Car insurance extras

onlyroz

Which of the following car insurance extras do you think are worth the money:

- Protected no claims bonus
- Legal cover
- Courtesy car
- Breakdown cover
- Personal injury cover

adamc260

onlyroz wrote: »

Which of the following car insurance extras do you think are worth the money:

- Protected no claims bonus
- Legal cover
- Courtesy car
- Breakdown cover
- Personal injury cover

Many people argue that protected NCD is worthless as your base premium goes up anyway but... if the base premium goes up and you lose 2 years NCD its going to go up A LOT more!

Courtesy car is worthwhile if you depend on your car (like I do) and couldnt be without it! Breakdown cover is the same really

I never bother with the personal injury cover because it only covers extreme circumstances like a loss of a limb.. sight etc and the payouts aren't really that high SHOULD that ever happen

Legal cover often seems to have very little worth as they will only represent you if you have an extremely high chance of winning a case but can be useful in a non fault claim in getting you a like for like hire car (credit hire... boooo, bad times!) and getting you your excess back. I always include it though so guess I cant complain!

studio_two

Hello,

I'm wondering about this too. Ticking all those boxes on the Insurance Quotation certainly makes the original premium go up a fair amount. Each item seems to be around £2 -> £3 per month.

The Personal Injury Cover on the majority of Policies doesn't look especially impressive.

I don't really understand the Legal Cover, but it sounds like something I ought to have. Here is a typical explanation from one of the quotes I obtained:

• We'll cover you for up to £10,000 in legal costs to defend a motoring prosecution following an accident (though not drink or drug related offences).
• And we'll cover you for up to £50,000 in legal costs for you, your passengers or an authorised driver, to pursue your case after a motor accident.

In regards breakdown cover, checking this thread (and buying it seperately) may be an option: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2851438

Stephen

lisyloo

I always protect my no claims, but do some quotes with and without to see if it's worth it for you.
I have composite legal cover for all vehicle and house.
I have one breakdown policy for all vehicles.
I'm not worried baout courtesy car - use alternatives but if you are dependent on a car then you need it.
I wouldn't bother with personal injury cover but I do have cover for my income if I can't work (whether accidental or not).

adamc260

Protected NCD differs but I think its something like 15% extra .. could be different though

NCD is valid for 2 years as a general rule but some insurers accept it for 3 years.

DCFC79

onlyroz wrote: »

Which of the following car insurance extras do you think are worth the money:

- Protected no claims bonus yes i have i include it
- Legal cover i do have it included and have wondered whether its worthwhile
- Courtesy car i find it useful, even though ive only made taken up option of a courtesy car twice
- Breakdown cover dont bother as we have a policy covering 2 cars
- Personal injury cover yes its useful to have

most of them are useful to have in the event you need to make use of them

lisyloo

Not sure if the hit is worth it as my cheapest result was £1500.

It's not the premium you need to look at but the cost vs what it would cost you not to have it.

To get the cost, do quote A without protection, edit and do quote B identical but with protection. Cost is B-A.

To see the cost of not having it.
Do quote C, identical to A, but add a claim, reduce you NCD by two years e.g. if you started at 2 then put 0.
Do quote D, identical to C, with the claim but do not reduce your NCD e.g. 2 years.
Cost when you have a claim is C-D.

Once you have these figures then and only than can you decide.
For example if NCD protection costs you £100, but the cost of having an accident would be a £600 increase in premium and that woudl put you "off the road" then you might consider it worth paying.
On the other hand you might not.
It's impossibel for anyone else to say as it depends on your situation.
I always do the sums and I always decide to keep it but my circs are not the same as other peoples.

mikey72

I don't pay for any from the insurer, but we have family AA, it's reasonable with cashback.

Spiderham

Angelic wrote: »

It doesn't matter as I selected the option but was told it wasn't available.
I guess its only for people who have been driving at least a year. I can be incredibly dense at times..:o

Yeah, generally with most insurers (maybe all) you can only protect once you have 4 years NCD. The idea is that once you have built up an amount and proved you are a "good risk" you can pay a little extra to give yourself some extra future protection on premiums.

2cb

lisyloo wrote: »

To get the cost, do quote A without protection, edit and do quote B identical but with protection. Cost is B-A.

To see the cost of not having it.
Do quote C, identical to A, but add a claim, reduce you NCD by two years e.g. if you started at 2 then put 0.
Do quote D, identical to C, with the claim but do not reduce your NCD e.g. 2 years.
Cost when you have a claim is C-D.

This is good advice, I did it and it convinced me that protecting my no claims wasn't worth it. It's so easy nowadays with online comparison sites.
One thing you need to watch out for though... I took out cover, then a couple of months later got a letter from the insurer saying I hadn't reported a claim and they were going to automatically debit my card for the increased premium. Turns out they'd found my invented claim on a record somewhere, and were just going to take the money. I did get it back, but it was a pain. I suppose I should have filled in false details for the test quotes, but since so many little details affect your premium this could easily make the figures irrelevant.

Also, I always take legal cover. I've used it more than once, and they helped a lot even the time when I was found mostly at fault. I had another claim when the other party was blatantly at fault but their insurer just stonewalled me. My legal cover team sued them and got the payout (3 years later!), I would probably have given up without them.

mikey72

Spiderham wrote: »

Yeah, generally with most insurers (maybe all) you can only protect once you have 4 years NCD. The idea is that once you have built up an amount and proved you are a "good risk" you can pay a little extra to give yourself some extra future protection on premiums.

And if you have been accident free for 4 years statistically you're more unlikely to have a claim, so it's good money for them.

2cb wrote: »

This is good advice, I did it and it convinced me that protecting my no claims wasn't worth it. It's so easy nowadays with online comparison sites.
One thing you need to watch out for though... I took out cover, then a couple of months later got a letter from the insurer saying I hadn't reported a claim and they were going to automatically debit my card for the increased premium. Turns out they'd found my invented claim on a record somewhere, and were just going to take the money. I did get it back, but it was a pain. I suppose I should have filled in false details for the test quotes, but since so many little details affect your premium this could easily make the figures irrelevant.

Also, I always take legal cover. I've used it more than once, and they helped a lot even the time when I was found mostly at fault. I had another claim when the other party was blatantly at fault but their insurer just stonewalled me. My legal cover team sued them and got the payout (3 years later!), I would probably have given up without them.

Always use a false name, and a close postcode on any quote, until you actually take it out.