car insurance unemployed

lisyloo

I now know why so many people drive un-insured.

So if you can't afford something, then that justifies stealing off other people?
If you do this you are effectively stealling off all honest motorists (of which you were one once) about £30 each.

Does your partner have a car?
Could you manage on one car?
Could you drive your partner to work on days you need to get to interviews?

We are managing on one car (through choice) and with motorbikes, bicycles, shanks pony, trains etc. we are managing quite well. I am also certain that during the winter when I start walking more to the train station that I will get fitter and lose weight as a bonus.

pickle-eater

lisyloo wrote: »

I now know why so many people drive un-insured.

So if you can't afford something, then that justifies stealing off other people?
If you do this you are effectively stealling off all honest motorists (of which you were one once) about £30 each.

Good to see reactionary moralising is still alive and well.. but how exactly does your statement relate to droogul personally? And stealing off other honest motorists at £30 head?.. have you done the actuarial math for this?

olly300

gaz_jones wrote: »

Why just because someone is unemployed do they have to be poor? My dad is unemployed and he has a lot of money. My mum still works but only as she say's she would be bored if she didn't. They both have enough money to live comfortably on even if they were both unemployed.

raskazz has explained all this.

Is your dad claiming state job seeker benefits or registered as unemployed? If he is then he has to put unemployed down.

If he isn't then he can put "house husband" or "independent means".

gaz_jones wrote: »

What about lottery winners? A lot of them are going to be unemployed and they'll still have a lot more money than I imagine you ever will.

They have "independent means".

gaz_jones wrote: »

I've got a mate that has a habit of working for a few years then he goes on a massive trip. Like 5 years ago he went around australia for 6 months. Last year he went round America for abotu 4 months. During that time he was unemployed but once again it doesn't make him poor.

If he isn't claiming benefits then he has "independent means".

olly300

pickle-eater wrote: »

Good to see reactionary moralising is still alive and well.. but how exactly does your statement relate to droogul personally?

She is just pointing out that as motor insurance is a legal requirement if you can't afford it you need to think of another legal way to get around your situation i.e. don't drive, get rid of your car and become a named driver on someone elses.

pickle-eater wrote: »

And stealing off other honest motorists at £30 head?.. have you done the actuarial math for this?

Motor insurers publish yearly the amount of each premium that goes to cover accidents caused by uninsured drivers.

dacouch

http://www.mib.org.uk/Frequently+Asked+Questions/en/Default.htm

pickle-eater

I have a query on this matter as I have been following the car-insurance picking procedure that Martin provides here closely.

I am unemployed and currently claiming benefits and have been using my mother's car for 'essential' journeys, mostly for tasks relating to my young family; large 'shops', taking my wife on a number of trips to hospital etc. My father as registered keeper, decided that the balance of use, as my mother hardly uses the car, is now on my side and that I must re-insure as main driver and policy holder. To be honest, it is a cost I can little afford as I currently unable to make even our rent payments, but my father will pay half the cost for continued use by other family members. Naturally, I want to have the occasional use of the car for the above uses, which simplifies life and gives back some 'time' for our many other daily responsibilities. As such I need to find the cheapest appropriate insurance.
So, I did a check on the MSE insurance job picker and plugged in 'unemployed' and a 'low-end' comparison quote and got given
'househusband' (and retired) as other potential options with a near on £50 cheaper quote. Of course, following the advice in the procedure, I considered "could I 'equally' well be described as a househusband! by those who know me" and my answer was "most certainly"; I do a large amount of housework and take care of the baby and 3-year-old.

So my question is if I can rightfully describe myself as a 'housebusband' when I am not actively searching for work would I face rebuke by an insurance company through voiding a policy as I am also unemployed, and if so how easily could they make that distinction (I would imagine they would have access to this sort of data)?
Does anyone know?

*Scarlett

Normally the insurer would be able to enter your normal occupation, type of business, and employment status - ie unemployed.

It is up to the insurer at that point to quote you and advise cover. Obviously you need to disclose relevant details if asked.

