Discrimination for being unemployed ?

motorguy

dacouch wrote: »

Have you looked at the actual repayments.

I've just run a quote through which gives an annual premium of £572.40 for "cash". The option for instalments is first payments of £66.32 followed by eleven instalments of £66.21 which is a total repayment of £794.63 with an APR of 18.6

Uh-huh.

Thats called 'charging interest on a loan', its not 'heavily loading the premium'.

The big clue to me would have been the bit where they give you the APR which shows its interest on the loan.

dacouch wrote: »

As they say in America, you do the math

I would respectfully suggest you spend more time understanding the information you're seeing in front of you, rather than trying to come back with some smart reply.

dacouch

pgilc1 wrote: »

Uh-huh.

Thats called 'charging interest on a loan', its not 'heavily loading the premium'.

The big clue to me would have been the bit where they give you the APR which shows its interest on the loan.



I would respectfully suggest you spend more time understanding the information you're seeing in front of you, rather than trying to come back with some smart reply.

Have a look at the figures I've quoted and on the quote you obtained.

The difference in the amount between the cash premium and how much you pay back over twelve instalments in my quote is £222.23 on a supposed APR of 18.6%.

An APR of 18.6% on a premium of £572.4 would be nearer £52.25 per month.

Twelve repayments of £66.32 is massively over an APR of 18.6%

oscarward

pgilc1 wrote: »

It'll simply be down to statistics. Statistically they will have evidence that unemployed people in the O/P's area are more likely to have an accident. This may well be because they have more leisure time and perhaps they are seeing that most accidents happen in leisure time - after all, if you're at work in an office or factory, you cant be driving your car.

Hmm.... Not sure about that. I was made redundant last May and did some dummy quotes.

Basically Employed was 380
Unemployed was 500 ish (unemployed was defined as seeking work)
and retired was 320

It looks like the difference between employed and retired was 4k business miles use included and hire car guarantee.

So the mileage difference between driving during working hours for all 3 options is minimal. i.e. driving to business meetings, driving to interviews and holiday-leisure touring miles pretty much the same.

Personally I decided to take early retirement, then got bored so now have a job. They charged me 39 to add in business use and fit winter tyres incl of 15 admin fee. Direct line btw.

motorguy

dacouch wrote: »

Have a look at the figures I've quoted and on the quote you obtained.

The difference in the amount between the cash premium and how much you pay back over twelve instalments in my quote is £222.23 on a supposed APR of 18.6%.

An APR of 18.6% on a premium of £572.4 would be nearer £52.25 per month.

Twelve repayments of £66.32 is massively over an APR of 18.6%

I stand corrected, though its down to how you want to read it

They give you a 'single payment discount' if you plan on paying immediately. This is quoted already built in to the headline £572.40. If you take it out monthly they dont give you the discount, and you then pay 18.6% APR on the non discounted price.

So depending on how you read it, its either 'extra discount' OR 'weighting the insurance against you if you pay monthly'.

dacouch

pgilc1 wrote: »

I stand corrected, though its down to how you want to read it

They give you a 'single payment discount' if you plan on paying immediately. This is quoted already built in to the headline £572.40. If you take it out monthly they dont give you the discount, and you then pay 18.6% APR on the non discounted price.

So depending on how you read it, its either 'extra discount' OR 'weighting the insurance against you if you pay monthly'.

It's a weird way of doing it which is obviously in Admiral's favour which (Although as you state is not actually APR, is in effect an APR of something like 65%), is a complaint that comes up on MSE a lot

I remember when Insurers first introduced instalments, they loved it as it considerably increased the percentage of customers who renewed as many customers just allowed it to renew for convenience (In the days when existing customers received cheaper rates than new customers). The APR Insurers charged was fairly low eg the actual overall cost (Not APR) would have been circa 6%.

Admiral who it should be remembered are one of the few Insurers who actually make a decent profit go against the grain (As they do on a number of issues) and charge such a huge amount for instalments.

Aretnap

Lum wrote: »

Think of all the stereotypes that the likes of the Daily Mail like to put about regarding unemployed people. The insurance will assume you'll be partying until 5AM, drinking Tesco Value Lager and with a 3 litre White Lightening chaser and then jumping in your car to go joyriding around the council estate listening to dubstep through a 3000W bass system that you haven't bothered to declare.

Yes we all know that this stereotype is a load of rubbish, except for a very small minority, but the insurers will tack on the risk of you being one of said minority.

I doubt whether it's got much to do with Daily Mail stereotypes - an insurer which based its risk assessments on inaccurate stereotypes would last about as long as a bookie who based his odds on whether he liked the horses' names. The truth is likely to be that insurers claims histories show that, for whatever reason, unemployed people do tend to have more accidents than (say) teachers. If so they'll charge unemployed people more than teachers - fair or not.

It doesn't mean the OP's become a worse driver as a result of losing his job of course, but it does mean he's joined a group of people who do on average tend to be worse drivers, and unfortunately that will affect his premium.

dacouch

Aretnap wrote: »

I doubt whether it's got much to do with Daily Mail stereotypes - an insurer which based its risk assessments on inaccurate stereotypes would last about as long as a bookie who based his odds on whether he liked the horses' names. The truth is likely to be that insurers claims histories show that, for whatever reason, unemployed people do tend to have more accidents than (say) teachers. If so they'll charge unemployed people more than teachers - fair or not.

It doesn't mean the OP's become a worse driver as a result of losing his job of course, but it does mean he's joined a group of people who do on average tend to be worse drivers, and unfortunately that will affect his premium.

In the not that distant past, underwriters who were typically university educated would use their own stereotypes to work out loadings / declines for occupations. This was typically on what they would deem a "Moral Hazard" and would include people such as journalists, bookmakers, publicans, students, sportsmen, television / film stars etc etc

Now days they tend to base it more on their own statistics although as many still decline many occupations they don't have the data as they still decline many occupations they don't have the data so it's easier to carry on declining some occupations.

It can also be connected to their own reInsurance, this is because Insurers take out Insurance with other specialist Insurers to cover them for large claims / events to reduce the risk of them going bankrupt. The reInsurers may refuse to accept certain occupations which means the Insurers will in turn refuse them or it can be they receive a reduced reInsurance premium if they decline specific occupations.

Some occupations for instance journalist have changed massively over the last decades. Previously journalists had a deserved reputation for consuming inhuman amounts of alcohol whereas now days it's a small percentage that would consume large amounts of alcohol.

Some (Not all) Insurers decline or load for the unemployed, this is generally due to their statistics showing they pay out more for claims for the unemployed.

Unfortunately for the unemployed, drug dealers and other criminals will describe themselves as unemployed and often sign on for JSA. So their claims are lumped in with the genuine unemployed.

Underwriters by nature are conservative and if they're not sure they will decline a risk that is they don't understand or is unusual or they perceive to be higher risk. Imagine if your job was to calculate how much to charge different classes of people and cars etc and at the end of the year try and show a profit after paying claims. By virtue you would err on the side of caution.

Lum

Aretnap wrote: »

I doubt whether it's got much to do with Daily Mail stereotypes - an insurer which based its risk assessments on inaccurate stereotypes would last about as long as a bookie who based his odds on whether he liked the horses' names. The truth is likely to be that insurers claims histories show that, for whatever reason, unemployed people do tend to have more accidents than (say) teachers. If so they'll charge unemployed people more than teachers - fair or not.

You missed my point a little. I wasn't claiming they were judging it based on stereotypes. Just that said stereotype is true for a small fraction of the unemployed. Drug dealers as mentioned above are an obvious example.

This small fraction pushes up the overall figure for that group and causes the loading. In effect you are guilty by association and paying for a small fraction of the mayhem they cause. Young people suffer the same problem, most of them aren't testosterone addled raging a***holes, but they have to subsidise the ones who are.

wossie

Its crazy, I myself would say its discrimination, I do not use the car any more or any less, in employment or not.Why having a job makes a difference. Any one at any time is capable of being involved in an accident fault or no fault.
I have always paid monthly. Im up to my eyes in debt and ever had the luxury of paying up front.
Its just a shock to me that using unemployment to load premiums, they are insuring me as a person,so i can legaly drive my car from a to b.
Also it goes to show put my status as u/e. premiums rise, put my status as a house husband or similar, premiums drop, but your still u/e. ??????????

wossie

CrazyRed wrote: »

Hi

In exactly the same boat as you, for exactly the same reasons (I'm nearly your age, too!).

Go to MoneySupermarket and get quotes from there - put in your occupation as "Carer-Non Professional".

As you've left work to care for your wife, this is totally legitimate and accurate as to your occupation and you will find that you will not be penalised in the premium.

You're NOT unemployed. Your 'job' is caring for your wife!

(My renewal, with my current company was over £1,000 "because you're not employed, sir". Best quote from the comparison site I mentioned was £432 so a massive, massive difference).

Thanks i have found a quote, [EMAIL="cheaper@£297"]cheaper@£297[/EMAIL] with a free meerkat, sergei needs a buddy.