# The Annual Renewal Game



## 350Chris

So it is that time of year again....the annual game of Insurance foreplay...

The renewal letter arrives with an unrealistic figure, I shop around and threaten to leave and the price magically comes down to something more acceptable. :wall:

I am part way through that merry dance this year and my insurer is swearing blind, that owing to annual premium increases and the market in general - I have no choice but to renew for approximately £100 more than it cost me last year (this is after they got the initial renewal premium wrong - having quoted me against a completely different car!) 

What are your experiences - are you seeing your premiums go up?


----------



## MagpieRH

Premiums are creeping up, and they keep blaming various legislation (which has yet to come in...). It's the same for just about everyone, we all grumble but ultimately accept it.


----------



## IamDave

My insurance was up for renewal last month.

I moved to Volvo Car Insurance due to the better cover last year and paid an extra £30 on top of the cheapest premium (paid £440 in the end) as I believed it was worth it for the guarantee of brand new genuine Volvo parts and Volvo approved repairers. They gave me a 10% discount last year after asking.

Was keen to renew with them this year, but not at the price they quoted; £525. I visited some comparison sites again and rang around and got quotes for around £390-£400. I rang Volvo insurance armed with these quotes and all they would do was give me £10 off and made it £515 for the year. They claimed a mix of rising premiums and the fact they're a premium insurer so charge more due to their guarantee of genuine parts etc. They absolutely refused to do any more and told me they don't do discounts as they always give their best price. To which I argued clearly you don't when you gave me 10% last year. I then accused them of only being interested in getting new customers and not retaining current ones which of course they said wasn't the case. I told them to stuff it as I'd been quoted £400 with aviva (who then actually knocked it down to £355 as part of their online discount) who Insured the same car with only 2 years ago for £415.

I know premiums have gone up but the unwillingness to offer any kind of reasonable discount and fobbing me off drove me away.

Rant over 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 350Chris

Cheers Dave - I was aware it would be an emotive topic :lol:

Having just sat and sorted my Gas & Electricity bills out - Insurance is next on the list.

I will try a few specialists and see what I can get to. The car is only a toy and did less than 4,000 miles between the last MOT - it's barely out for me to do anything daft in!!

I hate insurance policies!!


----------



## Pinky

Iam Dave
I would write to the Volvo insurance head man and complain bitterly that you found a good insurance company and feel totally ****ed off that they wont give a discount for returning customers . 
It possibly wont do any good but it may help for next year .


----------



## willywonker

Premiums have been generally increasing over the last 12+ months due to increasing claims costs, the Govenments decision to change the Ogden rate has had a significant impact on large injury claims cost, potentially adding hundreds of thousands of pounds to individual claims - which takes a lot of £400 premiums to repay!! This single piece of legislation change has single handledly forced some insurers to add up to 15% to their premiums.

On top of that in the last 12 months the Government has also increased the tax on insurance twice from 6% to 12%!

So for once it may not be the insurers to blame!!


----------



## willywonker

IamDave said:


> I know premiums have gone up but the unwillingness to offer any kind of reasonable discount and fobbing me off drove me away.


maybe try this stance Sainsbury's when you go to do your weekly shop!


----------



## MDC250

willywonker said:


> Premiums have been generally increasing over the last 12+ months due to increasing claims costs, the Govenments decision to change the Ogden rate has had a significant impact on large injury claims cost, potentially adding hundreds of thousands of pounds to individual claims - which takes a lot of £400 premiums to repay!! This single piece of legislation change has single handledly forced some insurers to add up to 15% to their premiums.
> 
> On top of that in the last 12 months the Government has also increased the tax on insurance twice from 6% to 12%!
> 
> So for once it may not be the insurers to blame!!


Increases to IPT I'll give you. Other changes such as the ECJ ruling on gender neutral pricing I'll give you to a degree.

Ogden changes, seriously? Firstly it only applies to settlements on after 20 March 17. We are only at 14 June, less than 3 months!

For 16 years insurers have benefitted from under compensating the most seriously injured. Did they put that money aside in the known certainty there would be a change to reflect ever decreasing returns? 16 years in their favour is a good innings by anybody's standards!

