Unemployed? Check your car insurance!!

frugalstephen

I have been driving for 40 years, with 25 years No Claim Bonus. I discovered by accident (not literally) that due to my current circumstances of being unemployed, that my comprehensive car insurance policy no longer offers me 3rd party cover if I drive another car. I have no idea why not having a job makes me a dangerous driver, it's discrimination in it's rawest form, it might as well say if you're 'black', or 'Asian' you can no longer drive another car!

So if you do suddenly find yourself unemployed, and this cover has been denied to you, I would suggest you make an issue of it to your insurance company. They already get away with far too much. On seeking a policy renewal, I have found this 'exclusion' to be quite common, though I did eventually find a company that didn't mind my current circumstances.

In the current economic climate, millions of people who have always had this automatic cover may be in for a shock if they find themselves in another car with no cover! It's nothing short of a scandal...

Sandtree

Are you saying that in the policy T&Cs it stated Driving Other Cars is not available to someone whos unemployed or that when you informed them of your change of circumstances they removed the DOC cover from the schedule/certificate and have explained that its because of your employment situation?

Who were the insurers?

Alter_ego

Unemployment is not a protected characteristic so not discrimination

frugalstephen

I informed them of a 'change in circumstance' and they then informed me that they were withdrawing my cover to drive another car specifically becasue I was unemployed. The company is 'Elephant', owned by Admiral.

frugalstephen

Alter_ego said:

Unemployment is not a protected characteristic so not discrimination

Good to know LOL So, how does it make you a worse driver?

daveyjp

Not having a job doesn't make YOU a dangerous driver, the change reflects that the unemployed are more likely to drive uninsured, or have higher claims records.

BTW General Accident (Aviva) don't remove DOC for unemployment.

frugalstephen

daveyjp said:

Not having a job doesn't make YOU a dangerous driver, the change reflects that the unemployed are more likely to drive uninsured, or have higher claims records.

BTW General Accident (Aviva) don't remove DOC for unemployment.

With respect, that doesn't make any sense. The premise that 'unemployed are more likely to drive without insurance', would not be phoning their insurance company to tell them they find themselves now unemployed.

dunstonh

With respect, that doesn't make any sense. The premise that 'unemployed are more likely to drive without insurance', would not be phoning their insurance company to tell them they find themselves now unemployed. 

It makes perfect sense.  Statistically, the unemployed create more insurance fraud cases than employed.  They are also more likely to cut corners on car maintenance and drive other peoples cars.   It doesn't mean all unemployed will.   Its just that you are now in a pot of people where, statistically, certain events occur more frequently than they do with employed.        It may be a stereotype but unfortunately, enough of the stereotype exist to create claims that the insurer doesn't want or will charge more for.

frugalstephen

dunstonh said:

With respect, that doesn't make any sense. The premise that 'unemployed are more likely to drive without insurance', would not be phoning their insurance company to tell them they find themselves now unemployed. 

It makes perfect sense.  Statistically, the unemployed create more insurance fraud cases than employed. 

Many UK projections (including the governments own ONS), project unemployment next year between 2 and 4 Million. This potentially will include many previous law abiding citizens, oblivious to insurance cover they had taken for granted, driving around without proper cover, exacerbating the situation of 'unemployed without insurance'.

As aid in 1st post, I have 25 years NCB, never claimed in my life, have an Institute of Advanced Drivers test, and until recently, like numerous others, before simply losing my employment status, still am a safe driving risk.

Interesting to note the disdain that 'unemployed' are treated with, and until recently joining them, I was totally unaware.

Weighty1

frugalstephen said:

dunstonh said:

With respect, that doesn't make any sense. The premise that 'unemployed are more likely to drive without insurance', would not be phoning their insurance company to tell them they find themselves now unemployed. 

It makes perfect sense.  Statistically, the unemployed create more insurance fraud cases than employed. 

Many UK projections (including the governments own ONS), project unemployment next year between 2 and 4 Million. This potentially will include many previous law abiding citizens, oblivious to insurance cover they had taken for granted, driving around without proper cover, exacerbating the situation of 'unemployed without insurance'.

As aid in 1st post, I have 25 years NCB, never claimed in my life, have an Institute of Advanced Drivers test, and until recently, like numerous others, before simply losing my employment status, still am a safe driving risk.

Interesting to note the disdain that 'unemployed' are treated with, and until recently joining them, I was totally unaware.

Are you aware of WHY they chose to remove cover for driving other cars?  Do you know what statistics it is that they've used to come to this decision?  I'm guessing not, so rather than just shrug your shoulders in the knowledge that you don't have all the facts you claim discrimination.

[Deleted User]

It's not disdain, it's statistics.  Nobody is suggesting that you specifically are any worse at driving because you are unemployed, or that the same is true for any particular other person in the same situation - simply that historical probabilities suggest the generalised group of "the unemployed" represent a greater risk to the insurer.  You wouldn't say that people who live in an area with high car theft were treated with disdain if their insurance premiums were higher.

And anybody who becomes unemployed, knowing that their insurer has asked for employment status and that it is written on the policy documents, should really have the sense to report the change (as you rightly did) - if not, this isn't disdain on behalf of the insurer either, it's bordering on insurance fraud.