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.
E-Petition to Regulate Motor Insurers?
Issue #1:
I own and ride a motorcycle for 95% of the year.
My father-in-law has a car - shared with this wife and insured in his name.
He wanted a cheap 2nd car for fishing etc. I wanted a car for possible bad weather during the winter (possibly a month max of driving the car).
I have 9 years ncd - car. 1 years ncd motorcycle. I am 48 years old.
My father-in-law has 9 years ncd - car. My father-in-law is 66 years old.
My father-in-law bought a second car (registered in his name), as he is retired and had time to shop for one.
I wish to insure the vehicle in my name with my father-in-law as named driver.
Insurance companies are saying that in order for them to insure me:
a) I must own the vehicle (I do - I paid half of it's cost).
b) They are then saying "so it's registered in your name?", and I am replying "No - vehicle registration is not proof of ownership".
To which they are saying: "Then you'll need to re-register it in your name", to which I reply: "Thus dropping it's resale value because of an additional 'bogus' owner on the log-sheet.".
c) The insurers are basically refusing to insure a vehicle unless the persons name is on the log-sheet!
Now, I do understand that what I am doing can (and has) been used as a ruse to gain cheaper insurance. E.g. a parent insures a vehicle owned by a sibling.
In my case, I gain nothing in what I am attempting to do as we both have 100% ncd and we are both over 47 years old!
In fact, it will probably cost us more because I have an accident claim (see issue#2 below) - albeit a zero fault, zero claim.
This is yet another case of being painted with the same brush - just like the insurance company's habit of sexism and ageism.
It is obvious to me that these business policies are ill-thought-out, as, they initially state: "You must be the owner", then revert to "You must be on the registration document" when I state that I AM the owner.
Issue #2:
I have said that I own a motorcycle - full license - 1 years no claims.
On application for insurance for a larger (1 litre) bike - I provided all relevant details.
The insurer asked about car driving claims. I had one, zero fault, zero £ claim, 100% paid / settled by the other party (they ran into my stationary vehicle).
That, is now recorded on my motorcycle insurance history.
As I have 9 years ncd for a car (and no car insurance at this moment) I said:
"So, you've recorded my car claims history (zero fault, zero claim), you'll now of course take into account my 9 years no claims discount / history - right?"
Their response: "Erm no - we can't take car no claims into account for motorcycle insurance".
My response: "But you ARE taking car driving history into account - why are you taking the negative (if it is that at zero fault, zero claim) and ignoring my 9 years of excellent driving?"
Their response: "I totally agree with what you are saying, but; it's company policy".
Now, I know that there is no normal way of 'beating' insurance companies, they are businesses, however - banks also thought that and as vehicle insurance is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT, and they are starting to hold drivers to ransom - I'd like to suggest that they become more controlled by government legislation - in order to stop these totally underhand / dishonest tactics.
Banks played this game of so-called 'self-regulation', and legislation has brought them into line (well, more-into-line anyway).
I'm not looking for loop-holes for cheaper insurance - I'm looking for rules that force insurers to stop being dishonest, and stop THEM using loop-holes.
Remember this: EVERY SINGLE INSURER starts with:
1) Who is the OWNER
2) Who is the REGISTERED KEEPER?
NEVER the other way around. Ask yourself why?
Is it because there is something (legally), somewhere that stops them doing so?
This isn't purely by chance - EVERY insurer does it this way.
Anyone else agree?
Would it be an idea to start an e-petition to demand legislation to bring insurance companies 'into-line'? :j
Would anyone bother to sign such a petition? :T
Regards,
Red
I own and ride a motorcycle for 95% of the year.
My father-in-law has a car - shared with this wife and insured in his name.
He wanted a cheap 2nd car for fishing etc. I wanted a car for possible bad weather during the winter (possibly a month max of driving the car).
I have 9 years ncd - car. 1 years ncd motorcycle. I am 48 years old.
My father-in-law has 9 years ncd - car. My father-in-law is 66 years old.
My father-in-law bought a second car (registered in his name), as he is retired and had time to shop for one.
I wish to insure the vehicle in my name with my father-in-law as named driver.
