car insurance unemployed

pickle-eater

olly300 wrote: »

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.

Thanks olly300, I do see your point; though I'm not a fresh forum poster in general, I am fairly seasoned on some other fora. I'm sure that
lisyloo just wanted to highlight the point, still I can't really get any other reading from.. "(of which you were one once)" than referring to droogul - after all if it were the 'generic' you, that's implying that all uninsureds were honest motorists once, which would be a gross assumption.

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.

You are right it is a harsh reality, and I can assure you mine has not been made any easier by my other circumstances; too many too mention here; not the first time I have been unemployed either but the first time with a family to look after.

In the final analysis it does seem somewhat unfair that if your job title, should you be employed, could be one of a number of titles depending on peoples 'cut' on it or the title of the main activity/ job that you fall under; yet it would appear that the unemployed can not be afforded that distinction in that category as per my example.

sdavi3680

I know this is a very old thread I found, but sure someone can help me instead of starting a new one.....

If you put down unemployed now and the policy is about £200 more than if you put down employed, when you start work are you likely to see them refund you some of that money?

mikey72

House husband or house wife if you can is better.

sdavi3680

Can't do that, not married. I am starting a volunteer thing to get started with a career though around the time I need insurance (actually what I need insurance for).
Any leeway with that?


I presume getting a refund from an insurance company is like getting blood from a stone. Quick to take the extra but not so willing to return it.

sdavi3680

bump.........

gap_year

just checking various insurance companies and I can say that for me and my small car, Tesco only quoted 25 pounds more (per year) for unemployed than for housewife or professionel.

Tesco does not give the option of writing "independent means", though.

I have no idea how to define the different occupations/ activities, but I can imagine, it can be dangerous not quoting correctly.

lisyloo

If you aren't sure of something then you need to phone and ask the insurer/broker what to do.
I'm a little paranoid about things like this so I would write down the name of the person spoken to and the time and date and also ask them to note this on my compute record.

sandrajwright

agaveworm wrote: »

Sorry to hear about your job.

How often you are going to use the car too. If you are an office worker, then it's likely you will drive to work in the morning, park up all day and drive home in the evening and use the car all weekend.

An employed person, potentially, can use the car all day, every day....on the road more often and therefore more likely to be involved in an accident....

Sorry but I disagree with you there. I have been made redundant and cant see why my insurance is so much higher as I cant afford to drive my car every day. It hardly gets used now not because of the cost of running the car but the stupid insurance cost. There should be some difference for those who are seriously out of work and those who refuse to pay insurance and drive around causing trouble all the time.

sandrajwright

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

yeah i know not all of them are like that - just that in general unemployed people are more likely to make a fraud claim than people in employment. it's just common sense, not sure why you disagree with that?

even though not everyone fits the stereo type as you say, it's by using the overall numbers for each group that insurers decide how much to charge you. you can pretend that it's not relevant if you like, but it's one reason why it's more expensive to insure your car when you're unemployed

It is such a shame that we are now all painted with the same brush just because we are going through a recession. I know many many decent hard working people who are now unemployed. People that want to work and have worked all their working life are now being treated like the thugs who do drive around all day without insurance.

MountainView_2

Apologies for bringing up an old thread, which must seem a bit odd as I'm new here, this thread was Googles first result for my query and after reading some of the rubbish here I had to comment.

I am appalled by some of the prejudice comments I've read here – I see the phrase “common sense” banded about, when it was actually not being used by the person spouting it. Surely, it makes better financial and moral sense to judge people by their no claims bonus rather than there employment status as an indicator to whether they are likely to make a fraudulent claim?!

And of course people who are in employment don't make fraudulent insurance claims – white collar crime doesn't really exist, does it? *Rolls eyes*. Not all people in unemployment and receipt of benefit live in high crime council estates. Not all people in high crime council estates commit crime – it's normally a small but very active minority within these estates that do.

I had a rude awakening recently; my boyfriend who is honest and hard working and lives in a nice rural commuter belt part of London was recently made redundant. He recently discovered that his current insurers no longer wished to insure him because he was no longer in employment. To add insult to that, the cheapest insurance he could find with his broker will only offer third party on one of his bikes. Some insurance companies wanted to charge him a premium at 7 times what it would be just because he is now unemployed.

I simply can't believe it's legal for insurance companies to act this way. It's blatant discrimination, particularly when bearing in mind that judging someone by their no claims bonus, or lack there of (perhaps combined other factors) is are far more realistic way to determine someone's fraudulent claim risk. One can't use the argument that the unemployed and in receipt of benefit are likely to drive a car more because 1) the cost of petrol is prohibitive and 2) one normally sets their annual mileage on a policy. I agree with an earlier poster that it is a rather dubious way to make more money from people whose choices are now limited. I am appalled that insurance companies can blanket a whole demographic with the presumption that they are pre-disposed to criminal activity and refuse to insure them or raise premiums to ridiculous levels. I cannot believe this is legal.

Because of the financial climate people who have worked all their lives are suddenly finding themselves without employment, so this is only going to get worse. I am simply disgusted insurance companies can get away with this kind of discrimination under the guise of 'potential fraudulent claim risk' :mad: