Honda XRV Forum banner

81 - 100 of 128 Posts

·
Insurance Advisor
Joined
·
177 Posts
How many bikers ever said they wanted cover for their bike to be reduced? .
I lose count of the amount of people on a daily basis who, upon getting a price from us then proceed to say. 'Can I remove the legal?' 'Can I remove riding other bikes' 'How much would I save by removing pillion?' 'I've changed my mind, I won't commute anymore, how much would I save with Social use only?'

I'm sure if you look around and research, then you find the policy that is right for you. I view it as the same with most other things you buy. You go to a particular supermarket because you like the products and find the price reasonable. If you go to you local *insert questionable shop* and pay £10 for a pair of shoes, expect them not to function the way in which a pair of shoes possibly should. Pay £50+ and expect a pair of shoes to be sturdy and not to rip and tear after a few weeks.
 

·
Insurance Advisor
Joined
·
177 Posts
I do want the cheapest cover I can get, but I want the cover to do what it says on the tin! With the exception of Ebike, all our car insurance goes up year upon year with additional no claims, people are so pissed off getting shafted on renewal, they want either a reduction or a price freeze that reflects they have another years no claims - my pick up insurance went from £335 to £417 with 13 years no claims with Adrian Flux who I've been with for about 4 or 5 years now - every year they put it up - at one point I was being quoted £700 yet when The vehicle was new it was only £280 fully comp - this is why customers are so price driven.....

Re checking cover - there is a certain trust that fully comp is exactly that, insurers cannot blame customers for them removing areas of cover without telling the customer and then putting that change in the small print - I dont doubt if car insurers removed passenger cover there would be hell on over it and no doubt the ombudsman would ensure they had to reinstate it, but if my bike has two seats then why the hell would I assume I have to ADD pillion cover. Its underhand and dishonest

btw Barry - thank you for taking the time to answer ( even if you are trying to defend a lost cause in 99.9% of peoples views :hitler:)
I can see where you're coming from, believe me. I was quoted £1200 for my car insurance and after looking around I found it for £350. I wasn't impressed at the time.

As for any exclusions on the policy, these shouldn't be hidden and you are right. The insurer has a responsibility to tell the client the terms before setting up an insurance. At Bikesure/Adrian Flux we read a legal script explaining the main terms of that particular insurer. We also read the following statement...

"We are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority who require us to give you certain information about the policy and our services in writing before you start the policy. However, if you are happy to receive limited information now, we can start the policy and send you full information. Is that OK?"

Basically, by agreeing to this statement then you allow us to give you the minimum requirement as set out by the FCA and to send you the rest via email/post. You've all seen how long a policy booklet is and I'm certain that 99% of people who get bored of me reading it all word for word.

If you would prefer to read all the terms and conditions before setting up a policy then that's OK too and we will send them to you to read at your convenience.

Other than having us sit and read to you for 30 minutes (which would then increase waiting times for incoming calls too as staff would then be busier), I can't see another way round that.
 

·
Captain unsensible.......
Joined
·
2,553 Posts
I lose count of the amount of people on a daily basis who, upon getting a price from us then proceed to say. 'Can I remove the legal?' 'Can I remove riding other bikes' 'How much would I save by removing pillion?' 'I've changed my mind, I won't commute anymore, how much would I save with Social use only?'

I'm sure if you look around and research, then you find the policy that is right for you. I view it as the same with most other things you buy. You go to a particular supermarket because you like the products and find the price reasonable. If you go to you local *insert questionable shop* and pay £10 for a pair of shoes, expect them not to function the way in which a pair of shoes possibly should. Pay £50+ and expect a pair of shoes to be sturdy and not to rip and tear after a few weeks.
the problem is we are currently paying £50+ for these sturdy shoes only to find we arent covered to wear them in the rain, strong sunlight, on wednesdays, Fridays and sundays and the right is a size 8 whilst the left is a size 11.......

oh so you want to wear them in rain? - thats £10 extra
you want to wear them in Strong sunlight? - thats £15 extra
you want to wear them on any day? - thats £10 extra
you want matching sizes? - thats £10 extra

oh not to forget the admin fee of £50.........

