Why are old cars such a risk?

dootv

The answer is that insurance companies have found a new way of screwing us. A few brokers have said the doubling of my insurance on a 2000 Almera from 270 to nearly 500 euros a year is because 'many companies are no longer accepting older cars'.

Why? If its nicked, its costs them nothing (TPO). If I prang it there's no repair/replacement costs for them to meet (TPO). Its obviously a mechanically sound car as it can't be driven without an NCT. Do I suddenly become a kamikaze driver in a 2000 Allegro, whereas in a 2106 model I am a paragon of driving behaviour?

Point of my post is, does any board member have any evidence from any source that suggests that those who drive old cars are less safe than those that drive newer models. And surely its the driver, not the car, that is the risk. Any research or concrete evidence suggesting otherwise would be most welcome, otherwise the insurance companies claim is completely fraudulent, ie, "A false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations ... and is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage."

Sue Pa Key Pa

So when an insurance company says "Go away with your old car, we don't want your business no matter how much money you offer us", that's fraud is it?

This has been done to death on Boards

dootv

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

So when an insurance company says "Go away with your old car, we don't want your business no matter how much money you offer us", that's fraud is it?

This has been done to death on Boards

But we don't know what they are saying as they never directly answer the point. Its only hearsay thru the brokers. If there was one of these companies that stated "we don't insure old cars, or we charge exorbitant rates on old cars, because ...". I would like to know what the 'because' is, ie, a rational, reasonable business/risk decision based on .. what? I would like other answers too like why can't we buy insurance in Slovakia or Sweden or anywhere in the EU to give us cover in Ireland? Why don't the insurers allow us to have shorter term policies for folks that are retired or thru other circumstances only drive for a part of the year here in Ireland?

Its the same old story in this country. Where you are dependent on vital or services that are mandatory, like health, motor insurance, water and so on, we are massively ripped off.

Akrasia

The reasons are:
1. Old cars aren't maintained to the same standard as new cars. If your brakes need repairs that cost 1000, but your car is only worth 500, you're going to b reluctant to spend that money and more likely to risk delaying the repairs

2. Old cars are more likely to be involved in insurance fraud.

It's not fair, but the whole car insurance system isn't fair

phester28

thats just bull,

new cars can put up 100k miles in one year so that argument is null and void.

old cars may be likely involved in insurance fraud. is like saying a certain group of foreign nationals are more more likely to be involved in fraud so lets load people born in another country or with a different skin colour

gctest50

phester28 wrote: »

thats just bull,

new cars can put up 100k miles in one year so that argument is null and void.

old cars may be likely involved in insurance fraud. is like saying a certain group of foreign nationals are more more likely to be involved in fraud so lets load people born in another country or with a different skin colour

Go back through this :

https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic

you won't see many 2015 yokes

MrDiyFan

Old cars get nct'd annually

Less likely to have dodgy brakes

Sue Pa Key Pa

phester28 wrote: »

thats just bull,

new cars can put up 100k miles in one year so that argument is null and void.

old cars may be likely involved in insurance fraud. is like saying a certain group of foreign nationals are more more likely to be involved in fraud so lets load people born in another country or with a different skin colour

And you know this to be a fact because???

It is quite possible that certain foreign nationals and persons of a different colour etc are also involved in a disproportionate level of fraud but legislation prevents them from making business decisions based on these aspects. Insurers are trying to tackle all sources of the problem but can only tackle some of them without running in to trouble

andekwarhola

If it's going by age, then they may as well base it on mileage. My last car was 16 years old but had about 120k on it and was serviced and NCTd on time. Many cars a third of that age could have more than that and less care.

Seth Brundle

dootv wrote: »

But we don't know what they are saying as they never directly answer the point. Its only hearsay thru the brokers.

You do know that you don't have to deal with a broker, right?
Call the insurance companies directly and see what they say then; you might find that they are cheaper than your broker!

dootv

kbannon wrote: »

dootv wrote: »

But we don't know what they are saying as they never directly answer the point. Its only hearsay thru the brokers.

You do know that you don't have to deal with a broker, right?
Call the insurance companies directly and see what they say then; you might find that they are cheaper than your broker!

I usually did it directly but this time the whole lot turned me down so I had to find a borker. I have often wondered since we are in the EU whether or not companies in other EU countries might be able to offer insurance without the greed premium that we are being forced to pay here.

monkeysnapper

I would have thought having no claims would be enough for a insurance company ..

I'm 41 and have been driving since I was 17 and never made a claim .... My car is 10 years old, insurance went up.

Was paying 270 a year, I'm paying 370 now .

Going off thread slightly , what were other people paying with full no claims discount say 3/5 years ago vrs today .

Special Circumstances

Akrasia wrote: »

The reasons are:
1. Old cars aren't maintained to the same standard as new cars. If your brakes need repairs that cost 1000, but your car is only worth 500, you're going to b reluctant to spend that money and more likely to risk delaying the repairs

2. Old cars are more likely to be involved in insurance fraud.

It's not fair, but the whole car insurance system isn't fair

Assuming
A) insurance fraud is as big a factor in the price increases as insurers make out.
insurance fraud, although highly lucrative (see above), can be practically eradicated by choosing a random cutoff point somewhere between 8 and 15 years.
C) 10years claims free driving counts for nothing

Then the companies with these bans in place must be able to offer very attractive premiums that others just can't get near, right? And/or they are rolling in it, really showing the other companies how to make money?




It's the only conclusion if you believe 100% in their assertions yeah? Unless somebody can show the flaw here? ("We understand that you don't understand btw rofl lol shart" isn't actually an adult level counter argument)

Again, assuming that what they say is the cause of all the woes in the industry is true, then you would say that the company taking the most extreme stance against older cars would be doing best out of all of them? As always, feel free to point out in an intelligent and adult manner where I could be wrong in thinking this, working from the initial assumptions presented as gospel by the industry.






Ladies and gentlemen... by these metrics, the ultimate irish insurance company is...... FBD.




FBD - Leading the irish insurance industry out of the darkness and into the land of fraud free milk and honey.
FBD - serious professional management, a beacon of hope for those insurance companies only flailing around the place. I imagine FBDs policies and strategies and overall management are regarded with a kind of hushed awe by the other insurers, "wow how can we be more like FBD" they ask themselves, "with these highly professional and scientifically bulletproof tactics to combat fraud they will surely wipe the floor with the competition"?
FBD - The embodiment of the irish insurance industries charge into profits by eradicating fraud.
FBD - the pinnacle of professional and robust statistical analysis.
FBD, the company all other insurers envy.

FBD...'Seeing through the storm' indeed.

Seth Brundle

dootv wrote: »

I usually did it directly but this time the whole lot turned me down so I had to find a borker. I have often wondered since we are in the EU whether or not companies in other EU countries might be able to offer insurance without the greed premium that we are being forced to pay here.

1. So you have a history that they don't want one cover because you carry an extra risk.
2. Companies in other EU countries can cover you. They just don't want to cover the expensive Irish market.
3. If it is greed why are they losing money? Why are they turning away business by refusing to quote older vehicles?

Your lack of understanding of the facts is clear!

Henry Ford III

Only a very senior executive could answer this. They've clearly decided that these older cars represent a higher risk, and are charging accordingly.

Once again its important to remember that overall the Irish motor insurance market loses money every year, even allowing for higher premiums from older cars, younger drivers, and all and sundry in between.

Going Forward

Our 2nd car is 17 years old, and due for renewal around the summer.

Went online and and through the usual routine but started getting quotes up around a grand.

Four companies refused to quote, axa was the cheapest at around 470.

Funny thing was we'd already received a quote from our existing insurer 123.ie (which had been filed away too well) and it was only about e40 more than last year, around €370!!

Needless to say, went with that!.

As regards loading of older cars, statistically it is driver error as opposed to mechanical faults that is the cause of most accidents, so the car age shouldn't be a huge factor??

NUTLEY BOY

My cousin drives a 1990 Toyota Corolla. Hardly touched 50,000 miles (an indisputably evidenced fact) yet. Serviced annually and properly by a main dealer. Passed every NCT.

My cousin is in good nick himself as well.

So, how could he represent a sub-standard or unacceptable risk from an underwriters perspective ? I venture to suggest that he doesn't but insurers would have you believe otherwise :mad:

This twaddle is almost as bad as what they tried in the UK a few years ago. Insurers thought that it would be a good idea to try and load policyholders for accident frequency. Ostensibly reasonable until you realise that they wanted to reckon against you accidents for which the policyholder had no liability. So if in the space of 12 months you were hit from behind whilst stationary at red traffic lights that made you a sub-standard risk. I don't really think so......

Seth Brundle

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

My cousin drives a 1990 Toyota Corolla. Hardly touched 50,000 miles (an indisputably evidenced fact) yet. Serviced annually and properly by a main dealer. Passed every NCT.

My cousin is in good nick himself as well.

So, how could he represent a sub-standard or unacceptable risk from an underwriters perspective ? I venture to suggest that he doesn't but insurers would have you believe otherwise :mad:

This twaddle is almost as bad as what they tried in the UK a few years ago. Insurers thought that it would be a good idea to try and load policyholders for accident frequency. Ostensibly reasonable until you realise that they wanted to reckon against you accidents for which the policyholder had no liability. So if in the space of 12 months you were hit from behind whilst stationary at red traffic lights that made you a sub-standard risk. I don't really think so......

Does the high standard that your cousin keeps reflect that for all cars of similar age?

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

Does the high standard that your cousin keeps reflect that for all cars of similar age?

Do the insurers have some special requirements that they would like added to the NCT?

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Do the insurers have some special requirements that they would like added to the NCT?

I'm not justifying their action but if they have a policy of not insuring something there will always be outliers that should possibly not be part of the exclusion.

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

I'm not justifying their action but if they have a policy of not insuring something there will always be outliers that should possibly not be part of the exclusion.

Do you think there should perhaps be a certain minimum standard to be met before a car would be legally allowed on the road? To rule out these lower end outliers?

Obviously then, the people with really really well kept cars would probably be paying the same as those with "minimum standard" cars, but you'd just make the test rigorous enough the the "minimum standard cars" would be acceptable.

It would be a kind of a nationwide test, for cars. You could call it NTC or something, and do it more often for cars that were that bit older.

Obviously you'd only test petrols cars for emissions, and diesel cars would just need a kind of 18th century smoke opacity classification but as technology evolves beyond the steam engine one can only hope that one day science will devise a credible test of diesel emissions?! We're way off into science fiction here obviously like but it's good to dream

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Do you think there should perhaps be a certain minimum standard to be met before a car would be legally allowed on the road? To rule out these lower end outliers?

Obviously then, the people with really really well kept cars would probably be paying the same as those with "minimum standard" cars, but you'd just make the test rigorous enough the the "minimum standard cars" would be acceptable.

It would be a kind of a nationwide test, for cars. You could call it NTC or something, and do it more often for cars that were that bit older.

Obviously you'd only test petrols cars for emissions, and diesel cars would just need a kind of 18th century smoke opacity classification but as technology evolves beyond the steam engine one can only hope that one day science will devise a credible test of diesel emissions?! We're way off into science fiction here obviously like but it's good to dream

I'm not sure why you're asking me to justify a policy used by many insurance companies.
I merely pointed out that they have this policy and the previous posters friends car is unrepresentative of most cars of a similar age.
Don't shoot the messenger!

Going Forward

kbannon wrote: »

Does the high standard that your cousin keeps reflect that for all cars of similar age?

Does it matter?
Insurance is based on risk.

The biggest risk is driver error as opposed to mechanical failure.

What isn't known is whether driver error is a bigger factor for drivers of older cars, and if drivers of older cars are posing a greater risk because they're involved in more expensive accidents.

The 18 to 24 age group is commonly acknowledged to be the most at risk group, but also the most likely to drive older cars, so why are other drivers driving older cars now also being arbitrarily penalised for that group's stupidity or lack of experience?

www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/older-smaller-cars-putting-younger-drivers-at-risk-1.2060380%3fmode=amp


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8535555/Half-of-young-driver-deaths-involve-old-cars.html


And a typical wishy washy explanation from the AA unwilling to upset others in the insurance industry whilst simultaneously trying to appear as the motorists' advocate.

Note the 5% increase and the possible €50 loading waffle, from a year ago:

http://www.theaa.ie/blog/car-15-years-old-follow-aa-advice/

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're asking me to justify a policy used by many insurance companies.
I merely pointed out that they have this policy and the previous posters friends car is unrepresentative of most cars of a similar age.
Don't shoot the messenger!

Anybody who accepts and perpetuates that somebody with 10 + years claims free driving should not be allowed own or drive a 15 year old car because they want to, or anybody who just parrots any and all assertions from the insurers as fact is a sliveen not a messenger.

Ferrari3600

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Only a very senior executive could answer this. They've clearly decided that these older cars represent a higher risk, and are charging accordingly.

Once again its important to remember that overall the Irish motor insurance market loses money every year, even allowing for higher premiums from older cars, younger drivers, and all and sundry in between.

Is this a copy and paste from an insurance company press release? Because that's how it reads.

Ferrari3600

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

My cousin drives a 1990 Toyota Corolla. Hardly touched 50,000 miles (an indisputably evidenced fact) yet. Serviced annually and properly by a main dealer. Passed every NCT.

My cousin is in good nick himself as well.

So, how could he represent a sub-standard or unacceptable risk from an underwriters perspective ? I venture to suggest that he doesn't but insurers would have you believe otherwise :mad:

This twaddle is almost as bad as what they tried in the UK a few years ago. Insurers thought that it would be a good idea to try and load policyholders for accident frequency. Ostensibly reasonable until you realise that they wanted to reckon against you accidents for which the policyholder had no liability. So if in the space of 12 months you were hit from behind whilst stationary at red traffic lights that made you a sub-standard risk. I don't really think so......

Your cousin sounds like a smart bloke. His Corolla will be eligible for cheap road tax in another 3 years (assuming the a.rseholes haven't abolished it by then).

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Anybody who accepts and perpetuates that somebody with 10 + years claims free driving should not be allowed own or drive a 15 year old car because they want to, or anybody who just parrots any and all assertions from the insurers as fact is a sliveen not a messenger.

Did I accept or perpetuate that idea? Did I in fact make any comment about the insurance companies policy in terms of 15 year old cars?
Or did I simply make the comment that the previous posters car is not representative of most cars of that era?

I am quite aware of the unfairness of this policy but that doesn't stop the likes of you jumping on my comment and twisting to the point that you insult me by calling me names.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Right, let's look at another possibility JUST for debate (I don't have any facts).

If an insurer discover that a disproportionate amount of claims were coming from a certain demographic, buying older cars and were just terrible drivers and never maintained their cars or adhered to the rules of the road

Can an insurer say we are loading / declining Demographic X ? Not a chance, they would be up before the courts in no time. The only option is to pick a non-sensitive aspect common to the losses and kick that out

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Right, let's look at another possibility JUST for debate (I don't have any facts).

If an insurer discover that a disproportionate amount of claims were coming from a certain demographic, buying older cars and were just terrible drivers and never maintained their cars or adhered to the rules of the road

Can an insurer say we are loading / declining Demographic X ? Not a chance, they would be up before the courts in no time. The only option is to pick a non-sensitive aspect common to the losses and kick that out

But how would they have 10 years claims/convictions/penalty points free records if "these people" you want to discriminate against were so bad?

Is it just that the insurers systems and how they integrate/interface with the states systems are beyond amateur, so you have no way of telling if Person X is person X or if any of their presented facts are correct? So you have to deal with problems in the broadest strokes possible? Amazing then that are such disparities based on minutiae in other areas.

10years no claims bonus.
No penalty points.
No convictions.
"Professional class" employment requiring a degree or better.
Full time employment in same.

Are you saying this is the demographic that's causing all the trouble? Or that this combination of factors is insufficient to distinguish them from "those people"?

Your argument doesn't stand up spkp, unless insurers can't or won't verify any single detail of the facts you present to them.

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

Did I accept or perpetuate that idea? Did I in fact make any comment about the insurance companies policy in terms of 15 year old cars?
Or did I simply make the comment that the previous posters car is not representative of most cars of that era?

Does it meet the minimum required standards as required by the EU and the Irish government and the RSA and the AA for the purposes of being on the road or not?
If it does then it is just a nicer car than all the other cars of that age that meet the same requirements.

kbannon wrote: »

I am quite aware of the unfairness of this policy but that doesn't stop the likes of you jumping on my comment and twisting to the point that you insult me by calling me names.

By not even applying a five year olds level of critical thinking to this (or doing so but abandoning the conclusions, don't be causing no fuss now), shrugging your shoulders and saying ah sure most a dem cars are crap (despite meeting the requirements) you are excusing and perpetuating this sh1t or perhaps trying to inveigle yourself with this unaccountable masters. IMO this traits are perfectly in line with being called a sliveen. IF the cap fits wear it.

CJhaughey

I can see two parts to this.

1. Exchequer directly benefits as older cars are deemed uninsurable, new cars are bought to replace them.
VRT and VAT and associated taxes directly benefit the govt, and in addition cars under the old tax regime are removed from the national fleet, this moves the point at which most cars will be under the new emissions based tax regime.
Therefore there will come a point where the new emissions based tax will slowly creep up to the levels of previous CC based tax.

2. The Exchequer gains as a proportion of the insurance is also earmarked for the State through levies on the Insurance.
Higher Insurance costs = More money into the Gov't coffers.

It's a win win for the Govt and they have no interest in mere plebs struggling to insure a car as they all have large salaries and in many cases a Govt car with driver.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

But how would they have 10 years claims/convictions/penalty points free records if "these people" you want to discriminate against were so bad?
.

You're not listening to what I say.

If insurers discover that Demographic X are causing a lot of accidents, they cannot refuse them cover on that basis alone. If another common feature is that Demographic X use a high % of older cars, insurers will use that reason to get rid of them EVEN if it means they have to lose the 10 yr claims/conviction/penalty points good customers along with them

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You're not listening to what I say.

If insurers discover that Demographic X are causing a lot of accidents, they cannot refuse them cover on that basis alone. If another common feature is that Demographic X use a high % of older cars, insurers will use that reason to get rid of them EVEN if it means they have to lose the 10 yr claims/conviction/penalty points good customers along with them

Well Cher, if you wanna know, that's basically admitting that your system is wide wide wide open to lies (the actual reg of the car is the only thing ye can verify) and by telling the truth about pretty much anything else except the reg we are subsidising a LOT more people than we think, a LOT more than we should. That's where it is.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote:

Well Cher, if you wanna know, that's basically admitting that your system is wide wide wide open to lies (the actual reg of the car is the only thing ye can verify) and by telling the truth about pretty much anything else except the reg we are subsidising a LOT more people than we think, a LOT more than we should. That's where it is.

Special Circumstances wrote:

Well Cher, if you wanna know, that's basically admitting that your system is wide wide wide open to lies (the actual reg of the car is the only thing ye can verify) and by telling the truth about pretty much anything else except the reg we are subsidising a LOT more people than we think, a LOT more than we should. That's where it is.

What on Earth are you on about?

phester28

CJhaughey wrote: »

I can see two parts to this.

1. Exchequer directly benefits as older cars are deemed uninsurable, new cars are bought to replace them.
VRT and VAT and associated taxes directly benefit the govt, and in addition cars under the old tax regime are removed from the national fleet, this moves the point at which most cars will be under the new emissions based tax regime.
Therefore there will come a point where the new emissions based tax will slowly creep up to the levels of previous CC based tax.

2. The Exchequer gains as a proportion of the insurance is also earmarked for the State through levies on the Insurance.
Higher Insurance costs = More money into the Gov't coffers.

It's a win win for the Govt and they have no interest in mere plebs struggling to insure a car as they all have large salaries and in many cases a Govt car with driver.

Exchequer looses on an annual basis becuase of the lower tax rates PA on cars post 2008.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

You're not listening to what I say.

If insurers discover that Demographic X are causing a lot of accidents, they cannot refuse them cover on that basis alone. If another common feature is that Demographic X use a high % of older cars, insurers will use that reason to get rid of them EVEN if it means they have to lose the 10 yr claims/conviction/penalty points good customers along with them

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

What on Earth are you on about?

You are saying there is no way of separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of ownership of older cars.

You are saying that no single one of the following, or any combination of them can be used to separate the wheat from the chaff.

• 10years no claims bonus.
• No penalty points.
• No convictions.
• "Professional class" employment requiring a degree or better.
• Full time employment in same

Now, anyone with a 5 year olds level of critical thinking can come up with the following conclusions with regard to that assertion
1) Either the above combination of factors perfectly describe the "undesirable" demographic, or overlaps to significant amount. A five year old would quickly dismiss this.
2) Although these factors would be enough to differentiate legitimately between desirable and undesirable customers, it would depend on there being some reliable way to verify these.
3) So reasonable ways exist to differentiate, but they depend on people being 100% honest OR a way to verify them. These legitmate factors are not being used to exclude undesirable customers, instead a very blunt instrument is being used. This suggests that it is the verification system that is flawed, amateur, unprofessional - just about the only thing you can verify is that 01 MO 8008 is an actual car, registered as a Yaris.
4) You have of course said that people "reinventing" themselves is the reason insurers won't insure "new" drivers over 30. Are you standing by this or are you accepting that there is no proper way to verify someone presenting themselves as a new driver over 30?



So, I'm not sure if this is enough to explain why I made the assertion that the age of the car is just about the only thing that can't be lied about? It was pretty common sense straight off I thought but let me know if you need more dots to get from A to B.



The other part of my post is saying that the system is rewarding those who are willing to tell any lie to get insurance, and the honest drivers are picking up the tab. Surely that's self explanatory.


If it was the "Cher" "you're not listening to all I say" reference that confused you well... that's understandable. :pac:

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote:

You are saying there is no way of separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of ownership of older cars.

There is a way, but you cannot always act on the answer it throws up in case the discrimination card is used.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

There is a way, but you cannot always act on the answer it throws up in case the discrimination card is used.

You're saying that none of the ones I've listed, individually or in combination, work?

Or you're admitting that the crafty people lie about these all the time and the honest fools pay over the odds for them?

Henry Ford III

Special Circumstances wrote: »

You're saying that none of the ones I've listed, individually or in combination, work?

Or you're admitting that the crafty people lie about these all the time and the honest fools pay over the odds for them?

If he/she was a spokesman for motor insurers you might have a point.

Special Circumstances

Henry Ford III wrote: »

If he/she was a spokesman for motor insurers you might have a point.

But if all opinions expressed here carry the same weight, zero apparently as none of us are insurance spokespeople, why are my opinions that I back up with examples and reasoning always "nonsense" compared to opinions which are just parroted party lines that dissolve in the face of the slightest bit of analysis?

I know the finer details are only for the grand high insurance wizards to see, which I'm sure you guys aren't, but if there's a fault in my deductions can either of you show it to be due to incorrect initial assumptions, or subsequent faulty logic?

It IS possible to wield a scalpel* rather than a slash-hook against fraud, why would you choose the slash hook when it makes your statistical analysis look so so amateur?

*OK maybe a steak knife, there's only so far you can drill down into things before the benefits outweigh the gains.

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Does it meet the minimum required standards as required by the EU and the Irish government and the RSA and the AA for the purposes of being on the road or not?
If it does then it is just a nicer car than all the other cars of that age that meet the same requirements.

I have no idea. I cannot see their car. I only have what they said to go on. Regardless, assuming that it was in showroom condition, my point was that most 15 year old cars would not he looked after in quite the same way as the previous posters cousins immaculate car.
Do you dispute this?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

By not even applying a five year olds level of critical thinking to this (or doing so but abandoning the conclusions, don't be causing no fuss now), shrugging your shoulders and saying ah sure most a dem cars are crap (despite meeting the requirements) you are excusing and perpetuating this sh1t or perhaps trying to inveigle yourself with this unaccountable masters. IMO this traits are perfectly in line with being called a sliveen. IF the cap fits wear it.

So I'm a sleeveen because I merely pointed out that most 15 year old cars are not maintained quite like what the previous poster said?

This has nothing to do with the fairness of the policies put in place by an insurance company which I did not express a view on (positive or negative). I never once suggested that these cars hsould not be on the road, should not be insured or anything.
I merelt asked in response to a poster who said that their coousin had an immaculate car whether this was representative of cars of that age.

I'm not trying to perpetuate anything put in place by the insurance industry. I'm merely pointing out the obvious!

Get over yourself!

NUTLEY BOY

kbannon wrote: »

Does the high standard that your cousin keeps reflect that for all cars of similar age?

Probably not .

Ergo, why would he not be underwritten on the particulars of the individual merits of the risk that he actually presents to an insurer ?

BTW I do appreciate the underwriting concept of the sharing of a pool of risk.

Special Circumstances

kbannon wrote: »

I have no idea. I cannot see their car. I only have what they said to go on. Regardless, assuming that it was in showroom condition, my point was that most 15 year old cars would not he looked after in quite the same way as the previous posters cousins immaculate car.
Do you dispute this?


So I'm a sleeveen because I merely pointed out that most 15 year old cars are not maintained quite like what the previous poster said?

This has nothing to do with the fairness of the policies put in place by an insurance company which I did not express a view on (positive or negative). I never once suggested that these cars hsould not be on the road, should not be insured or anything.
I merelt asked in response to a poster who said that their coousin had an immaculate car whether this was representative of cars of that age.

I'm not trying to perpetuate anything put in place by the insurance industry. I'm merely pointing out the obvious!

Get over yourself!

So what if that guys car is nicer than others of a given age or newer - from a "legal to be on the road" point of view it has met the minimum requirements that the others have. Saying "sure it's a nice one but most aren't" without commenting further is implying that insurers are justified in putting NCT'd cars off the road.

Do you accept that the majority of 15 year old cars on the road are found to meet a minimum standard once a year?

If you say that cars of age X wouldn't be that well looked after, where would you say the cutoff is?

Seth Brundle

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Probably not .

Ergo, why would he not be underwritten on the particulars of the individual merits of the risk that he actually presents to an insurer ?

BTW I do appreciate the underwriting concept of the sharing of a pool of risk.

Why would they not be underwritten? I don't know. I don't agree with the practice of not covering older cars but why owuld an insurance company just decide to turn down loads of potential business.
I don't have the answer as to why they don't cover. However, they don't have to if they don't want to!

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

So what if that guys car is nicer than others of a given age or newer - from a "legal to be on the road" point of view it has met the minimum requirements that the others have. Saying "sure it's a nice one but most aren't" without commenting further is implying that insurers are justified in putting NCT'd cars off the road.

You're waffling now. From your comment you think that because I simply asked if the previous posters immaculate cousins car was reflective of all cars of the same age, I should have written up a whole diatribe just to avoid being misinterpreted?
FFS!

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Do you accept that the majority of 15 year old cars on the road are found to meet a minimum standard once a year?

I never said that they weren't! You just started hyperventilating thinking that this is what I meant!

Special Circumstances wrote: »

If you say that cars of age X wouldn't be that well looked after, where would you say the cutoff is?

I don't think age should come into it as a principal factor for refusal but let's not let that get in the way of your name calling!

Special Circumstances

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

This twaddle is almost as bad as what they tried in the UK a few years ago. Insurers thought that it would be a good idea to try and load policyholders for accident frequency. Ostensibly reasonable until you realise that they wanted to reckon against you accidents for which the policyholder had no liability. So if in the space of 12 months you were hit from behind whilst stationary at red traffic lights that made you a sub-standard risk. I don't really think so......

Shur that's here now too!

Liam McPoyle

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Probably not .

Ergo, why would he not be underwritten on the particulars of the individual merits of the risk that he actually presents to an insurer ?

BTW I do appreciate the underwriting concept of the sharing of a pool of risk.

Because it is simply not possible to review every case individually, not even close.

I personally review on average 250 to 300 renewals a month. These are all policies that have been flagged for a variety of reasons eg claims, young drivers or because we have to request medical certs if the policy holder has an illness that may effect their driving ability such as Alzheimer's or MS.

In an ideal world every case would be taken on its individual merits but with the time that would take there are not enough hours in the day to do it. To employ the number of staff that it would take to review every single proposal would mean the costs would outweigh the benefits.

cruizer101

kbannon wrote: »

However, they don't have to if they don't want to!

And this I think is a fundamental problem with motor insurance. When motor insurance is mandatory insurance companies should not be allowed to refuse to quote. However I can't see this changing anytime soon as I think the government are happy enough to have people forced to buy newer cars.

Also given insurance in mandatory anonimized details of all claims should be made public.

Actually to be honest insurance should be dealt with by government but there is little to no chance of that happening.

Special Circumstances

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

My cousin drives a 1990 Toyota Corolla. Hardly touched 50,000 miles (an indisputably evidenced fact) yet. Serviced annually and properly by a main dealer. Passed every NCT.

My cousin is in good nick himself as well.

So, how could he represent a sub-standard or unacceptable risk from an underwriters perspective ? I venture to suggest that he doesn't but insurers would have you believe otherwise :mad:

This twaddle is almost as bad as what they tried in the UK a few years ago. Insurers thought that it would be a good idea to try and load policyholders for accident frequency. Ostensibly reasonable until you realise that they wanted to reckon against you accidents for which the policyholder had no liability. So if in the space of 12 months you were hit from behind whilst stationary at red traffic lights that made you a sub-standard risk. I don't really think so......

kbannon wrote: »

Does the high standard that your cousin keeps reflect that for all cars of similar age?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Do the insurers have some special requirements that they would like added to the NCT?

kbannon wrote: »

I'm not justifying their action but if they have a policy of not insuring something there will always be outliers that should possibly not be part of the exclusion.

OK, maybe I picked this up wrong - I assumed by outliers you meant that a small percentage of these older NCT'd cars would be in decent condition and should be insured but that most of them were utter crap and shouldn't be insured.

I thought your comment was a clear implication that most older annually NTC'd cars are at risk of major failures as evident from some particular accident statistics, except for a few "golden" outliers.

So I pressed on with an argument about the annual NCT, should they make it stricter to address these insurance issues etc etc.


So...

Was there a point wrt to insurance in your query about the cars condition compared to the vast bulk of NCT'd older cars? Or was it just general interest?

If you meant nothing by it, no point, no implication, just idle chit chat, then I do apologise for jumping down your throat.

Special Circumstances

Saul T Nutzz wrote: »

Because it is simply not possible to review every case individually, not even close.

I personally review on average 250 to 300 renewals a month. These are all policies that have been flagged for a variety of reasons eg claims, young drivers or because we have to request medical certs if the policy holder has an illness that may effect their driving ability such as Alzheimer's or MS.

In an ideal world every case would be taken on its individual merits but with the time that would take there are not enough hours in the day to do it. To employ the number of staff that it would take to review every single proposal would mean the costs would outweigh the benefits.

OK, I'm not arguing with your point, or contradicting it. I'm merely being a bit "lateral thinking" here, looking at the implications of what you guys are saying.

I'm not putting words in your mouth - I'm merely saying that, as with SPKPs earlier post, you are indirectly supporting my assertion that the age of the vehicle is about the only thing ye can be sure of. Everything else is mostly just assumed to be true and number crunched by a big machine somewhere until it pops out a quote yeah?

So the reason insurers do not / cannot weed out undesirable customers based on

• 10years no claims bonus.
• No penalty points.
• No convictions.
• "Professional class" employment requiring a degree or better.
• Full time employment in same

is that your systems do not allow any efficient way to verify any of these, or indeed that Person X IS Person X.

So the "year on the reg" sledgehammer is used instead, because the systems are just not there to verify that Sheila Sensible the teacher from bray is not Mary "crash dummy" Mad-orra-it

Seth Brundle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

OK, maybe I picked this up wrong - I assumed by outliers you meant that a small percentage of these older NCT'd cars would be in decent condition and should be insured but that most of them were utter crap and shouldn't be insured.

I thought your comment was a clear implication that most older annually NTC'd cars are at risk of major failures as evident from some particular accident statistics, except for a few "golden" outliers.

So I pressed on with an argument about the annual NCT, should they make it stricter to address these insurance issues etc etc.


So...

Was there a point wrt to insurance in your query about the cars condition compared to the vast bulk of NCT'd older cars? Or was it just general interest?

If you meant nothing by it, no point, no implication, just idle chit chat, then I do apologise for jumping down your throat.

Firstly, thanks for the clarification.
Secondly, Nutley's post about their cousins car has nothing to do really with the discussion on insurance as their car is not reflective of the reality. I'm not saying that cars of that age shouldn't be insured but if they are then insurance companies will look at the average quality and not the top quality when forming their view.
Effectively Nutley's cousins car is not the norm.
Were the companies going to make a decision to stop (or continue) covering 15 year old cars it wouldnt be a decision based on Nutley's cousins car.
They would be looking at the average 15 year old motor which may have an NCT despite receiving crappy Irish type services. etc. These cars in general would not have been loved like Nutley's.

Now the next question should be why they are refusing to cover these cars. Is it because the NCT is not adequate in their view or because these owners tend to lodge more claims or what?
I don't know the reason. I do know that no company would willingly turn away business if it was profitable!