Insurance companies are saying that in order for them to insure me:
a) I must own the vehicle (I do - I paid half of it's cost).
b) They are then saying "so it's registered in your name?", and I am replying "No - vehicle registration is not proof of ownership".
To which they are saying: "Then you'll need to re-register it in your name", to which I reply: "Thus dropping it's resale value because of an additional 'bogus' owner on the log-sheet.".
c) The insurers are basically refusing to insure a vehicle unless the persons name is on the log-sheet!
Now, I do understand that what I am doing can (and has) been used as a ruse to gain cheaper insurance. E.g. a parent insures a vehicle owned by a sibling.
In my case, I gain nothing in what I am attempting to do as we both have 100% ncd and we are both over 47 years old!
In fact, it will probably cost us more because I have an accident claim (see issue#2 below) - albeit a zero fault, zero claim.
This is yet another case of being painted with the same brush - just like the insurance company's habit of sexism and ageism.
It is obvious to me that these business policies are ill-thought-out, as, they initially state: "You must be the owner", then revert to "You must be on the registration document" when I state that I AM the owner.
Issue #2:
I have said that I own a motorcycle - full license - 1 years no claims.
On application for insurance for a larger (1 litre) bike - I provided all relevant details.
The insurer asked about car driving claims. I had one, zero fault, zero £ claim, 100% paid / settled by the other party (they ran into my stationary vehicle).
That, is now recorded on my motorcycle insurance history.
As I have 9 years ncd for a car (and no car insurance at this moment) I said:
"So, you've recorded my car claims history (zero fault, zero claim), you'll now of course take into account my 9 years no claims discount / history - right?"
Their response: "Erm no - we can't take car no claims into account for motorcycle insurance".
My response: "But you ARE taking car driving history into account - why are you taking the negative (if it is that at zero fault, zero claim) and ignoring my 9 years of excellent driving?"
Their response: "I totally agree with what you are saying, but; it's company policy".
Now, I know that there is no normal way of 'beating' insurance companies, they are businesses, however - banks also thought that and as vehicle insurance is a LEGAL REQUIREMENT, and they are starting to hold drivers to ransom - I'd like to suggest that they become more controlled by government legislation - in order to stop these totally underhand / dishonest tactics.
Banks played this game of so-called 'self-regulation', and legislation has brought them into line (well, more-into-line anyway).
I'm not looking for loop-holes for cheaper insurance - I'm looking for rules that force insurers to stop being dishonest, and stop THEM using loop-holes.
Remember this: EVERY SINGLE INSURER starts with:
1) Who is the OWNER
2) Who is the REGISTERED KEEPER?
NEVER the other way around. Ask yourself why?
Is it because there is something (legally), somewhere that stops them doing so?
This isn't purely by chance - EVERY insurer does it this way.
Anyone else agree?
Would it be an idea to start an e-petition to demand legislation to bring insurance companies 'into-line'? :j
Would anyone bother to sign such a petition? :T
Regards,
Red
0
Comments
-
The problem is that the car insurance industry (like the rest of the financial sector which incidentally is COMPLETELY USELESS TO SOCIETY and materially produces NOTHING) is blatently obviously corrupt but the government won't do anything about it.
And they won't do anything about it because the financial sector are their best friends.
And you & I can't do anything about it because too many of us are too stupid to vote for anyone else.0 -
Or just find an insurer that will cover you with the car in someone elses name. Plenty out there.
Whether its cheaper than what you value adding another name onto the policy, Who knows?
Either way they will win. Doubt thats ever going to change.Censorship Reigns Supreme in Troll City...0 -
Erm, I bought a car, therefore i owned it, i was registered as owner but my dad insured it for insurance reason, i was told I would have to pay £651 for insurance, after being told my insurance would be half what it was when i was learning, £650. my dad got the insurance for £120 with me on it, I did the driving most of the time, when he past away the insurance company transfered it over my mum who learned to drive but never took the driving test, so it was me who did the driving 100% of the time then.
It was all legal and above board aswell seems times change.
The company was C.I.S maybe give them a call.0 -
The Insurance Industry is regulated by the Financial Services Authority although Jamie Carter will argue they are not.
