Sainsbury's Discriminate against the Unemployed.

*MF*

You maybe have to look beyond Sainsbury to the Insurer Sainsbury use - esure, it is likely their underwriting regime that dictates how employment or unemployment is regarded.

That said I wonder, particularly in these times of high unemployment, whether Sainsbury will be happy to hear that this is happening.

Also just wonder, for all current policyholders of esure, through Sainsbury or not, who may have recently been made unemployed - is their cover unaffected?


.

lisyloo

Also just wonder, for all current policyholders of esure, through Sainsbury or not, who may have recently been made unemployed - is their cover unaffected?

Almost certainly yes.
You have to tell your insurer if any of the "material facts" change.
This is explained in the documentation you are meant to read.

Being unemployed is very likely to change your driving habits and accordingly change the risk.

I don't always agree with the way insurers price their risk models but I assume they know more than me and it's based on statistics.

raskazz

Anyone who has ever used a price comparison website to obtain quotes for their car insurance will have seen around a dozen or more insurers who will not quote for their particular details. There's no need to be quite so indignant about it.

In any case, being unemployed is not the same as being on incapacity benefit, as others have pointed out.

It is also worth remembering that the insurer is 'discriminating' in the true sense of the word (i.e. between good and bad risks) rather then 'discriminating' in the sense of being prejudiced.

dunstonh

This is the first time we have ever been refused insurance in our lives
and are thoroughly disgusted with the attitude of the Sainsbury Group.

Hmm. So, the choice of giving the wrong occupation is the fault of Sainsburys?

You are not unemployed as you are not actively seeking work, not on unemployment benefit/signed on.

The unemployed are higher risks to insurers. They are allowed to charge more for higher risks or even refuse cover. A lot of the internet/direct insurers cherry pick and refusals or higher premiums for areas they are not interested in are more likely.

With respect, I hope your complaint is rejected and the explanation given and then offer you cover on the basis of the right occupation class. Although I suspect they will give you a goodwill gesture and put you down as househusband and be apologetic when they really have nothing to apologise for.

Matty23

Interesting one i must admit, I Must say sainsbury car insurance company haven't really looked at all facts, e.g. 39 years of driving and wife 14 years of driving and has never use a no claim bonus, That itself should be one of the first things they should look at. If he and his wife was planning to pay the insurance all in one, then i cannot see where there a risk in them not missing a payment, But i must say if your going to buy insurance and your not working, or on benefits, best option is to phone and get a real person to talk to.

lisyloo

That itself should be one of the first things they should look at

Your driving record has no effect on say theft claims.
So you could be an excellent driver and live in a terrible area for example.
They have to look at a number of factors.

then i cannot see where there a risk in them not missing a payment

It's not about the risk of missing payments, it's about the risk of driving.
Unemployed people are regarded as a different risk category to employed people as shown by statistics.

As far as the insurance "risk" model is concerned, to OP has put himself in the wrong category.
This might not be their fault, it might be that they are forced to pick the closest option off a pull down menu.

It's simply a case of "computer says no" and they require a different interface (possibly a human one).
Tradional human brokers are good at this sort of thing where computers fall short.
But this happens to a number of people, not just disabled ones.

I develop computer systems and whilst we try to think of all scenarios, it still tends to be 99% as there are so many possibilities, it's impossible in practice to cover them, or rather then client commissioning the system won't consider it cost effective to develop and interface for 100% of scenarios, only 99%.

Jakesmummy

Well I did a quote on a comparison site last week, I am unemployed, (im a sahm/housewife) and sainsburys was in the top 3 cheapest and is on my list of maybe's, it may not be as simple as they dont insure unemployed people cos they gave me a reasonable quote??

hermanmunster_3

dacouch wrote: »

Living by own means tends to be a decline or a loaded premium with most insurers, this is because this includes lovely people such as Paris Hilton who are living on trust funds.

I tried it actually - came up as no different as House Husband and DH liked the sound of it!!

anamenottaken

Jakesmummy wrote: »

Well I did a quote on a comparison site last week, I am unemployed, (im a sahm/housewife) and sainsburys was in the top 3 cheapest and is on my list of maybe's, it may not be as simple as they dont insure unemployed people cos they gave me a reasonable quote??

Just to say you are either unemployed or you are a sahm/housewife. The latter should be classified as non-employed. Technically, "Unemployed" means someone who has registered with the DWP and is receiving JSA.

hermanmunster_3

I find that if I use the search engine type insurance quote thingys eg Go compare or confused.com there are always some companies who won't quote - usually on age (when I was under 50 ha ha ), age of the car (not one of my classics this time), occupational use, mileage levels etc etc . I don;t get offended if a few of them don't want me - I just go to one of the others.