Historically, older drivers have enjoyed lower car insurance premiums than other age groups and been less hard hit by market increases. However, since May, insurance premiums have risen at five times the rate of inflation and older drivers are the ones seeing the highest percentage increase.
Is this unfair opportunism by insurers taking advantage of a group with previously lower prices? Or is the increase justified for older drivers – are they simply more of a danger on our roads?
The insurance market
According to the latest figures, premiums have increased by an average of 14.6% in the last 12 months to reach an average figure of £755. This is a rate that is five times the inflation rate of 2.9%. The rises mean that younger drivers now pay an average premium of £1,719.
Insurers have blamed a number of factors for the shocking rises including the increase in taxes, the weak pound and changes to the discount rate used to calculate claim pay-outs where personal injury is involved. This is in addition to the standard declaration of increased claim costs.
While younger drivers (and often their cash-strapped parents) are used to eye-watering premiums, older drivers are not. However, it seems that the latest rises are looking to reverse that situation, with older drivers experiencing the biggest increase, at an average rise of 16.5%. That puts the average premium for this age group at £434, according to Consumer Intelligence.
The older driver market
Many argue that older drivers have seen the steepest premium rises because they are responsible for more crashes than before, but do the figures back up this assertion?
According to the Department of Transport, in March 2016 there were 4.5 million people aged 70 or over with a license. 236 of these were over the age of 100.
As drivers age, they have a greater risk of health conditions that can affect their driving, such as poor eyesight or reduced reflex response time. However, researchers have shown that old age doesn’t necessarily equal more accidents. Older drivers are more likely to be killed or seriously injured in a road accident, but this isn’t always due to a poorer quality of driving – they are simply more vulnerable to injury than younger people.
Curiously, one area that did highlight an issue was making right-hand turns. 13% of those aged over 70 have had an accident involving a right-hand turn. That compares to just 7% of drivers under the age of 70. Simulator tests show that older drivers take longer to make this manoeuvre than younger ones.
Personal injury claim rates
One of the big problems blamed for the recent insurance price increases was the change to how the rate for personal injury claims was calculated. This went from -0.75% to 2.5% in a much-criticised move back in March, which aimed to ensure the long-term injured received the right payout.
The move was also behind earlier price rises. However, in September, the government announced it would change the rate again, slowing down the rate of price increase. It also says that the rate will be reviewed at least every three years, which Consumer Intelligence believes has helped stabilise prices.
The big picture
GPs have an obligation to let DVLA know if a driver is no longer fit to drive. Family members are also urged to report anyone they think is a risk. However, our ageing population means that the number of older drivers continues to increase. Could it be that this is the real reason for the increase in premiums for older drivers – that this age group is growing and thus the potential for greater profits is higher?
Should older drivers pay more for their car insurance? Or is this just another money-grabbing venture by insurance companies looking for a new group to target? Leave a comment below to share your opinion.
Typical insurance company greed – no more, no less
Heartily agree with M Rolls. Big salaries for the management plus inflated bonuses and bigger profits increases the share price and dividends to the shareholders.We are the mugs that have to suffer. Far better to have a focused claims team stopping the scams we all see nowadays.
WG
This is quite true as I have seen my insurance increase by some 18/20% although as yet not experienced an RTC.
What has increased on the roads is poor driving standards with some drivers taking unbelievable risks to themselves abd others.
Changing lanes on motorways or leaving the motorway by crossing in front of you at the last moment is quite common.
Maybe, just maybe, some take advantage of the fact Police are very few, and cameras are only there to collect revenue from the long suffering motorist.
Quite right P. Williams. Driving has deteriorated considerably over the past years, and it is down to three reasons. Driver laziness, driver indifference and absolutely zero control by the law enforcement authority. It will get even worse until and unless some control is implemented by the police.
How about the deterioration of our roads causing increased road works.
What happened to the no claims discount, this seems to be a waste of time now.