Sound about right?
 

·
Wing Commander
Joined
·
14,437 Posts
I lose count of the amount of people on a daily basis who, upon getting a price from us then proceed to say. 'Can I remove the legal?' 'Can I remove riding other bikes' 'How much would I save by removing pillion?' 'I've changed my mind, I won't commute anymore, how much would I save with Social use only?'
Then how about my idea of letting people remove whatever they want? Start with full cover for everything and they can just click a button to remove it - you would need to have an "Are you sure?" and you would need to explain clearly the circumstances under which they would then be uninsured.

For example, click to remove pillion and the "Are you sure?" window might say:

Removing this means you can never take anyone on the back of your bike. If your mate is broken down in a dark country lane, in the rain, you will have to leave him there because you chose to save £15 on your insurance. If you give him a lift you will be driving uninsured and could face a £300 fine, six points on your licence and your bike impounded. Do you want to remove pillion cover?

I think you need to be as brutal as you can about the removal of every item so that people clearly understand what they are losing.
 

·
Insurance Advisor
Joined
·
177 Posts
the problem is we are currently paying £50+ for these sturdy shoes only to find we arent covered to wear them in the rain, strong sunlight, on wednesdays, Fridays and sundays and the right is a size 8 whilst the left is a size 11.......

oh so you want to wear them in rain? - thats £10 extra
you want to wear them in Strong sunlight? - thats £15 extra
you want to wear them on any day? - thats £10 extra
you want matching sizes? - thats £10 extra

oh not to forget the admin fee of £50.........

Sound about right?
I'm afraid I'd disagree with your their Sean. (But then I would, I'm bias)

We have policies where you get the level of cover you would expect but the majority don't want to pay the extra because they have gotten used to paying the smaller premiums based on the lesser level of cover.
 

·
Insurance Advisor
Joined
·
177 Posts
Then how about my idea of letting people remove whatever they want? Start with full cover for everything and they can just click a button to remove it - you would need to have an "Are you sure?" and you would need to explain clearly the circumstances under which they would then be uninsured.

For example, click to remove pillion and the "Are you sure?" window might say:

Removing this means you can never take anyone on the back of your bike. If your mate is broken down in a dark country lane, in the rain, you will have to leave him there because you chose to save £15 on your insurance. If you give him a lift you will be driving uninsured and could face a £300 fine, six points on your licence and your bike impounded. Do you want to remove pillion cover?

I think you need to be as brutal as you can about the removal of every item so that people clearly understand what they are losing.
If you called us for a quote, we would ensure that the client is aware of this. Same with commuting and Social, Domestic and Pleasure. We also send out confirmation via email, giving the opportunity for the client to change their mind in the first 14 days without an admin fee.

It's difficult to then enforce that online on GoCompare etc as they don't care, as long as you set up a policy then they get their fee..
 

·
Wing Commander
Joined
·
14,437 Posts
In plain English the phrase "fully comprehensive" is called a tautology, in that something that is comprehensive is just that: comprehensive - all-inclusive. You do not need "fully" because anything that isn't full, is not comprehensive. If you take the most lenient definition of comprehensive it is so full as to include almost everything. Therefore adding the word "fully" implies that anything not covered by the word "comprehensive" is now included. It means there are no exclusions, no gaps, nothing missing.

In insurance, the phrase "fully comprehensive" is simply a lie.

What Sean has being saying is that when he buys fully comprehensive cover he does not then expect to be asked if he wants to add back in some of the covers removed since last year.

When I buy fully comprehensive for every use I can possibly think of in every circumstance I can possibly predict, I do not expect to find there might be circumstances in which I am not covered.
 

·
Captain unsensible.......
Joined
·
2,553 Posts
so you have a choice of pretty much exactly the same cover for either £1200 or £350 and you went for the £350 option which is exactly what everyone does - nobody is going to pay more than they have to for the same level of cover which is exactly our point
 

·
Insurance Advisor
Joined
·
177 Posts
so you have a choice of pretty much exactly the same cover for either £1200 or £350 and you went for the £350 option which is exactly what everyone does - nobody is going to pay more than they have to for the same level of cover which is exactly our point
Sorry I think you misunderstand my original point.

The point I was trying to make was that their are companies that still cover everything that you want as standard and don't have numerous exclusions. But because they charge more, people don't use them and take the cheaper route.
 

·
Captain unsensible.......
Joined
·
2,553 Posts
Sorry I think you misunderstand my original point.

The point I was trying to make was that their are companies that still cover everything that you want as standard and don't have numerous exclusions. But because they charge more, people don't use them and take the cheaper route.
Barry - I really disagree, companies are taking stuff out as Chris says and are selling the policy as fully comp, but its not fully comp and even worse they are not informing customers of the removed / changes in the policy!

I dont know anyone who wants to cancel their policy because their sports bikes are not used for winter. My busa is MOT'D serviced but sorned as I'm not using it in the ice snow and rain - Come March/April it will be taxed, checked over and used again.... so how many customers are asking for their cover to be removed just because they have declared they wont use it in winter conditions??

I appriciate you probably deal with alot of different people and some complete idiots (Is Vader insured by you??) but people choosing to take the cheaper route and removing options is not the same as being sold a policy with the options already removed without the customer being told!
 

·
Wing Commander
Joined
·
14,437 Posts
Barry,

How about this for an idea.
My insurance premium with you is £400 for three bikes fully comp for full business use (or so I thought - we wait to see). The bikes generally are garaged at home, but I have agreement that two of them may be left out if need be because the garage is full of parts if one is being worked on. The most expensive bike is heavily modified and has an agreed value of £6,000. This one must be garaged each night when at home. Out, they must be locked with a sold-secure-approved lock.

So what can you add to improve the policy if I agree to pay an extra £100?

How much to allow all the bikes to be left out of the garage for up to five or perhaps ten nights a year?

How much to remove the padlock clause?

How much to bring down my excess?

What else could you add on to make my policy better?

Could my kids be added (only to ride the bikes for which they are old enough and licenced to ride)?

What could you add if I agreed to pay an extra £200, £300 or even £400. For £800 a year what would still not be covered by my "fully comprehensive" policy?
 

·
Captain unsensible.......
Joined
·
2,553 Posts
Barry,

How about this for an idea.
My insurance premium with you is £400 for three bikes fully comp for full business use (or so I thought - we wait to see). The bikes generally are garaged at home, but I have agreement that two of them may be left out if need be because the garage is full of parts if one is being worked on. The most expensive bike is heavily modified and has an agreed value of £6,000. This one must be garaged each night when at home. Out, they must be locked with a sold-secure-approved lock.

So what can you add to improve the policy if I agree to pay an extra £100?

How much to allow all the bikes to be left out of the garage for up to five or perhaps ten nights a year?

How much to remove the padlock clause?

How much to bring down my excess?

What else could you add on to make my policy better?

Could my kids be added (only to ride the bikes for which they are old enough and licenced to ride)?

What could you add if I agreed to pay an extra £200, £300 or even £400. For £800 a year what would still not be covered by my "fully comprehensive" policy?
chris how about they get the fundermental basics of fully comp sorted first before the extra riders etc
 

·
Insurance Advisor
Joined
·
177 Posts
Barry - I really disagree, companies are taking stuff out as Chris says and are selling the policy as fully comp, but its not fully comp and even worse they are not informing customers of the removed / changes in the policy!

I dont know anyone who wants to cancel their policy because their sports bikes are not used for winter. My busa is MOT'D serviced but sorned as I'm not using it in the ice snow and rain - Come March/April it will be taxed, checked over and used again.... so how many customers are asking for their cover to be removed just because they have declared they wont use it in winter conditions??

I appriciate you probably deal with alot of different people and some complete idiots (Is Vader insured by you??) but people choosing to take the cheaper route and removing options is not the same as being sold a policy with the options already removed without the customer being told!
I think we are just going round in circles now aren't we?

I don't wish to defend the entire industry because no doubt there are companies out there that don't offer as much cover as others, have higher administration fees (back to the original topic of the post!) and other unfavourable terms to get cheaper insurance.

Probably best if we just leave it here to be honest as I think we are just repeating ourselves and getting nowhere.

Thanks for the debate though, it's good to see both sides of the 'argument' and thanks for being so polite.

Barry
 

·
Insurance Advisor
Joined
·
177 Posts
Barry,

How about this for an idea.
My insurance premium with you is £400 for three bikes fully comp for full business use (or so I thought - we wait to see). The bikes generally are garaged at home, but I have agreement that two of them may be left out if need be because the garage is full of parts if one is being worked on. The most expensive bike is heavily modified and has an agreed value of £6,000. This one must be garaged each night when at home. Out, they must be locked with a sold-secure-approved lock.

So what can you add to improve the policy if I agree to pay an extra £100?

How much to allow all the bikes to be left out of the garage for up to five or perhaps ten nights a year?

How much to remove the padlock clause?

How much to bring down my excess?

What else could you add on to make my policy better?

Could my kids be added (only to ride the bikes for which they are old enough and licenced to ride)?

What could you add if I agreed to pay an extra £200, £300 or even £400. For £800 a year what would still not be covered by my "fully comprehensive" policy?
Hi Chris,

I'll allow the underwriter of your policy to answer any existing questions you have with your policy and then I will follow up with the recent questions. As it is a current policy, I fear we cannot change any terms but I'm more than happy to go through it with you when the renewal is due.

Thanks

Barry
 

·
Wing Commander
Joined
·
14,437 Posts
I'll allow the underwriter of your policy to answer any existing questions you have with your policy and then I will follow up with the recent questions. As it is a current policy, I fear we cannot change any terms but I'm more than happy to go through it with you when the renewal is due.
I am pretty sure the policy could be adjusted mid-term. I mean if I were only on SDP and needed commuting or business use suddenly, or changed job, or bought a new bike, it could be added, so it must be possible to add whatever you want, whenever you want.

I want to be fully comprehensively insured but don't feel I am currently - I have made more effort than most people to try to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
Hi,

You'll find that most classic insurance policies nowadays do exclude the use to drive other vehicles. The reason for this is because classic policies should be for 2nd vehicles and the insurer would assume that you have cover to drive other cars on your main vehicle. To exclude you from driving other vehicles reduces the risk to the insurer and keeps your classic insurance at a much lower premium that a standard car policy (or atleast it should be)

In relation to the Hilux policy, to charge you £200 to drive other vehicles sounds very harsh to me and, couples with the 'married' error, I would have taken that opportunity to look at other companies to see how they were quoting. If they are still the cheapest then is it really outrageous as you suggest or just annoying?
Hi,

The insurance company that insures my classic vehicles are the ones that cocked up and put that I was married, and not single. Now, this has never changed. So can you explain how it would change from single to married? I presume my details are on a computer database? The computer isn't going to change my marital status, so a human must have gone into it and changed it? How else could it change? Now the cynic in me asks is this a ploy to get me to call the Insurance Company so that I spend 30mins of my valuable time and money getting it changed, or is it a way of getting out of paying as my details were "incorrect" if I hadn't spotted it should an accident occur? It might seem trivial, but I pay enough in Insurance with three different companies and 4 vehicles to insure. I don't expect my details to have been changed out of the blue for no reason. I'm paying enough already and expect the highest standards for my money.

Regarding the Hilux, which is my MAIN vehicle. This was renewed before my classic vehicle renewal and the "driving other peoples cars" was removed. Is it really a greater risk for an insurer to have this as standard on a "Comprehensive Policy" (which by the way isn't that "Comprehensive" any more)?

I already own 4 vehicles, so it's highly unlikely I'm going to be driving someone else's car on a regular basis. If I was going to do that then I would get added to their policy as a named driver as 3rd party only cover is far too inadequate. Also I can only drive one vehicle at a time, so how is it an increased risk? This option, which always used to be standard on a Fully Comp policy, is useful in the event that you need to drive someone's car home for them as they have had an accident, or to borrow a mates estate as your mini is too small to get all that rubbish down the tip.

I'm sorry, but there is no increased risk in having this on my policy. It's just another very useful benefit that has been taken away from my "Comprehensive" cover. In fact, you would be saving money if a collision occurred, as it would be on a third party only basis.

So yes it's inconvenient AND outrageous. If I was putting a claim in every other year then I could understand, but I've never claimed. So I'm paying more and more each year, for no increased risk, and my policy value and perks are decreasing at the same rate.

It's like all the chocolate bars you buy now, such as Mars and Twix. They cost more than they ever did, and yet they are literally half the size they used to be. Each year they get smaller and smaller, the manufacturer hoping the punter doesn't notice. But we do notice!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,452 Posts
I lose count of the amount of people on a daily basis who, upon getting a price from us then proceed to say. 'Can I remove the legal?' 'Can I remove riding other bikes' 'How much would I save by removing pillion?' 'I've changed my mind, I won't commute anymore, how much would I save with Social use only?'

I'm sure if you look around and research, then you find the policy that is right for you. I view it as the same with most other things you buy. You go to a particular supermarket because you like the products and find the price reasonable. If you go to you local *insert questionable shop* and pay £10 for a pair of shoes, expect them not to function the way in which a pair of shoes possibly should. Pay £50+ and expect a pair of shoes to be sturdy and not to rip and tear after a few weeks.



Barry,

I appreciate your doing your best, and we aren't personally having a go at you. We are having a go at the "system"....


Maybe "most" people do request to have this, that or the other removed before purchasing a policy. Well that's their choice. But why then punish everyone else by removing things that have always been in a Comprehensive policy for years and years.

The driving other vehicles on 3rd party only is a case in point. Now this has been removed on both my policy's without my permission and without notification. I know you (when I say you, I mean the insurance industry) don't need permission to remove things, as the various "get out clauses" state in the small print, but why do it quietly and without notice? Why? I haven't made a claim, so why take it off me and then offer it back, but for £200 extra. I purchase "Fully Comp" exactly because I feel this is the all singing all dancing policy and that's why I'm paying a lot more for it. I expect it to be fully inclusive. For the "once-in-a-blue-moon" occasion I will need it I now have to pay £200 extra WTF? It's just not on.

It's all very well saying "shop around and choose what policy suits you the best", but at what cost??? £600, £800, £1,000+? We the punters expect competitive insurance at a competitive price. If a person hasn't claimed for 25 years then they should be paying absolute peanuts for their insurance and with all the benefits still attached that have always been there. Then, if they have an accident, increase the cost. After all you have had 25 years worth of premiums from that punter and haven't had to pay out a penny. A good punter to have on your books, don't you think?

But all this underhandedness is turning people against the insurance industry. Because we feel like we are being treated like brain dead mugs. I honestly think the insurance industry should go the way of Canada in that the Government provides the insurance. You have a few options to choose from, take your pick and pay your money. Then know in the event of an accident that the "Scottoiler" sticker you put on your swingarm (that has bugger all to do with anything mechanical related) wont "Invalidate" your policy because it's an undeclared "modification"...
 

·
2 bikes = twice as happy
Joined
·
4,354 Posts
I reckon the removal of cover for driving other people's vehicles is a government/police thing linked to the increased use of the ANPR system. Lobbying a certain industrial sector to bring about change (or else) is one of the ways government can bring certain policies into life without the hassle of making new legislation.

Makes it unambiguous for the police then - car must be being driven by the registered owner else it's not insured. Also stops a mate popping down to the pound to pick up an impounded car and ensures the police / parking authority has an interaction with the owner.


Sent from my iPhone with a smile :)
 
81 - 100 of 128 Posts
Top