Insurance Discrimination based on Residency

MadsL

Hi All, just to update you on some developments and save you having to scroll through the bickering in this thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056729663

Following some emails back and forth between the companies and the Data Protection Commissioners office the following has happened.

Liberty Mutual have removed the question "How long have lived in Ireland or the UK?" from their quote request form and nononsense.ie have removed the question "What is your country of birth?" from their quote form.

There is one other company who are still asking a residency/nationality based question for driving insurance purposes and the DPC negotiations are ongoing.

Will keep you posted.

mad muffin

I didn't realise this was a question on a quote request (my wife normally sorts the insurance out as I'm just the named driver).

A bit rich considering the thousands of unaccompanied L plate drivers on Irish roads. :pac:

who the fug

OSI wrote: »

Ah cool, so now I'll pay the same as someone that grew up with rickshaws on a dirt track? Nice.

Your insurance will go down, so whats the problem

mad muffin

OSI wrote: »

Ah cool, so now I'll pay the same as someone that grew up with rickshaws on a dirt track? Nice.

Funnily as an Aussie I think the same about Irish drivers :P

MadsL

OSI wrote: »

Ah cool, so now I'll pay the same as someone that grew up with rickshaws on a dirt track? Nice.

If you both hold an Irish licence for the same length of time why shouldn't you pay the same. Being born in Ireland doesn't magically confer better driving ability.

MadsL

OSI wrote: »

Nope, just as it did with the gender equality thing, it will go up for those that were previously benefited.

And if they benefited unjustly?

Someone who has grown up in an environment is going to be far more aware of it and less likely to be making mistakes that someone that has not would.

Remind me when the driving test in Ireland asked questions about your childhood environment?

In any case, this issue is about insurance companies breaking Data Protection law by asking irrelevant questions.

djimi

MadsL wrote: »

In any case, this issue is about insurance companies breaking Data Protection law by asking irrelevant questions.

How is it breaking data protection law if you are the one giving them the information?

MadsL

djimi wrote: »

How is it breaking data protection law if you are the one giving them the information?

Rule 6:

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Data_Protection_Rule_6/30.htm

"the data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they were collected or are further processed"
- section 2(1)(c)(iii) of the Act

Residency has no relevance to driving experience under the terms of the Data Protection Acts

No company can ask for irrelevant data in giving a quote.

Amirani

OSI wrote: »

Someone who has grown up in an environment is going to be far more aware of it and less likely to be making mistakes that someone that has not would.

Define "grown up in"? How does living in Ireland between ages 0-10 make any difference whatsoever when you won't have spent any of that time driving a car? It really doesn't.

djimi

OSI wrote: »

Next you'll be telling me that health insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on age, previous health or occupation/past time of the individual. This PC crap is going way too far.

I can sort of see the point to be honest. If someone was born in China and moved to Ireland when they were 2 years of age, its sort of irrelevant when they are looking to take out car insurance in their 20s. I guess it comes down to how the insurance companies are using the information.

djimi

MadsL wrote: »

Rule 6:

http://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Data_Protection_Rule_6/30.htm

"the data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they were collected or are further processed"
- section 2(1)(c)(iii) of the Act

Residency has no relevance to driving experience under the terms of the Data Protection Acts

No company can ask for irrelevant data in giving a quote.

I wouldnt have thought that this would actually have any bearing considering they will just say that country of birth is one of their risk criteria and as such its a valid piece of information to collect, but if this route gets you to achieve your goal quicker than trying to go after their risk assessment system then more power to you.

djimi

OSI wrote: »

It was just an example. But do you really think it's reasonable that someone that has never seen a car or road in their life could come to Ireland and pay the same insurance as someone local that's also just starting to drive? It's entirely relevant.

It depends on how the question is phrased. How long you have lived in Ireland is more relevant than country of birth (both of which have been asked).

Then again if someone has a full license then they have passed the test to prove that they are competant to drive on Irish roads and as such it doesnt really matter where they came from or how long they are in the country.

MadsL

OSI wrote: »

It was just an example. But do you really think it's reasonable that someone that has never seen a car or road in their life could come to Ireland and pay the same insurance as someone local that's also just starting to drive? It's entirely relevant.

If only there was some form of test that would establish if someone is competent to drive..oh wait.

tatli_lokma

OSI wrote: »

It was just an example. But do you really think it's reasonable that someone that has never seen a car or road in their life could come to Ireland and pay the same insurance as someone local that's also just starting to drive? It's entirely relevant.