Don’t start blaming roads Drivers cause accidents not roads each road needs a driving in different ways adapt to the road every time you drive
All those in car gadgets don’t help people concentrate on their driving.
and dont forget those people who havent got a license, have never learned to drive in this country or even read the highway code.
Control by law enforcement? Whatever you think about the 20mph speed zones, six months after the signs had gone up I asked Gloucestershire Highways how many drivers had at least been warned about exceeding that limit. Their reply was that that drivers were being given a full year “to get used to the idea of obeying the limit.” After a year, drivers are only going to get used to ignoring it. How much did the signs cost to make and install? No wonder drivers ignore the rules when they can get away with it so easily.
We’ve had a 20mph speed limit on our estate for about 8 years, we were concerned about certain roads being used as Rat runs so we got the council out to monitor a couple. 5 Cars were clocked at 30 mph and a couple at 35 mph, when questioned the councilors actually said that you can’t expect people to drive at 20 mph, am I missing something ?.
Good reason for having a dash cam.
I am Surprised that dash cams have not become a requirement to be fitted as standard and checked as part of the MOT test.
look at all the recording equipment on a plane, yet more people are killed or injured on the road.
The is a lot of time taken up with RTA investigations when if every vehicle had a front and rear camera there would be numerous witnesses.
I totally agree with these comments. I have frequently seen drivers on mobile phones, often with cigarettes or coffee on the go, drivers crossing on red lights and, as above, late lane changing and downright dangerous speeding. Oh, and not to forget the woman photographing her child in the back seat while driving! To top it all, and this has caused serious accidents, the inability to stay on the correct side of the road particularly when cornering. Ludicrous. Drivers are lazy (no indication), drive too fast, and are abominably arrogant on the road.
I understood that drivers should drive according to the road conditions – bad roads more careful driving.
Perhaps the consumer/ombudsman should request the insurers to demonstrate a summary of the foreseen risk associated with an individuals application for insurance at the point of Proposal. This can be readily compared between Premiums of each Insurance Provider and an indication to the individual of the risks they pose. After all, the insurerance industry wants to know everything about our history but offer little in justifying their premiums.
Pick on the motorist as the governments cash cow as ever now pick on the safest drivers on the road OAP why because they can not for any other reason
My existing company put my premium up by £130. Shopping around got me fully comprehensive at around £220. which is less than I was paying about three years ago for the same car, same location.
LV were going to put my insurance up by £300 this year and that was supposed to be with a Union discount. I went onto a website and got it £450 cheaper than the LV quote.
TRY A VIVA THE GOOD ONES DON,T HAVE THE SAME WEB PAGES LIKE THE RUN OF THE MILL SITES
Been with LV some years (now aged 71) I insure 2 cars, and a house. They have always been fair and will negotiate on price. No claims so far….watch this space…
Which company did you go for eventually, if you dont mind me asking?
dennisa.
Please name the company you use, mine due shortly.
Price rise year after year.
Started driving at age 16 motorcycle, started driving cars age 18 am now 70 never had an RTC, am a retired class 1 lgv driver. Over the last 20 to 30 years the standard of driving has hit rock bottom not enough traffic police to monitor the roads .they rely to much on cameras also a lot of vehicles with false plates.
I am also a class 1 lgv driver and still driving at 70yrs old I have to have a medical every year to keep my licence coach drivers also have to a medical on the same principle I think that driver’s over the age of 65 should have a medical every 3yrs this would and should keep costs down .Have to agree with all comments on hear about the standard of driving it is getting worse if there was more POLICE on the roads standards might improve and premiums might go down.
I also had to have medical every 3 years since age of 21 (hgv 2 driver). Now 70, my experience with these so called medicals was as follows. You receive the form by post this must be completed by a doctor (any doctor it does not need to be yours). He/she asks you about your health, you answer, they tick the box. How do they know you told the truth???, they have only your word (no records are looked at). They then take £100 or more off you for ticking the answer you gave. I could have done the ticking myself. You just paid for the doctors signiture on a form you filled in yourself.
