We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Direct Line - Ridiculous surcharge for increase in mileage.
Comments
-
No, that's not what I'm saying. In this particular case the OP took out insurance for a year, using assumptions that were quite normal. Then due to circumstances beyond their control one of those assumptions changed (i.e. the mileage went up). I've been in that situation myself a few years ago when I due to illness in the family I had to unexpected do a lot of additional miles. The OP then contacts the insurance company for additional cover, after 9 months of the policy have elapsed. There is an additional cost to pay. At this point the Insurance company, the insured and everybody else know one thing for certain - the insured has made no claim during the last 9 months, therefore the additional risk is only for 3 months. They all 100% know that. It may well be that the insured was well under the mileage until just before that call. The dispute is whether the charge should be the whole amount (i.e the difference between what the insured should have paid at the start and the end of the policy) or some smaller amount, based on the actual risk and period. The insurance company knows that the period is 3 months - and that there were no claims before that period. So you are arguing that that they should be charged as if there was a risk for 1 year, when everybody knows that it is only 3 months? As I see it the insurance company are getting some money for a period when they know nothing happened. They were not at risk at that time - they may not have known that at the start of the insurance, but they certainly knew it at the point when the phone call was made. So they are charging for something that might have but 100% DID NOT HAPPEN. Insurance for the past is worthless. The OP only wants cover for the future - as I said we know there was no risk to the Insurance Company because the past is gone. Instead the Insurance company wants to backdate the payment to cover something that has already happened. If they are pricing the risk - the additional risk is only 3 months.
When I pay for insurance it is to cover for unexpected events in the future, not to cover things that have already happened (or not happened). I have no problems paying for insurance. If I want to increase my life insurance I expect to pay the premium, and to get the cover. If I increase it during the year I don't expect them to charge me for the previous 6 months "because I might have died then". I didn't - they were at no risk.
I just wanted to explain why the OP probably felt upset having to pay money for a risk that the insurance company didn't have.0 -
No, that's not what I'm saying.
Yes, it is what you are saying!!!
You are saying that despite the increased risk posed, the insured should not pay the additional premium required for that increased risk simply because through fate no claims were incurred. On that basis you can extend the argument to say that the insured should pay no premium at all if no claims were incurred during the year.
The OP has spent 50% more time on the road than was disclosed at inception. Whether this comes to light on day 1 of the contract or on day 364, the change in risk is the same and that is why the annual difference is charged.0 -
Sorry to crash the thread, but I'd just like to put the "man in the street" view, as there were some brokers arguing very forcibly that it was wrong to be angry about this.
The point is that, say you report the mileage to the Insurance company just a day before the end of the policy, then, you say, the full amount £113 would be payable. But the Insurance company only has the risk for one day. There have been no claims to date - so they are at almost no risk at all. The insurance company are charging money for something that didn't happen in the past. If you were to ring up to get cover for just one day then they'd be charging you a much smaller fee, rather than them back dating it to give you cover you didn't require. Unless this car is really a time machine and can go back and have an accident 3 months ago?
Did you really think this through?
The risk is there - it's just that the insurance company don't know it.
When told, the risk is factored into the policy and the premium adjusted.
It does not matter if you tell them on day one or day 364 - the risk is the same. The only difference is when the insurer finds out.
Hence it does not matter when you tell them, the premium increase will be the same.
Keen photographer with sales in the UK and abroad.
Willing to offer advice on camera equipment and photography if i can!0 -
The insurance company could equally say that in the 9 months the customer has used the years mileage allowance, and so argue the insurance should end, and that a new year should start, as that was the risk that was paid for.
So that would equate to a 33% increase in premium effectively.0 -
The insurance company could equally say that in the 9 months the customer has used the years mileage allowance, and so argue the insurance should end, and that a new year should start, as that was the risk that was paid for.
So that would equate to a 33% increase in premium effectively.
You should open a Lloyd's Personal Lines syndicate...lol0 -
The insurance company could equally say that in the 9 months the customer has used the years mileage allowance, and so argue the insurance should end, and that a new year should start, as that was the risk that was paid for.
So that would equate to a 33% increase in premium effectively.
In which case they could rightly say that no additional NCD has been earned since it wasn't a complete year
Keen photographer with sales in the UK and abroad.
Willing to offer advice on camera equipment and photography if i can!0 -
Not true. My wife is with Direct Line. It's them who are stinging us for an extra £120.
Yes it is true, I know that as a fact. Though as I said NOT ALL direct line pols use it as a factor, it depends on how long the policy has been with them as to whether mileage is used as a rating factor or not. also someone might have been with them 20 years but realised last year that it was cheaper as a new customer online - if they took that pol then it would now rate on mileage for new pols0 -
Hi, just wanted to come back to say that, yes you're right and I was wrong! Easier to think away from a keyboard!
Clearly I was looking at the normal model, where if, say, you add a new driver to a policy during a year they would only pay for the remainder of the year... whereas as you say the mileage element is clearly an additional element to the whole policy.
I would say that it can be difficult to call in that, unlike any of the other declarations you have to make at the start of the policy it's the only one that's not a fact, only an estimation. If if underestimate then you pay additionally, if you over estimate then you can't claim it back at the end. One day in the future we'll probably all be billed by miles actually driven via some satnav chip built into the car!
Anyway - yes, I was being stupid (and that's not something you'll regularly read on an Internet message board!). Thanks guys!0 -
I would say that it can be difficult to call in that, unlike any of the other declarations you have to make at the start of the policy it's the only one that's not a fact, only an estimation. If if underestimate then you pay additionally, if you over estimate then you can't claim it back at the end. One day in the future we'll probably all be billed by miles actually driven via some satnav chip built into the car!
I think this is the crux of the issue for me.
When I started this post I was angry after learning that I was going to have to pay a large amount of money for what I perceived to be doing the right thing. That anger probably came out in some of my earlier replies, so I'm sorry if I upset a few people who were trying to be helpful.
I did expect to pay a supplement, just nowhere near the amount it's actually turned out to be, and it's not as if I can shop around for this without losing even more money in penalty charges for early termination.
On the other hand, if I over-estimate my mileage, which incidently is likely on our other car, I know I'll be laughed at if I try to reclaim this at the end of the year.0 -
......I did expect to pay a supplement, just nowhere near the amount it's actually turned out to be, and it's not as if I can shop around for this without losing even more money in penalty charges for early termination.
On the other hand, if I over-estimate my mileage, which incidently is likely on our other car, I know I'll be laughed at if I try to reclaim this at the end of the year.
DL are happy for you to estimate to the nearest 1000 miles, but you were 50% out on your estimate!
Were you 50% wrong in your favour, why do you say you would be laughed at?
They say this about estimating mileage:If you find you are doing less or more during the year then you can notify us at the time.
You probably can think of another way round this issue, and are probably getting laughed at now by others who have thought of how you could have avoided this bill!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 347.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 252K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.2K Spending & Discounts
- 240.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 616.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.4K Life & Family
- 253.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards