Monday, 13 July 2015
A Comprehensive Cover motor policy £ 100 CHEAPER than Third party. Why ?
Motor car insurance is a rip-off ... My car is nineteen years old, and as comprehensive cover costs over £ 400 per year, I thought I'd get a quote from my (national) insurers for just 'the basics', third party, fire and theft. Ten years ago this was about half the cost of a comprehensive policy; the drawback was that if you damaged your own car, you'd have to pay for the repairs yourself, yes ? Fair enough, and it worked.
Yesterday my insurance company said 'that'll cost you A HUNDRED POUNDS MORE A YEAR, for LESS cover (no windscreen cover, no ability to drive a friend's car, no 'no-claim-discount' protection, and so on). AND £ 100 MORE per year.
The nice man at the call centre said this was now 'common policy' at his company. When I went to the 'go*******' site to check their competition, about 75 other insurers also all gave me a quote for the same outrageous INCREASE in fee for LESS cover.
BTW, that's a quote for a year's motor insurance, when you leave your car parked in a bay on the road in central London, and it is very competitive. It just seems a rip-off if you have an old motor, already blessed with dents and scratches, to have to pay a premium that reflects a shiny new car with a perfect finish.
The company I've been with for maybe fifteen years has small print that says "Our current administration fee to cancel your policy is £47.40 . . . . " I guess you'd have to find a much better deal than the one you're on at present, to make up for that hefty cancellation fee, eh ?