I was a HGV driver and paid for the medical and charged £100 for a few ticks then the next time round the medical was with another doctor very thorough like a military medical and that was £44 and I felt better for that one more than the £100 one by my own doctor but getting back to insurance it wouldn’t be so bad if the rise was just inflation size and the thing is change insurance companies every year if the rise is too high.
Motorist should pay according to their risk, not because of age. One huge risk is the number of people drug-driving, and another is no insurance, as the fine is less than the cost of insurance..
Just a thought, but why not put basic insurance for all on fuel prices. Then we can still go comprehensive/legal cover etc. as our individual choice? This way everyone is covered and the cost overall would reduce.
Adding basic 3rd party Ins. to fuel or Road Tax would protect everybody from bad drivers. This is how it works in Australia for at least 30 Years.
But adding it to fuel means the more you drive the more you pay for road improvement and Ins etc. Simplifies everything and gets rid of Beaurocrats as well.
Totally agree with Alan. There are countries which insure the CAR so anyone can drive any car including naughty thieves who could then be sued on a conviction (unlikely) Perhaps the UK under Corbyn could nationalise the Car Insurance industry so its massive profits could be used to help fund the NHS.That should keep the overpaid Actuaries busy for a bit
Anyone remember when any driver insurance was commonplace When was it phased out
god help us….UK under Corbyn!
What about electric cars?
Charge their drivers 100% more. They will cause more accidents because you can’t hear them on the road.
I wonder when assurance companies will cotton on to that particular premium pricing opportunity?
Yes! I have a Hybrid car and have to be extra diligent because my car is so quiet.
This is how 3rd party insurance was done in South Africa (Upto at least 2005 when I left)
I agree Neil in fact the whole system is archaic and there is NO GOOD REASON why insurance ,car tax(annual) and even MOT cost should not be included in the price per litre of fuel.The cost saving all round would be astronomic and would halt the greedy insurance companies in their tracks.They would simply become claims handlers and could sharpen their bogus claim research
I don’t agree with just adding insurance etc onto the price of fuel, it would then leave the motorist with no option to shop around for better deals, not only in insurance, Mot’s can be had at significant reductions from the recommended price.
Aussie should pay a basic car insurance in with their annual car registration which is cheaper than what you would ever pay shopping around. You could then shop around for better cover via Insurance companies at your leisure.
That is far too sensible for the government to even think about. Besides, how would all the insurance bosses finance their holiday homes in Bermuda etc.
I agree with a previous reply that it should be judged on the record of the individual driver, not their age. I have been driving for 50+ years and have not had an accident, other when someone drove into the side of me and admitted liability. Why should I pay for others poor driving.
I agree Maggie3. I am over 70, never had an accident or caused one. Been driving for over 40 years and have no intention of paying for others bad driving or poor judgement.
But you ARE going to pay Ros, aren’t you!
Don’t just pay up; change your insurer!
I know how you feel, me too, but what’s the alternative…would you give up driving?
Don’t you think that’s what they want us to do, it won’t affect the rich and the fewer cars on the road the faster they can go in their posh cars.
Why should you pay more Maggie? Because insurance is about risk sharing. If there was not risk sharing then the one accident you might have in the future would cost you alone many thousands or tens of thousands of pounds.
I agree that insurance is about risk-sharing, in which case, why don’t we all pay a standard premium across the entire age range? Because certain groups are responsible for more accidents, e.g. young drivers. But insurance companies are always looking for ways to increase premiums and profits, e.g. when you are involved in an accident that was caused by another person, and now it looks like they’ve started to target the older age group.
