*Car insurance: are policy add-ons worth it??*

hybernia

Renewal time for our car insurance, a fully comp policy with 70% NCD. OH and I are both on the policy; neither of us have any driving convictions (or any other kind) and the only accident within which we were involved was a damage-only four years ago for which we were not responsible and the other driver's insurer paid for in full.

So . . . I'm not complaining about an, um, excessive insurance renewal quote, rather I'm wondering if -- as renewal has gone up by £40+ -- we should be retaining the existing policy add-ons. We pay for three:

£15: NCD Protection
£25: Motoring Legal Expenses
£25: Enhanced Personal Accident Cover -- the standard cover is up to £5,000 per person (loss of life / limb / sight etc), the enhanced is up to £20,000 per person.

I've no idea if that £65 total represents good value or not. And we don't mind paying the £15 NCD extra or the £25 motoring legal expenses cover. However . . .

Not being especially trustful of any insurer, for anything, whether decked out with the much-vaunted Defaqto thingummajig or not, we're wondering if it's possible to buy 'enhanced' personal accident cover somewhere else and at a lower cost? (Or buy 'motoring legal expenses' cheaper somewhere else, too.)

Advice appreciated: thanks.

OnanTheBarbarian

NCD protection. For £15 yeah worth having.

Legal cover. Search for stand alone providers or free alternatives.

Personal accident cover. Waste money.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

On the PA - many people don't like this. That is in part because there are many other risks to insure against first (that are often not) and it has tended to be a lucrative product for the insurer. Sadly as you fear, this level of cover may be inadequate and feels overpriced.

Buy PA standalone if you want it - you can choose a level of cover to reflect what you would need if you lost a leg or ... just google.

Oh and Defacto IMHO does only what it says - tells you if the headline benefits are at a certain level. The exact details of coverage and exclusions in the policy wording or the hardline claims reputation are not vetted or rated. It could be said to be a headline numbers for stars ratio.

hybernia

Thanks, Onan, and thanks, too, to Thinking.

Reckon we're all of the same mind where the £15 NCD protection is concerned . . . but now that I've delved into this topic (I've done a bit of research after posting here) I discover the following:

1) Our car insurance policy is for two people, that is, main driver + named driver. Doesn't matter which one of us is driving the car if something goes wrong, the policy covers BOTH of us in terms of the so-called 'motoring legal protection' and 'personal accident cover'. On which basis therefore, I'm covered at a cost of £12.50p per year for the legal bit and £12.50p a year for the accident bit. OH is covered similarly;

2) Researching the 'Net, and I can't find a single provider willing to offer 'motoring legal protection' for £12.50p a year. Yes: they all seem to claim that they're undercutting the car insurance people, but what they offer is insurance on an individual basis. In other words -- and let's take this example as a for instance:

https://www.bestpricefs.co.uk/motor-legal-protection/legal-protection-silver

£19.75 a year is certainly less than £25 a year . . . but for me and t'OH, it would actually be £39.50. Not exactly a bargain -- so I guess, the real issue is if a car insurance policy is for a single policyholder or for two people (policyholder plus named driver.)

3) Personal Accident cover, for which we currently pay £25 a year for cover up to £20,000 per person -- in other words: £12.50p a year for moi, £12.50p a year for OH -- is offered by other sources, including Aviva:

http://www.aviva.co.uk/personal-accident-insurance/

where the headline figure is a bargain-priced £2.09p per month.

Well, uh, yes. Very nice. Except that's £25 a year. . . which is what we already pay for cover up to £20,000 per person / a maximum total of £140,000 for all persons traveling in our car.

That said: there's no death benefit payment so Aviva's 'family' policy at £7.88 a month isn't (by comparison) over-priced at £94.56 a year for husband and wife -- actually, £69.56, seeing as how we wouldn't be paying that £25 a month to our car insurer.

Still and all, it's a big jump from £12.50p each a year to £35 each a year.

Ho hum. I may just have answered my own original question. Then again, I'm no clearer. Guess the answer is, as usual, it all depends on individual preferences and circumstances. But anyway . . . thanks for everyone's help: appreciated, as ever.

OnanTheBarbarian

Personal accident cover is pointless in my opinion because if you crash your car and injure your passengers they would just claim for any injuries from you and your actual motor insurer. If the accident was the fault of another motorist then their insurers take the heat.

So what's the point of personal accident cover?

It is only really paying dividends if you are the driver at fault and injure yourself with a specific or qualifying injury and even then there are probably get out of jail clauses.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

hybernia wrote: »

3) Personal Accident cover,......
Still and all, it's a big jump from £12.50p each a year to £35 each a year.

So yes and no.

So I don't know which insurer you use for motor - BUT I expect the PA cover is as Onan infers covering accidents in the car. What if you are not in the car when you have an accident? You don't live in it.

• The Aviva PA policy cover is not just for when in your car.
• Buy yes doesn't cover other car occupants
• It does cover you 24/7 365 globally.
• And if you check the actual benefit level - it says £40,000-100,000 depending on your injury

So that is not like for like either in what will be paid out OR when you are covered.

The questions begins with what you are buying PA cover to protect ...

hybernia

This is what comes of me not thinking it through properly . . . <sigh>. Yes, Onan. I've got it now. And yes -- of course -- I should've realised, the Aviva policy is not specifically car related but for general accidents (good god, is that insurance business still running? General Accident though. Long before, I guess, there was anything as specific as a, er, car-related accident personal injury.)

OK. That's it. We're not going to fork out £25 for the 'enhanced' cover but stick with the basic £5,000. . . which, as Onan points out, doesn't mean that in the event of an accident caused by someone else, only £5,000 is in play by way of damages. Big thanks to you both, again.

Davidcroft

Is it worth protecting no claim bonus? In my renewal notice they are asking for £26.00 whereas the renewal quote is only circa £260 i.e. 10% of the fee. I always search the market on renewal. My thoughts are is it worth it.

PhylPho

Davidcroft wrote: »

Is it worth protecting no claim bonus? In my renewal notice they are asking for £26.00 whereas the renewal quote is only circa £260 i.e. 10% of the fee. I always search the market on renewal. My thoughts are is it worth it.

A fair question, to which I've never heard a definitive answer because as with everything related to car insurance, "it all depends on the circumstances" is the industry's mantra. I have a maximum of 5 years NCD with my present insurer and the quoted extra charge for protecting it on renewal equates to around 8% of the fee. But whether it is worth paying, I don't know.

It seems the best protection anyone can get is to shop around, because premiums always seem to rise far more for existing customers than ever they do for new ones.

PhylPho

Stumbled on this thread as I'm at renewal time with my present insurer. I have no faith in any "add-ons" based on past experience, as follows (if you're not a motorist, then you can save time and skip this comment).

It was a sunny Spring Bank holiday morning. I needed a quick, light shop at my nearby Tesco. Even at 10am the huge car park was filling fast, people calling in before going out for the day, I guess. I found a space and backed into it on the basis that I only needed one bag, wouldn't need to use the boot for storage, and could therefore drive forwards and out from the space when leaving.

I shopped. Returned to my car. Tesco's was really busy now at 10.30am and the car park pretty much jammed with cars and not just adults going to and from their vehicles but families as well. Lots of young children around. And trolleys. And car park traffic.

I waited while another car passed in front of me, coming from my right to my left. The driver was looking for an empty bay. After it had gone, and with no vehicles coming towards me in either direction, I did so. I'm a few feet out of my bay, going nose first and turning to my right when, from my left, comes the car that has just passed me. It's traveling backwards. And at speed.

I don't even have time to reverse and anyway there are actually people in my rear view mirrors, including two small children. The reversing car smashes hard into my front nearside. The driver gets out. Apologises. Says they had suddenly spotted a recently vacated bay but had over-shot it, so in their hurry to claim it before another driver did, they'd reversed back so as to be positioned to make their own turn. They were very sorry. They hadn't seen me in their rear view because they were -- in their words -- "distracted".

We exchanged details. I used my cell to take pictures of the damage. My car was driveable so I returned home and rang my insurer: Saga. I spent 20 minutes getting through and then talking to a Saga representative. I thought she'd email me a pdf accident report / claim form. But no. Instead, she wanted to take down every detail over the phone there and then. I provided them. She then said she was "putting you through to someone who will deal with this".

She did. This other person wanted to take every detail over the phone there and then. I said, I'd just provided them to her colleague. She said, she's not my colleague. This has been referred to me because your policy provides you with a hire car in the event of an accident. So? I asked. So I represent the hire car company, she said.

I'm baffled. She says, Saga is an insurer. Not a car hire firm. In fact, no insurer is a car hire firm. What happens in a case like this, where we are to provide you with a car, then we take on the processing of the claim. It's how the system works.

I tell her, I'm paying extra for 'motoring legal protection', and that I'd thought that meant Saga would either deal direct with this because my contract is with them, or Saga would liaise with a law practice on my behalf and set up contact between us.

No, she said. Your 'motoring legal protection' doesn't come into this. The issue is that we are to provide you with a hire car. So it will be solicitors appointed by us who pursue the claim.

I said, so Saga, as my insurer, has nothing to do with this? Answer: we are appointed to take this on from Saga, to recover the costs incurred in meeting your claim including the recovery of the costs of providing you with a hire car. Don't worry. This is standard practice.

She seemed very keen to provide me with a hire car ASAP. I said I didn't want one. Or need one. My car was damaged but driveable. I would only need a hire car when mine was away for repair. She said Saga would ring me about which of its appointed repairers was to handle that, and then the hire car could be booked.

Saga rang next day. A date was fixed for my car's repair. Then this mysterious lady from the car hire firm -- I still hadn't caught on to who it was -- rang to make the car hire arrangement.

And that was that. . . until, a month later, I received a letter from a firm of solicitors based 200 miles from me to say that the other driver was claiming it was my fault for driving forwards into his path when he was reversing.

I rang the law firm. Was eventually put through to, yes, a paralegal. She was young and nice and hopeless. She had all the case papers, she said, about how I had reversed into the path of an oncoming car. These things happen, she said. A shame.

I managed to get her to understand who-did-what. I rejected the other driver's allegation. She said she would write to me, asking for a written statement. She did. Her letter had gone back to stating that I had reversed into the other driver's car. This time I had to correct that in writing. With my 'statement'.

My car was out of my hands for four days. So I had four days with the hire car. The actual provider seemed very happy for me to make it a week. Or longer. How kind. Apparently. But I'm not in the habit of screwing someone else even if the entire car insurance industry seems predicated on doing just that.

The accident was in March. First contact from the solicitors ostensibly representing me was mid April. Come mid-May, and with no news from anyone anywhere, I rang Saga. I was told that a representative was assigned to "your case" and he'd be in touch. When he was back from holiday.

Early June, and he contacted me. Everything was all right. All going through. Nothing to worry about. Solicitors appointed by the insurers of the other driver were in correspondence with the solicitors acting for the car hire company to whom Saga had, apparently, handed over all responsibility for pursuing the claim.

I said, but my contract is with you. Why aren't you doing all this? What am I actually paying Saga for??? Answer: this is standard practice. Don't worry.

July, and "my" solicitors write to me. It's that nice lady paralegal again. Though I do wonder, if the term 'paralegal' is an over inflation of status. Still, she has some news. Solicitors for the other driver are prepared to settle on the basis of 50/50 because I was as much at fault as their client. Could I write back to say I accept or reject? I write back. Rejecting.

August now, and nothing. I ring Saga. Get through to my case manager (if that's the term). He reassures me. I have nothing to worry about. It's all proceeding well. He has the case papers.

September. We're now six months on after an accident caused entirely by a driver reversing recklessly in a crowded supermarket car park who admitted liability and apologised for being "distracted" and not seeing me in the rear view mirror. (Probably not even looking.)

October. "My" solicitor writes to say the other solicitors are refusing to budge from the 50/50 offer. Could I write back to state my position? I do so.

November. My car insurance is due for renewal. Saga sends me it. The amount is astronomical. I ring "my" case manager. I tell him, I have NCD protection and a 5 year history with only one claim in that time, an act of vandalism in a city centre street on afternoon which was reported to the police and in regard to which I paid the excess.

Ah well, says my case manager. That's actually two claims in 5 years. Because, you see, you have this unresolved claim from March this year. Saga has paid out the cost of repairs to your vehicle and that cost hasn't yet been recovered. So the renewal premium is unfortunately higher.

I say, I think I'm going to shop around, because this premium is ridiculous. Well yes, I'm told, you are of course free to do so, but with an unresolved claim . . . well. Some insurers won't even want to quote. But don't worry. If your claim is successful, then Saga will refund the difference between what you pay now and what you would have paid had you not lodged a claim. I pay up.

December. "My" solicitors write to say the other driver's / insurer's solicitors will settle on the basis of two thirds / one third, with me paying the lesser proportion because they are prepared to concede that the other driver was more responsible for what happened than I was. I write back to say, the other driver wasn't "more" responsible but entirely soddin' responsible.

January. Bizarrely, out of the blue, I get a call from someone who wants to know if I suffered whip lash injury in my "recent" accident. My reaction is, in short, !!!!!!?

February. "My" solicitor writes to say that the matter is going to be heard next month -- March -- at a county court in (if I remember aright) Leicester. Seeing as neither I nor the other driver live within 200 miles of Leicester, I wonder why. An Internet search of the Court Service yields the information that the address I've been given is that of some kind of Court Service clearing house for all civil actions at County Court level.

I write back, explaining to "my" solicitor how the courts work in England. I decide, I'm some kind of paralegal myself. I also decide there are law firms up and down this country laughing their socks off at motorists' expense, dragging out indefensible cases so as to wrack up more billable hours (at partner rates, not paralegal.)

March. One year on, and I'm now advised that "a new hearing" has been set for the month after next at a court 30 miles from me. I ring "my" lawyers but can't get in touch with whoever has written to me, so ring Saga to speak to my helpful case manager and am told oh, he left last month.

April. "My" solicitors send me Court papers to fill in. They attach to those papers information they have actually expended some time and some money on to acquire themselves: a black and white Google Earth picture of the Tesco car park seemingly taken in a partial blizzard at least eight years earlier.

I go photograph the car park myself and send off the pictures with my hand-drawn incident location map, this being either the third or fourth time that I've had to do so as nobody seems to remember ever having received it.

May. I arrange to take time off and drive to the county court 30 miles away. On the afternoon immediately prior to the court hearing, "my" solicitors ring to say they have now heard from the other solicitors that their client now accepts full liability. So no. There won't be a court case.

June. Saga refunds the difference in what I paid. It also offers to be my guiding hand as my house insurer and, I seem to recall, my private health insurer, too. I am tempted to tell them what to do with their guiding hand, but desist.

So. That's my saga.

I was never told the actual cost of repairing the panel damage to my car, but it couldn't have been more than, say, £300, £400? I've no idea what the cost was of the hire car, either, but for a Ford Fiesta on a 4-day hire it couldn't have been that much.

Finally: I've no idea of just how many £100s, or many £1,000s, were expended to the benefit of venal British law firms who see in the car insurance market an opportunity to pile on the profits because hey, it's just those dumb motorists who have to pay it.

All I do know is that it stinks. All of it. The insurers who take your money but then hand you over to a third party you've never heard of nor are contracted with. The deliberately lonnnnnng drawn-out process -- because it can only be deliberate -- to inflate the billing hours of the law firms involved. The cynicism of those firms who though knowing full well that their client hasn't a leg to stand on will nevertheless assert the opposite so as to ensure that -- in my case -- an insurance claim of less than £500 gets dragged out for a full 14 months.

Add-ons? No thanks. NCD "protection" varies from one to another on a sliding scale and anyway, an insurer can think up any figure it likes at renewal time so what you pay in protection money is going to be a lot more than what you pay for a lower premium for an entirely different insurer. "Motoring Legal Protection"? Well after my experience of how lawyers milk motorists nationwide as a cash cow, it's protection from lawyers I need more than anything else.

If only I could do without the insurance, too.

Jlo31

PhylPho wrote: »

Stumbled on this thread as I'm at renewal time with my present insurer. I have no faith in any "add-ons" based on past experience, as follows (if you're not a motorist, then you can save time and skip this comment).

It was a sunny Spring Bank holiday morning. I needed a quick, light shop at my nearby Tesco. Even at 10am the huge car park was filling fast, people calling in before going out for the day, I guess. I found a space and backed into it on the basis that I only needed one bag, wouldn't need to use the boot for storage, and could therefore drive forwards and out from the space when leaving.

I shopped. Returned to my car. Tesco's was really busy now at 10.30am and the car park pretty much jammed with cars and not just adults going to and from their vehicles but families as well. Lots of young children around. And trolleys. And car park traffic.

I waited while another car passed in front of me, coming from my right to my left. The driver was looking for an empty bay. After it had gone, and with no vehicles coming towards me in either direction, I did so. I'm a few feet out of my bay, going nose first and turning to my right when, from my left, comes the car that has just passed me. It's traveling backwards. And at speed.

I don't even have time to reverse and anyway there are actually people in my rear view mirrors, including two small children. The reversing car smashes hard into my front nearside. The driver gets out. Apologises. Says they had suddenly spotted a recently vacated bay but had over-shot it, so in their hurry to claim it before another driver did, they'd reversed back so as to be positioned to make their own turn. They were very sorry. They hadn't seen me in their rear view because they were -- in their words -- "distracted".

We exchanged details. I used my cell to take pictures of the damage. My car was driveable so I returned home and rang my insurer: Saga. I spent 20 minutes getting through and then talking to a Saga representative. I thought she'd email me a pdf accident report / claim form. But no. Instead, she wanted to take down every detail over the phone there and then. I provided them. She then said she was "putting you through to someone who will deal with this".

She did. This other person wanted to take every detail over the phone there and then. I said, I'd just provided them to her colleague. She said, she's not my colleague. This has been referred to me because your policy provides you with a hire car in the event of an accident. So? I asked. So I represent the hire car company, she said.

I'm baffled. She says, Saga is an insurer. Not a car hire firm. In fact, no insurer is a car hire firm. What happens in a case like this, where we are to provide you with a car, then we take on the processing of the claim. It's how the system works.

I tell her, I'm paying extra for 'motoring legal protection', and that I'd thought that meant Saga would either deal direct with this because my contract is with them, or Saga would liaise with a law practice on my behalf and set up contact between us.

No, she said. Your 'motoring legal protection' doesn't come into this. The issue is that we are to provide you with a hire car. So it will be solicitors appointed by us who pursue the claim.

I said, so Saga, as my insurer, has nothing to do with this? Answer: we are appointed to take this on from Saga, to recover the costs incurred in meeting your claim including the recovery of the costs of providing you with a hire car. Don't worry. This is standard practice.

She seemed very keen to provide me with a hire car ASAP. I said I didn't want one. Or need one. My car was damaged but driveable. I would only need a hire car when mine was away for repair. She said Saga would ring me about which of its appointed repairers was to handle that, and then the hire car could be booked.

Saga rang next day. A date was fixed for my car's repair. Then this mysterious lady from the car hire firm -- I still hadn't caught on to who it was -- rang to make the car hire arrangement.

And that was that. . . until, a month later, I received a letter from a firm of solicitors based 200 miles from me to say that the other driver was claiming it was my fault for driving forwards into his path when he was reversing.

I rang the law firm. Was eventually put through to, yes, a paralegal. She was young and nice and hopeless. She had all the case papers, she said, about how I had reversed into the path of an oncoming car. These things happen, she said. A shame.

I managed to get her to understand who-did-what. I rejected the other driver's allegation. She said she would write to me, asking for a written statement. She did. Her letter had gone back to stating that I had reversed into the other driver's car. This time I had to correct that in writing. With my 'statement'.

My car was out of my hands for four days. So I had four days with the hire car. The actual provider seemed very happy for me to make it a week. Or longer. How kind. Apparently. But I'm not in the habit of screwing someone else even if the entire car insurance industry seems predicated on doing just that.

The accident was in March. First contact from the solicitors ostensibly representing me was mid April. Come mid-May, and with no news from anyone anywhere, I rang Saga. I was told that a representative was assigned to "your case" and he'd be in touch. When he was back from holiday.

Early June, and he contacted me. Everything was all right. All going through. Nothing to worry about. Solicitors appointed by the insurers of the other driver were in correspondence with the solicitors acting for the car hire company to whom Saga had, apparently, handed over all responsibility for pursuing the claim.

I said, but my contract is with you. Why aren't you doing all this? What am I actually paying Saga for??? Answer: this is standard practice. Don't worry.

July, and "my" solicitors write to me. It's that nice lady paralegal again. Though I do wonder, if the term 'paralegal' is an over inflation of status. Still, she has some news. Solicitors for the other driver are prepared to settle on the basis of 50/50 because I was as much at fault as their client. Could I write back to say I accept or reject? I write back. Rejecting.

August now, and nothing. I ring Saga. Get through to my case manager (if that's the term). He reassures me. I have nothing to worry about. It's all proceeding well. He has the case papers.

September. We're now six months on after an accident caused entirely by a driver reversing recklessly in a crowded supermarket car park who admitted liability and apologised for being "distracted" and not seeing me in the rear view mirror. (Probably not even looking.)

October. "My" solicitor writes to say the other solicitors are refusing to budge from the 50/50 offer. Could I write back to state my position? I do so.

November. My car insurance is due for renewal. Saga sends me it. The amount is astronomical. I ring "my" case manager. I tell him, I have NCD protection and a 5 year history with only one claim in that time, an act of vandalism in a city centre street on afternoon which was reported to the police and in regard to which I paid the excess.

Ah well, says my case manager. That's actually two claims in 5 years. Because, you see, you have this unresolved claim from March this year. Saga has paid out the cost of repairs to your vehicle and that cost hasn't yet been recovered. So the renewal premium is unfortunately higher.

I say, I think I'm going to shop around, because this premium is ridiculous. Well yes, I'm told, you are of course free to do so, but with an unresolved claim . . . well. Some insurers won't even want to quote. But don't worry. If your claim is successful, then Saga will refund the difference between what you pay now and what you would have paid had you not lodged a claim. I pay up.

December. "My" solicitors write to say the other driver's / insurer's solicitors will settle on the basis of two thirds / one third, with me paying the lesser proportion because they are prepared to concede that the other driver was more responsible for what happened than I was. I write back to say, the other driver wasn't "more" responsible but entirely soddin' responsible.

January. Bizarrely, out of the blue, I get a call from someone who wants to know if I suffered whip lash injury in my "recent" accident. My reaction is, in short, !!!!!!?

February. "My" solicitor writes to say that the matter is going to be heard next month -- March -- at a county court in (if I remember aright) Leicester. Seeing as neither I nor the other driver live within 200 miles of Leicester, I wonder why. An Internet search of the Court Service yields the information that the address I've been given is that of some kind of Court Service clearing house for all civil actions at County Court level.

I write back, explaining to "my" solicitor how the courts work in England. I decide, I'm some kind of paralegal myself. I also decide there are law firms up and down this country laughing their socks off at motorists' expense, dragging out indefensible cases so as to wrack up more billable hours (at partner rates, not paralegal.)

March. One year on, and I'm now advised that "a new hearing" has been set for the month after next at a court 30 miles from me. I ring "my" lawyers but can't get in touch with whoever has written to me, so ring Saga to speak to my helpful case manager and am told oh, he left last month.

April. "My" solicitors send me Court papers to fill in. They attach to those papers information they have actually expended some time and some money on to acquire themselves: a black and white Google Earth picture of the Tesco car park seemingly taken in a partial blizzard at least eight years earlier.

I go photograph the car park myself and send off the pictures with my hand-drawn incident location map, this being either the third or fourth time that I've had to do so as nobody seems to remember ever having received it.

May. I arrange to take time off and drive to the county court 30 miles away. On the afternoon immediately prior to the court hearing, "my" solicitors ring to say they have now heard from the other solicitors that their client now accepts full liability. So no. There won't be a court case.

June. Saga refunds the difference in what I paid. It also offers to be my guiding hand as my house insurer and, I seem to recall, my private health insurer, too. I am tempted to tell them what to do with their guiding hand, but desist.

So. That's my saga.

I was never told the actual cost of repairing the panel damage to my car, but it couldn't have been more than, say, £300, £400? I've no idea what the cost was of the hire car, either, but for a Ford Fiesta on a 4-day hire it couldn't have been that much.

Finally: I've no idea of just how many £100s, or many £1,000s, were expended to the benefit of venal British law firms who see in the car insurance market an opportunity to pile on the profits because hey, it's just those dumb motorists who have to pay it.

All I do know is that it stinks. All of it. The insurers who take your money but then hand you over to a third party you've never heard of nor are contracted with. The deliberately lonnnnnng drawn-out process -- because it can only be deliberate -- to inflate the billing hours of the law firms involved. The cynicism of those firms who though knowing full well that their client hasn't a leg to stand on will nevertheless assert the opposite so as to ensure that -- in my case -- an insurance claim of less than £500 gets dragged out for a full 14 months.

Add-ons? No thanks. NCD "protection" varies from one to another on a sliding scale and anyway, an insurer can think up any figure it likes at renewal time so what you pay in protection money is going to be a lot more than what you pay for a lower premium for an entirely different insurer. "Motoring Legal Protection"? Well after my experience of how lawyers milk motorists nationwide as a cash cow, it's protection from lawyers I need more than anything else.

If only I could do without the insurance, too.

Love your write up and could not agree with you more. It's naughty how insurance companies try and pass you on to accident Managment companies.

My wife had someone reverse in to the side of her car in Tescos this January. Thankfully the other party agreed liability so we just contacted their insurer direct and they sorted out everything within a month.

I think in future if the other party is at fault we will just go through their insurer

Or

If it's uncertain re liability then we will just insist the claim goes through our own policy, accept the small 1 litre garage courtesy car and let them reclaim from other party.

Moral of story

Avoid Accident Managment companies.