Please Help, elderly car insurance rip off!!!

real1314

blossomhill wrote: »

OP - can you get a look at a copy of this month's WHICH? Our copy arrived today and they are taking a dim view of insurance companies that charge a fee for mid-term alterations, I think they would be rather shocked at your GD's T&C's

It's not an alteration.

The OPs Grandad has contracted for insurance for a set period of 12 months.
They are providing the insurance for 12 months.
This is the essence of the contract. The contract (evidently) does not allow any suspension of the policy.

The payments are being made in installments.


The OP has suggested cancelling the insurance, which does not mean that the full payment for the contracted insurance changes.

They have the option to pay the full cost and walk away or let it run and then walk away. :cool:

Savvy_Sue

rochja wrote: »

I am no expert on qualifying conditions but it would seem likely your grandad qualifies for the motability scheme. They have an excellent web site where they explain that the car is covered by motability insurance and clearly show what you get for your money.

I think - and I could be quite wrong about this - that motability is only available if you are in receipt of Higher Rate DLA for mobility. Which you can't start to claim once you're over a certain age.

I can't remember if the OP has ever said how old Granddad is - he could be in his 50s, after all! - but he may well be too old for DLA if he's not already receiving it.

custardy

blossomhill wrote: »

That would suggest to me that they park in a superstore's car park and come back to find it damaged

maybe
however I assume they park in the same stores as myself.
I don't have the same damage. these aren't car park 'dints',but larger dents and scrapes down the bodywork.

custardy

missile wrote: »

How does that prove that all drivers 60+ are a danger to others?

I don't recall saying that
however citing stats on deaths and injuries doesnt prove their is no increase in risk for insurers.
does it?

missile

custardy wrote: »

I don't recall saying that...

You have a short memory:rotfl:, check posts 32 and 33

margaretclare

custardy wrote: »

maybe
however I assume they park in the same stores as myself.
I don't have the same damage. these aren't car park 'dints',but larger dents and scrapes down the bodywork.

Had to smile.

The Sunday before last we drove through Paris. Every car there, but every car you can see, has some kind of external damage. Ours came away scratch-free, driven by what may be called an 'elderly driver'. Not me - I avoid driving even in London, and Paris is one of the worst DH has ever driven through. He last went there on his motor-bike in the 1960s and pronounced 'never again'.

Sorry, digresson.

custardy

missile wrote: »

You have a short memory:rotfl:, check posts 32 and 33

seems you don't read too well

missile wrote: »

As has been pointed out by Millie Millsters, statistics prove you wrong.

custardy wrote: »

no. those stats relate to deaths and serious injuries.
what about stats for damage claims?
I have an old couple next door. bought a new car about 2 years ago.
its slowly getting covered in little bumps and scrapes.
No deaths or injuries, but for insurance purposes it could still cost them money.

zygurat789

Millie_Millsters wrote: »

IAM don't seem to agree with you :cool:

http://www.iam.org.uk/news/latest-news/983-more-than-a-million-drivers-now-aged-over-80

"The age gap between the youngest driving license holder and the oldest is 90 years. But contrary to common assumptions, drivers in their eighties are not dangerous. The figures show that they are in fact much safer than their more youthful counterparts. The rate of deaths and serious injuries in crashes among drivers over 80 is three times less than the rate for those aged 17-19. In 2010 almost one young driver aged 17-19 was killed or seriously injured per thousand licence holders. The rate of deaths and serious injuries in crashes among car drivers aged 20 to 24 is 36.4 per cent more than the rate for drivers aged 80 or over.2"

You just did not read what I posted

zygurat789

missile wrote: »

How does that prove that all drivers 60+ are a danger to others?

That was not the original statement.

zygurat789

realshannon wrote: »

I dont know if I like the tone of this thread! my husband is 62 and has never had an accident and no, he doesnt drive like a snail!! He also doesnt look like he is ready to expire any moment, quite the contrary - it also makes it sound like anyone over 60 is also 101, which he isnt. I have only had one accident which wasnt my fault and I am in my 50s and my full comp insurance this year was £140 and his was approx £160 so it mostly is to do with what car and the history if the premiums are very high (and mileage comes into it) rant over

And he realises, if only subconsiously, that his abilities are not what they were when he was younger and drives accordingly.
The point I was making was that those who refuse to recognise this are the danger.