Same here I have been driving for fifty five years and never been in an accident, forty years of this on heavy goods vehicles, some gross weighing 10 tons, WHY should we be the ones who are picked on every time, it’s mainly these younger drivers that cause the accidents
The article poses the question of whether older drivers are a greater risk than younger ones – and then fails to answer it, apart from the comment about right turn manoevres. Without that data, it’s difficult to assess the position logically. Howwever, to me it seems unlikely that older drivers have suddenly become poorer drivers, and so the suspicion must remain that this is an opportunistic move by the insurance companies.
As to the factors mentioned, I fail to see how changes in the number of older drivers over time could affeect claims incidence; and personal injury claim rates apply across the board, not just to older drivers; hence should be irrelevant.
So let’s all shop around at the next renewal and choose companies that aren’t loading the premiums. Should these disappear, this would look strongly like colluding behaviour that ought to awaken the atention of teh competition commission.
And please, can we have some comparisons to what insurance rates are like in other countries, eg Germany, Italy, USA, Australia – just to put our own rates in perspective?
Ian B. I totally agree with you in questioning the basis of this article. By my reckoning, as the number of older drivers increases, the number of safer drivers must increas in direct proportion.
This is an example of greed driven ageist behaviour.
Older drivers (due in part to being among the lower premium payers) are an easy target for premium hikes. One reason for insurance company costs is the high number of uninsured and/or unlicensed drivers currently on the roads.
I think there’s sufficient competition between insurance companies that it would be difficult to pull that trick for long
Could this be a case of age discrimination?
Rob you have hit the nail firmly on the head. I am 79 I told my insurers I would not be driving more than 6000 miles this year so they increased my insurance by £143 -00. So far in the 6 months since I last renewed my insurance I have driven I 1000 miles, at this rate do you think they will give me a rebate? Do pigs fly?
Shop around for insurance. I do this every year, and when my current insurer asks for (say) a 15% increase to renew, I state that I can find an insurer that equals what I paid in preceeding year. My current insurer then asks what figure was quoted by the prospective new insurer, and, after a very short delay, tells me that he can match the new quote received.
If they can do this, why bother to increase their renewal premium in the beginning?
D Smith – the reason they do that is because they don’t think you are savvy enough to shop around. I had the same this year, quoted me one figure, their website quoted a lower figure, when I challenged them they gave me an even lower figure. Where is the sense?
In the short tem it’s very sensible if you’re the insurance company raking the money in from people who can’t be bothered to shop around every year. In the longer term they encourage more drivers to shop around every year, and destroy any sense of loyalty you might feel towards the company. But short-termism is a major problem for many companies today.
I got a better quote on a comparison site than when I phoned for a quote from the company direct.
Its new driver/insurance discount
I also shop around each year, but when I phoned my last insurer (the AA) all they could offer was a £50 M&S voucher which would mean buying something that I do not need. Guess what, I am 71. I saved over £100 pounds by switching insurers.
Agree this happens to me everytime, so always change Insurance Company on principle.
Its all down to sales and bonuses
I think you can see why…! They hope that the lazy driver will just pay the increase, rather than doing exactly what you did.
I cannot remember the last time I kept the same insurance company for two years I change to a cheaper quote every year
+bishbut: so do I. This year I return to one I used 5 years ago – it was the cheapest in the comparison website, and they kinda remember me.
because alot of people don’t look at the premium and just pay it
Just another example of greed by insurers. At 81 I have driven for 60+ years with only one RTC when a young driver left the handbrake off his car when parked behind me in a car park subsequently the car bumped into mine. As previously stated it is tearaway drivers who do not apear to have road sense, cutting across you at the last minute, tailgating, screeching around corners etc plus of course all the uninsured, untaxed, unlicensed we all pay for.
Like Maggie3’s comment, I too have been driving 50+ years and the standard of some drivers is appalling. How they ever passed their test is beyond imagination. I have had three accidents in my time, each one of them I was stationary and was hit from behind. I have always maintained that insurance companies have a licence to print money, especially for the older driver, who these days is more alert and polite on the roads. It’s a disgusting trick on their part.
