Car Insurance unfair rip off - IN10 conviction

woody100uk

dunstonh wrote: »

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



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.

Higher risk drivers like me? so what would you catagorise someone with a drink driving conviction or two, maybe a careless driving and a speeding offence thrown in for good measure? In comparison real terms, how does unwittingly not being covered for a literal 5 minute journey on one occasion, that hurt nobody financially (not even the insurance industry as i had a policy in force at the time on my own vehicle) make me high risk?! Again, i'm not trying to justify it as ignorance is no excuse - all i'm doing is highlighting how unfair the increase is based on the "risk".

dunstonh wrote: »

The banks won.

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

So, you think its ok and a good deal for people to pay more than 3x the amount based on disproportionate and perceived over-inflated "risk" when in reality it is no greater risk than if I didn't receive the conviction? It has absolutely no bearing on my driving ability, claims history or likelihood of making a future claim. It is purely a cash cow for greedy insurance companies that are tarring everyone with the same brush for people that do try and take the p*ss with the system.
The banks may have "won" but it didn't stop a public outcry at being unfairly treated - hundreds of thousands of people - should they all quit complaining and be happy to be unfairly robbed blind because they committed the offence of going overdrawn by £3 and therefore should be happy to pay the £35 fee?

You may be able to afford to pay whatever these jokers ask for without question but most hard working average joe public cannot.

_Andy_

If it's that unaffordable then don't drive.

dunstonh

Higher risk drivers like me? so what would you catagorise someone with a drink driving conviction or two, maybe a careless driving and a speeding offence thrown in for good measure? In comparison real terms, how does unwittingly not being covered for a literal 5 minute journey on one occasion, that hurt nobody financially (not even the insurance industry as i had a policy in force at the time on my own vehicle) make me high risk?! Again, i'm not trying to justify it as ignorance is no excuse - all i'm doing is highlighting how unfair the increase is based on the "risk".

Risk is not on/off. It is a sliding scale. You should see the premiums that a drink driver gets! The fact is that you have an IN10 conviction. Whether you feel it is unfair or not is irrelevant. The fact is you have that conviction and a conviction makes you higher risk. You are now a member of group of people who have IN10 convictions. People with IN10 convictions (as a group) will result in more claims paid out than a similar group without the IN10 conviction. Hence you pay more.

So, you think its ok and a good deal for people to pay more than 3x the amount based on disproportionate and perceived over-inflated "risk" when in reality it is no greater risk than if I didn't receive the conviction? It has absolutely no bearing on my driving ability, claims history or likelihood of making a future claim. It is purely a cash cow for greedy insurance companies that are tarring everyone with the same brush for people that do try and take the p*ss with the system.

With insurance you are not an individual. You are a statistic. You receive the pricing based on the claims history of all the others that you match. It isnt unfair. It is a consequence of your actions. You put yourself into a group of people that suffer greater numbers of claims or result in a larger than average payout compared to people without an IN10 conviction.

The banks may have "won" but it didn't stop a public outcry at being unfairly treated - hundreds of thousands of people - should they all quit complaining and be happy to be unfairly robbed blind because they committed the offence of going overdrawn by £3 and therefore should be happy to pay the £35 fee?

For every person that felt it was unfair there was another that thought it was fair. Ironically, for many people, bank charges have increased since the court case to a system that is deemed fairer overall.

You may be able to afford to pay whatever these jokers ask for without question but most hard working average joe public cannot.

You are not in a position to make such a comment on what others can afford. Stick to the facts. That is all the insurance company is doing. Plain and simple. You have an IN10 conviction and collectively, those with an IN10 conviction suffer a greater volume of claims than those without. Hence you pay more.

bcfc11

You can't seriously feel a prudent underwriter would not judge someone with an IN10 as the same risk as someone with a clean license?

As said before, you chose to drive with no insurance. You took no notice of the terms of your existing policy. What is to stop you doing this again?

Look at it the other way - why should someone with a clean license be expected to pay the same as someone who has been convicted of driving without insurance?

woody100uk

dunstonh wrote: »

With insurance you are not an individual. You are a statistic. You receive the pricing based on the claims history of all the others that you match. It isnt unfair. It is a consequence of your actions. You put yourself into a group of people that suffer greater numbers of claims or result in a larger than average payout compared to people without an IN10 conviction.

It is unfair, in my opinion. It would be a much fairer deal for consumers with convictions, especially something as ambiguous as an IN10 to be quoted as an individual, not just shoved into a category whereby everyone in that category is the same risk, when they are clearly not. Just like how different pricing based on gender is now classed as unfair and illegal - it does not accurately reflect risk! I appreciate the fact that there are consequences to my actions and thats the way the system works, and that i am the exception rather than the rule but its still a raw deal for me.

dunstonh wrote: »

For every person that felt it was unfair there was another that thought it was fair. Ironically, for many people, bank charges have increased since the court case to a system that is deemed fairer overall.

Perhaps so, but I'll bet that most people that thought it was fair, were never unfairly stung by it. I'd like to see how they changed their tune once they did!

woody100uk

bcfc11 wrote: »

You can't seriously feel a prudent underwriter would not judge someone with an IN10 as the same risk as someone with a clean license?