Can I just ask, what countries specifically are you referring to where their citizens will never have seen a car or even a road? And how many nationals of this country happen to be resident in Ireland at the moment?

MadsL

Just to give you an indication of the level of abuse; and I admit that these are old quotes, this issue has been around for many years:

Both drivers have an Irish licence for one year.

F53 American 2.0L car = 2791 euro
F53 South Korean 2.0L = 5354 euro

Max Power1

MadsL wrote: »

Just to give you an indication of the level of abuse; and I admit that these are old quotes, this issue has been around for many years:

Both drivers have an Irish licence for one year.

F53 American 2.0L car = 2791 euro
F53 South Korean 2.0L = 5354 euro

Not saying americans are great drivers (they arent, not by a long shot), but have you ever seen how korean cities are? Anarchy

Its not discrimination when its accurate, like how its not slander if its true

MadsL

Max Power1 wrote: »

Not saying americans are great drivers (they arent, not by a long shot), but have you ever seen how korean cities are? Anarchy

Its not discrimination when its accurate, like how its not slander if its true

What if I told you that neither of those women had ever driven a car before coming to Ireland? Or that the Korean woman was a professional close security expert with highly training defensive driving skills?

Does your assumption still hold true?

Max Power1

MadsL wrote: »

What if I told you that neither of those women had ever driven a car before coming to Ireland? Or that the Korean woman was a professional close security expert with highly training defensive driving skills?

Does your assumption still hold true?

No driving experience, with a full license? Seems odd to me.

The korean woman you quoted would be a 0.01% exception. A good rule of statistical analysis and automation in general is that you account for the 98% and not the 2% outliers.

ION08

Max Power1 wrote: »

Its not discrimination when its accurate, like how its not slander if its true

Yes but how do you know its accurate?? If youre are not 100% sure that your statement applies to 100% of the targeted nationality then it is simply unfair descrimination or "stereotyping" at best.

Its like placing a premium on Irish drivers abroad because all Irish are drunks :rolleyes:
(Ignoring the fact that a lot of older ones have never even sat a proper test)

MadsL

Max Power1 wrote: »

No driving experience, with a full license? Seems odd to me.

No driving experience outside of Ireland is the point.

The korean woman you quoted would be a 0.01% exception. A good rule of statistical analysis and automation in general is that you account for the 98% and not the 2% outliers.

Assuming your data is relevant for the purposes of processing. Not all data is useful or fair for the purposes for which it is given.

To take an example, asking "Do you have a dog?" and then trying to extrapolate that dog-owners are more likely to have accidents is absurd.

Equally whilst it could be said that darkeyed individuals may have better nightvision...

The darker the eyes, the more light is absorbed as light waves pass through the eye, and the less light is available to reflect within the eye. Light reflection (scatter) within the eye can cause susceptibility to glare (eg. sun or headlights) and to poor contrast discernment. Thus it seems that people with darker eyes may have better vision in high-glare situations – perhaps this makes them better night drivers, for example.

source

it would be absurd to be asking "What colour are your eyes?" for the purpose of insurance.

Max Power1

ION08 wrote: »

Yes but how do you know its accurate?? If youre are not 100% sure that your statement applies to 100% of the targeted nationality then it is simply unfair descrimination or "stereotyping" at best.

Its like placing a premium on Irish drivers abroad because all Irish are drunks :rolleyes:
(Ignoring the fact that a lot of older ones have never even sat a proper test)

Heres a rolleyes for you, see I can click it too! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

If it does not apply to 100% then it is discrimination?
Then why do all younger drivers get loaded? Or drivers of larger engined cars? Because 100% of them crash? No, they get loaded because a larger % of them do crash compared to other groups. But it is not, NOT, discrimination. Feckin PC brigade again.

Get it? You legislate for the majority. You never try to encompass everyone. The accepted "norm" is 98%. (Not for insurance, but in general, when you define a process, you expect that it will apply 98% of the time)

ION08

this actually makes for really infuriating reading on such a nice day!

This is just one of the many many reasons why i absolutely despise insurance companies.

Bunch of large scale legal extortionists that pull figures out of their asses how and when they please.

Feck the whole lot of them

MadsL

Max Power1 wrote: »

Heres a rolleyes for you, see I can click it too! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

If it does not apply to 100% then it is discrimination?
Then why do all younger drivers get loaded? Or drivers of larger engined cars? Because 100% of them crash? No, they get loaded because a larger % of them do crash compared to other groups. But it is not, NOT, discrimination. Feckin PC brigade again.