Would a 73 year old who jas just voluntarily sat and passed the IAM retest be given any credence for this with a better premium. Or will I still be screwed because of my age.
I was shocked by the price of my recent renewal from Saga. When I rang them, I was told the rises were due to Government increases. I was given a very small discount, but my premium was still 33% higher than last year with no accidents or changes to my circumstances.
Didn’t you shop around? If you don’t you’re going to get screwed for sure. It’s so easy on line. Enter your details once and receive more quotes than you can shake a stick at.
Actually, I made a mistake there; it was 50% higher than last year!!
OMG! Be sure to look at my previous reply ..,
I suspect the difference is that people are retiring later, and so driving more miles per year than they used to. Although insurance companies always ask how many miles I will drive each year, they never ask me to confirm how many I drove in the previous year, so it would be difficult to find evidence for this.
Except if you have a car more than 3 years old. Because mileage is recorded as part of the MOT.
Incidently played with the mileage on my insurance quotes, nominal difference in price anyway.
Yes, you’re right about the MoT. Does anybody use that data, or is it just to prevent “clocking” on car re-sale?
The older I have got, the less accidents I have had. I will admit to driving carelessly when I was younger but now I am more experienced and mature. As a type 1 diabetic I have to have an annual eye test screening at the hospital and at the opticians. I believe that the insurance companies are just looking for another method to increase there revenue where people can’t do anything about it.
I think next year I’ll join the mobility scooter lot. No tax, no MOT, no fuel costs & insurance is around £80 pounds including breakdown/recovery…or will this be the next thing the government & insurance companies will target? Now, where’s mi walking booits?
I imagine they have to use electricity to charge their scooters so that is fuel costs lol
Of course it is. After so many years a drivers insurance should reflect their driving record regardless of age. I would like to see some real statistics justifying this ridiculous hike.
I don’t think Insurance Companies give enough credit for the reduced miles that elderly people do, nor do they give sufficient reduction for accident free years and for that matter they do not give enough credit for years experience. The truth is, they are after making money and pensioners are an easy target because the Insurance Companies unlawfully inspire together to keep prices high and competition is thus virtually non-existent.
This is unwarranted exploitation of older drivers. The statistical evidence CLEARLY demonstrates that GENERALLY the older drivers who satisfy the medical requirements (eyesight etc) are involved in LESS accidents resulting in claims and there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that they are a greater risk. Additionally, they are also probably the drivers who can less afford the costly rises due to fixed incomes. Whilst this latter observation is not a contributory factor in costings, it should be born in mind that those elderly drivers are no more able to accommodate the rises than the younger drivers who, this change is ‘allegedly’ meant to redress. There are very few elderly “Boy Racers” whilst there are Significant younger drivers who disregard the speed limits etc.
Can you post your statistical evidence? like the article it is no use saying things without proof, which you did not provide. Or is that why you are Anon?
Hardly anyone can turn right correctly.If they have to wait, stopping at 45 degrees is the preferred method enabling the left hand side of the road to be blocked completely.
Miaow!
I’ll have some of whatever you are taking
Have you ever read the Highway Code, Seabee?
I agree the fairest way is to add the cost of basic insurance to the price of petrol. No-one can then get away with not paying. I always shop around each year, particularly when a couple of years ago I asked why it had increased so much when I had made no claims. But a driver in a Range Rover had gone into the back of me while I was stationary and waiting to turn right at a T-junction. He immediately admitted liability and his insurers paid for the repairs. But my insurers said they still had administration costs therefore my premium must go up. Why didn’t they claim those back from the responsible party’s insurers? It seems they find any excuse to increase premiums, even from safe drivers.
If you add the basic cost of insurance to fuel, what about visitors to this country who already have full insurance from their country of origin. There are pro’s and con’s here and one of the pro’s would be that none insured drivers would disappear, which is a good point as that is an added part of your insurance cost, so a double saving if you have a UK registered car.
