Car insurance costs bucking the trend.

[gremlin_95]

Thanks, sounds like a good idea. I do tick the box which confirms I have access to a company vehicle.

[gremlin_95]

I should say that £2000 was with my parents on it who both have clean licences, without them on it the premium nearly doubles! :(

[bert]

One of the reasons insurance has gone done because they've started cracking down on phoney claims - staged accidents and whiplash

[bert]

AFAIK Daily Mail doesn't appear on Sundays.

[bert]

In message , fred writes

Don't they still come up on a CRB check?

[bert]

Unless it's waiting to happen.

[fred]

In article , bert writes

What's that got to do with car insurance?

[Huge]

You don't really believe that they won't find *something* that will stop them paying out?

[Lobster]

[e-mail] (Andrew Gabriel) grunted in news:l97963$j3$1 @dont-email.me:

Actually I wonder whether that's already operating... I recently checked the screenscraper sites looking for an improvement on Admiral's renewal quote for my daughter. She was able to better it by about 60%, but interestingly, among the bunch of companies listed at the bottom of the list of quotes, under "we were unable to obtain a quote from the following companies" (which is usually all about the age of the proposer etc), was indeed... Admiral.

Furthermore, when she phoned Admiral to cancel the renewal, they didn't even bother asking about trying to better the competitor's quote. Also, they'd insisted on setting up an annual direct debit at the outset of the original policy rather than just a one-off payment; so I can only assume that auto-renewal following a low first-year premium is the basis of their business model.

[Huge]

"Using data provided by the DVLA will remove the opportunity for customers to make mistakes when declaring information about their driving history."

Instead we'll have the DVLA's mistakes. And what is the process for getting them corrected?

"The DVLA are proposing that in the future the industry gather and supply vehicle registration marks (VRM) to help them better link their vehicle and driver databases."

Another source of mistakes.

[Huge]

I look forward to the next time I need to put my father on my insurance when he visits from the USA. He doesn't *have* a driver's license number. Other than a Pennsylvania one, that is.

[Lobster]

Tim Watts grunted in news: [e-mail]:

So why would you not change it *every* year, then...?!

[Huge]

You don't *have* to;

From "IIADD Industry FAQs.pdf":

Can the proposer choose to refuse access to their record and self-declare?

Yes. If an individual does not agree to the fair processing notice, no data can be requested from the DVLA and the individual should be asked to self-declare their information. The customer should be advised that it would be to their advantage to provide access to their data.

[Adrian]

I suspect it'll follow on from the "Do they have a full UK licence?" question.

[Huge]

It's the basis of almost all insurers these days.

If you have to include this irrelevant, misleading and factually incorrect cack, can you at least configure your software so that it uses a correct sig seperator "-- ".

[Andy Burns]

From "IIADD Industry FAQs.pdf":

In what way is it to the customer's advantage to allow access compared to making an accurate self-declaration?

[John Williamson]

Because the insurance company will probably load the premium on the assumption that the customer is being economical with the truth, otherwise why would they want to refuse access to their data?

[Huge]

I imagine the automatic assumption of the insurer will be that the customer is lying about their driving history if they refuse access.

[fred]

In article , Andy Burns writes

I'm sure they would fabricate, sorry, point to:

1. Speed of quote, no need to put in details (faster, unless the answer is 'NONE')

1. Accurate reporting, avoiding the risk of no cover in the case of mis-declaration.

2. Automatic updating of records in the case of changes, again avoiding

4. All bollocks of course.

[Andy Burns]

Absolutely, but that's "we'll make it to your detriment" rather than "it is to your advantage" ...