As said before, you chose to drive with no insurance. You took no notice of the terms of your existing policy. What is to stop you doing this again?

Look at it the other way - why should someone with a clean license be expected to pay the same as someone who has been convicted of driving without insurance?

If i was planning to do this again, i wouldn't be bothered about buying any insurance anyway!

And no, i dont feel they should be judged the same - i feel that it should be looked into on an individual basis taking into account all factors to accurately assess REAL TERMS risk. Not just slap me with a 350% increase.

cathpalmer

I work for the sales department of a large insurance company.

In my experience convictions against a customers licence all carry some penalty in terms of premium on your insurance. Most are small increases like SP30 (speeding) and TS10 (traffic signals violation) that increase the premium by a small amount.
More serious convictions like Drink Driving and Careless Driving and (unfortunately for you) Driving without insurance (TS10) are treated with a higher premium increase due to the fact that on the whole these convictions indicate that you are a higher risk to the insurer and other motorists - you have taken a risk yourself (albeit small if it is as you say a small errand) and had there been an accident as a result of your risk they would have had to pay out.

Insurers do not have the time to be able to assess circumstances on an individual merit, which is why they use a formula to produce to price of the insurance based on lots of risk factors. It is the best process to treat customers fairly.
In my experience people rarely hold their hands up and say it was their fault they received a conviction - there is always some extenuating circumstances why it isn't their fault!!!

Having said all of that! Here's the good news!
Normally, although a conviction is declarable for 5 years on your insurance, you should notice that it makes a lot less of a difference premium wise after 3 years.

Just keep your chin up and bear it out for a little longer and it will be fine!

In the meantime perhaps consider lower insurance categories - Third Party Fire and Theft Cover, a Car with lower engine size and therefore lower ABI rating, find a way to keep it off the road or in a garage.

Good Luck

woody100uk

cathpalmer wrote: »

I work for the sales department of a large insurance company.

In my experience convictions against a customers licence all carry some penalty in terms of premium on your insurance. Most are small increases like SP30 (speeding) and TS10 (traffic signals violation) that increase the premium by a small amount.
More serious convictions like Drink Driving and Careless Driving and (unfortunately for you) Driving without insurance (TS10) are treated with a higher premium increase due to the fact that on the whole these convictions indicate that you are a higher risk to the insurer and other motorists - you have taken a risk yourself (albeit small if it is as you say a small errand) and had there been an accident as a result of your risk they would have had to pay out.

Insurers do not have the time to be able to assess circumstances on an individual merit, which is why they use a formula to produce to price of the insurance based on lots of risk factors. It is the best process to treat customers fairly.
In my experience people rarely hold their hands up and say it was their fault they received a conviction - there is always some extenuating circumstances why it isn't their fault!!!

Having said all of that! Here's the good news!
Normally, although a conviction is declarable for 5 years on your insurance, you should notice that it makes a lot less of a difference premium wise after 3 years.

Just keep your chin up and bear it out for a little longer and it will be fine!

In the meantime perhaps consider lower insurance categories - Third Party Fire and Theft Cover, a Car with lower engine size and therefore lower ABI rating, find a way to keep it off the road or in a garage.

Good Luck

Thanks Cath - constructive, insightful and helpful.

cathpalmer

No problem.

It will get better!

Another idea is to go to a high street broker - they can look across a whole list of underwriters to find you the best deal.
Better still, they can also discount your policy themselves in order to get the business. They will get commission for selling a policy from the the underwriters - obviously higher premium policies are lucrative so they will want to sell you the policy (the sales person will desperately want to sell you a high premium policy as they will earn commission themselves) so use it to your advantage - threaten to go elsewhere if they can't do better for you.

high street brokers have more leverage for discounts that national companies who will have a set amount of discounts that they are allowed to apply (unless you're an existing customer).

I do think insurance is very expensive these days but it's like that to cover those that do drive without insurance deliberately without ever intending to obtain cover etc.
Don't worry - I understand why you're upset, I do empathise with you but you're just gonna have to take it on the chin for a little while!

P.S. If someone else can be named as the main driver (i.e. partner spouse), even if the policy is in your name it will make the premium cheaper too. But only do this if it is largely true otherwise considered Fronting.

x

bcfc11

And no, i dont feel they should be judged the same - i feel that it should be looked into on an individual basis taking into account all factors to accurately assess REAL TERMS risk. Not just slap me with a 350% increase.[/QUOTE]

The industry will process millions of quotes a year. They cannot sit down with everyone who has a conviction and get all the information about what happened, why, the circumstances, your character etc. That is what the Courts do when you are charged with an offence that you dispute. They will find you guilty or innocent.

It is perfectly black and white - you are either guilty of the offence or innocent. On this occasion you were guilty so the insurers cannot simply ignore it.

Whether you like it or not, statistically you are a higher risk than people who do not have a serious driving conviction. It is therefore entirely correct that you should pay a lot more for your insurance.

These figures are not plucked out of the air - Insurance companies and actuaries process huge amounts of statistical data in order the accurately price a risk.