Get it? You legislate for the majority. You never try to encompass everyone. The accepted "norm" is 98%. (Not for insurance, but in general, when you define a process, you expect that it will apply 98% of the time)

Max, you are missing the point. Insurance companies are allowed to discriminate based on the data that they collect. But, Data Protection law states that any company can only collect data relevant for the purposes of processing the data.

Nationality or previous residency is irrelevant for the purpose of insurance.

Before this change you could have never driven anywhere other than Ireland before passing your test and have been refused insurance based on the fact you lived abroad.

Equally, and more shockingly, this company would have refused to quote returning Irish emigrants on the basis that they had not lived in Ireland for the past 3 years.

ION08

Max Power1 wrote: »

Heres a rolleyes for you, see I can click it too! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

If it does not apply to 100% then it is discrimination?
Then why do all younger drivers get loaded? Or drivers of larger engined cars? Because 100% of them crash? No, they get loaded because a larger % of them do crash compared to other groups. But it is not, NOT, discrimination. Feckin PC brigade again.

Get it? You legislate for the majority. You never try to encompass everyone. The accepted "norm" is 98%. (Not for insurance, but in general, when you define a process, you expect that it will apply 98% of the time)

I used the rolleyes because its an unfounded assumption. Get a grip and stop trying to be cheeky and smart.

All im saying it is definitely unfair and discriminatory.

There maybe a shred of some logical reasoning behind it but no to the extent of the markup in the USA/korean example given.

It would be like you going to germany and getting a 200% loading on your premium for being Irish - what with Irish being perceived as drunks abroad, cant use the overtaking lane on a motorway for the life of them which would cause havoc on an autobahn and a lot of the older folk who never even sat a test to begin with.

Do you reckon that would be fair and justified by your theories yeah??


Edit: im also very much against PC brigade bull****, but this is obviously discrimination and a notch above "pc" regardeless of whatever way you try to disguise it.

endacl

mad muffin wrote: »

Funnily as an Aussie I think the same about Irish drivers :P

I would have agreed with you, but I've driven across the 'Top Bit'! Utes plus no speed limits equals lunatics. For anybody who hasn't had the pleasure of driving in the Northern Territory, its kinda like our own top bit. Felt spec, but on a massive scale...

endacl

And don't get me started on QLD 'hat drivers'!


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/1392192/Slow-Volvo-drivers-in-hats-annoy-me-too-says-judge.html

djimi

MadsL wrote: »

Max, you are missing the point. Insurance companies are allowed to discriminate based on the data that they collect. But, Data Protection law states that any company can only collect data relevant for the purposes of processing the data.

Nationality or previous residency is irrelevant for the purpose of insurance.

This is the bit that I am finding hard to understand with regards your issue with the data protection. Data protection laws basically say that you should not collect data that you do not intend to use. In this case the insurance companies do intend to use that data. It is not up to the data protection commissioner to determine whether or not the criteria that is used to assess insurance risk is lawful or relevant, so why are they getting involved? So long as they can see that the insurance companies are using the data that they store that should be the end of their involvement in the matter.

MadsL

djimi wrote: »

This is the bit that I am finding hard to understand with regards your issue with the data protection. Data protection laws basically say that you should not collect data that you do not intend to use. In this case the insurance companies do intend to use that data. It is not up to the data protection commissioner to determine whether or not the criteria that is used to assess insurance risk is lawful or relevant, so why are they getting involved? So long as they can see that the insurance companies are using the data that they store that should be the end of their involvement in the matter.

Well, they don't use the data as they have no actuarial data to back up what they are asking. They simply have no data as to whether or not the fact Johnny spent 5 years in Oz and is now back in Ireland makes him more or less likely to have a crash. They have simply decided they will gather that info and turn him down for a quote if he asks under their terms of acceptance.

The DPC decided that they cannot ask questions like that as they are irrelevant for the purposes of driving.

Transpose the question "How long have you lived in Ireland?" into "Are you Catholic?" and see what the problem is.

How is how long you have lived in Ireland relevant for the purposes of driving risk?

MadsL

OSI wrote: »

Next you'll be telling me that health insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on age, previous health or occupation/past time of the individual. This PC crap is going way too far.

Umm. They don't.

