mods. My Caravelle has wheelchair mods and a chip with no additional premium.
They even suggested that alloy wheels would not be a problem.
Considering that they are at least £100 less than other insurers
I think they are worth a look.
Mark
|
|
All very well if you're a Mod. But what about us lesser mortals? ;)
|
|
|
|
I'm 19 and the Xantia has alloys fitted (Aftermarket ones). CIS did not raise the premium, but then I doubt the Xantia is the boyracers car of choice...
|
Thanks for all your comments. Just to let you know that I have renewed with Churchill (best quote from two brokers), including an assumed at this stage SP30 speeding points and fine, which has not impacted the premium.
on the issue of modifications, their position is that non standard alloy wheels (anything other than the base standard wheels) are modifications but if they have been taken from the standard options list, they do not attract an incremental premium, which I was being charged with Admiral.
One last point on the speeding fine. I was caught on the A3 and as I have stated, this is my first fine in 20+ years of driving (including a fair bit of time on this stretch of road). I have just learnt that a colleague of mine has been caught as well (again for the first time). Given the recent news about the South East Police being given targets on speed restrictions, it may be indicative that this stretch of road is being targeted.
|
"caught on the A3 and as I have stated, this is my first fine in 20+ years of driving (including a fair bit of time on this stretch of road). I have just learnt that a colleague of mine has been caught as well (again for the first time)."
This tends to bear out the prediction that 3m people will have been booked for speeding by 2005 (I might have the figures a bit wrong but it's been discussed on here before)
|
I'd give Norwich Union Direct a call, very good service and after three years with them and some major car problems (including a no-fault write-off and subsequent civil damages claim) they have been absolutely first class.
After three years they are still the best quote I get. I also have an SP30 earned in dubious circumstances, a camera behind a tree, no repeater signs or camera signs and 36mph in a 30mph zone.
Made no difference to them, they allow one SP30 as they are becoming quite common.
I've tried confused.com before and they've not been able to beat my NU quote so far.
|
I'm a bit confused as Norwich Union and Norwich Union Direct seem to behave as different companies. But you may be able to get houshold insurance will cheaper if you go with them too.
|
I\'m a bit confused as Norwich Union and Norwich Union Direct seem to behave as different companies. But you may be able to get houshold insurance will cheaper if you go with them too.
They are two different children of the same parent - last renewal i queried Norwich Union Direct\'s quote with Norwich Union, pointing out it was £100 cheaper - did they offer to match it - No, they said NUD is a different company and you\'ll have to deal with them !! Needless to say, I dont deal with either of them
I have to grow old - but I don\'t have to grow up
|
|
|
|
