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.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Insurance Company Government Legislation?
RedSlayer
Posts: 11 Forumite
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'?
Would anyone bother to sign such a petition?
Regards,
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'?
Would anyone bother to sign such a petition?
Regards,
0
Comments
-
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.
There are insurance companies out there who will insure the risk but the risk is non-standard so most insurers and mainstream brokers will not be interested.
Mass market insurers' and brokers' entire processes are set up for efficiency - eliminating grey areas and eliminating the need for their staff on the front line to make underwriting decisions which they are not qualified or experienced enough to make.
In this sense insurance is no different from any other industry. It's a bit like buying a TV from Tesco versus buying a TV from an audio visual specialist. The person on the till in Tesco will not know the first thing about the technical details of the TV you want to purchase.This is yet another case of being painted with the same brush - just like the insurance company's habit of sexism and ageism.
"Sexism" and "ageism" are perjorative and emotional words that do not reflect the actual situation. A better description would be "risk discrimination" i.e. discriminating (i.e. "distinguishing" in the pure non-perjorative sense between different risks). Gender discrimination in insurance will shortly be banned - forcing many safer women drivers to pay higher premiums. Equality does not equal fairness.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.
See above - you seem to expect specialist services from non-specialist companies - life is seldom like this.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".
Not a very logical argument here. There are many forms of "driving history" - the length of time you have held your licence, whether you have any advanced driving qualifications, earned NCD, claims, losses, motoring convictions. How an insurer utilises all this data to evaluate the risk premium is up to them.
As someone who has never had a claim in my car but who has never ridden a motorcycle, I can understand the insurer's position. I suspect I would be far more likely to crash a motorcycle because I have no experience in riding one. So to allow my car NCD to be applied would be totally illogical, as it is not in any way be a reflection of the actual risk.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
Who is being "held to ransom"? BTW if you want to be pedantic insurance is NOT a legal requirement under the Road Traffic Act if you deposit a certain amount of money with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court.- I'd like to suggest that they become more controlled by government legislation - in order to stop these totally underhand / dishonest tactics
What specific regulations are required? Are yoyu familiar with the hundreds of pages of the FSA's ICOBS regulations which apply to insurers alongside all the other various high-level regulations and Prudential Standards?Would anyone bother to sign such a petition?
Probably not.0 -
Raskazz,
Thanks for your view, but which insurance sector / company are you connected with?
"'Sexism' and 'ageism' are perjorative and emotional words that do not reflect the actual situation."
I like that one, and yet - they are still going to be legislated against - within the insurance sector - right? (I wonder why - when you defend such bias?).
And btw it's 'PEJorative'. (Spelling / grammar skill is especially useful when weighing-up one's opponent).
"As someone who has never had a claim in my car but who has never ridden a motorcycle, I can understand the insurer's position. I suspect I would be far more likely to crash a motorcycle because I have no experience in riding one. So to allow my car NCD to be applied would be totally illogical, as it is not in any way be a reflection of the actual risk."
And following that logic - it would also be totally illogical to compare past car-driving habits against future motor-cycle risk - yes? (Aaaah - BUT - you'll no-doubt say - lol).
Regarding: "Who is being "held to ransom"? BTW if you want to be pedantic insurance is NOT a legal requirement under the Road Traffic Act if you deposit a certain amount of money with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court."
Are you referring to the fallacy (proven to be fallacy) here:
whatdotheyknow.com/request/section_144_road_traffic_act_198?unfold=1 ?
The insurance industry is probably the next sector to be given the heave-ho (and it's been too greedy for too long and needs to be kicked into touch).
I wish to start the kick-off.
Red ;-)0 -
I know, those greedy motor insurers having costs of more than the premiums they get for at least 15 of the last 20 years.
On a less flippant note, as has been mentioned you can get insurance with some providers, try a specialist broker, they may even know one who accepts motorcycle NCD. As has been said, many mainstream providers are happy to only offer quotes for the "normal" 95% of the market. Sounds like you have approached one of these and they aren't interested.0 -
Raskazz,
Thanks for your view, but which insurance sector / company are you connected with?
"'Sexism' and 'ageism' are perjorative and emotional words that do not reflect the actual situation."
I like that one, and yet - they are still going to be legislated against - within the insurance sector - right? (I wonder why - when you defend such bias?).
And btw it's 'PEJorative'. (Spelling / grammar skill is especially useful when weighing-up one's opponent).
"As someone who has never had a claim in my car but who has never ridden a motorcycle, I can understand the insurer's position. I suspect I would be far more likely to crash a motorcycle because I have no experience in riding one. So to allow my car NCD to be applied would be totally illogical, as it is not in any way be a reflection of the actual risk."
And following that logic - it would also be totally illogical to compare past car-driving habits against future motor-cycle risk - yes? (Aaaah - BUT - you'll no-doubt say - lol).
Regarding: "Who is being "held to ransom"? BTW if you want to be pedantic insurance is NOT a legal requirement under the Road Traffic Act if you deposit a certain amount of money with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court."
Are you referring to the fallacy (proven to be fallacy) here:
whatdotheyknow.com/request/section_144_road_traffic_act_198?unfold=1 ?
The insurance industry is probably the next sector to be given the heave-ho (and it's been too greedy for too long and needs to be kicked into touch).
I wish to start the kick-off.
Red ;-)
"so"/// w:h^a____t? ex@ctly ARE....you~~saying=*==?Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards