Getting tired of the effort it takes to save money......

[twentysix by twentyfive]

When linking through from the comparison site my price jumped from £630 to....... nearly £1200

Clear out your cookies.

 

[Drago]

This is heady stuff. I'm looking forward to the money off coupon thread.

 

[Wobblers]

There must be a simpler way?

There is: ditch the car and go and live in a cave.

Problem solved! (No need to thank me )

 

[I like Skol]

Clear out your cookies.

Well I did hammer the bourbons and the custard creams while I was doing the shopping around but didn't spot any cookies in the tin or else might have 'cleared them out' too

 

[I like Skol]

Gosh, this is nearly as exciting as that yellow stickering thread.

Sod off you! This is an important [1st world] problem and needs to be talked about. I didn't realise you had excess funds and didn't care what things cost

 

[potsy]

Gosh, this is nearly as exciting as that yellow stickering thread.

Impossible!!

 

[Salty seadog]

£1200 for car insurance!!!

Perhaps driving a Bentley and putting "mercenary" as an occupation isn't terribly cost effective?

Without NCB protection and legal cover mine costs barely a one-er.

Mind you, you're car smells of wee...

 

[slowmotion]

We got sent a renewal notice for our home insurance a couple of months ago, together with a cost of renewal. It was a few quid more than the previous year so I phoned them to say "Yes". They started asking me questions. I interrupted and told them that absolutely nothing had changed since the previous year, and couldn't we both save ourselves a bit of time? No. Ten minutes later, they gave me a quotation that was £150 more than the one on the renewal notice. I asked why?

"That was just an illustration".

The entire industry is manned by ragged spivs.

 

[Drago]

Indeed. The algorithms they use are very clever. The insurance industries perception of "risk" is far from always a measure of that which genuinely presents a significant risk, but in large part includes a calculation as to how affluent they believe the customer to be, and thus how much they can make them pay.

I discovered this first hand. 7 years ago I moved almost exactly 1 mile, from an already nice street to a more affluent area. Unsurprisingly, my car insurance went up about 20%. Being a copper at the time I was able to check both the crime and RTC data for both areas, and lo and behold - the new area had lower recorded crime, and lower rates of reported RTC's. Indeed, the only thing that had gone up in my new area was the average salaries.

I rang my insurers and presented them with this information. After lots of "oh" and "ah"ing they returned my premium to its previous figure. The local radio even ran a brief piece about it, although ultimately the insurer kept publicly schtum.

So there you go, good evidence that a significant part of their calculations is the customers ability to support a particular price. Actual empirical demonstrable "risk" can be a very minor element in their calculations.

 

[screenman]

The way I see it Foss the speed limit is 70, and even the cheaper cars will do that. So long as they are reliable and keep my brogues dry in the rain then I'm happy. Along with this pragmatism comes cheap insurance.

Not wasting money in this sort of thing allowed me to quit work at 47. Every time someone buys/leases/PCPs themselves a flash German car they're simply adding unnecessary years to their working lives, while at the same time moaning they'll have to work until at least 67. Go figure.

Are you sure it had nothing to do with you being in a very generous pension scheme

 

[srw]

includes a calculation as to how affluent they believe the customer to be, and thus how much they can make them pay.

Absolute rubbish.

 

[I like Skol]

Indeed. The algorithms they use are very clever. The insurance industries perception of "risk" is far from always a measure of that which genuinely presents a significant risk, but in large part includes a calculation as to how affluent they believe the customer to be, and thus how much they can make them pay.

I discovered this first hand. 7 years ago I moved almost exactly 1 mile, from an already nice street to a more affluent area. Unsurprisingly, my car insurance went up about 20%. Being a copper at the time I was able to check both the crime and RTC data for both areas, and lo and behold - the new area had lower recorded crime, and lower rates of reported RTC's. Indeed, the only thing that had gone up in my new area was the average salaries.

I rang my insurers and presented them with this information. After lots of "oh" and "ah"ing they returned my premium to its previous figure. The local radio even ran a brief piece about it, although ultimately the insurer kept publicly schtum.

So there you go, good evidence that a significant part of their calculations is the customers ability to support a particular price. Actual empirical demonstrable "risk" can be a very minor element in their calculations.

That doesn't work because I live in a deprived shoothole!

 

[Drago]

Absolute rubbish.

Is it? How do you account for my experience, moving to a provably lower risk area only to have premiums rise? If you have any insight into that i'd be genuinely interested to hear it.

The insurers are forever telling us their charges are based upon risk, when in my example that was demonstrably, absolutely that was not the case. So what did drive the rise in premium?

 

[srw]

Is it? How do you account for my experience, moving to a provably lower risk area only to have premiums rise? If you have any insight into that i'd be genuinely interested to hear it.

The insurers are forever telling us their charges are based upon risk, when in my example that was demonstrably, absolutely that was not the case. So what did drive the rise in premium?

The insurers were right, you misunderstood the risk and successfully negotiated a better deal.

If insurance company A deliberately overcharges risk group X it will be undercut by company B that doesn't. It's called a market.

 

[Drago]

I had empirical data that the risk of loss, damage, or injury was lower than my previous address. I wasn't insured for any thing else, and all the criteria they regard as risk were reduced.

Where is the misunderstanding? Please, feel free to expand upon the misunderstanding. The consumer experts at the BBC couldn't identify the misunderstanding, and neither can I. Risk provably reduces, numbers to prove it, yet prices rise - no latitude for misunderstanding there.

Your final sentence is correct if all companies behave in a logical, market driven fashion. Unfortunately, insurers do not, as the rampant abuse of hire car charges to which they all are guilty will attest. They're driven my profit opportunity, no matter how illogical it may ultimately be, and how unsustainable or dangerous to the long-term health of the industry it may be. The idea of maintaining a stable and sustainable market using established business practice to tap into legitimate market forces and trends is alien to them. All they want is maximum nickel and dime now. Today. And to Hell with tomorrow.