Porsche 911UK Forum

Welcome to the @Porsche911UK website. Register a free account today to become a member! Sign up is quick and easy, then you can view, participate in topics and posts across the site that covers all things Porsche.

Already registered and looking to recovery your account, select 'login in' and then the 'forget your password' option.

Does the way Insurance works in this country need to change?

FZP

Well-known member
Joined
18 Jan 2015
Messages
5,862
It seems like a bunch of time is wasted by police chasing up people for not having Insurance, When in reality the owner of the car has the car insured, it's just that the person isn't named to drive that car.

As an option, why can't they implement the Australian system where by the car is insured, and not the driver.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/i.../news-story/39bfadd1bc2bd49be378a80731d35085q

Change the car in the above scenario, as even back home this car would be on listed drivers to reduce the cost of Insurance. But the above happens every day. Think of the time and money saved in the above scenario. No charges, no court and the world would carry on.
 
Linky don't work...

Sound in principle, but how do insurers properly compensate for risk of the individual driver... e.g. 50 yr old bloke and his 18 yr old son driving the dad's 996GT2 are two very different propositions...

Another option would be for basic 3rd party cover to be included in VED, then for your own Insurance to cover theft and damage to the car etc. Again though this would be hard to adjust for individual drivers.

Or maybe, for your driving licence to carry some form of 3rd party Insurance... so you SORN yourself if you are not planning on driving for a while.

What does need to change is how insurers calculate risk... my dad's insurer tried to put his premium up because he'd been involved in a claim where a lady drove into his car when it was parked in a car park. Bandits.
 
I agree , the car should be insured not driver.... this system works well in many countries ....

The insurers have it all their way and even use get out clauses where they can , I think a shake up would be a good thing.
There is of course increased risk with young inexperienced drivers v old craggy sandal wearers like many of us on here but surely a review to the present systems would be in order.
At the minimum the car on the road would be gauranteed to be covered by Insurance .....
 
But surely the car's owner would still have to foot the bill for the Insurance (though I have no idea how the aus system works), thus it remains a risk that the car would be uninsured.
 
www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-43558486

Try this link. How it works back home is this:
Pink Slip= MOT
Green Slip = Compulsory Third Party Insurance.
Rego= Road Tax
Optional Comprehensive Insurance( this covers your Insurance for your car for fire/theft etc) I don't know anyone who doesn't carry this Insurance. This is where your personal risk profile lies. As part of this Insurance, you can have anyone else drive your car up to 12 times a year. Higher value cars may carry limitations on no under 25s etc. You can also have named drivers as part of your risk profile shoukd a family nember drive your car more than 12 times a year. It's an honesty system but they have been known to go looking through till cameras to see if someone has been driving that car more than the 12 times
You can not get road tax in Aus without the first three. The green slip is what protects you if you get hit by an Comprehensively Uninsured driver.
Its by no means perfect system but it's better than what we have here. How often do you watch those cop shows and it's for an non named driver driving hubbies car or of that nature.
Imagine the cost reduction to policing and courts by having this issue go away for the most part, only taking the truly non insured vehicle to prosecution
 
I think the Insurance should be on the driver. I should be able to tell the Insurance company what cars I will be driving and pay one premium based upon the calculated risk of those cars.

So in my case, if I have my 997 turbo and want to drive a crappy old fiesta occasionally to save on my mileage, obviously the risk to the Insurance company of me claiming on the 997 when im driving the fiesta is much lower and therefore I should pay a reduced premium.

However how it currently works is that the Insurance company will only let me use my NCB on the 997 and I will have to pay an additional premium for the fiesta as if I have no NCB which means I end up paying more to insure the fiesta than my 997 costs, which makes it financially not viable.

Another example is with my motorbikes. I was paying £60 a year to insure my R1. I added the Ducati to the policy. Now, I can only physically ride one bike at a time, its 3rd party only so the Insurance company will never have to pay out on either bike regardless if I crash them or they get nicked - so the bikes value is irrelevant. The Insurance company doubled my premium. Technically both bikes are roughly worth about the same amount, the ducati is actually a much slower bike. I shopped about and still couldnt find it any cheaper, so that was the going rate for 2 bikes. From my perspective the Insurance company should have worked out what the risks were of them paying out with me riding 2 bikes rather than 1 and reduced my premium accordingly. You could say, well maybe switching from riding the R1 to the Ducati I may get confused and be more likely to crash, but if I added an identical R1 to my policy instead of the Ducati then it would have had the same effect to the premium!
 
