Help! Horrendous quotes for car insurance for 17 yr old!

scheming_gypsy

I wouldn't be offering cover its just one of those vicious circles. You can't afford to pay for the insurance, you get caught and the price of the insurance you couldn't afford goes even more expensive.

I was one of those who was driving at 17, possibly because my mum didn't drive and she'd want lifts everywhere.
2 days after i passed my test my boss sent me from Bury to York (fair few miles), before i was old enough to take my test i couldn't think how and why i'd need to drive apart from the convinience. Shortly after passing i realised that there was so much more i could do with a car and not just for personal reasons.

djohn2002uk

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

aww, look at you you little snitch..

lose an argument and you go and tell teacher.

I think from the phrases you used and the language in your earlier post shows that you have lost both the argument and the plot.
If I were you I'd get out now because you just seem to be digging yourself into an ever deepening hole.
Just one other thing from your earlier post:- "My Celica was the same, 2.0GT and i was quoted £2500 but went on my dads insurance." And was your dad the main driver? I doubt it so that was not legal.

scheming_gypsy

it wasn't legal but it was 7 years ago and the broker actually told my dad to do it that way and set it up for him like that.

plus we've moved on from that point

darich

SG - it's quite apparent that we'll be unable to convince you of how insurance works in the real world.
Young drivers are the cause of high premiums - their driving causes more accidents so they and their peers all pay for it.
You said it yourself - your celica insurance dropped from 2500 to 700 in a couple of years - as you left that high risk bracket.

There's no need to resort to name calling, swearing and even inviting aother posters to meet for a fight - it does little to help your arguement.

and yes you can call me a snitch too - because i've reported your posts aswell

scheming_gypsy

Darich, if you read to the end, ie this page. You'd have discovered Raskazz stopped with the silly posts asking the same question over and over again and we started talking about it properly.
There's been no attempt to tell me how the insurance works and there's been no inability from me to see how they work. I've never said i know or don't know how they work so your first line is un-needed, un-warrented and pointless.
I know that younger drivers pay more insurance for this that and the other reason but it still doesn't change the fact that its far too high to expect a 17 year old to pay.

There was a need for name calling, swearing and fight offers. It's called some little scrote with fireworks outside my house and me deciding today was a good time to give up smoking. I can't think of a better reason to be in a mood!

FlameCloud

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

There's been no attempt to tell me how the insurance works and there's been no inability from me to see how they work. I've never said i know or don't know how they work so your first line is un-needed, un-warrented and pointless.

Ok, lets try and break it down for you-

Insurance is basically a bloody big pot of money held in a bank account. This pot of money pays out for all of its policy holders accidents, their medical bills etc.

To be in with a shout of getting some of the money, you have to pay some into the pot. How much you pay in depends (largely) on one factor- the risk you present to an insurance company. The risk, is again decided by ONE factor- statistics. Stats tell the insurance company that young drivers (and ones that have just passed their tests) are far, far more likely to have an acident (whether their fault or not) than other groups of drivers.

In this day and age, an accident means personnal injuries. This means lawyers fees, doctors fees as well as the payout itself. This cost is far larger, sometimes up to ten times the actual car damage to sort out. As a result, younger, more at risk drivers are charged more.

It is NOT fair to say that the insurance companies make people drive without insurance. It is in indicative of society today that it is somebody elses fault- the fault in this case lies soley with the driver.

The only other way would be to fundamentally alter the way underwriting works, to go onto a flat fee system. The result of this would see younger drivers premiums maybe half, and as a result everyone elses would double. Then you'd by on here moaning about insurance again

mattymoo

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

There was a need for name calling, swearing and fight offers. It's called some little scrote with fireworks outside my house and me deciding today was a good time to give up smoking. I can't think of a better reason to be in a mood!

I see that the Highway Code has been updated to suggest you should not smoke while driving. I wonder how long it will be before an insurer uses this as a rating factor?

Did you catch the little scrote btw?

lisyloo

but it still doesn't change the fact that its far too high to expect a 17 year old to pay.

Who is expecting them to pay it?

Why do they have a right to own a car if they don't earn enough?

It's only a recent phenomem for 17 year olds to have cars and not an improvement in my view (as the accident statistics show).

I can't afford a millionaire lifestyle.
I have no right to it and no right to stoop to criminal acts to get it.
Same goes for 17 year olds with cars.

joaniemerc

Anyway, back at the ranch!:rolleyes:

I've just bought car insurance for my 17 year old daughter (who is a student), who hasn't yet passed her test. Her car is a Pug 106 and the cost of fully comp, with the policy in her own name (so she can start accruing her own no claims bonus) and me as a named driver with Quinn Direct was £925.

The most annoying thing about buying this policy from Quinn was that they wouldn't take the direct debit payments from my bank account:mad: The direct debit has to come from the policyholder's account - so we had to faff about opening up a bank account so she could pay by direct debit from her account (after the money has been transferred from my account into hers!)

Also, via Quidco, Prudential were offering £130 cashback on car insurance - but even taking this into account Quinn was still the better quote.

HTH

mattymoo

I believe the bank account thing is pretty standard. It prevents the excuse that "my mum (or whoever) forgot to pay the premium this month" when the car is pulled over for driving with no insurance.

She would have needed a bank account in any event so things have just happened a bit quicker than planned.