Another hit on the pocket...

Proxy

Or if you're going to dispute: http://www.nortonrose.com/knowledge/publications/2010/pub31284.aspx?lang=en-gb

Directive 2004/113/EC (the Gender Directive) prohibits discrimination on grounds of gender in the access to and supply of goods and services. Article 5 of the Gender Directive in principle prohibits gender being taken into account in calculating premium or benefits in respect of insurance contracts. However, a derogation under Article 5(2) allows Member States to permit gender based differences in terms of premium or benefits where sex is a determining risk factor that can be substantiated by relevant and accurate actuarial and statistical data. It is this derogation which, for example, allows insurers to charge different premiums for men and women for motor and life policies.

Loanranger

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Anyone renewed their car insurance lately?

Last year, mine was £203. Upon renewal tonight, it's now £364...and that's with shopping around, and picking one of the cheapest. My current insurers have quoted £376, and nothing has changed.

Had a quick look to see what's going on, and there are loads of news articles on the web about massive car insurance rises.

Apparently, this will increase premiums by £2.1bn this year alone, with more set for next year. Average premium now costs £703 a year for comprehensive policies, and over £1000 for third party fire and theft.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5ik3yc5fM7elZAuuv0zFK8I35xFlw?docId=N0232961286892986323A

People are seeing their monthly payments increase by double (as I have).

Have you renewed yours recently and found this?

To keep on topic: Even less money for houses.

No, my insurance company wanted 75% more last month at renewal, shopped around got it for less than I paid last year. That's with one at fault claim this year and lower excess.
I'm a woman. My car is a Merc. 3.2 litre.

neverdespairgirl

chucky wrote: »

putting your mum as a named driver is always a good move for your car insurance premium - always seems to work for me...

Works for me, too. My mother does drive my car sometimes - a few times a year, perhaps. And it lowers the cost by £50 or so a year. I imagine they think that when my mother's driving it, my lethal (male) OH is!

Davesnave

I think if I put my Mum on the insurance they might not respond so positively, as she never drove and would have been 98 this year...:(

My insurance has stayed about the same, but I got a refund when I moved here last year. I don't pay much because I drive a previously written off vehicle, which is assumed to have a value of about £125 (Thank you, blonde bimbo texter.)

dopester

Davesnave wrote: »

I think if I put my Mum on the insurance they might not respond so positively, as she never drove and would have been 98 this year...:(

My insurance has stayed about the same, but I got a refund when I moved here last year. I don't pay much because I drive a previously written off vehicle, which is assumed to have a value of about £125 (Thank you, blonde bimbo texter.)

Is it something like a category D car? I once considered buying one but was told they are not easy, or expensive, to insure. Also had other doubts as to just how badly the car might have been damaged (chassis or what have you).

Of course, whilst the value of the car you're insuring comes into it... it's not just the value of the car which determines how much the cover is, but how likely you are to make a claim and all those risks of damage and injury to others. That surely has to be the main element of the insurance quote they give someone. A pal of mine makes a good living with motor accident/injury claims for the firm he works for.

My car insurance is up for renewal in a few weeks and I hope there is not a big lift in premium. Currently I'm very happy with my low premium (in the £250 zone).

Davesnave

dopester wrote: »

Is it something like a category D car? I once considered buying one but was told they are not easy, or expensive, to insure. Also had other doubts as to just how badly the car might have been damaged (chassis or what have you).

Of course, whilst the value of the car you're insuring comes into it... it's not just the value of the car which determines how much the cover is, but how likely you are to make a claim and all those risks of damage and injury to others. That surely has to be the main element of the insurance quote they give someone. A pal of mine makes a good living with motor accident/injury claims for the firm he works for.

My car insurance is up for renewal in a few weeks and I hope isn't a big lift in premium.

The insurers know it is OK chassis-wise because they had the engineer's report, but as it couldn't be fixed for less than its value, they paid out and then let me buy it back for £125. (I think they only do this if it's a non-fault accident.)

My local garage chap fixed it cheaply, by using it as a time-filler, and I agreed not to worry about a tailgate dent. I have a good NCD, which probably makes much more difference on the insurance than the fact it's just 3rd Party now.