Try a quote on vhi.ie - I tried a 58 year old and a 38 year old. Same premium.

djimi

MadsL wrote: »

Well, they don't use the data as they have no actuarial data to back up what they are asking. They simply have no data as to whether or not the fact Johnny spent 5 years in Oz and is now back in Ireland makes him more or less likely to have a crash. They have simply decided they will gather that info and turn him down for a quote if he asks under their terms of acceptance.

The DPC decided that they cannot ask questions like that as they are irrelevant for the purposes of driving.

Transpose the question "How long have you lived in Ireland?" into "Are you Catholic?" and see what the problem is.

How is how long you have lived in Ireland relevant for the purposes of driving risk?

Dont get me wrong, Im not disagreeing with you that its not relevant data to use when assessing risk; I just didnt think that the DPC were the ones who could determine whether or not a criteria used by an insurance company to assess risk was legal.

The fact that they are collecting it and that it is effecting the quotes that they give suggests that the data is being used for its intended purpose.

djimi

MadsL wrote: »

Umm. They don't.

Try a quote on vhi.ie - I tried a 58 year old and a 38 year old. Same premium.

Age plays a huge part in quoting for health insurance. Im not sure what you got from VHI when you tried it, but I can guarantee you that a 25 year old will get a very different quote from a 65 year old. Thats not discrimination; its a very important factor when assessing the potential health risk of a candidate.

MadsL

djimi wrote: »

Age plays a huge part in quoting for health insurance. Im not sure what you got from VHI when you tried it, but I can guarantee you that a 25 year old will get a very different quote from a 65 year old. Thats not discrimination; its a very important factor when assessing the potential health risk of a candidate.

Umm....Try it yourself. VHI offer fixed rate plans on the website. Enter 25 years old or 65 years old same price.

www.vhi.ie

wexie

MadsL wrote: »

Umm....Try it yourself. VHI offer fixed rate plans on the website. Enter 25 years old or 65 years old same price.

www.vhi.ie

I agree with you on the whole residency thing, however VHI are also responsible for the whole risk equalisation debacle so they may not be the best example to use. Are you sure it's not a case they can offer these premiums as the rest of the insurance market are subsidizing them?

Anyways, sorry for going OT

MadsL

wexie wrote: »

I agree with you on the whole residency thing, however VHI are also responsible for the whole risk equalisation debacle so they may not be the best example to use. Are you sure it's not a case they can offer these premiums as the rest of the insurance market are subsidizing them?

Anyways, sorry for going OT

Sure, we can have the debate about the risk equalisation thing. And yes it is kinda off-topic, but it was brought in to prevent insurance companies from profiteering from using age as a reason to charge outrageous premiums. Shame it could not have been applied to young drivers.

I'd much prefer a system that deducts discount bonuses rather than applies them.

Anyway, these actions are preventing insurance companies from using yet another makey-up reason to penalise people who are the minority and it will also prevent them from penalising returning emigrants who through no fault of their own are denied insurance.

MadsL

djimi wrote: »

Dont get me wrong, Im not disagreeing with you that its not relevant data to use when assessing risk; I just didnt think that the DPC were the ones who could determine whether or not a criteria used by an insurance company to assess risk was legal.

The fact that they are collecting it and that it is effecting the quotes that they give suggests that the data is being used for its intended purpose.

There seems to be mix. I have asked for investigations before - many years ago they seemed to just be adding a weighting for nationality (hence the od quotes I gave) DPC slapped them for that and they moved to asking nationality questions which they tried to defend under terms and conditions of acceptance. Slapped again so then it became residency.

Some insurance companies seem to want to descriminate on the basis of nationality. Weirdly so in some cases where they do not do it in the UK market but do do it in the Republic.

djimi

Fair enough; things must have changed since I last got health insurance!

You can seriously be suggesting though that you dont see why an insurance company might want to take age into account when assessing risk for health insurance?

MadsL

djimi wrote: »

Fair enough; things must have changed since I last got health insurance!

You can seriously be suggesting though that you dont see why an insurance company might want to take age into account when assessing risk for health insurance?

Might want or be allowed?

Do you think health insurance should be available only to the rich when they are old? Equally should only rich young people be allowed to drive. An element of risk equalisation is present everywhere: Should I not pay tax for schools beause I have no kids? Or pay less PRSI because I am a man and will never have a baby?

djimi

MadsL wrote: »

Might want or be allowed?

Do you think health insurance should be available only to the rich when they are old? Equally should only rich young people be allowed to drive. An element of risk equalisation is present everywhere: Should I not pay tax for schools beause I have no kids? Or pay less PRSI because I am a man and will never have a baby?

