I got quotes  in early February (12th) through CompareTheMarket well in advance of my policy renewal date in early March.

 

Some (Saga) were quoting  £201 (Approx£20 less than the current premium) for the same service and Ts & Cs.

 

I didn't take any action at that stage and simply waited for the renewal quote from my current insurer (LV). Their quote, dated 24th February, came in at £25 higher than last year @ £255 for fully comprehensive. No surprises there.

 

So I phoned LV up and told them that other people were quoting up to £50 less for the same services, T & Cs, and asked what their best offer would be, They re-quoted £236.

 

But when I went back to the quotes I'd obtained on 12th from CTM, the system refused to allow me to access the Saga quote (For £201) stating that my details had changed and they had withdrawn the quote. Needless to say my details hadn't changed and I hadn't made any alterations to the data input since the 12th February.

 

When I accessed the next best quote on CTM (For the same service, Ts & Cs) with the AA, which was originally stated as £219 (On the 12th), it re-calculated automatically and knocked out a premium of £245 which included CTMs £28 handling fee (No wonder they're giving away ******* toys)

 

Just to see what Saga would quote, I went back to their own website and putting in exactly the same details was quoted £250.

 

And going back to AA's own website, obtained a quote of £245 which included a £28 handling fee by their agents !

 

A few observations here:-

 

It seems that, as of today, these quotes are  now within £10 of each other and that they have been ramped-up and converged in a systematic way across insurers as the renewal date approaches.  I can see no justification for this, my details and circumstances haven't changed,  unless of course they are deliberately under/mis-quoting on the first pass and have no intention to honour it.

 

So what's the use of these search engines - they simply add £28-£30 to the cost of your renewal and the customer is unable to avoid the charge, even if he uses the insurer's own website.

 

How uncompetitive and fixed is that ?

 

P.S. Avia, from their own website quoted £258

 

Nick

Edited 27 February, 201511 yr by Clunkclick

Yes

Don't use search engines and comparison sites then. I get my insurance cheaper through a broker than any comparison site, and I always speak to the same person on the phone.

So why isn't the insurance industry regulator taking some action ?

 

N

Don't use search engines and comparison sites then. I get my insurance cheaper through a broker than any comparison site, and I always speak to the same person on the phone.

That was the case with me until about 10 years ago. I think at that time I was with the one in Newmarket and their prices started to get silly so I went to the  comparison sites for a better deal. Perhaps its time to switch back.

 

Most of the insurance retailers don't carry their own risk and are laying it off with Lloyds or one of the European markets,  so like the utilities "Market",  the wholesale price must be the same for the same risk and, it seems, that now that the comparison sites have secured their captive audience and established themselves, like all real monopolies or near- monopolies, they are really squeezing the pips.

 

Time to tell them to stuff  their furry toy and saturation TV advertising.

 

N

Edited 27 February, 201511 yr by Clunkclick

Compare the market is owned by Budget insurance (or used to be), and only provides quotes for its own group of companies. The other comparison sites are also owned in the main by parent insurance companies.

I think the fact that having car insurance has been made mandatory, means it's open to rigging. Their is always the regulatory bodies that are there to stop this from happening, but as we have seen with the finacial markets, that is not always the case.

Might be the comparison site being dodgy.

 

Amazon will change prices on an individual basis depending on your browsing and buying habits.

Holiday companies do the same, if they can spot you looking at a particular holiday over a period of time they can increase the price presented to you.

 

Might be worth trying a different comparison site or testing with a dummy account.

Speaking to a sales person invariably gets the best figure. I recently sorted my son's Fabia insurance. The renewal was £550. When I spoke to the sales person she soon brought it down to £440 with no adverse consequences.

It's a free market, so play it.

I only used comparison sites for a ball park figure, I would take it up if it was blatantly cheaper and could do it there and then. I'd rather get on the blower, now it's modified I'll be doing it old school every year. I guess all kinds of stuff I don't really trust goes on behind the scenes between comparison sites and insurance companies, but occasionally you can get lucky and jump on a genuinely good deal.

Just been running some quotes, I thought a 20 year old 318i would be cheap(ish) to insure, turns out it's more expensive than the Octavia for most quotes! If I punt for one I think I'll bell up all the site sponsors then do the rounds. 

 

My dads proper old skool, goes to the 'A Plan' shop to get his insurance each year lol

10 years ago there were the remains of a few independent Lloyds brokers who you could nearly always rely on to give a reasonable quote  - Equity Red Star et al.

 

Now, even they seem to have been roped-in to the comparison-site shell game - another of these ”Jump-on-the-band-wagon-or-shrink-your-business” games. A game in which sellers can systemtically dupe buyers by a scale of out-of-sight back office operations, undeclared co-operative marketing arrangements and information exchange wbich effectively shepherds the buyer to the price THEY want to sell the service at. The sellers have all the power, ironically in a situation where there's a supply-side glut of finance.

 

This is not right. Its far from an open market.

 

nd I find that this multiple oass system, which effectively cons the consumer into believing they will get a better deal by successive iterations pricing enquiries  when it doesn't, just wastes your time.

 

IMHO a great opportunity exists for car manufacturers to undercut all this rubbish and  re-introduce their own discounted marque rekated iinsurance on a similar basis to the service plans they currently offer.

Now, if a wi-fi enabled convenience unit in the car could be designed to insure and tax itself . ..

 

Or better still just shove the insurance and tax on the fuel.

