tuxy wrote: » Can you list the ones you know? Axa, An post and maybe liberty were all I could find. The vast majority would not quote me at any price.
Eggs For Dinner wrote: » I don't have access to the data, but I know how insurers operate. If they can't run their book of older vehicles at a break-even or profit, they will refuse to quote or price it at a level that they think people would be foolish to pay in the hope you will bugger off. If you pay what they ask, they will reluctantly accept it. Also, people are fixated on the older vehicle being the sole issue. It isn't. Insurers are saying that the older car is a factor in higher than normal claims. It could be that the expensive claims involve older car, combined with a particular demographic, culture, sex, nationality etc. However, insurers are not allowed refuse cover or load for those reasons, so the age of vehicle is quoted. They will accept that they will lose good risks, if it keeps the crap off their books
corcaigh1 wrote: » There are still a number of insurers quoting for older vehicles albeit at higher premium costs. You work in the insurance industry so im sure you may have access to statistical factual evidence that older vehicles are more of a risk to insure?
corcaigh1 wrote: » There are still a number of insurers quoting for older vehicles albeit at higher premium costs.
Eggs For Dinner wrote: » The evidence is that a lot of insurance companies will not take the business at any price. Does that not prove something? Rant and rave all you like, but if an insurer thought they could make a profit on attracting older cars on their books, they would be over it like a rash
corcaigh1 wrote: » So again please point me to the evidence??
grogi wrote: » You didn't get that. It is not about age, but value. If a vehicle is too cheap, it is far more probable to be used in fraud. Virtually nobody would crash a €50k car on purpose. Crashing a €1k banger is much more profitable business. There are other issues with older cars, such as reduced passive and active safety - less airbags, less safety systems etc - or improper maintenance - the cheaper the car, the more string is used in keeping it on the road. But they are far less significant than the first problem. You might expect that insurance companies would fight fraud. They do. But they also limit the expose by not insuring old cars.
corcaigh1 wrote: » Why is that? Have you valid statistics that you can allude to and share here please that vehicles of a certain age category pose too much of a risk to underwriters?
vargoo wrote: » And FBD Campion First Ireland Its 4 women AXA Im flying through these....onward.
tuxy wrote: » Chill won't quote me at all, the guy on the phone actually recommended I call AXA direct. Or maybe he was just being sound and knew I would get a better quote going directly rather than using chill.
vargoo wrote: » Yup they do. They just gave me a stupid quote, so did chill.
tuxy wrote: » There hasn't because the list is now tiny. Axa seems to be the only main broker covering cars over 15-16 years old. Can anyone confirm if Liberty still take on new customers with old cars?
grogi wrote: » It's the other way round - on average a 15 years old car is worthless. And because of that it poses far too much risk for the insurer.
evosteo wrote: » Its some scandal this, cannot drive legally on the roads in this country without insurance yet if your car is 15 years or older its basically tough ****, you cant get insured, feck off and buy a newer car. Iv seen plenty of cracking looking cars over 15years old in fantastic condition, passing the nct without any bother 1st time most times but the insurance cartel in this country has decided, nope, no insurance for you. Another tribunal into brown envelopes passed between certain people is surely on the horizon. How has this been allowed to progress to this stage? Your car is esentially worthless once it hits the big 15?
vargoo wrote: » Has their been an updated list posted lately? Mines the big 15 this year.
beertons wrote: » Fbd sent me post today. Renewal due. I've had this car 15 years. 712.55 for a 03 1.9 golf. Surely someone can do better than that. I barely do 6000 miles a year.
BexieB wrote: » This question might already have been asked. But any time you get car insurance you must declare that you have not been refused cover in the past. Do these failures to get quotes constitute a refusal of cover?
SCOOP 64 wrote: » well that answers my question then, Aviva still refusing quotes for old car.
tuxy wrote: » How old is your car? 123 wouldn't quote me today on a 1997 same with AVIVA they also refused to quote me today.
pablo128 wrote: » It wasn't a renewal. It was new business to them. I was with Allianz for the previous 5 years.
pablo128 wrote: » ?? I think you meant that for another poster? Ok my car is 'only' 14 years old but I didn't get refused a quote off any of the companies I asked. Online only. I didn't phone any.
physioman wrote: » I did for a 01 golf last year
SCOOP 64 wrote: » So Aviva said no ,was that recently?
