Have a run of the mill astra that the wife and I are insured on and pay £35 a month on the insurance. In the process of buying an additional one which is newer and slightly bigger and will be keeping the old one as well. Just been getting quotes and to insure the new one it is coming out as £70 a month. So we would be paying £35 on the older car and £70 on the new one each month. Both are second hand and nothing flash.
I'm pretty green about this sort of stuff and didn't know for example that your no claims bonus can only be used against one car at a time hence why the new one is coming out at double the cost. Are we missing a trick here before we commit to paying this? Seems a bit ridiculous that you have a ncb but only applies to one car.
Many thanks
0
Comments
look into multicar policies. my one with admiral is way, way cheaper than 2 policies from anywhere else- I get my no claims applied but it's still effectively just to one of the cars
I have just found out that having had a licence for 23 years, never having had an accident in all that time, I am getting penalised because 2 people drove into my car whilst it was parked outside my house and drove away without leaving their details.
Apparently, as I claimed on my works insurance this makes the accidents my fault despite the fact I was not in the car at the time and purely because my insurer had to pay out given the dishonesty of others.
Absolutely mental to me and means the fuckwits who were dishonest and drove away win over the honest bloke who reported the accidents, paid 2 lots of excess and would never dream of not taking personal responsibility over an accident they had caused as that is the right thing to do morally.
(Apologies for the rant but I am really miffed about this).
My oldest daughter was a named driver on my policy for some years and had built up full no claims entitlement when she acquired her own car in her own name.
https://www.directline.com/car-insurance/discounts/named-driver-no-claims
Daily driver
1995 Peugeot 205 £400 per year. 15 years no claims. No points. 2 x 40's drivers in high risk postcode.
Classic policies
1985 Land Rover £190
2001 Mercedes CLK £230
In addition, the insurers now know that you park up overnight in a place where your car is at serious risk of getting hit (yet again). That's going to cost you money I'm afraid. Premia are always lower if you park overnight on your own drive or, better still, in a garage.
Unfortunately you need planning for a driveway on my road and that would not be given to anyone now as I have asked. That being said, I have now lived there 9 years and apart from these 2 recent occasions this has only happened one other time to any of my near neighbours. Not sure if that makes it a place at serious risk (3 times in 9 years across probably 40 odd neighbours) or not. I think it is bad luck personally but see your point there.
It's fair to say that we are serial switchers for car insurance. Just go with the cheapest on confused.com factoring in the benefits of stuff like EU travel, windscreen excess and voluntary excess, etc. Play them at their own game.
The thing is though please read though the policy document carefully. For example, my recollection is that Admiral/Elephant have clauses which some might find difficult to live with. For example not paying out if you were drink driving.
So here, taken at random is a clause from Zurich's policy booklet: "7. We will not make any payment if there is cover under any other policy."
So, chances are the other company would have a similar clause and neither would pay out if there was a claim event. Which would be less than useful.
That said, it may be that in certain circumstances, another policy could be set up with the first insurer's consent. But probably only for certain extras that were not incorporated into the original policy. Like for example use in a country not in the EU or speciality track use insurance.
An interesting thing about the wording in the Zurich example above, is that in theory, taking, say, AA five star European breakdown cover could be read as invalidating the original insurance because their clause is insufficiently accurate in what it is trying to achieve. That's the sort of ambiguity you get when trying to put complex matters into plain English sometimes.
That's just an example of how badly (despite whatever fees they pay their lawyers) some insurance policies are drafted. So many of them would be in technical breach of the FCA's rules on "clear, fair and not misleading" that in the example I've just given, it is inevitable that Zurich would fail in any attempt to use that clause to wriggle out of paying a claim and in practice they wouldn't try.
Renewal quotes are different to new quotes for the same car with the same insurer.
Web quotes can vary in price compared to telephone quotes with the same insurer.
Comparison websites can bring up varying quotes for same insurers.
It's a matter of finding the cheapest deal, you are happy to pay. I've found luck in insuring two cars and the house with Churchill for a few years, though they increase the renewal price every year. A couple of years ago, a 1L car for a family of four insured dropped from £900 to £200 with them - though that's steadily risen back up to £400 now.
No claims on anything throughout the whole time.
That tends to eliminate the need and hassle of changing