car insurance unemployed

grayray

My daughter past her driving test in Nov 09 and has had 3 minor accidents. 2 her fault and 1 not. Her insurance and gone up to over £4,000 does any know of any insuers that will help younger drivers and not take the mick

Badger_Lady

Sorry MountainView but insurers can and will use all the information about a person to judge their claim risk. It's not just stereotyping, it's data that they hold on exactly which people make what claims, and they use that to work out exactly how much they need to charge someone.

You say they discriminate according to employment status. Well yes, in a way they do. They also discriminate against:
- age
- gender
- marital status
- whether or not you were born in the UK
- etc

Most of the above would be completely illegal if they really were discriminations! In fact, the press have tried to suggest this in the past but been shot down with data - insurance companies simply calculate risk, nothing more. It's not your fault if you fall into that risk, but there are only so many probing questions they can ask.

Norman_Castle

My daughter past her driving test in Nov 09 and has had 3 minor accidents. 2 her fault and 1 not. Her insurance and gone up to over £4,000 does any know of any insuers that will help younger drivers and not take the mick

Do you know how much the two at fault accidents cost the insurance company?

FlameCloud

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Do you know how much the two at fault accidents cost the insurance company?

she sounds like an insurers dream customer.

Badger_Lady

Sorry grayray, I'd expect it to be expensive I don't know much about insurance companies - if you've tried out the price comparison sites it might be worth her thinking about packing in driving for a while until it becomes a little more affordable.

I had two accidents in quick succession a couple of years ago and my premiums shot up to over £2,000 a year. I was 25 with a lot of experience and premiums as a whole have leapt up by another 25% since then!

MountainView_2

Badger_Lady wrote: »

Sorry MountainView but insurers can and will use all the information about a person to judge their claim risk. It's not just stereotyping, it's data that they hold on exactly which people make what claims, and they use that to work out exactly how much they need to charge someone.

You say they discriminate according to employment status. Well yes, in a way they do. They also discriminate against:
- age
- gender
- marital status
- whether or not you were born in the UK
- etc

Most of the above would be completely illegal if they really were discriminations! In fact, the press have tried to suggest this in the past but been shot down with data - insurance companies simply calculate risk, nothing more. It's not your fault if you fall into that risk, but there are only so many probing questions they can ask.

Hi BadgerLady,


My post was somewhat of a vent, hence my somewhat ranty tone. I do understand that insurers calculate risk, they are there to make money after all. But there comes a fine line between calculating risk and discriminating against a whole demographic when there are stronger indicators to use to calculate the types that are likely to make fraudulent claims – NCB being the best one, area of residence, motoring convictions etc etc etc.


And of course, them being their to make money allows some insurance companies to monopolise that particular demographic when their choices are limited because many insurance companies wont insure the unemployed.


It's completely demoralising, when after working hard your whole life and then being made redundant, you are suddenly downgraded to 'criminal class', and find most companies won't even insure you and the ones that do want to charge you 7 times the amount you use to pay.

With the economic climate this is happening more and more, and insurance companies need to provision accordingly, not exploit the opportunity to make more money - you simply cannot tag someone a 'potential criminal' overnight, just because they were made redundant. Other factors, should and need to be taken into consideration.

raskazz

MountainView wrote: »

But there comes a fine line between calculating risk and discriminating against a whole demographic when there are stronger indicators to use to calculate the types that are likely to make fraudulent claims – NCB being the best one, area of residence, motoring convictions etc etc etc.

But that is the point. Insurers will utilise all the tools that it is economical to use in order to assess risk. Consider two individuals: Person A and Person B. They are identical (same NCD, same postcode, same motoring convictions etc) other than Person A is unemployed and Person B is employed in a sedentary office job. All the statistics available will conclude that Person A is more of a risk and therefore the premium or terms will be altered accordingly. There is nothing unfair about this.

gordikin

MountainView why are you fixing on fraudulent claims as the reason for higher premiums for the unemployed?

Norman_Castle

Mountainview-Please use a different font!

MountainView_2

raskazz wrote: »

But that is the point. Insurers will utilise all the tools that it is economical to use in order to assess risk. Consider two individuals: Person A and Person B. They are identical (same NCD, same postcode, same motoring convictions etc) other than Person A is unemployed and Person B is employed in a sedentary office job. All the statistics available will conclude that Person A is more of a risk and therefore the premium or terms will be altered accordingly. There is nothing unfair about this.

Whilst I see your point, that is not actually what I am saying. I also argue that it is very unfair as people are unemployed for many reasons, particular so in this economical climate – it doesn't make them criminals or any higher a risk.

Suddenly finding yourself unemployed is happening more and more; respectable, law abiding people who live in nice areas and have worked all there lives and have a decade of NCB, are suddenly finding themselves being downgraded to criminal class because their employers company collapsed and they lost their job. Overnight they have been deemed as a 'fraudulent claim' risk. That is a huge flaw in an insurances risk assessment, not to mention flipping offensive. There is nothing fair about that.


But my issue isn't necessarily about it being 'fair' though. There are more prudent statistical tools available to asses a customers potential fraudulent claim risk. Imo being unemployed should not be any kind of a factor in assessing someone's fraudulent claim risk, when far for indicative risk assessment factors are available; for example, someones NCB and criminal/motoring convictions. Being made redundant was the only reason my BF premiums went up over 7 times what they were, and why his previous insurance company refused to insure him any longer.


The point I'm making is, despite far more fitting statistical analysis available to assess fraudulent claim risk, certain insurance companies wilfully do not seem to use them. Many insurance companies do not insure the unemployed, and there are a small group of insurance companies monopolising a customers limited choice with disproportionate premiums.