Consultation ended on 11 May (impressive how Insurers forced this so quickly and how short the consultation period was) and it is of course widely anticipated the Discount Rate will be adjusted back to around 1%.

Also consider that for example in light of the change in Discount Rate accommodation claims have in essence been wiped out save for cost of adaptations. So I'm sorry Mr Brain Injured Claimant who now requires level accommodation you can't have the extra money you need to buy the property you require. You can have your adaptation costs but you will have to borrow from pretty much every other part of your claim if you actually want a property to put that in. How is that fair?

In practice Insurers are putting off settlements and doing everything they can to frustrate claims until such time as they have their way on the Discount Rate. This will happen, it's not if, it's when.

Granted there has been a very modest increase in reported RTA claims from 761,878 in 14/15 to 770,791 in 15/16. This broke a pattern of 3 consecutive annual decreases. So much for a compensation culture eh?

Insurers make their money and are beholden to their shareholders. I for one don't shed a tear when they bleat poverty, they consistently and habitually rip the consumer off and the only way to beat them is to play them off one another.


----------



## Caledoniandream

My quote was similair to last year, hardly any rise.
Have been now with Original for the 3rd year, and pleased with the quotes. 
It seems to get a very boring thing to get quotes from most insurers and always have the feeling that you are dealing with cartels, and defiantly avoid the "comparing" websites.


----------



## 350Chris

Well we are done for another 12 months - with a £50 increase on last year. Chris Knott came in best.

Not over the moon - as I spend more time cleaning the thing than I do driving it, but that's my choice!


----------



## Shiny

https://www.confused.com/car-insura...d-com-car-insurance-price-index-Q1-2017-p.pdf


----------



## Overdoser

Mrs' insurance gone down £50 on renewal...comparison sites can't even get close. My insurance gone up £30.


----------



## storm2284

just going through this battle with not 1 but 3 cars in the last week.. halifax came out £100 more than last year and have offered no loyalty or any reasonable explanation as to why it's so much more expensive, a quick comparison site search brought a quote at £1 more expensive than last year, easy come easy go i guess, that's the daily 206..

the GTI has been a little fun, flux again wanted £100 more than last year and have since spoken to greenlight and with making a few changes to the policy came out almost £100 cheaper than last year so again business moved


----------



## alfajim

Phoned mine up, direct line, and got it 100 cheaper. Also knocked the breakdown cover on the head, they wanted 140 quid. Went direct to green flag for 86 quid.


----------



## willywonker

MDC250 said:


> Increases to IPT I'll give you. Other changes such as the ECJ ruling on gender neutral pricing I'll give you to a degree.
> 
> Ogden changes, seriously? Firstly it only applies to settlements on after 20 March 17. We are only at 14 June, less than 3 months!
> 
> For 16 years insurers have benefitted from under compensating the most seriously injured. Did they put that money aside in the known certainty there would be a change to reflect ever decreasing returns? 16 years in their favour is a good innings by anybody's standards!
> 
> Consultation ended on 11 May (impressive how Insurers forced this so quickly and how short the consultation period was) and it is of course widely anticipated the Discount Rate will be adjusted back to around 1%.
> 
> Also consider that for example in light of the change in Discount Rate accommodation claims have in essence been wiped out save for cost of adaptations. So I'm sorry Mr Brain Injured Claimant who now requires level accommodation you can't have the extra money you need to buy the property you require. You can have your adaptation costs but you will have to borrow from pretty much every other part of your claim if you actually want a property to put that in. How is that fair?
> 
> In practice Insurers are putting off settlements and doing everything they can to frustrate claims until such time as they have their way on the Discount Rate. This will happen, it's not if, it's when.
> 
> Granted there has been a very modest increase in reported RTA claims from 761,878 in 14/15 to 770,791 in 15/16. This broke a pattern of 3 consecutive annual decreases. So much for a compensation culture eh?
> 
> Insurers make their money and are beholden to their shareholders. I for one don't shed a tear when they bleat poverty, they consistently and habitually rip the consumer off and the only way to beat them is to play them off one another.


Yes Ogden effects claim payments after March, but this is not just claims made after March. Serious injury claims can take years to be settled, so a claim from 2/3 years ago that hasn't been settled is subject to the new rules, this means insurers have to adjust expected payments on outstanding claims. Ageas, from memory, had to add £50 million to their expected costs on claims that have already happened. Let alone what happens going forwards. That's one insurer.

The number of RTAs only tells part of the story, we're driving newer cars, thanks to accessible leasing and PCP deals, which are evermore complex and more expensive to repair, pushing up claims costs, and therefore premiums.

Some insurers have shareholders, just like Tesco. If the wholesale price of apples goes up, and Tesco put their retail price to maintain their margin, are they ripping people off? Not saying insurers are perfect, but a lot of this whole ridiculous pricing circus, and compensation culture is consumer driven, so to a certain extent you get what you wish for!!

Either way my Caterham renewal come in under £150, so I'm not too upset


----------



## MDC250

willywonker said:


> Yes Ogden effects claim payments after March, but this is not just claims made after March. Serious injury claims can take years to be settled, so a claim from 2/3 years ago that hasn't been settled is subject to the new rules, this means insurers have to adjust expected payments on outstanding claims. Ageas, from memory, had to add £50 million to their expected costs on claims that have already happened. Let alone what happens going forwards. That's one insurer.
> 
> The number of RTAs only tells part of the story, we're driving newer cars, thanks to accessible leasing and PCP deals, which are evermore complex and more expensive to repair, pushing up claims costs, and therefore premiums.
> 
> Some insurers have shareholders, just like Tesco. If the wholesale price of apples goes up, and Tesco put their retail price to maintain their margin, are they ripping people off? Not saying insurers are perfect, but a lot of this whole ridiculous pricing circus, and compensation culture is consumer driven, so to a certain extent you get what you wish for!!
> 
> Either way my Caterham renewal come in under £150, so I'm not too upset


Insurers will indeed make their adjustments to outstanding claims but the point is the rate will be adjusted from -0.75% to and for arguments sake 1% and that will happen I'd wager sooner rather than later. Let's assume it happens by the end of the year. Insurers have therefore only had 9 months of exposure to the negative rate. In practice Insurers will frustrate settlements where possible prior to the change back in their favour. De facto saving. We still ignore the 16 year, let's state that figure again 16 year windfall to insurers!

The funny thing about insurance companies is they can pay out more per year than what they charge in premiums and still be profitable due to the immense range of investments they hold.

Inflated repair costs you say? Funnily enough that was as I recall one of the conclusions from the Select Committee who noted one factor impacting premiums was insurance companies effectively ripping each other off and over egging repairs. Oh and to be clear they did mean the actual insurance companies and not some parasitic Claims Management Company.

There is no compensation culture. Well there is if you listen to and believe the slick PR of the ABI. If you look objectively at the data it's there to see except for the smoke and mirrors deployed by those with vested interests.


----------



## Darlofan

Shop around, it's the same with everything these days, there is no such thing as loyalty discounts. Companies make more from the lazy majority who don't shop around. Until the balance tips and it hits profits companies won't change.


----------



## willywonker

MDC250 said:


> Insurers will indeed make their adjustments to outstanding claims but the point is the rate will be adjusted from -0.75% to and for arguments sake 1% and that will happen I'd wager sooner rather than later. Let's assume it happens by the end of the year. Insurers have therefore only had 9 months of exposure to the negative rate. In practice Insurers will frustrate settlements where possible prior to the change back in their favour. De facto saving. We still ignore the 16 year, let's state that figure again 16 year windfall to insurers!
> 
> The funny thing about insurance companies is they can pay out more per year than what they charge in premiums and still be profitable due to the immense range of investments they hold.
> 
> Inflated repair costs you say? Funnily enough that was as I recall one of the conclusions from the Select Committee who noted one factor impacting premiums was insurance companies effectively ripping each other off and over egging repairs. Oh and to be clear they did mean the actual insurance companies and not some parasitic Claims Management Company.
> 
> There is no compensation culture. Well there is if you listen to and believe the slick PR of the ABI. If you look objectively at the data it's there to see except for the smoke and mirrors deployed by those with vested interests.


Well actually it's the consumer that's had a 16year windfall surely? As if the Ogden rate had been changed over time, the premiums would have tracked according and everybody would have been paying more for the last 16 years.

Insurers have investment income, but just like the price of apples, if the cost of being in business goes up, so does the price.

I referred to in increased claims costs, not inflated, two different things. Yes insurers are businesses and have to make money wherever possible, because consumers only buy 'cheap' insurance, they have to get the prices as low as possible, and like every business, every stage is under scrutiny.

And why do claims companies and credit hire organisations exist? Because the core motor insurance doesn't provide what consumers need, such as like for like hire cars. Why? Because people won't pay the premium needed to fund it. Catch 22.

I can't recall the figs but if you compare our PI claims rate against other similar countries in the world, we are in a different league. And that's before you get to exaggerated/fraudulent claims, which again we have very high rates of. Why? Partitialy because people are disillusioned with the poor service and poor cover from the 'cheap' insurance they buy!!


----------



## MDC250

willywonker said:


> Well actually it's the consumer that's had a 16year windfall surely? As if the Ogden rate had been changed over time, the premiums would have tracked according and everybody would have been paying more for the last 16 years.
> 
> Insurers have investment income, but just like the price of apples, if the cost of being in business goes up, so does the price.
> 
> I referred to in increased claims costs, not inflated, two different things. Yes insurers are businesses and have to make money wherever possible, because consumers only buy 'cheap' insurance, they have to get the prices as low as possible, and like every business, every stage is under scrutiny.
> 
> And why do claims companies and credit hire organisations exist? Because the core motor insurance doesn't provide what consumers need, such as like for like hire cars. Why? Because people won't pay the premium needed to fund it. Catch 22.
> 
> I can't recall the figs but if you compare our PI claims rate against other similar countries in the world, we are in a different league. And that's before you get to exaggerated/fraudulent claims, which again we have very high rates of. Why? Partitialy because people are disillusioned with the poor service and poor cover from the 'cheap' insurance they buy!!


The point is Insurers have had it good for 16 years and despite that premiums have pretty much consistently risen. The second it goes against them, they march en masse to see the Chancellor the week before the Budget. Conveniently he and the CEOs of I seem to recall 12 companies happen to be free to chinwag at very short notice, how cozy. We then get a snap consultation process and as I've suggested I'll wager a massive redress back in favour of Insurers within 9 months of the changes. Of the estimated billions in increased damages it won't be anything like that in reality.

Some of the increased cost is as previously mentioned of their own doing such as the example of inflated repair costs.

Again they came under criticism at Select Committee for practices such as making pre-medical offers whilst raising concern as to fraud levels. When pressed on this Insurers had to concede they don't actually know how much fraud there is.

Lots of Insurers offload some of their overheads for example they have external firms white label their claims notification call centres etc.

The combined saving on Ogden, Jackson reforms, small claims limit etc would I dare say amount to a net saving to the insurance industry. Unfortunately I can't give figures as the transparency is lacking so this is nothing more than conjecture on my part.

We have the largest insurance industry in the EU and the 4th largest in the world so yes we are in a different league I agree. Does the fact we have pro rata more whiplash claims than say France mean all claimants here are bent? Of course not. Do we have busier, more congested roads? Of course we do. Interestingly despite lower whiplash claims at outset I believe France has more cases of permanent disability. How odd.

There is fraud and exaggeration out there but mechanisms to deal with that and increasingly Courts will happily wade in, even in circumstances where fundamental dishonesty or fraud is not alleged with defences to claims.


----------



## willywonker

MDC250 said:


> The point is Insurers have had it good for 16 years and despite that premiums have pretty much consistently risen. The second it goes against them, they march en masse to see the Chancellor the week before the Budget. Conveniently he and the CEOs of I seem to recall 12 companies happen to be free to chinwag at very short notice, how cozy. We then get a snap consultation process and as I've suggested I'll wager a massive redress back in favour of Insurers within 9 months of the changes. Of the estimated billions in increased damages it won't be anything like that in reality.
> 
> Some of the increased cost is as previously mentioned of their own doing such as the example of inflated repair costs.
> 
> Again they came under criticism at Select Committee for practices such as making pre-medical offers whilst raising concern as to fraud levels. When pressed on this Insurers had to concede they don't actually know how much fraud there is.
> 
> Lots of Insurers offload some of their overheads for example they have external firms white label their claims notification call centres etc.
> 
> The combined saving on Ogden, Jackson reforms, small claims limit etc would I dare say amount to a net saving to the insurance industry. Unfortunately I can't give figures as the transparency is lacking so this is nothing more than conjecture on my part.
> 
> We have the largest insurance industry in the EU and the 4th largest in the world so yes we are in a different league I agree. Does the fact we have pro rata more whiplash claims than say France mean all claimants here are bent? Of course not. Do we have busier, more congested roads? Of course we do. Interestingly despite lower whiplash claims at outset I believe France has more cases of permanent disability. How odd.
> 
> There is fraud and exaggeration out there but mechanisms to deal with that and increasingly Courts will happily wade in, even in circumstances where fundamental dishonesty or fraud is not alleged with defences to claims.


But none of that changes the fact that a big proportion of the current price increases is due to the Government's action on Ogden and IPT, which was my original point.


----------



## MDC250

willywonker said:


> But none of that changes the fact that a big proportion of the current price increases is due to the Government's action on Ogden and IPT, which was my original point.


In that case I look forward to the huge reduction on premiums when the Discount Rate is changed to the anticipated 1%. As I've said that will happen sooner rather than later and every effort will be made by them in the intervening period to frustrate settlements. Your position is that Insurers have adjusted premiums to reflect anticipated settlements that are currently on their reserves based on -0.75% rate. The number of cases that will actually impact on will be minuscule in the scheme of things. They will surely be quick to adjust following the announcement reflecting the much lower settlements going forwards won't they? I can just see the refund letters and cheques flying out 

Well we all know how trustworthy Insurers are for passing on savings don't we? In consideration of far reaching reforms previously they promised premium reductions...£40-£50 was banded around from recollection. However, that wasn't forthcoming previously nor will it be going forwards. In fact the opposite happened and premiums continued to rise.

Let us not forget that the -0.75% rate only gains real traction on claims where the loss in today's money is substantial with a long period of loss. Headline figures will be cases that involve catastrophically injured children and younger people, but let's not let their needs get in the way of a bottom line now shall we?!

Don't have the figures to hand but collectively I understand the ABI hold a huge chunk of investments which would have been badly hit over the last 10 years or so and I wouldn't be surprised if their efforts over the years have been driven by and centred upon clawing those losses back at any cost for the benefit of their shareholders.

They are hardly transparent are they? Back in the day a reasonable proportion of their revenue income actually came from personal injury referrals. Take Admiral for example it was said circa £20m pa pre Jackson.

What can be said is Insurers are supremely adept at playing the game. They have super slick PR and despite empirical evidence to the contrary spout false claims that have found traction with the Govt. I just think people should be aware of how powerful they are are and be live to the fact they are all about their bottom line and premiums are going nowhere other than up. I would have thought the excuses would have run out by now but magically they keep coming.


----------



## Shug

Mine is due next week. Renewal was 313 quid, up 7 quid from last year. Given the list of modifications, I'll take the renewal. The length of phone calls to cover everything for multiple quotes is more than my sanity could take! 
Does include breakdown cover with home start, onward journey and european cover as well tho.


----------



## tmitch45

Its the same as everything these days, they would rather attract new customers than keep existing ones. Surely its easier to keep customers you have than do all the leg work of attracting new ones?


----------



## Rayaan

I usually phone up after renewal and they can usually make it cheaper


----------



## bradleymarky

Just had my quote and its gone up £100 on last year. 30 minutes on the laptop and got the same price as last year with somebody else.

Still cant get any discount on a dash cam !!


----------



## danwel

As someone mentioned earlier i use and have done for the past few year Chris Knott for the simple reason that when i get my online quotes and if they are cheaper they will take the quote along with details and spend time trying to match it or better it if they can.

plus i have always found them very friendly and actually call back when they say they are going to. Also you can gain fighter discounts by having house insurance or more cars with them too


----------



## bradleymarky

danwel said:


> As someone mentioned earlier i use and have done for the past few year Chris Knott for the simple reason that when i get my online quotes and if they are cheaper they will take the quote along with details and spend time trying to match it or better it if they can.
> 
> plus i have always found them very friendly and actually call back when they say they are going to. Also you can gain fighter discounts by having house insurance or more cars with them too


I thought that was just for performance cars


----------



## danwel

bradleymarky said:


> I thought that was just for performance cars


I have had a few different cars insured with them form a Rav 4 to Focus to my current Mazda 3 MPS. And as i say even my house insurance.


----------



## bradleymarky

danwel said:


> I have had a few different cars insured with them form a Rav 4 to Focus to my current Mazda 3 MPS. And as i say even my house insurance.


I`ll give them a look then :thumb:


----------



## GP Punto

I was talking to someone in the insurance business last weekend, nearly fell asleep but anyway.

He said that companies and brokers are measured only by their new business success, they expect to loose business each renewal but success and bonuses is all on new business.

Asked what he would do to find the lowest preemium his view was that unless you had something unusual such as a clssic, or a modified car or something exotic, use a couple of search engines. If you have something unusual try owners clubs or brokers who specialise in that area.

From my own experience I would ask any broker what they charge for mid term alterations (they call these MTAs) sometimes these charges can be extortionate for just a reg no change or moving house. No change in risk, just 2 minutes work on a keyboard. Charges of £25 minimum and could be as much as £100.

Also, if you have a claim, will they handle this on your behalf or are you expected to deal direct with the insurers. For some people that may not be an issue but if the claim goes wrong for some reason it would be better to have the broker negotiating for you.


----------



## Shiny

GP Punto said:


> I was talking to someone in the insurance business last weekend, nearly fell asleep but anyway.
> 
> He said that companies and brokers are measured only by their new business success, they expect to loose business each renewal but success and bonuses is all on new business.
> 
> Asked what he would do to find the lowest preemium his view was that unless you had something unusual such as a clssic, or a modified car or something exotic, use a couple of search engines. If you have something unusual try owners clubs or brokers who specialise in that area.
> 
> From my own experience I would ask any broker what they charge for mid term alterations (they call these MTAs) sometimes these charges can be extortionate for just a reg no change or moving house. No change in risk, just 2 minutes work on a keyboard. Charges of £25 minimum and could be as much as £100.
> 
> Also, if you have a claim, will they handle this on your behalf or are you expected to deal direct with the insurers. For some people that may not be an issue but if the claim goes wrong for some reason it would be better to have the broker negotiating for you.


I'd disagree, renewal retention is the most important for me as Broker. It is much harder to win a new customer and price isn't always the driving factor.

I would much rather have a 90% renewal retention than a 10% quote conversion rate on new business. There will be a natural loss of customers come renewal for vairous reasons, so new business is also important to fill that loss, or exceed it if a business is to grow. But to concentrate and reward only new business is business suicide. You will lose more and more renewals so will have to work harder and harder to gain new business just to stay level.

Our MTA admin fee is £10. Yes it can involve pressing a few buttons, but more often that not it can also involve several phone calls, emails and time. I agree that some Brokers make rediculous MTA, but not all. Always best to check the TOBAs before signing up for a year.

We have dedicated claims handers to deal with a claim, but are always availble to intervene or help if needed.

Not all Brokers are the same :thumb:


----------



## MDC250

bradleymarky said:


> I`ll give them a look then :thumb:


They are a very friendly broker. If you mention you are a member of a club etc then you usually get an initial discount. If you refer friends or family who take out a policy, again they look after you.

This year their renewal was pretty much the best price I could find.

If you do speak to them pass on my regards to Melinda and Milton. Yes they are that friendly it's first name terms


----------



## GP Punto

Shiny said:


> I'd disagree, renewal retention is the most important for me as Broker. It is much harder to win a new customer and price isn't always the driving factor.
> 
> I would much rather have a 90% renewal retention than a 10% quote conversion rate on new business. There will be a natural loss of customers come renewal for vairous reasons, so new business is also important to fill that loss, or exceed it if a business is to grow. But to concentrate and reward only new business is business suicide. You will lose more and more renewals so will have to work harder and harder to gain new business just to stay level.
> 
> Our MTA admin fee is £10. Yes it can involve pressing a few buttons, but more often that not it can also involve several phone calls, emails and time. I agree that some Brokers make rediculous MTA, but not all. Always best to check the TOBAs before signing up for a year.
> 
> We have dedicated claims handers to deal with a claim, but are always availble to intervene or help if needed.
> 
> Not all Brokers are the same :thumb:[/QUOTE
> 
> Thanks for the response.
> 
> Its difficult to draw a level playing field amongst all the retailers of insurances, and reading many terms of business agreements, which are not always to be seen at quote stage, is something that tends to switch most people off when it comes to insurance.
> 
> For some years I have simply gone to a couple of the search engines and generally do not pick the cheapest price, if its a company that I have never heard of or suspect that the claims service might not be that good. I find it disappointing that I have to go through the process of alternative quotes each year, but when the risk has not changed I cannot help but think that a 30%+ increase is simply too much. Its time consuming and there is always my concern that if you have forgotten something that a new insurer regards as a material fact that the cover can be cancelled.


----------



## bradleymarky

I entered my details on the page and it just sodded off and said we'll call at a later date


----------



## MDC250

bradleymarky said:


> I entered my details on the page and it just sodded off and said we'll call at a later date


Give them a call, they are pretty easy to get through to on the phone (normal working hours), which is one of the main reasons I like using them.


----------



## bradleymarky

MDC250 said:


> Give them a call, they are pretty easy to get through to on the phone (normal working hours), which is one of the main reasons I like using them.


They actually wanted double what i`m paying now :doublesho

Doesnt beat the £922 quote i`ve just had from Admiral !!!!


----------



## MDC250

bradleymarky said:


> They actually wanted double what i`m paying now :doublesho
> 
> Doesnt beat the £922 quote i`ve just had from Admiral !!!!


Ouch, sounds steep either way 

Sadly I think this is the way things are going to go...much higher premiums, reduced access to justice/damages for injury claims, higher profits and dividends for the insurers and their friends in Govt.

Everybody is happy except the poor consumer who once again is bankrolling the rich and the few to the detriment of those who are not and plentiful.


----------



## MagpieRH

MDC250 said:


> Ouch, sounds steep either way
> 
> Sadly I think this is the way things are going to go...much higher premiums, reduced access to justice/damages for injury claims, higher profits and dividends for the insurers and their friends in Govt.
> 
> Everybody is happy except the poor consumer who once again is bankrolling the rich and the few to the detriment of those who are not and plentiful.


In the words of Eddie Hitler of Bottom, "Steep? It's f'ing vertical!"

I'm not sure I agree entirely with your assumption, but it definitely looks like it'll just keep rising, and there's little we can do about it if we want to keep driving. The insurance industry as a whole are untrusted, everyone grumbles every year, and yet we still pay it. Ho hum.


----------



## MDC250

MagpieRH said:


> In the words of Eddie Hitler of Bottom, "Steep? It's f'ing vertical!"
> 
> I'm not sure I agree entirely with your assumption, but it definitely looks like it'll just keep rising, and there's little we can do about it if we want to keep driving. The insurance industry as a whole are untrusted, everyone grumbles every year, and yet we still pay it. Ho hum.


Maybe we need to move to a compulsory central fund...


----------



## bradleymarky

My insurance is due next Friday but I'm changing my car a week after that and I know the insurance for the new car is cheaper..... what the hell do I do 

Meant to say I'm trading the old one in


----------



## Shiny

Get the best annual price on the new car and go with that insurer on your old car regardless of them being competitive on your old car. Then when you swap a week later you will be getting the best price on the new car. 

Either that or a week’s short period policy on your old car then a new annual policy on the new car. This may not be as cheap as the first option though.


----------



## MagpieRH

Any way you could get the new car brought forward a week? Worth asking the question, would solve your conundrum nicely


----------



## bradleymarky

I took out insurance yesterday with privilege but did not get an email or anything after I'd paid. Just rang them and they can't ding my details. Is this normal or should I have at least got an email confirmation.

Just rang again and they have no details at all even though i put all my bank details in, i`m glad because i`ve just got a cheaper quote.


----------