If the majority of Insures do not want to cover a car that is registered in someone else's name (Not partner) then as a business they are allowed to do this.
The main reasons are they get more claims and it's difficult to handle claims as they have to negotiate with their policy holder and someone else eg the registered keeper0 -
The Insurance Industry is regulated by the Financial Services Authority
Considering all they do at best is loan money, I should hope so.
You pay them premiums, they very occasionally lend you some money back when you make a claim, and you repay the loan with interest by increased premiums for the next ≥5 years.
Scum sucking pigs.0 -
The problem is that the car insurance industry (like the rest of the financial sector which incidentally is COMPLETELY USELESS TO SOCIETY and materially produces NOTHING)
So if you got your way, you'd presumably abolish compulsory car insurance?
Then if you were injured in a road accident that was someone else's fault, and needed specialist medical care, transport and living arrangements, and couldn't work for the rest of your life, at a cost £1m, presumably you'd be perfectly happy if the driver hardly had two beans two rub together and you only get a couple of hundred quid? Would you? I doubt it.
I'm also pleased to hear that you have a spare quarter of a million tucked away to cover the 1 in 1000 chance (or whatever) that your house will burn down taking all your possessions with it.
Myself, I'd rather pay a tiny fraction of my house's value every year to an insurance company knowing that if it did happen, I'd get back probably 100 times what I would pay in house insurance premiums over a whole lifetime.
And so would most people.We need the earth for food, water, and shelter.
The earth needs us for nothing.
The earth does not belong to us.
We belong to the Earth0 -
Ionkontrol wrote: »Considering all they do at best is loan money, I should hope so.
You pay them premiums, they very occasionally lend you some money back when you make a claim, and you repay the loan with interest by increased premiums for the next ≥5 years.
Scum sucking pigs.
I had a claim of £65k on my first home Insurance after being with them for two years. My premium has always been circa £250 a year which will take me about 250 years to pay off.0 -
thenudeone wrote: »So if you got your way, you'd presumably abolish compulsory car insurance?
Then if you were injured in a road accident that was someone else's fault, and needed specialist medical care, transport and living arrangements, and couldn't work for the rest of your life, at a cost £1m, presumably you'd be perfectly happy if the driver hardly had two beans two rub together and you only get a couple of hundred quid? Would you? I doubt it.
No, and I would fully desire what you've described to be covered.
What I have a problem with is:
-My details being sold on to ambulance chasers at an inflated price, that is passed onto everyone else with car insurance. Companies that are financially connected to the insurance company in some way.
-Having my losses massively over-inflated, which may be good for me, is GREAT for said ambulance chasers, and the inflated costs of which are passed onto everyone else with car insurance.
-My car receiving average repairs, but that cost 10x what they should cost, carried out by 'approved' companies that, again, are financially linked to the insurance company. This inflated cost is passed onto everyone else with car insurance.
-No choice of any but basically 3 insurance companies, all financially linked to banks & legal institutions; all because no other company can afford to insure due to the above over inflated costs.
Poland has about 6x the KSI rate on their roads that we have, yet over there it costs about £100 pa to fully comprehensively insure a large estate car for ANYONE to drive, with no questions asked other than 'what's it's registration?' and 'who owns it?'
We the British are being massively scammed by our financial sector and this is made far worse by the fact that we seem to have plenty of scamees with stupidity that extends to the point of actually defending them.0 -
Erm, I bought a car, therefore i owned it, i was registered as owner but my dad insured it for insurance reason, i was told I would have to pay £651 for insurance, after being told my insurance would be half what it was when i was learning, £650. my dad got the insurance for £120 with me on it, I did the driving most of the time, when he past away the insurance company transfered it over my mum who learned to drive but never took the driving test, so it was me who did the driving 100% of the time then.
It was all legal and above board aswell seems times change.
The company was C.I.S maybe give them a call.
I suggest that if what you have said above is true then you should look up the definition of fronting, and no it is not above board and is technically fraud.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 347.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.8K Spending & Discounts
- 239.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 615.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.1K Life & Family
- 252.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards