[Bikerbill]

Hi all
My 19 year old son passed his test recently. Got quotes for a 1999 1 litre Corsa. Was quoted £4.868. I asked if I could insure it in my name and add him as a driver. Was told this was illegal and fraudulent. Since when I aske the manager as I insured a car last year and added him as a driver, the cost was £580. Why this extortionate price increase? Do they not want youngsters on the road at all? Rip off Britain right enough. I feel like sending a strong letter to the government asking them to look into this. After all 'equality' is the buzzword this year. Is there an online petition going about? I have searched but can not find anything...

[Andy2009]

The advisor is sort of correct. If your son was to be the main driver but you put yourself down just to lower the premium - it's called fronting. If you actually are the main driver, then you can be named as such. Personally I think it's a load of rubbish. When I worked in underwriting, my senior underwriter told me "it does matter and it doesn't [as to who is the main driver]. One way we generate more money, the other we don't".

Adding yourself as a named driver should lower the premium. Pass Plus is also a good option - it pays for itself in terms of reduced premiums (My 20 yr old brother paid £120 for a course and his premium reduced by £200 in the first year alone). Also consider buying a cheap runaround, insuring it at a low level of cover with the highest excess allowable by an insurer. You won't want to claim as it will be too expensive - much cheaper to replace the car with another cheap runaround (you would still need to notify the insurer of an incident even if you don't claim).

I do sympathise with the situation. My first renewal last year came in more than £500 more expensive than the previous year despite earning 1 year NCB - 40% discount). That along with increasing petrol prices is forcing me, like many others, off the road, with no viable alternative to travel.

[Snowball]

This is a worrying trend, and I have commented about it before on this forum. In the long term, it can only cause an increase in the number of drivers who go onto the roads illegally; that's a proven fault of human nature. Motorists already pay a surcharge for non-insured drivers, which averages out at about £30 per driver for the motoring public. Any worsening of the situation will undoubtably result in this surcharge increasing.
A newly passed driver should be allowed a sensible and affordable premium in his/her first year of driving. Only in the event of a fault claim against the policyholder should the premium then be increased; and according to the seriousness of the offence. This would also act as an incentive for new drivers to behave responsibly and attend to developing their skills in a manner necessary for safety on our roads.

If necessary, this provision should be made a legal requirement by government legislation. At present, the insurance companies simply apply indiscriminate rules to protect their revenue as easily and with the minimum efforts as possible. To enable the driving sector of society to progress economically within the framework of the whole, then outrageous limitations cannot be allowed to continue unchecked.

Imagine the chaos if, at some future date, young drivers are unable to meet the demands of a flexible society that can move between home and workplace to suit the requirements of industry and commerce; along with a shortage of drivers that industry and commerce could afford to employ.

[wagolynn]

Hi Snowball,
I would go along with your suggestion. One thing that I remember reading somewhere was, a large part of the problem with young drivers in modern cars is the passengers they tend to carry. When they crash, passengers tend to survive and the family claims against the driver, outright death apparently, is much cheaper. Does this suggest that they should not be allowed to carry passengers for a probationary period? This appears to tie in with the view that, some of the silly things done by young drivers are the product of peer pressure.

[smudger]

Quote..". Does this suggest that they should not be allowed to carry passengers for a probationary period?

The only down side to that suggestion, is that it would hard to enforce, the police can hardly enforce the existing laws as it is:confused:

It could be a life saver however, but the insurance companies seem to treat every young driver as a high risk, which we all know is not the case.

[Snowball]

The comments about peer pressure, and young drivers being prohibited from carrying passengers for a probationary period, does have merits on several points. Unfortunately, there are likely to be objections to this on a number of grounds. One which immediately springs to mind is a young, lone female driver breaking down in a lonely spot and/or late at night. Don't think a curfew would be acceptable. Another problem would be setting a time period; how long is a piece of string?
Currently, the insurance companies address the problem with cost; it's simple to enforce and, at the same time, is revenue advantageous. But, in many cases, a young driver with wealthy parents is unlikely to be fazed by insurance costs. Which could make him/her more liable to recklessness than a young person of limited means who cannot afford the expense of damaging/losing the vehicle. Which then begs the question; is degree of wealth another factor in determining degree of risk?

[wagolynn]

As far as I can see, very few new or old drivers think about a breakdown until it happens.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

As far as I can see, very few new or old drivers think about a breakdown until it happens.

Depends on what context in which you apply that. Do you mean 'never think about it at all', or 'never think they might break down'?
I have been, and still am, a member of Green Flag for quite a number of years and, for the last six years I have held VW breakdown cover under my VW service and maintenance warranty. The VW cover also extends to the EU countries.
My GF membership is by special arrangement through the Caravan Club, and gives me comprehensive, double journey cover for an annual subscription of £62.
In addition, when we go into the EU (France), towing our caravan, I take out personal and vehicle cover through the Caravan Club for the duration of the holiday, door-to-door.
I think that I can safely claim to be "one of the few!"

[wagolynn]

I think you are “one of the few†Snowball, in the nicest possible way.:)

This reminds me of the time I lived in Eire, when asked, will you be at some place at a given time, the local response was, God willing. That may have been taking the possibility of a breakdown into consideration. Looking at posts on here, one wonders if people see the RAC as a breakdown service or a maintenance agreement.

[Snowball]

As cash gets tighter (as seems it will), are the incidences of breakdowns likely to increase significantly, due to car owners scrimping still further on sevice and maintenance? I can imagine many MoT "advisories" being ignored until actual failure occurs. A bleak outlook when some will almost certainly be safety related.:(

[smudger]

Not sure if this still happens, but when I was working away from home and did a lot of mileage, I used to keep my car well serviced, and also carried spare parts, (fan belt etc.) and survival gear (in the winter months) as I had to drive though the mountains on the A9, where breaking down could be a serious problem?

[98selitb]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Imagine the chaos if, at some future date, young drivers are unable to meet the demands of a flexible society that can move between home and workplace to suit the requirements of industry and commerce; along with a shortage of drivers that industry and commerce could afford to employ.

I couldn't agree more, Snowball!

I live in a village in a rural area, 14 miles from the nearest small town. Not a million miles away and not comparable with parts of Scotland; but with no buses and very hilly terrain with narrow roads with high hedges and lots of corners, making cycling very risky, it is not realistically possible to have work anywhere outside the village unless you have a car.

There are young people in my village who have this exact problem you describe. They have the chance of working in the town, but they can't get there without a car; and a car would cost them £2,000+ per year not including petrol, tax, maintenance and buying the car itself; so they're just stuck on JSA and living with parents until they can afford a car. When you're not even entitled to minimum wage until you're 21, it would take most of the year just to break even. It also just so happens that my constituency ranks top in the whole of the UK in terms of the most expensive house prices in relation to local average earnings!

There are definitely young people around here who are made unemployable not through lack of skills, but thanks wholly to the car insurance companies.

[wagolynn]

I think you have hit on a much broader issue here 98selitb. The Banks and government have an interest in ever higher property prices. Society in general has fallen for the line that owning property is the sophisticated thing to do but no one looks at the true cost. The Scandinavian model appears to work much better, where renting is the norm, this has the advantage that it becomes easy to move into accommodation appropriate to your needs and where you are in life’s cycle.

[98selitb]

That's an interesting one Wagolynn, I would love to comment further but I have zero knowledge of property-related issues. It seems renting is looked down on here as it is supposedly "dead money", and people want to be able to buy as soon as they can. I'm afraid that's all I can say as I know nothing about it really!

[wagolynn]

The big eye opener is to calculate what a property actually costs in interest. You rapidly conclude the whole thing depends on rapid price inflation. Each set of politicians, when looking for our vote, say they will build more houses but of course once they are in, a civil serpent while point out to them if the number of house increases, the rate of house price inflation will fall and the whole edifice collapses. This would mean their future jobs/directorships in the city would disappear. (Do I here you crying shame!) The problem in the UK is that rents are caught up in the same price inflation, renting out properties is a long haul job (governments are best at this) yet most landlords are in the game for the increase in value of the property, therefore they sell in the short term (to take the gain) and purchase replacements (at the higher price, with borrowed money).

