Car Insurance Article Discussion

hansi

What I find bewildering about comparison sites is that once I have the quotes and rejected them, I get a phone call to say "Could we help to reduce the price for you?" I suppose it's called marketing, but why on earth don't they quote the lower price to start with, they would get a lot more business:mad:

grannybiker

skintme wrote: »

hi. i wonderd if any one had any luck insuring two cars under one policy? i have noticed some of the bigger boys are now doing this, but i cannot find a list of companies doing this or a comparison site that offers this??:rolleyes:[/quote

Be very careful. May not be the bargain they initially appear! See our recent experience, post 294
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=603514&page=15
Still really cheesed off!

Younger01

I heard a rumour from one of my mates i dunno if its true ... but direct line allow you to build up your own no claim discount if you are on another drivers insurance ... I mean for car insurance surely that would be one of the cheapest ways and one of the most beneficial ...

But then i am only 18 and passed my test like 6 months ago ... So insurance is sky high for me lol

hansi

"passed my test like 6 months ago"

What on earth is happening to our language!:mad:

colinb1937

At the end of my insurance year (September 5 2008)I have just switched from Bell to Tesco - great price - and failed to tell Bell I wasn't taking up their excessive offer. They are now asking for payment of £22 each for two car policies because we didn't tell them we were not renewing for a further year. Is this regular practice? Is there any appeal against this demand for money or do I simply have to pay? Any experiences?

hansi

Colin, it depends on what payment method you were using to pay Bell. If it was by DD you should have cancelled it,but if is was by credit card continuous recurring transaction then that is more difficult to cancel. If it just by cheque, then the fact that they didn't receive a payment from you should have automatically cancelled the cover. I didn't think you have to tell insurance companies that you are not renewing policies as the mere fact of non payment would cancel them out anyway?

skeabost

Be aware of the conseqeunces of providing your personal details to the sites Martin recommends as search engines for car insurance, particularly https://www.confused.com and https://www.comparethemarket.com.

Since using both sites in the last 48 hours I have had unsolicited calls to both my home and mobile tel numbers from insurance companies.

I did not give either site permission to disclose my details, in fact I made a point of checking all of the appropriate boxes to ensure I did get any unsolicited emails or calls.

Will certainly put me off using either of these sites again.

richardw

If they call, just say they were too expensive.

vulcanbomber

I have just had my renewal from First Direct who are using Equity Red Star to supply my policy for my car. I noticed that included with my renewal letter were some apparently new exclusions to my policy which made me wonder a little.

The exclusion in particular which made me take notice was "We do not cover liability caused by acts of terrorism as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 unless We have to provide cover under the Road Traffic Acts"

Correct me if I'm wrong but does this now mean that should my car get damaged say in a car park or on the street as a result from a terrorist attack then the insurance will not cover my car and not pay out? What does cover under the Road Traffic Act mean?

Is this now common place in car insurance policies?

raskazz

vulcanbomber wrote: »

I have just had my renewal from First Direct who are using Equity Red Star to supply my policy for my car. I noticed that included with my renewal letter were some apparently new exclusions to my policy which made me wonder a little.

The exclusion in particular which made me take notice was "We do not cover liability caused by acts of terrorism as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 unless We have to provide cover under the Road Traffic Acts"

Correct me if I'm wrong but does this now mean that should my car get damaged say in a car park or on the street as a result from a terrorist attack then the insurance will not cover my car and not pay out? What does cover under the Road Traffic Act mean?

Is this now common place in car insurance policies?

I believe that the term as you word it refers to liability to third parties, rather than damage to your own vehicle - i.e. if you were a terrorist and decided to use your car as a weapon (like the botched Glasgow airport attack), they would not settle any third party claims apart from those that they are forced to by law under the Road Traffic Act. Part VI of the Road Traffic Act sets out the requirements for the third party cover you need to drive on the road.

Basically this means that they reduce the scope for incurring very large losses as the limit of liability for property damage under the Road Traffic Act is only £1 million but the usual contractual limit is £20 million. It is a pretty standard term these days.

If the clause does relate to damage to your own car as well, then I believe it is the Government's responsibility to compensate you should it be damaged as a result of terrorism. Again it is fairly common for terrorism to be excluded from the 'own damage' section due to the risk of a catastrophic event that could bankrupt an insurer.