I have been driving for 30 odd years, bikes & cars, without accident and am now looking to renew my insurance.
Oh Joy many companies advertising low cost insurance for 'Good/Safe' drivers. Let's get an online quote.........
Oh Dear! As 2 years ago & 3 years ago car was broken into..... NO (cheap) QUOTE
OK let's try ringing round for a quote.
"Ah sorry sir as 2 years ago & 3 years ago your car was broken into we cannot offer you..." etc.
"Hang on a min, that was NOT my DRIVING at fault, also I now live in Wales the break-ins occured in England!"
"Sorry sir it is your NCD we use and that has to be over 4 years without a claim."
"But your TV AD says Good/Safe (delete as appropriate) Drivers, you can see I have had NO ACCIDENTS!!"...........
Oh why do I bother? All the quotes were higher than my renewal any way and I needed to waste an afternoon/evening and spend some money on the phone ;) (hang on most of the calls were FREE!)
Maybe advertising standards?????? Any ideas anyone?
|
Sounds like shabby advertising to me. Depends if you want to hassle them for the hassle they have caused you. If you can be bothered, you can complain online to the ASA. There's a section on the site where it tells you if they can adjudicate.
www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/
Or you can say "stuff it, I've already spent enough time". Entirely your choice.
V
|
|
|
Have you looked at
www.moneysupermarket.com
and
www.travelsupermarket.com
You might get a result without even lifting the phone!
|
The advert was an invitation for you to apply for insurance, nothing more. Good/safe means low risk, and risk is assessed in the same way by all insurers.
--
L\'escargot.
|
"Good/safe means low risk"
I wonder if perhaps the OP's complaint was that the phrases "Good Driver" and "Safe Driver" have a meaning in common usage that is different from the insurance company's interpretation, namely "Low risk". ASA covers misleading as well as malicious advertising.
V
|
ASA covers misleading as well as malicious advertising.
The adverts don't make any claim or promise regarding either the price or the specification of the product.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
>> "Hang on a min, that was NOT my DRIVING at fault, also I now live in Wales the break-ins occured in England!" >>
"Hang on a min, I live in Acacia Avenue and the break- ins occured in the High Street!"
I may have missed the point, but I thought motor cars were mobile objects. Unless you think you are only responsible when the car is parked in your front room?
|
Typical insurance companies. Everything stacked firmly in their favour.
Have you tried confused.com? Saved £95 on my renewal on the Mondeo this year (and halved my excess at the same time) and it's an absolute piece of cake to use. Put your details in once and it goes off and gets you about 100 quotes. Also illustrates perfectly how wildly insurance quotes vary. Renewed on the Mondeo for £305 - quotes went up to £1700!
Give it a try anyway if you haven't already.
Cheers
DP
|
I second that suggestion:
www.confused.com
|
I don't understand your problem ffidrac. Security is a major issue taken into account by actuaries. Regardless of whether your driving is exemplary, if your car is attractive to car thieves, it will affect your premium, regardless of your location.
I notice from your profile you drive a Perouda Kenari. I don't know much about this model, but I think it is fair to assume the security protection would be quite low. A potentially vunerable car is going to push your premium up. It may not have the image of Subaru WRX, or 'maxed out' Citroen Saxo, but an easy car to steal is an easy car to steal. The fact you have already been broken into is unfortunately going to affect your premium.
--
let me be the last to let you down....
|
I don't understand your problem ffidrac
>>
The point he was making, quite correctly was that the break ins had nothing to so with his driving which is what the insurance companies say in the advert that they care about.
In practice we all know that any claim will affect the quote even if it's not in any way your fault. The adverts are simplified to the point of being almost misleading. What they really want are good/safe drivers who haven't had anything else happen to them for four years
|
|
|
"The fact you have already been broken into is unfortunately going to affect your premium."
I think the OP appears to be comaplining about the advertising specifically asking for "careful/safe drivers". Having a car broken into does not stop you being a safe or careful driver.
Something that also piques my curiosity is that you say you've moved since the break-ins, yet you're being penalised. I lived in a house in Manchester that was burgled several times, but my premium in Southampton isn't affected by that. Odd that I would have been penalised if it had been my car rather than my house.
V
|
On a similar note Direct line increased my premium when I moved from Basingstoke to the new forest, despite the latter having lower car crime figures!
I agree with the OP, if the insurance companies (unsurpisingly) want low risk drivers then that's what they should advertise, not good/safe drivers.
|
|
I was stunned, a couple of years back, when Guardian insurance declined to quote on me because I'd had a windscreen replacement claim 2 years previously! My record was otherwise unblemished and it was my first windscreen claim in about 10 years. I regard a stone damaged windscreen as an 'act of God' and nothing to do with my driving.
|
|
You're more likely to find some logic in the lotto numbers than in insurance underwriting. If it's really done by computer, then I would love to see the programs, or the parameters into those programs.
|
|
|
|
However the break-ins could have been because he left attractive items in view of the thieves, which is not carefull. As we all know, the cost of repairing the damage after a break-in is almost always greater than the value of the item stolen.
|
'However the break-ins could have been because he left attractive items in view of the thieves'
Nothing on display except Blue Badge which was not taken.
The stereo (face off) face was with me but diddn't stop one toerag trying to take it!
|
|
|
|
I regard a stone damaged windscreen as an 'act of God' and nothing to do with my driving.
It could reflect the type of roads you drive on. Since I retired and no longer have a daily 50 mile motorway commute my car's windscreen (and bodywork) suffers much less stone damage per mile.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
...... if the insurance companies (unsurpisingly) want low risk drivers then that's what they should advertise, not good/safe drivers.
Regardless of the actual words used, it's still only an invitation for you to enquire about their product. If after having enquired you then decide that you don't like the specification or price of their product you don't have to buy it. No harm done.
--
L\'escargot.
|
here is a sample of an ad for good safe drivers.
www.esure.com/e-car/cheap-car-insurance-uk.htm
which bit does vin and/or ffidrac think is misleading?
|
|
|
|
|
'Something that also piques my curiosity is that you say you've moved since the break-ins, yet you're being penalised. I lived in a house in Manchester that was burgled several times, but my premium in Southampton isn't affected by that. Odd that I would have been penalised if it had been my car rather than my house.'
When I moved here my premium shot up from £30 to £70 a month.
Lived here 2 years and (touch wood) no problems yet.
Was at my last address for 2and a half years and had the 2 break-ins.
|
|
|
|
'if your car is attractive to car thieves'
Hmmmm OK then everybody wants a Perodua Kenari then. No laughing at the back!
|
All sorted now, Thanks for comments.
The point I was trying to make was that some of the TV adverts only state GOOD or SAFE drivers making no comment about other claims.
Just for interest Virgin have cut my cover cost AND no charge for monthly payment. Total saving £163
|
|
|
|
|
|