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

Edited 28 February, 201511 yr by Clunkclick

You could never realistically put insurance on as fuel tax. How would a driver with 9 points and multiple accidents be risked differently to a driver with no points and no accidents? The risk factor is not possible with a taxation method of payment. However, road tax could be moved to fuel tax fairly easily, but I'm not sure it's a good idea.

Hi,

Please feel free to give us a try for insurance if you like. If you wanted to PM me some contact details I'd be happy to arrange for one of my quotes team to give you a call back.

Regards,

Dan.

Why isn't it structured in such a way that you are insured on your own vehicle rather than being liable for the other party, therefore you're insurance premium rises and falls based on your own circumstances. If you don't have insurance then that is the risk you take, if you are silly or unlucky and have a accident or multiple accidents then your premium reflects that.

 

By having it structured the way it is, it plays right into the hands of the insurance companies whilst the indivdiual faces repeated rises and a 'safe' responsible driver, who has never had an accident or needed to claim has to pay for the mistakes that others have made. It would also elliminate the crash for cash problems or the where their's a blame their's a clam mentality that we all have to foot the bill for.

 

Just an idea. 

Why isn't it structured in such a way that you are insured on your own vehicle rather than being liable for the other party, therefore you're insurance premium rises and falls based on your own circumstances. If you don't have insurance then that is the risk you take, if you are silly or unlucky and have a accident or multiple accidents then your premium reflects that.

 

So, based on that, if you happened to drive a 30k Octavia that was written off in a non fault accident which also involved injuries to you and your passengers.  Your insurance company would pay out for you car and your injuries and then just for a further kick in the nuts, increase your insurance premium two fold to cover the cost of the accident...

 

Personally, I prefer it the way it is now

 

EM

The price of your insurance would factor in numerous things like the price of your your car and the level of insurance you require. on the contrary I don't drive anywhere near a 30k motor and have never made a claim, therefore the cost of my premium would reflect that.

 

It may not be a perfect system and it may not suit everyone but it may well increase the individual drivers responsibilty so that drivers would have a incentive in making sure they didn't have an accident possibly making the roads a safer place.

 

Like I said just an idea.

Why isn't it structured in such a way that you are insured on your own vehicle rather than being liable for the other party, therefore you're insurance premium rises and falls based on your own circumstances. If you don't have insurance then that is the risk you take, if you are silly or unlucky and have a accident or multiple accidents then your premium reflects that.

 

By having it structured the way it is, it plays right into the hands of the insurance companies whilst the indivdiual faces repeated rises and a 'safe' responsible driver, who has never had an accident or needed to claim has to pay for the mistakes that others have made. It would also elliminate the crash for cash problems or the where their's a blame their's a clam mentality that we all have to foot the bill for.

 

Just an idea. 

 

Or why not insure the vehicle in the same way it is taxed. i.e. the vehicle not the driver.

So if you are using search engines, the price comparison websites ( and most modern retail websites) use cookies to track whether you have visited before. 

 

Ever checked car insurance, or train tickets, gone back to the same site to purchase the item, and the price inexplicably increased? This is why.

 

Work out how to clear your cookies between searches, or use private browsing so your computer/ IP address can't be "remembered"

 

For some perspective, the fully comp cover here in Czech Republic is twice the cost of cover compared to the UK, despite wages being 33% of UK wages.(same drivers, same car, same mileage, same occupation, garaged in a suburb of the capital city) 

 

For 250 GBP total, buy the insurance, move on with your life. 

Or why not insure the vehicle in the same way it is taxed. i.e. the vehicle not the driver.

i'm all for alternative to estalblished institutions and structures. If it makes more sense and takes the power away from Corporations and hands it back to the people to create fairer more just systems, then that surely has to make sense

Private browsing is as much use as a chocolate fireguard in terms of tracking.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

i'm all for alternative to estalblished institutions and structures. If it makes more sense and takes the power away from Corporations and hands it back to the people to create fairer more just systems, then that surely has to make sense

But the whole point of insurance is to provide the fiscal means which you do not possess.

If you have only two washers to rub together and drive a £200 heap of wotsit and rear end a supercar then without insurance you are royally screwed.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

If you have only two washers to rub together and drive a £200 heap of wotsit and rear end a supercar then without insurance you are royally screwed.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Like I said it may not suit everybody. Unfortuantly I wouldn't be worried about rear ending a supercar. I would however be worried about increasing my own premium on my a little over £2000 car that I would be insured on.

 

Nothing wrong with creating or at least thinking of alternative Ideas, but no doubt they would need a little more polish from people who like to deal with that type of thing.

Or why not insure the vehicle in the same way it is taxed. i.e. the vehicle not the driver.

Because it's the driver who is the risk, not the vehicle. Two identical cars, both on the same road, one driven by a hooligan who has many accidents and one driven by a guy who drives carefully and considerately. If the cars were insured then they'd both be paying the same insurance based on the car. How would that work? There'd be no incentive to drive carefully and limit the risk to save money, because next year the car insurance would still be the same as the careful driver

Why isn't it structured in such a way that you are insured on your own vehicle rather than being liable for the other party, therefore you're insurance premium rises and falls based on your own circumstances. If you don't have insurance then that is the risk you take, if you are silly or unlucky and have a accident or multiple accidents then your premium reflects that.

 

 

Because pedestrians and other third parties are also involved in accidents. Someone walking on the pavement gets hit by a car, clearly a fault of the driver, and ends up paralysed. Who pays for the medical care and treatment they require? There has to be insurance cover for third party purposes.