Insurance and proof of tax?

Falcon L · 28-09-2016 6:43pm #1

My son went to buy a second hand car recently and was looking online at cars. He tried to get insurance quotes on cars he was interested in. For NCB reasons, he was getting quotes from Aviva. There were some cars they wouldn't quote on and when pushed for a reason he got some strange replies. One car had too many previous owners and another had not been taxed in years.

Why are these factors being considered when quoting for insurance? He was eventually quoted on a car that wasn't taxed but he has to send a scan of the disc when he gets it.

Is it just me or are insurance companies overstepping the mark?

mgbgt1978 · 28-09-2016 7:30pm

Too many previous owners could be down to a fault that cannot be repaired easily. The Insurer could think that you may attempt to make a "write-off" claim if you cannot repair this possible fault.
Not taxed for a long time often indicates a car that was off the road after an undisclosed crash...and wasn't repaired properly.
Or simply that if the car wasn't driven for a long time that there is a "story" behind this.....could be anything but it's easier for them just to refuse to quote.

Sue Pa Key Pa · 28-09-2016 7:42pm

Also, a lot of movement on the registered ownership could suggest fronting

Special Circumstances · 28-09-2016 9:08pm

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Too many previous owners could be down to a fault that cannot be repaired easily. The Insurer could think that you may attempt to make a "write-off" claim if you cannot repair this possible fault.
Not taxed for a long time often indicates a car that was off the road after an undisclosed crash...and wasn't repaired properly.
Or simply that if the car wasn't driven for a long time that there is a "story" behind this.....could be anything but it's easier for them just to refuse to quote.

It's possible that one of the cars was a shade of blue that reminded someone at the insurance company of an ex.

Special Circumstances · 28-09-2016 9:13pm

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Also, a lot of movement on the registered ownership could suggest fronting

Would there be any chance of companies having to commit to a list of this red flags?

Maybe one could sign up for an email to be notified of today's top 10 things insurers don't like.

What did happen that old question about what colour your car is?

Sue Pa Key Pa · 28-09-2016 9:16pm

Special Circumstances wrote: »
Would there be any chance of companies having to commit to a list of this red flags?
c
ar is?

I''l ask them all for you at tomorrow's weekly cartel meeting

Special Circumstances · 28-09-2016 9:22pm

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I''l ask them all for you at tomorrow's weekly cartel meeting

It was a rhetorical question those mangey lizard people don't like to commit to lists.

Sue Pa Key Pa · 28-09-2016 9:28pm

Special Circumstances wrote: »

It was a rhetorical question those mangey lizard people don't like to commit to lists.

No, there's a standing order that 1 genuine question per week will be answered without using spin. Your's is up tomorrow.

Liam McPoyle · 28-09-2016 9:36pm

Falcon L wrote: »

My son went to buy a second hand car recently and was looking online at cars. He tried to get insurance quotes on cars he was interested in. For NCB reasons, he was getting quotes from Aviva. There were some cars they wouldn't quote on and when pushed for a reason he got some strange replies. One car had too many previous owners and another had not been taxed in years.

Why are these factors being considered when quoting for insurance? He was eventually quoted on a car that wasn't taxed but he has to send a scan of the disc when he gets it.

Is it just me or are insurance companies overstepping the mark?

The ownership one is an odd one and sounds a bit makey uppy to me.

The tax one is understandable though.

If a car has not been taxed in a number of years its reasonable to assume its been parked up somewhere and may not be in a road worthy condition therefore it presents a bigger risk.

Insurers will try to mitigate their potential exposure as much as possible.

Sleeper12 · 28-09-2016 9:40pm

Someone that drives without tax for years is unlikely to have maintained the car. Cars that aren't being maintained can be much more dangerous to drive.

uck51js9zml2yt · 28-09-2016 9:41pm

I'm seeing it a lot that people are being told they need tax to be insured.
The only legal requirement is that the car is insured to be taxed.

A lot of Ownership changes are also down to arrears owing and swapping of the cars between family members to wipe out the arrears.

daRobot · 28-09-2016 9:44pm

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

The ownership one is an odd one and sounds a bit makey uppy to me.

The tax one is understandable though.

If a car has not been taxed in a number of years its reasonable to assume its been parked up somewhere and may not be in a road worthy condition therefore it presents a bigger risk.

Insurers will try to mitigate their potential exposure as much as possible.

That's what the nct exists for - to mitigate that exact risk.

But again, nothing is surprising about how insurance companies are operating these days.

Liam McPoyle · 28-09-2016 9:48pm

daRobot wrote: »

That's what the nct exists for - to mitigate that exact risk.

But again, nothing is surprising about how insurance companies are operating these days.

Why would someone maintain the NCT if the car is parked up?

I don't believe you can tax a car without an NCT anyway, though I'm open to correction there.

uck51js9zml2yt · 28-09-2016 9:49pm

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Why would someone maintain the NCT if the car is parked up?

I don't believe you can tax a car without an NCT anyway, though I'm open to correction there.

You stand corrected:)
The only requirement is insurance.
Goods vehicles need a valid CVRT'd to be taxed in addition to insurance.

Esel · 28-09-2016 9:52pm

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Why would someone maintain the NCT if the car is parked up?

I don't believe you can tax a car without an NCT anyway, though I'm open to correction there.

The requirement was waived during an NCT strike years ago, and, while still on the form, has not been re-instituted.

Special Circumstances · 28-09-2016 10:13pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Someone that drives without tax for years is unlikely to have maintained the car. Cars that aren't being maintained can be much more dangerous to drive.

Should we just crush cars now rather than parking them up for a while for restoration, change in family circumstances? Or should we keep them taxed at all times, while in a shed, so that our financial sacrifice may please the insurance deities... or in less sarcastic terms, who said the car was being driven?

Should we ban (by way of insurance fatwa) cars with known engineering flaws? They could just throw a wobbler on the M50 at any time? No? Just 10 year old cars owned by drivers with no claims history as old as the car? Sounds legit!

Known glaring security flaws? The risk to insurers here is obvious. No? Just Japanese imports even hybrids? Sounds legit and totally consistent!

Should cars with acknowledged dishonesty regarding the amount of toxic crap they emit be banned? Surely the drivers of said cars could be judged to be cold hearted psychopaths without half as much of a reach as some of the suggested reasons here?

I could go on, as many are all too aware I'm sure. If there are genuine red flags for insurers, why can't they make them public so people don't these cars?

Sorry sir that car has had too many owners.
Oh, it didn't seem to have any other warning signs. Hmmm ill just have to sell it.
Sorry sir that car has had too many owners.
Oh, it didn't seem to have any other warning signs. Hmmm ill just have to sell it.
Sorry sir that car has had too many owners.
Oh, it didn't seem to have any other warning signs. Hmmm ill just have to sell it.

So, 10 years is where you first start seeing problems insuring even the most boring of cars. What is the acceptable owners/year ratio?

Insurance and proof of tax?

Comments