Car Insurance unfair rip off - IN10 conviction

woody100uk

I am thoroughly disgusted at how unfair and disproportionate car insurance premiums are - does anybody know if they are regulated by anyone or if there is a professional body who i can complain to.

I'm 26, have 6 years no claims bonus and also a IN10 conviction from 2010 - i am just about to purchase a new vehicle and been getting quotes for insurance and am shocked to see just how much impact having an IN10 conviction makes and is clearly disproportionate and unfair.

cheapest Quote with IN10 conviction: £2100
cheapest quote without IN10 conviction: £600

Can somebody explain to me how a conviction for driving without insurance (one occasion on a technicality - NOT involving an accident or claim) warrants a £1500 jump in insurance premium and will do for 5 years? How exactly is this an accurate reflection of risk to the insurer? Surely it should have no bearing on the premium whatsoever!

I am tired of being fisted left, right and centre for trying to do the right thing.
Talk about kicking people when they are down!

raskazz

woody100uk wrote: »

I am thoroughly disgusted at how unfair and disproportionate

Why is a large increase necessarily "disporoportionate" or "unfair"?

woody100uk wrote: »

does anybody know if they are regulated by anyone or if there is a professional body who i can complain to.

At this point in time insurers are regulated by the FSA. However, the FSA will only intervene in matters of pricing where there are breaches of statute (eg Disability Discrimination Act), collusion or anti-competitive practice in price-setting, or some other more fundamental issue with a firm's pricing - such as pricing being at levels which are unsustainable/imprudential.

woody100uk wrote: »

is clearly disproportionate and unfair.

Why?

woody100uk wrote: »

Can somebody explain to me how a conviction for driving without insurance (one occasion on a technicality - NOT involving an accident or claim)

Most IN10's in my experience do not involve an accident or claim.

woody100uk wrote: »

warrants a £1500 jump in insurance premium and will do for 5 years?

How do you know what the difference is going to be in years 2,3,4 and 5?

woody100uk wrote: »

How exactly is this an accurate reflection of risk to the insurer? Surely it should have no bearing on the premium whatsoever!

Clearly it does have a bearing on the premium. Asumming the correct risk premium is £600 in the first place, if it had no bearing on the risk another insurer would be quoting, say £1500 and being certain of securing the business with a clear expected profit of £900. That's how a competitive market works.

woody100uk

what im saying is, its unfair that it in this circumstance that it should and does have a bearing on the premium - what extra risk is it to insurers?? it's just another way in which insurance racketeers can extort more money out of people.

look at it from the consumers point of view, i would be paying an extra £1500, for what? what is the extra £1500 being paid for? to offset the risk of what? what extra service am i being provided with that warrants more than trippling the premium?

Fair enough if it was due to an accident or claim or was for drink driving or something a lot more serious - but it wasn't - it affected absolutely no-one else or caused anybody else to be out of pocket, and because of that i am going to be penalised for years to come. THAT is why it is unfair.

Buzby

You overlook the fact that it is the underwriters who decide what the charges will be on a set of circumstances advised by the applicant. For situations where the industry is seen as a target (a criminal conviction, theft or irresponsible behaviour) this goes to the heart of their calculations. Actual damage resulting is actually irrelevant, as it bases the potential costs vs losses on the information provided.

Unfair? It is an unexact science, but some underwriters are less sensitive to this, you just need to find them by getting a quote that you can bear.

antrobus

woody100uk wrote: »

...Can somebody explain to me how a conviction for driving without insurance (one occasion on a technicality - NOT involving an accident or claim) ...

By a "technicality" you mean that you were, a) driving a car and, b) you didn't have insurance. Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence, either you technically have insurance, or you technically don't; there is no middle ground.

woody100uk

antrobus wrote: »

By a "technicality" you mean that you were, a) driving a car and, b) you didn't have insurance. Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence, either you technically have insurance, or you technically don't; there is no middle ground.

as in running an errand in somebody elses vehicle (purely as a one off) not realising that my insurance policy didn't cover me to use somebody elses vehicle. as opposed to blatently driving round on a daily basis with no insurance with no intention of getting any as so many people do these days.

I'm not saying that i wasn't in the wrong and ignorance is no excuse, however how can paying an extra £1500 be justifiable, in anybodys book?

vaio

All you can do is what you and everybody else should be doing anyway, shop around & try all the various supply channels including traditional brokers who might be able to get the circumstances taken into account but I'm guessing insurers almost take IN10 personally. You've robbed them of a premium so they will return the favour with interest

On the bright (or at least less dim) side, once they get round to enacting the new rehabilitation of offenders act you might well find that you are rehabilitated after one year so won't suffer the 5 year loading you fear.

woody100uk

vaio wrote: »

All you can do is what you and everybody else should be doing anyway, shop around & try all the various supply channels including traditional brokers who might be able to get the circumstances taken into account but I'm guessing insurers almost take IN10 personally. You've robbed them of a premium so they will return the favour with interest

Exactly!! As if they've got the right and the cheek to "morally" penalise you!

The whole industry deserves a MAJOR public backlash and should be challenged for fairness, just like unfair bank charges were.

dunstonh

as in running an errand in somebody elses vehicle (purely as a one off) not realising that my insurance policy didn't cover me to use somebody elses vehicle.

As in committing an offence which has resulted in a prosecution.

Exactly!! As if they've got the right and the cheek to "morally" penalise you!

You honestly believe that?
You have a prosecution that indicates an increased risk. The insurance premium is priced on risk. Some companies that target low risk drivers will heavily penalise higher risk drivers like you. Others may penalise less. It is not for moral reasons but financial.

The whole industry deserves a MAJOR public backlash and should be challenged for fairness, just like unfair bank charges were.

The banks won.

You have no moral high ground here. You committed an offence, you got caught and now you are paying the consequences.

_Andy_

And as per usual, the words 'rip off' in a thread title where there isn't one.zzzzzzz

vaio

woody100uk wrote: »

Exactly!! As if they've got the right and the cheek to "morally" penalise you!

The whole industry deserves a MAJOR public backlash and should be challenged for fairness, just like unfair bank charges were.

Whilst generally I'm no great defender of insurers if one of my customers "robbed" me or caused me hassle by unreasonably arguing about prices etc then the next quote to them would reflect that.

As others have said, the quotes you are getting reflect either previous experience or expectation of likely outcome should they take you on as a customer.

On the web sites they don't differentiate between someone who habitually drives without insurance and a one off mistake like you made.

In my mind there is a difference and approaching a traditional broker might enable the exact circumstances to be taken into account which *might* just result in a lower premium