Car insurance cancellation charge £75!

jimjames

If they charge £75 to cancel, is there any refund they give of the remaining premium? It may still be worthwhile to cancel even if there is only a few quid back.

ripplyuk

Johno100 wrote: »

But aren't you going to need your No Claims Bonus, which is presently being used on your old car, to get the premiums you are being quoted on your new car?.

I'm cancelling the policy on my old car. That's what the £75 charge is for. I'll only be insured on one car.

Is there any issues with my NCD if I do this?

ripplyuk

gilbert_and_sullivan wrote: »

Ripply, would you mind naming the insurer in question, so we can avoid them at all costs.

With pleasure! It's with Budget insurance services but they're really the broker. The actual insurer is AXA.

I'm unsure which of them decides to make these charges. Just thinking, would I be able to ring Axa direct and complain about this charge?

Stooby2

Be very careful about letting a policy just expire if you've sold the car on / part exchanged it. There was a very good letter & reply in the October 2013 issue (page 38) of Ride magazine a where a guy had sold his motorbike just let the insurance run as he wanted to get the full year's no claims.

However, the new owner rode it uninsured and crashed into another vehicle. The third party's insurer found the motorbike was currently insured and claimed on the policy.

The guy that sold the bike then got a nasty letter from his insurance company, stating they will be asking him for the cost of claim.

The reply was written by Andrew Dalton who is a solicitor and regularly helps readers with legal issues. He stated that the insurers were legally allowed to do this and things were soon to become very expensive for the guy who sold the bike.

So cancel the old policy immediately you sell the old car (if you do).

Johno100

ripplyuk wrote: »

I'm cancelling the policy on my old car. That's what the £75 charge is for. I'll only be insured on one car.

But in your first post you were on about leaving the policy running with your old insurers until June with no car on it. Have you not got your new car yet?

ripplyuk

Johno100 wrote: »

But in your first post you were on about leaving the policy running with your old insurers until June with no car on it. Have you not got your new car yet?

Yes, I forgot I couldn't use my NCD on 2 cars. I wanted to let the old policy run out and get a new policy with a different company for my new car but obviously that won't work. Sorry if I'm no good at explaining it!

I've already got the new car. It came with a weeks complimentary insurance but this runs out on Thursday. My old car is parked at my brothers house at the minute as he's going to sell it at auction for me.

arcon5

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Many insurers only count up to 5 years NCD and those that do count higher only tend to give 1-2% discount per year so the difference between 7 and 8 will be small to none.

These are ultimately the choices you make though, very cheap initial premiums and high fees for doing anything or higher initial premiums and cheaper amendment/ cancellation fees.

Price is king and almost everyone goes for option 1

Is that right? I thought it was like 10 years. Otherwise what's the point in protecting anything like 7+years ncb

londonTiger

Stooby2 wrote: »

Be very careful about letting a policy just expire if you've sold the car on / part exchanged it. There was a very good letter & reply in the October 2013 issue (page 38) of Ride magazine a where a guy had sold his motorbike just let the insurance run as he wanted to get the full year's no claims.

However, the new owner rode it uninsured and crashed into another vehicle. The third party's insurer found the motorbike was currently insured and claimed on the policy.

The guy that sold the bike then got a nasty letter from his insurance company, stating they will be asking him for the cost of claim.

The reply was written by Andrew Dalton who is a solicitor and regularly helps readers with legal issues. He stated that the insurers were legally allowed to do this and things were soon to become very expensive for the guy who sold the bike.

So cancel the old policy immediately you sell the old car (if you do).

this has to be wrong, surely. It's the person whose insured not the vehicle. Why would third party just claim from whatever insurance policy was attached to the vehicle without cross referencing with the rider?

da_rule

londonTiger wrote: »

this has to be wrong, surely. It's the person whose insured not the vehicle. Why would third party just claim from whatever insurance policy was attached to the vehicle without cross referencing with the rider?

Because it's the vehicle that's insured, with a list of people who are authorised to drive it. The Road Traffic Act sets out that it is an offence drive a vehicle on a road without at least third party liability insurance in place. Therefore it is the vehicle that has to be insured. And indeed you can get policies where there are no named drivers, anyone with the owners consent can drive the vehicle.

When a vehicle is stolen, the insurance company will always pay out to cover any third party damage but can claim that back from the 'customer' if they have contributed to the theft (left the car unlocked with keys in the ignition etc). So the principle is pretty much the same. The insurers will be liable but they can then pursue the customer as he had not updated them about the changes to the vehicle (change of ownership/storage location etc).

dacouch

da_rule wrote: »

Because it's the vehicle that's insured, with a list of people who are authorised to drive it. The Road Traffic Act sets out that it is an offence drive a vehicle on a road without at least third party liability insurance in place. Therefore it is the vehicle that has to be insured. And indeed you can get policies where there are no named drivers, anyone with the owners consent can drive the vehicle.

When a vehicle is stolen, the insurance company will always pay out to cover any third party damage but can claim that back from the 'customer' if they have contributed to the theft (left the car unlocked with keys in the ignition etc). So the principle is pretty much the same. The insurers will be liable but they can then pursue the customer as he had not updated them about the changes to the vehicle (change of ownership/storage location etc).

Erm lol...