I am in the middle of the annual car insurance quotation round for both our cars. Since we insure our house through Sainsbury's Insurance I gave them a call about the cars. They would not give me a quote because I had made a theft claim recently (actually, it was ofr damage caused during an attempted theft). They told me it was their policy not to quote if there had been any claims for theft.
How odd. Just because my car has been broken into does not make me a worse driver or a greater risk. (or does it??).
Anyone any idea why this might be?
|
|
It obviously makes you a higher risk, in their view. A claim is a claim and their records show that you have made one. You might get some good quotes thru Frizzells (0800 374028). I have just renewed my insurance with them, they act for Liverpool Victoria, and I paid the same premium as last year too. They were £100 cheaper than Norwich Union and £40 cheaper than e-sure and this is on a premium that I actuall pay which is under £200!
|
|
|
Anyone any idea why this might be?
In their view, you are a greater risk - until you are again claim free for 4 years.
Sainsbury's car insurance is provided by Esure (subsidiary of Halifax/Bank-of-Scotland in partnership with the founder of Direct Line). They offer some of the lowest quotes, but will only take on low risk customers.
I seem to recall a recent ad on TV (but I forget who by) where an insurance company is offering to beat any quote you can get from a rival.
|
|
I can understand that claims make me a higher risk. However, they were OK with the claim I made for a minor prang; it was the fact that I had made a theft claim that automatically disqualified me. I was told it was the underwriter's policy to provide quotes in cases where there had been a theft. Accidents were not a disbar.
|
Perhaps its because with claims of theft they think you must or might live in a high risk area so the chances of the car being stolen are increased. And most cars that are stolen are rarely recovered. With accident claims, and minor ones the damage can usually be repaired at a sml cost to the insurance company where as with total losses they are paying out alot more.
I might be wrong but thats one reason it could be. They'd prefer not to take the risk at all.
|
|
|
|
The TV advertisement for the insirance company that promised to beat any quote you can get was "Egg Motor"!
On making enquiries a couple of months ago I found Liverpool Victoria to be very competitive; they do, of course, also underwrite Frizell's but are cheaper as L V.
I don't think that Liverpool Victoria have been in the car insurance market for very long, so are quite keen to attract new business. However, they are, of course, a very old and well established company, having been originally formed as one of the friendly societies.
|
|
|
|
Weird or what? I thought that was the whole point of insurance ie in the event of an accident or theft etc.
Obviously they want to keep the payouts to a minimum which is their right I suppose.
As for Frizzells, I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole. Every quote I had from them was considerably higher than other insurers. They may be cheaper if you live down south on a like to like basis but nationwide they just don't measure up. (They offer supposedly competitive insurance to civil servants but I never found it so.)
|
Seems most odd without them asking some further questions. Did they want to know anything about the circs?. The station car park here in Northampton used to be a car crime hot spot, so the fact that i left my car there every day would be relevant. But if it was a one off when parked in a country lane the insurance risk is completely different.
Possibly the agent you spoke to was new or misread his script?
|
|
|
|