There's no reason that I can see that insurer won't cover an unemployed person providing they pay for their policy either monthly or in full.

pickle-eater

dacouch; olly300

Sorry folks I think you misunderstood what I was getting at!
I was referring to the fact that the comment that droogul made was one of exacerbation at cost and merely said "I now know why so many people drive un-insured. "; to which lisyloo replied that "If you do this you are effectively stealling off all honest motorists (of which you were one once) about £30 each" - tell me I'm wrong but I read this to imply that droogul is no longer an 'honest motorist' (ie that he would drive without insurance or would knowingly defraud his insurance): I can't see that can be derived from what he has said!
That said the MIB do say that the effect of the uninsured is between £15 and £30 on policies in general. I certainly don't advocate being uninsured and I'm sure no-one would want to be on the receiving end of such a claim; and I have been hit by an uninsured in the past, I know.

PS olly300, I just notice you have highlighted my next question in part regarding whether I would qualify as a househusband or unemployed only; in fact the question is more broadly presented as it specifically appears as an viable alternative descriptor on the MSE car insurance job calculator and as such may be falsely asserting that it could be an alternative: there is no indicator as to what kind of unemployed that person would be i.e. claiming benefits or simply not working and not being describable as either homemaker or retired. Also the distinction may lay open the fact that all unemployed are lumped together (the newly-unemployed, the criminally active, the circumstantially desperate, the financially constrained, leisure-seekers etc) and so all people in this category necessarily suffer the increased cost created by the 'certain' segments. At least some of these elements could be flayed out and dissociated from the pack; and I'm sure many of the 100s of thousands of 1000s of recently unemployed this past year would be wishing just that.

pickle-eater

*Scarlett wrote: »

Normally the insurer would be able to enter your normal occupation, type of business, and employment status - ie unemployed.

It is up to the insurer at that point to quote you and advise cover. Obviously you need to disclose relevant details if asked.

There's no reason that I can see that insurer won't cover an unemployed person providing they pay for their policy either monthly or in full.

Thanks Scarlett, you are probably right in this regard; I did read other posts/advice elsewhere to that effect. the only thing is that the feature is not obvious in any of the comparison sites I used and I also wanted to try and take advantage of a cash back site application (I don't know if this would allow me or even give me a better deal than the online quote anyway via the same insurer) At any rate it may in the event end up cheaper than an online application under just 'unemployed', that remains to be seen.

olly300

pickle-eater wrote: »

dacouch; olly300

Sorry folks I think you misunderstood what I was getting at!
I was referring to the fact that the comment that droogul made was one of exacerbation at cost and merely said "I now know why so many people drive un-insured. "; to which lisyloo replied that "If you do this you are effectively stealling off all honest motorists (of which you were one once) about £30 each" - tell me I'm wrong but I read this to imply that droogul is no longer an 'honest motorist' (ie that he would drive without insurance or would knowingly defraud his insurance): I can't see that can be derived from what he has said!

I didn't interpret it that way at all.

As a new poster you will soon realise when people are actually making personal comments. They will start name calling and will repeatedly reappear as if they want an argument.

Be prepared for people using the words "you" in replying to a post as in the "everyone" sense rather than "you" personally.

pickle-eater wrote: »

That said the MIB do say that the effect of the uninsured is between £15 and £30 on policies in general. I certainly don't advocate being uninsured and I'm sure no-one would want to be on the receiving end of such a claim; and I have been hit by an uninsured in the past, I know.

PS olly300, I just notice you have highlighted my next question in part regarding whether I would qualify as a househusband or unemployed only; in fact the question is more broadly presented as it specifically appears as an viable alternative descriptor on the MSE car insurance job calculator and as such may be falsely asserting that it could be an alternative: there is no indicator as to what kind of unemployed that person would be i.e. claiming benefits or simply not working and not being describable as either homemaker or retired. Also the distinction may lay open the fact that all unemployed are lumped together (the newly-unemployed, the criminally active, the circumstantially desperate, the financially constrained, leisure-seekers etc) and so all people in this category necessarily suffer the increased cost created by the 'certain' segments. At least some of these elements could be flayed out and dissociated from the pack; and I'm sure many of the 100s of thousands of 1000s of recently unemployed this past year would be wishing just that.

Unfortunately people who are newly unemployed this year are waking up to the reality of what others who have been unemployed before have suffered.

They are finding out that the help the government has put in place is inadequate. And that people and companies judge them harshly for something that isn't their fault.