After twelve years with LV they put my premium by £200 offered £20 discount. Went to LLoyds bank £200 cheaper . Where is loyalty gone.
A load of rubbish to penalise the elderly
It’s the young boy racers who have the most accidents
I am aged 79 with 100% 68 years driving record and drive every day, I am a member of the institute of advanced motorists and it is my opinion is that everyone should take this test which is carried out by a police advanced driver, after training with a IAM local group,
I’m nearly 70 with a clear driving record and no accidents. Just received my renewal notice from Hastings Direct – Increase of over 56%! I shopped around and there is no doubt that premiums have risen. In end, negotiated hard with Hastings and got renewal down to £202 which is increase of 10% over last year
Older drivers may have slower reactions but they take less risks. You cannot teach experience you have to acquire it.
Insurance premiums should be based on an individual’s record.
Covering everyone by adding it to fuel would get rid of the thousands who drive uninsured.
Higher increases may be justified in a minority of cases but a lower level of increase should apply to those who have satisfactorily compleated an ‘older driver assessment’ and particularly those who have taken it purely voluntarily and on their own volition.
They just found another group of people to increase their profits and because they all jump on the band wagon we will be forced to pay up or catch the bus
And soon the bus pass will be withdrawn to subsidize the young yobbos.
Yes, the country is being taken over by the young, social media and, God help us … the Labour party and their mob gallery tactics. They all think they are entitled to reckless borrowing and subsidation.
Younger drivers are costing the insurers a lot more thesis days and they are pushing there premiums tp about the limit at the moment so their having a go at the older driver to claw back there losses. The last study on here about over 70’s having to resit the driving test came out in favourer of the older driver so why don’t the insurance company’s look at that study! I’ve retired from 40 + years driving emergence ambulances and I may be over 70 but there’s nothing wrong with my reaction time in fact most drivers in front of me are so slow in moving off when lights change or turning right they seem preoccupied with other things instead of driving the vehicle safely.
To conclude; It’s the greedy insurance company’s looking to make more profit from any where they can.
Can’t understand how insurance companies take into account demographics, not the individual. Why should careful drivers pay for the reckless.
I believe insurance premiums are going up because of the failings in the insurance & law systems, not necessarily the failings of the drivers, irrespective of their age. Companies do not stop enough false claims for injury. The authorities don’t do enough to stop uninsured drivers or phone users. Crash for Cash is not being policed to reduce the incidents.
yeah, that’s it, blame the old’uns for everything
Older drivers generally do a much smaller yearly mileage than younger drivers, this should be reflected in their premiums.
Many of them maintain their cars better than cash strapped young drivers, who also drive faster and more dangerously.
People who are retired are living on fixed incomes, which do not rise with inflation. The interest rates on savings are as close to zero as possible, thus making people draw there savings out to live on.
I believe it is grossly unfair for the insurance industry to target the vunerable and elderly
who rely much more on their cars to get about.
Zero prangs in my car, averaging 1.5 per year at work & it’s seen as a part of the job. I’m told I should inform my own insurance whenever I submit a claim at work – but why should I? The onboard cctv has shown – on every occasion, without fail, that it was the other driver clearly 100% at fault – yet I am told that I need to declare non-fault claims as well since these are still classed as claims. I do this & my own premiums will increase.
Insurers see you as being to blame simply because you were driving. In fact, if you have a non-fault claim, you are many % more likely to have an ‘at fault’ claim within the year… Another made up statistic to justify increasing premiums no doubt?
My insurance premium went up £52 and I have 26yr no claims. I got a cheaper quote from a comparison website and rang my current insurance company (Admiral ) and ended up getting a cheaper deal again with Admiral with the same benefits/cover. It’s best to shop around and ring up insurers. But sadly, most won’t!
Been driving for 60 years, haven’t made a claim yet!
