Admiral trying to charge extra for previous year's cover

raskazz

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

The more fuel you use, the more "dangerous" you are.

Except that isn't true.

UsernameAlreadyExists

It's as "accurate" as the other way.
... and they can't even differentiate between men & women now ... so "risk" assessment is just a sweeping generalisation (just like fuel consumption).

Besides you can't cause damage without driving*, and you can't drive without fuel ... but you can drive without insurance. go figure.

They really don't care how much they charge an individual - so long as money coming in is more than goes out. Business 101.

(* Another generalistion!)

rev_henry

InsideInsurance wrote: »

If you state the risk doesnt matter why arent you saying that everyone should pay the same premium? Or are you instead saying that if you get away with fraud for 12 months then you should be scot free for life? Should we all declare clean license, no accidents etc so we all pay the same premiums and just those that have an accident should have to subsequently pay the increased premium for what the reality was?

Given a third party has up to 6 years to make a claim (non-injury) and a minor has until their 21st birthday (injury) there is no certainty that there will be no claims

If it was an honest mistake then yes, knowingly committing fraud no.

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

Everyone shouldn't pay the same, because I think it should be on fuel consumption. The more fuel you use, the more "dangerous" you are. Quite simple really.

Why should I pay a shed load of money to insure a fast car that sits on my drive for 355+ days of the year? Oh, that's right ... because it's "risky and dangerous" and I have to.

You're forgetting the fact that your fast car is also likely to be more desirable to thieves, so is indeed a risk just sitting on your drive.

Interestingly in NZ insurance isn't compulsory, basic 3rd party covered is included in the cost of fuel I understand, seems a good idea! If you want comprehensive or fire/theft cover you can buy it.

UsernameAlreadyExists

rev_henry wrote: »

You're forgetting the fact that your fast car is also likely to be more desirable to thieves, so is indeed a risk just sitting on your drive.

You're not aware of the fact that it has no battery in it (making it pretty hard to steal - unless you bring your own), and also has only the legal minimum requirement of 3rd party cover. So if someone manages to whisk it away then well done to them, and it's my "risk" / problem.

It still costs me £400+ per year for the privilege of a few days use here and there ... thanks to the continuous insurance ruling. (another scam). So I am contributing heavily into the "pot" with a significant annual bill, with there being little to no chance of me (or indeed anyone else) ever claiming - simply because it's "dangerously fast & highly stealable" yet technically I could drive it every single day and run over thousands of children, and kittens. Ironically - if I did drive it every single day it would cost me an absolute fortune in fuel

NZ seem to have the right idea.

I'd still like to know raskazz's reason for stating using more fuel doesn't make you more "dangerous".

dacouch

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

You're not aware of the fact that it has no battery in it (making it pretty hard to steal - unless you bring your own), and also has only the legal minimum requirement of 3rd party cover. So if someone manages to whisk it away then well done to them, and it's my "risk" / problem.

It still costs me £400+ per year for the privilege of a few days use here and there ... thanks to the continuous insurance ruling. (another scam). So I am contributing heavily into the "pot" with a significant annual bill, with there being little to no chance of me (or indeed anyone else) ever claiming - simply because it's "dangerously fast & highly stealable" yet technically I could drive it every single day and run over thousands of children, and kittens. Ironically - if I did drive it every single day it would cost me an absolute fortune in fuel

NZ seem to have the right idea.

I'd still like to know raskazz's reason for stating using more fuel doesn't make you more "dangerous".

If the thief crashes your car, your Insurer could have to foot the bill for the damage.

UsernameAlreadyExists

Does my £400 cover all that potential damage?
And .. if they don't crash my car ... what have I paid for?

dacouch

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

Does my £400 cover all that potential damage?
And .. if they don't crash my car ... what have I paid for?

Insurance against damage your car could have done.

Not every policyholder has a claim each year or premiums would be many thousands of pounds. It works on a pooling of risk/premiums basis.

UsernameAlreadyExists

Yes, I understand that. And you don't think this could work equally as well from fuel consumption?

I hardly drive my car ... so am I compensating for the likes of the sales reps that do 10s of thousands of miles per year in their "eco friendly" 2.0 diesels that are considered far less risky? - how much fuel do they consume compared to me, and how much more likely are they to cause damage/claim than me? How is it fair that they pay less insurance but drive more than 20 times more distance than me?

londonTiger

if they are allowed to demand extra for cover already spent, surely on the same token you should be able to cancel and request refund for insurance already spent.

What happens if you don't pay? Are they going to void you insurance cover and refund you for that period?

UsernameAlreadyExists

They can't ... "continuous insurance" is required. so SORNing etc. it's a joke/scam ... all of it.