I don't know if you need to change the base system, but it might be better to look at how it is implemented: the problem with a driver based system is that the authorities always need to check who is driving against the actual coverage (which can't be easy if the driver in question is not obliged to carry a driving license or other identification).:eek:

Over here, the car is insured, but high end cars (ie expensive ones) have certain restrictions, ie no under 25s. Which makes sense. I don't plan to let my son drive the 997 for a while. Insurance is split between the mandatory (third party, fire and theft) and the comprehensive, and the Police can see from a quick search of your registration whether you have a current inspection and Insurance. They can see your income too for on the spot fines... but that's another issue. :cop:

The only twist is that the base price of the cover is driven by engine capacity in cc, not including fuel type (petrol, ethanol, diesel, biodiesel), turbo or superchargers. So either NA is disproportionately expensive, or forced induction is disproportionately cheap. The 1.6 (supercharged) and 2.0 (turbocharged) are far cheaper than the 3.8 NA... :?:

It's bound to change sooner or later: I'd bet they simply look at KW output. :dont know:
 
Btw your NCB is applied to the driver and can used across all your cars. My last policy at home had the same NCB across all my cars on the one policy. My NCB was protected for life as I'd not had any binglesin the last 5 years.
 
FZP said:
Btw your NCB is applied to the driver and can used across all your cars. My last policy at home had the same NCB across all my cars on the one policy. My NCB was protected for life as I'd not had any binglesin the last 5 years.

Thats not what Insurance companies have told me whenever ive asked them. Whilst its on the driver it can only be used on 1 vehicle.

If its a multi-car policy then thats different and the Insurance company factor in each car - but again, in my experience, whenever companies have looked at my cars and tried to put them on a multi car Insurance, it was actually cheaper for me to go and insure each car separately!
 
rabbitstew said:
FZP said:
Btw your NCB is applied to the driver and can used across all your cars. My last policy at home had the same NCB across all my cars on the one policy. My NCB was protected for life as I'd not had any binglesin the last 5 years.

Thats not what Insurance companies have told me whenever ive asked them. Whilst its on the driver it can only be used on 1 vehicle.

If its a multi-car policy then thats different and the Insurance company factor in each car - but again, in my experience, whenever companies have looked at my cars and tried to put them on a multi car Insurance, it was actually cheaper for me to go and insure each car separately!
Sorry Rabs- it's a footnote to my earlier comments about Insurance in Australia. That's how it works back home
 
FZP said:
rabbitstew said:
FZP said:
Btw your NCB is applied to the driver and can used across all your cars. My last policy at home had the same NCB across all my cars on the one policy. My NCB was protected for life as I'd not had any binglesin the last 5 years.

Thats not what Insurance companies have told me whenever ive asked them. Whilst its on the driver it can only be used on 1 vehicle.

If its a multi-car policy then thats different and the Insurance company factor in each car - but again, in my experience, whenever companies have looked at my cars and tried to put them on a multi car Insurance, it was actually cheaper for me to go and insure each car separately!
Sorry Rabs- it's a footnote to my earlier comments about Insurance in Australia. That's how it works back home

Ah I did wonder! :thumb:
 
But is a legal requirement to have Insurance now, but it does not stop people driving without it, either unwittingly, or not.

Police can access the MIDB and see on the spot from the car reg.

Third party is the biggest potential and non-quantifiable claim an insurer will have. The risk of repairs and write off can be capped at the cars value, so unless you are driving a 250GTO its peanuts for an insurer. Thus, 3rd party claims must represent the biggest risk, hence represent the biggest part of the premium so I don't see how the need to have a 'Green Slip' provides any greater incentive to not dodge the premium.

As an aside, did you know that insurers pay VAT on repairs and cannot reclaim it because their income from premiums is not VATable. So the govt is getting double bubble by getting Insurance premium tax and the vat on any repair bills, and Insurance premiums are higher than they otherwise would be.
 
I've told a white lie. A green slip is a fee to cover personal injury or death. I was under the impression that it also covered damage to your car from the uninsured party.
If you get hit by the uninsured, then you get paid out and the Insurance company go after that person. Upon reflection a guy I went to school with was being foolish and drove up the bum of a new BMW and got lumped with a £30k bill from their Insurance company. He was driving an uninsured car.
Back to the original point, it would free up a bunch of resources and make life a hell of a lot easier. I genuinely live in fear of Insurance companies in this country, of what you can or can't do.
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
124,354
Messages
1,439,445
Members
48,708
Latest member
JLav211
Back
Top