Mature rather than old drivers are less of a risk in my opinion, however: it is blatantly clear that older drivers (70 and over say!) are often slow to react, have poorer eyesight and concentration levels. I think it is likely that these older drivers cause more frustration and traffic delays than actually have an an increased risk of accident.
What Planet are you on ?
Older drivers take more care and drive responsibly and in the main, within the law, those who get frustrated at such behaviour are the ones who cause the problem.
Todays standard of driving is abominable and 90% of that is down to young drivers, believe me, I see it every day, I am 75, still working and average 25k miles per year, I passed my test in 1960 and to date, my misdemeanors are 1. Speeding fine of 24/-
I’m not saying all older drivers are perfect, theres no such thing as a perfect driver, but the stats are there for everyone to see, 75 to 80% of Insurance claims, occur because of young hotheaded frustrated drivers from 18 to 40.
I’ll always remember my Fathers words “Insurance Companies are the biggest legalised Thieves & Criminals in the world” Truest words ever spoken.
The reason that insurers are always looking to hype prices, has nothing at all to do with statistics nor age, its because they can.
They know that drivers,regardless of age, would begrudgingly pay up, rather than give up their car and the freedom it allows them.
I agree. No claim for decades and yet insurance costs rise and rise, which is what the insurance companies are taking out of us!
Young men and women plus van drivers and, I hate to say it, taxis do the most stupid things on the road and are the true risk.
Older drivers take more care and drive slower as they have good hazard perception and value their mobility and their car. They maintain their vehicle and keep it clean. They are an easy target group for insurance companies as there are now more in the over 70 group of drivers so more profits for easy picking. If you have never had an accident and therefore never claimed why should you suffer a huge increase.
Where any individual driver has more incidents their premium will reflect the risk in any event. If an older driver had a claim for incapacity or death after an accident which was not their fault the compensation would be lower due to earning potential in the future. It used to be a stated fact that older drivers drove more slowly / carefully and were considered a much lower risk There will of course be exceptions where some older drivers should be off the road ! Yes there are higher numbers of older drivers on the road and those that are fit to drive will probably still be less risk. The issue is many older drivers have a good income and are sitting ducks for insurance companies to target in order to get more cash out of them.
ABSURD- iNSURANCE IS NOT TO BE CALCULATED BY AGE BUT ABILITY AND RESULTS.THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS SIMPLY A TAX ON OLDER PERSONS.MY DOCTOR SAYS I LOOK AND ACT 20 YEARS YOUNGER THAN MY ACTUAL AGE.i HAVE NOT HAD A CLAIM OR ACCIDENT FOR 11 YEARS BUT DURING QUESTIONING BECAUSE OF A 16% RISE I ALSO DISCOVE RED THAT ALTHOUGH MY POLICY STATES I HAVE 12 YEARS NCD THE INSURER ACTUALLY ONLY GIVES ME NCD FOR THE TIME WITH THEM(3 YEARS).TO ME THIS IS A MISLEADING IF NOT DISHONEST PRACTICE SO I INTEND TO REPORT THE FACTS AS I KNOW THEM TO “WHICH” TO SEEK AN INVESTIGATION….IS THIS A CASE WHERE THE MUCH VAUNTED SWITCHING DOES NOT REDUCE COSTS
So you socialise with your doctor, yes? Or how else does he know how you act? By the way Caps Lock is on the left side of your keyboard.
Tesco increased mine by 30% this year no claims or anything,and they would not discuss a lower price,….l left them.
This is agism at its most blatant
It should be based on claims history not age although a 50 year claims free history is more impressive than a 5 year one. The personal injury claims that up up the premiums are largely the fault of the insurance companies that pass on the details of clients who have been involved in an accident. I was offered £3000 when someone nudged my car in a car park.
Get yourself on the list for the MSE’s Money Tips unbiased financial guide email. This tells you how to find the cheapest car insurance. I have used it at renewal time for the last 7 or 8 years and probably still pay not a lot more than I did when I started. Lots of other great information as well.