[Snowball]

I think several forces are at work here. Going back to the Industrial Revolution, the norm became high density back-to-back terraced houses for the working class. The purchase of ones own house crept in as a new thing for 'ordinary' folk over a long period; gradually filtering down to the lower paid as the need for technical skills forced employers to up the wage levels. Then, after WW II, ordinary folk found they could buy a newly built house, and sell at a profit a couple of years later; repeating the process with their next home. Banks stepped in and, along with estate agents and solicitors, pushed up house prices to feed their percentage-based charges. Just like the pyramid-selling con, the bubble finally burst in the 1980's. Negative equity frightened a lot of people, particularly the banks.

Yet, with income growth slowing down significantly, house prices are still being pushed upwards by those who gain from this; and any fall in prices is seen as a threat of doomsday approaching. The result is banks, building societies, estate agents, solicitors, etc still living a life of Riley; whilst home buyers see relentless increases in the percentage of their income going on the house, and young people having increasing difficulty in even getting a foot on the housing ladder.

So, in wondering why we are not rent-orientated like the Scandinavians, could it be that the influential high echelons of society, out of financial considerations, have manipulated us to ensure that we continue to toil at the mills of bricks and mortar?

[Bikerbill]

Let's get back on topic :D Would it be worthwhile if we as drivers, got together to protest to the government or to the insurance ombudsman? The prices insurance companies are charging young drivers is beyond a joke. A youngster who passes a test at 18 will never be able to afford to insure a car until they are 21 or 25. That is 3 to 7 years without gaining further experience on the roads, which to me makes them more of a liability.

[smudger]

Yea! take action, rather then just send a "petition" to No.10, which at the end of the day just gets shredded ,then forgotten about.:rolleyes:

However, taking action, within civil laws, which gets a lot of media coverage would gain even more public support, and cause more attention to the powers that be;)

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by Bikerbill

Let's get back on topic :D Would it be worthwhile if we as drivers, got together to protest to the government or to the insurance ombudsman? The prices insurance companies are charging young drivers is beyond a joke. A youngster who passes a test at 18 will never be able to afford to insure a car until they are 21 or 25. That is 3 to 7 years without gaining further experience on the roads, which to me makes them more of a liability.

On the first point, I can think of a few reasons why this would not be successful.
(a) I have doubts about the impartiality of the Ombudsman system. He (they) might impose control on individual insurance companies not playing fair, but outright condemnation of the whole industry would be another matter.
(b) Swingeing insurance premiums earn increased revenue for the government. The very temporary and meagre budget sweetener on fuel duty indicates that motorists are very much still a cash cow (it's a luxury for Joe Public, so you'll pay!), and insurance premiums are part of that process.

Originally Posted by smudger

Yea! take action, rather then just send a "petition" to No.10, which at the end of the day just gets shredded ,then forgotten about.:rolleyes:

However, taking action, within civil laws, which gets a lot of media coverage would gain even more public support, and cause more attention to the powers that be;)

Sounds good, but the reality is depressing. Where protests have been organised, history shows that few of them are successful. Government and the business community know that sustained resistance fades over time. Consider all the vehicle owners who can either offset the costs one way or another, and those who are sufficiently affluent not to be bothered, and the core of serious protesters becomes very diluted. And most people are aware that what is won on one front is paid for somewhere else; the cash-strapped part of society usually copping for the fall-out.
Apathy still reigns King, I'm afraid.

[Rolebama]

My opinion is that the only way something would be done would be if we 'all' pressured our MPs for a change in the Law. Unfortunately, I can never see that happening as, like Snowball says: Apathy still reigns King.

[MrDanno]

When I passed my driving test and insured my first car, I was talking to the insurance broker who was in his 60's and he said to me that the price I was paying then would be the same throughout my driving life and he wasn't wrong.

I've noticed using these price comparison sites that the prices some of them quote are plain stupid, I had some that were in the 10's of thousands and the cheapest was £250.

The other thing with the price comparison sites is they ask all the questions then quote a price without all the bits you asked for... Protected NCD etc. When I questioned one company he said it was the only way to make them look competitive.

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by MrDanno

When I passed my driving test and insured my first car, I was talking to the insurance broker who was in his 60's and he said to me that the price I was paying then would be the same throughout my driving life and he wasn't wrong.

Sorry, but if I'm reading this correctly, you still pay the same price for your insurance as you did yonks ago? If, like me, youv'e been driving for over 50 years, your premium then would be - what? between £16 and £20?:confused:

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

So, in wondering why we are not rent-orientated like the Scandinavians, could it be that the influential high echelons of society, out of financial considerations, have manipulated us to ensure that we continue to toil at the mills of bricks and mortar?

In short, yes...

You left out, all governments like inflation; this allows wages to rise annually but with no extra purchasing power.

[doctor daniel]

I passed my driving test 2 years ago when I was 18 and I still haven't got a Car, I have now have a motorcycle or a Honda C90, it cost me £15 a year to tax, petrol £3.00 to fill the tank to the brim, insurance £140 odd a year. Which is a lot better than paying over a thousand for a Car insurance. But I guess motorcycling is not for everyone.

Daniel

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Sorry, but if I'm reading this correctly, you still pay the same price for your insurance as you did yonks ago? If, like me, youv'e been driving for over 50 years, your premium then would be - what? between £16 and £20?:confused:

The answer was in the post, About £250 give or take a few pounds. I think if I remember correctly my first cars insurance was £200.

[Rolebama]

In the '60s, I was paying £60, the '70s - £70, the '80s - £80, all within a couple of quid either way, regardless of whether it was a Mini or a Rover Coupe. Then in the '90s, I was paying up to £250, the '00s - £100 to 150, and now it has leapt up to £180 from £120. This decade will be remembered as one of pure greed on the part of all industries relative to fuel and motoring.

[Snowball]

Our son, aged 50 and good driving record, was recently quoted an enormous renewal increase by Aviva (VW Passat estate). So he went on line and got a quote from Aviva, which was significantly lower than the renewal quote. He phoned them again and was told that was for new business, so he just said he would like a new policy. Which was provided at the premium quoted on line.

I think there must be some legal position when they are challenged because, if you ask for a new policy, they must treat you based on the same facts and figures as for a new customer. Not to do so would, I imagine, infringe Trading laws.

For example, if a number of identical goods were on sale at a store, they could not legally sell at one price for a new customer, but charge more to someone else because they had bought one of those items the week previously.

There is also the dubious situation where, if you question the new figure, a reduction of about £25 can be immediately granted by the call centre operator; usually without obtaining authorisation. Doesn't that suggest some form of provisional 'loading'? Very lucrative to the insurance companies if not questioned.

Didn't we once regard bankers, and most people in the finance world, as the epitome of fair and honest dealing? Did we not, at one time, include insurers in this category, but are learning fast that they really no better than all the other Jack-the-Lads?

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by MrDanno

The answer was in the post, About £250 give or take a few pounds. I think if I remember correctly my first cars insurance was £200.

I think MrDanno means if you consider the effect of inflation?

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by Snowball

so he just said he would like a new policy. Which was provided at the premium quoted on line.

I have heard of people doing this before, They called and asked for their original policy to be terminated then called and asked to take a new policy as a new customer.

The point is (in my view) that if you have been a good customer for many years and not claimed you should get a better price than a new customer surely ?

Didn't we once regard bankers, and most people in the finance world, as the epitome of fair and honest dealing? Did we not, at one time, include insurers in this category, but are learning fast that they really no better than all the other Jack-the-Lads?

I think they are all viewed with the same contempt as estate agents these days.

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

I think MrDanno means if you consider the effect of inflation?

What I mean is that as I gained my NCD the policy never got cheaper than the price it started at, Just went up year after year. Now I change every year to whoever is the cheapest.

There is no loyalty for long term customers so it is better to change and save the difference. Last year I saved over £100 for about half an hours searching and dealing with the change over.