Its got nothing to do with being rich or not. I fully understand why a 70 year old might be a higher health risk than a 25 year old and might have to pay more for health insurance, in the same way I understand why a 40 year old with a 20 years clean driving pays ten times less for insurance than a 17 year old with a learners permit. Risk is the biggest factor in assessing insurance; Im with you on the nationality thing but you are dreaming if you think that things like age for health insurance and age/experience for motor insurance cannot and should not be taken into account.

Max Power1

MadsL wrote: »

Transpose the question "How long have you lived in Ireland?" into "Are you Catholic?" and see what the problem is.

Transpose the question "How long have you lived in Ireland" into "Hello, to confirm your winnings in the nigerian lotto" if you wish - the transposition you make has no bearing on the original question.

Ever heard of capitalism, supply and demand? In a free industry, insurers should be allowed to ask for whatever info they need to give an accurate quote. If you dont feel right supplying the info because of some PC bollox then thats fine, off to another company you go. If enough people agree then the insurers will have to change the form.

This really is just PC horse**** though. I mean really, come on, how long have you loved in Ireland is a realistic question. The longer you are here = more acclimatized with the roads + location = marginally less risk of claims.

djimi

Max Power1 wrote: »

Transpose the question "How long have you lived in Ireland" into "Hello, to confirm your winnings in the nigerian lotto" if you wish - the transposition you make has no bearing on the original question.

Ever heard of capitalism, supply and demand? In a free industry, insurers should be allowed to ask for whatever info they need to give an accurate quote. If you dont feel right supplying the info because of some PC bollox then thats fine, off to another company you go. If enough people agree then the insurers will have to change the form.

This really is just PC horse**** though. I mean really, come on, how long have you loved in Ireland is a realistic question. The longer you are here = more acclimatized with the roads + location = marginally less risk of claims.

Its really not PC horse**** though. If you have spent you whole driving life in Ireland then where you came from originally really is not going to make a blind bit of difference. If you have a full license then you are deemed competant to drive on Irish roads. If you have spent your life driving on the right hand side of the road then I can see how you might be more of a risk after you move to Ireland, but in this instance you wont have an Irish license (or at least wont have held one for very long) so they can assess risk using that criteria rather than your nationality and length of time in the country.

MadsL

Max Power1 wrote: »

Transpose the question "How long have you lived in Ireland" into "Hello, to confirm your winnings in the nigerian lotto" if you wish - the transposition you make has no bearing on the original question.

It's an example of how relevant the question is.

Ever heard of capitalism, supply and demand? In a free industry, insurers should be allowed to ask for whatever info they need to give an accurate quote.

As I highlighted, it is to avoid giving a quote.

As you believe in a free market, should I be allowed to only hire white people in my capitalist, free market? Or should there be laws to prevent discrimination?

Accurate? Do you maintain there is accurate actuarial data relating to how safe a driver someone is based on if they spent 3 years in Oz or not?

If you dont feel right supplying the info because of some PC bollox then thats fine, off to another company you go. If enough people agree then the insurers will have to change the form.

You know well that protecting the rights of a minority hardly works like that; if I bar you from pub because you are Chinese or named Flynn sure aren't there plenty of pubs.

This really is just PC horse**** though. I mean really, come on, how long have you loved in Ireland is a realistic question. The longer you are here = more acclimatized with the roads + location = marginally less risk of claims.

I don't think sexual performance should be a factor either

Seriously though...if you spent 3 years in Oz you forget all of this?

Frankly I'd say someone learning to drive in Ireland for the first time at 35 who is from South Africa is probably safer than a cocky Donegal boy-racer who lived here all their life.

Actual driving experience matters, not which way round the water went down the plughole.

ardmacha

Fair enough; things must have changed since I last got health insurance!

I doubt it, the health insurance market in Ireland has always been like this. Perhaps you meant life insurance or something else.

However the motor market is not regulated like this, and should not be IMHO, someone coming from a country with a very different driving culture should pay more at first.

dah

Its been some good debate.

The question isn't relevant for a Motor Quotation. It was a way for insurance companies to discriminate against non nationals. If some Insurance Companies had there way they wouldnt insure drivers from certain countries but they cant. The question for the majority of times increases the premium and reduces the chance of the proposer taking up the quote. As theres no statistics to back it up and as it breaches Data Protection for the purpose of use, Insurance Companies have had to remove the question.

