MSE News: Compulsory car insurance moves a step closer

dacouch

raskazz wrote: »

I've never understood this argument against CIE either. If your car is a genuine classic then you just buy an annual policy with limited mileage. You can often find these for under £100 if the mileage limit is 2-3k and you have another car for prime use (sometimes even cheaper per vehicle if you have 4 or 5 as part of a collection) - which is cheaper than buying several short-term policies over the year.

All of the Classic Car owners I have covered just take out an annual insurance policy (As you suggested). The premiums are incredibly cheap for good cover as the Insurers know they treat their cars with kid gloves and only take them out very occasionally.

You do get the owners who are restoring their cars who often just take F&T and A/D cover during the restoration (Or while they store it before starting restoration). These people tend to be very on the ball with everything relating to classic car ownership and ensure their cars are sorned etc.

I don't think I have ever handled a classic car claim, there was the Lord Brocket moody claims years ago but that was not my client

I do get the odd problem with classic bikes as (With normal bikes) you get people taking road risk cover out in Spring for a peanuts premium and then cancelling in Autumn and then complaining about the refund. Motorbike premiums tend to have high cancellation rates due to the fair weather riders taking cover out and then cancelling

Arg

raskazz wrote: »

Yes, it is depressing that there are so many ignorant people on MSE who don't engage with basic research before posting evidence-free sensationalist twaddle.

Why would you expect us to take the one sided opinions from insurance companies as the truth especially with some of the things they get up to, for example here.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/552905

I think he is justified in calling it cabal that needs more regulation when insurance companies can price however they feel and people are unable to opt out.

ILW

Bottom line is, if you cannot afford to insure a car, you cannot afford to drive a car. Simple really.

raskazz

Arg wrote: »

Why would you expect us to take the one sided opinions from insurance companies as the truth especially with some of the things they get up to, for example here.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/552905

I would not expect anyone to take any opinion as truth but where so many people fail on here is that they spout forth without engaging in the most basic of research.

Arg wrote: »

I think he is justified in calling it cabal that needs more regulation when insurance companies can price however they feel and people are unable to opt out.

I'm not sure how they fit the first definition of 'cabal' that I can find:

"a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority."

As they are not a 'small group'; what they do is not secret as they are subject to various reporting requirements by the FSA and on the details of particular cases by the FOS; there is no 'plotting' in my experience nor any persuasive evidence that 'plotting' has taken place.

It's easy to play the 'more regulation' card but to say 'more regulation' is meaningless without reference to specific failings in the current regulatory environment.

People can opt out - they can choose to not drive if they cannot afford to. There is no evidence of market failure in the motor insurance market.

gunnyandbob

The way to avoid being caught with no insurance is simple....do not let on your real address ( give a false one to DVLA ), and keep the car out of sight. Duff plates would also go a long way to avoid detection. Then the only way to get caught is by a stop check or ANPR whilst driving. No different to the present really....
A big plus for the insurance industry in this legislation, whilst at the same time entirely missing the declared target.
A near useless measure in my opinion.

Bluecaster

I do my insurance through a local broker who adjusts it to suit my needs - as I only drive a limited mileage I can get fairly cheap comprehensive insurance. But if you are keeping you car on the roadside until you can afford petrol, or in your garage but taxed while doing it up, why not ask your broker for Third Party only, or Third Party, Fire & Theft. These can be much cheaper and will at least mean you are covered when the postman trips over your car in the drive or when you set fire to it with your welding torch!

In my experience buying anything (including insurance) can be cheaper online but you really need to know all about what you are buying. It's often cheaper to use the local expert (i.e. broker) even after you allow for his commission.

RRatchet

I can't say this happens all the time but it does happen occassionaly due to the fact that we can only afford to buy/run older cars. My car is insured fully comp and this includes being insured to drive any other car with the owners permission; the "other car" at the moment does not have to have it's own insurance. In future when test driving a SORNED car, that I'm hoping to buy, I suppose I'll be breaking the law: Unless somewhere in the small print this situation has been addressed.
I've also occasionally had to borrow a friends car that was not insured but is covered third party by my fully comp insurance. My brother is a mechanic and has on more than a few occassions driven uninsured customers cars (they are having it fixed before insuring it) using his insurance; he does not have trade plates. It is highly unlikely that a person selling a car privately or a friend will want to go to the hassle of taxing/sorning a car repeatedly. Maybe we should all try doing that and see how long it takes for the DVLA system to go into meltdown.

Like defunct dog licences and the proposed compulsary micro-chipping of dogs this is a law that will penalise the law abiding more than those who simply do not bother.

R

Arg

raskazz wrote: »

I'm not sure how they fit the first definition of 'cabal' that I can find:

"a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority."

As they are not a 'small group'; what they do is not secret as they are subject to various reporting requirements by the FSA and on the details of particular cases by the FOS; there is no 'plotting' in my experience nor any persuasive evidence that 'plotting' has taken place.

Maybe he meant to say cartel but I'm sure you knew what the general point was.

It's easy to play the 'more regulation' card but to say 'more regulation' is meaningless without reference to specific failings in the current regulatory environment.

People can opt out - they can choose to not drive if they cannot afford to. There is no evidence of market failure in the motor insurance market.

Private transport is a necessity in modern times.

Arg

ILW wrote: »

Bottom line is, if you cannot afford to insure a car, you cannot afford to drive a car. Simple really.

Why don't you tell that to all the uninsured drivers, obviously they can afford it.

raskazz

Arg wrote: »

Maybe he meant to say cartel but I'm sure you knew what the general point was.

Well, what's a cartel?

"A group of businesses or nations that collude to limit competition within an industry or market"

Where is the evidence of collusion in the motor insurance market?

Arg wrote: »

Private transport is a necessity in modern times.

Yes, but where is the market failure? High prices alone are not a market failure - the only way to reduce premiums is to reduce the risk.