Ironically, perhaps, after a brake renewal and subsequent problem a few weeks back, the bloody thing ran away backwards, despite the handbrake being on, and hit a wall. It is currently in dock, awaiting a secondhand rear light unit.....but it will live again!

Emy1501

The company I worked for lost something like 8m a year for every 1% drop when rate dropped in 2008-2009. Therefore not surprised insurance is going up. Also injury claims are on the rise etc due to the current economic problems.

Each insurer has different risk criteria so one may have put up their insurance for the young others based on how powerful the car is etc. There is no doubt insurance is going up and has gone up over the past few years but the hikes will be targeted at the higher risk driver.

Its worth shopping around as many insurers know that once someone signs up its likely they will renew without shopping around again.

dopester

Davesnave wrote: »

The insurers know it is OK chassis-wise because they had the engineer's report, but as it couldn't be fixed for less than its value, they paid out and then let me buy it back for £125. (I think they only do this if it's a non-fault accident.)

My local garage chap fixed it cheaply, by using it as a time-filler, and I agreed not to worry about a tailgate dent. I have a good NCD, which probably makes much more difference on the insurance than the fact it's just 3rd Party now.

Ironically, perhaps, after a brake renewal and subsequent problem a few weeks back, the bloody thing ran away backwards, despite the handbrake being on, and hit a wall. It is currently in dock, awaiting a secondhand rear light unit.....but it will live again!

Well that is a pretty good deal from your insurer... paying out and letting you buy back a perfectly decent car for £125. Especially if your premiums didn't shoot up afterwards either.

On car forums, I've read quite a few hairy scary stories of cars, that were parked up, just rolling away. Like the one below where a VW driver saw his car roll away and hit a motorbike (guy not on it at the time)* I'm told drivers are not supposed to rely on handbrakes alone when parking on any sort of gradient/hill. Just thinking more insurers might try and wriggle out of claims in the future if insufficient measures taken by driver.

Just in case it helps anyone else - the manual gear thing I do all the time as a secondary safeguard. (Highway Code).

226: Parking on hills. If you park on a hill you should

• park close to the kerb and apply the handbrake firmly
• select a forward gear and turn your steering wheel away from the kerb when facing uphill
• select reverse gear and turn your steering wheel towards the kerb when facing downhill
• use 'park' if your car has an automatic gearbox.

Intention is irrelevant. By relying purely on the handbrake to hold the car he acted negligently. There is no grey area.

It is on this that the claim will be based and won by the bikers insurer. And why, because it is legally accepted that you cannot rely solely on a handbrake to hold a parked car - regardless of the ground conditions.

I don't see how this is confusing or unclear. The law does not state that you have to put a car in gear but that you cannot rely solely on the handbrake. This is a difference that you haven't understood. You could chock the wheels for example, although it is accepted that leaving a car in gear or park is a resonable additional method of securing the car.

Negligence is applied to every accident. That is how cause and blame are established. Again no grey area. Now, in some cases both parties act negligently and so a 'knock for knock' ressolution would be made between the insurers.

michaels

I had similar - someone drove in to the side of my car denting both doors, Car was worth about 1200 but insurance repair would have been replacement of both doors and apparently wasn't economic. I drove the car as was having bought back the 'salvage' and didn't even bother having the dents straightened (quoted 200 for non insurance job) as it didn't look bad at all and all the electric windows etc still worked fine. Gave the car to my sister who then drove it another 2 years before trading it in on a min part ex offer.

Re renewals - wife saved 80 quid by not taking renewal but returning to same company as a new customer with 40 lower premium plus 40 topcashback.

Davesnave

dopester wrote: »

Well that is a pretty good deal from your insurer... paying out and letting you buy back a perfectly decent car for £125. Especially if your premiums didn't shoot up afterwards either.

It's not the fist time! We were rear-ended at a round-about by a hit-and-run driver in 2002, who got away. I chose not to chase, but grabbed two witnesses instead, who turned out to be barely sentient, but at least they were able to confirm what happened.

On that occasion, they paid out and I bought it back for £145, but I did nothing to repair the car, as it was functionally OK. As the other driver was never located, I had the accident count against my record, as someone always has to carry the can, but with protected NCD that was OK.

Agree about putting the car in gear and usually do, but on this occasion I was going to turn it around and park 'properly' after unloading........:(