As for comment on Private Health Insurance, the Proposal
Form on VHI or the 3 other providers dont ask health questions as its not relevant data for the purpose of use. Under legislation in Ireland for Private Health Care a 30 year old man/ woman pays the same as a 60 or 90 year old. A healthy 80 year old pays the same premium as an 80 year old with the misfortune of having being diagnosed with cancer 3 times.

tatli_lokma

When I returned to Ireland after some years abroad I tried to get a reasonable quote, but initially it couldn't be done. Before I left I held the trifecta of the insurance ideals which in the past had guaranteed I never paid more than a few hundred quid for insurance - female, over 30, 10+ years full licence. In addition I was looking to be quoted on a 1L engine and had full NCB. I was asked about residence and as I had lived outside Ireland was quoted some astronomical prices, as in in excess of €1000 on most occasions and over €2000 by one company

I didn't suddenly forget how to drive because I spent the best part of 2.5 years abroad. But I was discriminated against quite clearly due to my period of non-residency.

I finally contacted a broker who asked if I had 'official' residency abroad, i.e a residence permit which I actually didn't as I was working on a temporary permit which was renewed every few months as my work was classed as tourism and seasonal. On this basis and the fact I kept my home in Ireland and still received correspondence there he advised me that I could still claim residency. How legal this was I don't know but it was the only way I could get a reasonable quote. Thankfully I never had to put the policy to the test as I never had to claim

My husband held his full Irish licence now for nearly 4 years. He previously held a full licence in his country of birth for 5 years. His nationality plus short period of time with a full licence means that both car policies are in my name with him as a named driver. Otherwise we would be paying almost €2000 a year more.

Anyone who says it is not discrimination, or that it is on reasonable grounds clearly hasn't had the pleasure of having the insurance companies literally rob you blind (more so than normal). My husband is a significantly better driver than my sister who despite holding a full licence in excess of 20 years is actually slightly dangerous because shes is too cautious and is like diving miss daisy!

Personally I would much prefer that young, inexperienced drivers, non national drivers, etc get reasonable insurance and then at least if there is an accident I know that the other car is insured. Bu the moment there are hundreds if not thousands of drivers who are driving uninsured because of these ridiculous premiums. A system similar to Australia where a minimum of third party insurance is attached to the car registration process would be a good move I think.

djimi

Little Ted wrote: »

When I returned to Ireland after some years abroad I tried to get a reasonable quote, but initially it couldn't be done. Before I left I held the trifecta of the insurance ideals which in the past had guaranteed I never paid more than a few hundred quid for insurance - female, over 30, 10+ years full licence. In addition I was looking to be quoted on a 1L engine and had full NCB. I was asked about residence and as I had lived outside Ireland was quoted some astronomical prices, as in in excess of €1000 on most occasions and over €2000 by one company

I didn't suddenly forget how to drive because I spent the best part of 2.5 years abroad. But I was discriminated against quite clearly due to my period of non-residency.

I would have thought that your high quotes would have had a lot more to do with the fact that you lose your NCB after two years so you would have been starting again from scratch with no discount?

MadsL

djimi wrote: »

I would have thought that your high quotes would have had a lot more to do with the fact that you lose your NCB after two years so you would have been starting again from scratch with no discount?

NCB is a maximum of 10-50% discount. Even if she were paying €600 a year she couldn't be paying that much. €2000 a year for a 1.0L car?? Madness, insurance companies chancing their arm.

Anyway, one company left and they are being dealt with. If anyone knows or notices any other residency questions by any insurance company I would be happy to open a new complaint.

ION08

To be quite honest, I think you should actually get a discount if you are from any other european country that actually has and always had a strict and regulated driver education and testing system in place. Like Germany for example.

MadsL

30 year old driving Nissan Micra 1.2
Licence for 10 years
Ranelagh
No NCB
Living in Ireland 3+ years


Same company less than 2 years in Ireland will not quote.

Another company who recently changed (now driving experience is counted in any country if verifiable)

Same assumptions...



Yeah, looks like it isn't the lack of NCB inflating quotes.

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

And if they benefited unjustly?


Remind me when the driving test in Ireland asked questions about your childhood environment?

In any case, this issue is about insurance companies breaking Data Protection law by asking irrelevant questions.

It could be because certain generations of Irish got their licenses in the post office and never had to learn to drive properly.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

It could be because certain generations of Irish got their licenses in the post office and never had to learn to drive properly.

How would that relate to living overseas?

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

How would that relate to living overseas?

It doesn't. It related to living in Ireland, as in you were of those generations that didn't learn to drive formally.