Hi guys,

Been a long time reader gaining general advice, but could really do with some specialised advice and help.

My car was stolen over the summer (house broke into and keys taken), it was found a few days later smashed up and has been declared a total loss.

DL have paid out (well under what I feel is fair, but that's another story). I pay my insurance monthly and renewed 2 weeks before my car was stolen.

I've just queried the Direct Debits continuing and been told I've got to pay until next Summer because I've made a claim...

But, I can, when I get a new car, amend my policy to "this new car" and continue paying as normal with DL.

The problem is, DL won't insure me on my new car, because I'm under 25. (I can get insurance elsewhere though).

What are my options? Do I have to continue paying DL for the next 9 months? Can I not cancel my policy? It's not my fault they won't insure the new car?

Thanks for any advice or help!!

Yours in anticipation...

Why won't they insure you on your new car? Is it too powerful?

Is it that DL won't insure you on any car or this one in particular?

The car stolen was a group 18 (apparently that's as high as DL will go for an under-25), the new car is group 19.

They will insure me, but just not for that car or any above group 18 insurance.

Direct Line are correct and within their rights.

Once you make a claim on a policy (as you have done) they are entitled to the full premium, if it is their company policy not to insure young drivers on high insurance groupings then there is little you can do other than get another car of the same grouping or go to a different insurer BUT if you do go elsewhere then DL are still entitled to the full year premium.

Mossy

At the time of the theft I had 5 years NCB protected.

If I pay them until next summer for a car I don't have, I presume I will get 6 years NCB? What about if I pay them in full now?

What if I went to another insurance company now? Will DL let me leave with proof of my 5 years NCB?

Direct Line are correct and within their rights.

Perhaps so legally, but morally, this stinks.

Perhaps so legally, but morally, this stinks.

No I disagree, morally it is extremely good of them.

DL have paid out to the fullest extent possible ie a total loss, if you think about it the OP insured his car and they have wrote it off and paid out on it so that car no longer exists YET they allow the OP to substitute another car for the remainder of the year.

What you need to remember is that insurance policies (motor) usually run for 12 months and the full premium is payable on day 1, however some insurers allow you to spread the cost over 12 months. This spreading of the premium sometimes clouds the issue and people assume that if they write off a car in month 2 then they only owe 2 months of the policy when in reality they accepted the premium for a full 12 months.

Once a claim is made on a policy then the policyholder is obliged to continue to pay the premiums for the full period agreed at inception.

In my opinion DL have been MORE than fair because they allowed the OP the option of insuring a similar vehicle at no additional cost.

Mossy

I am not saying for one moment that they should refund the premiums. I am sayin that it is unreasonable of them not to insure a different car with additional payment if required.

Ah! Apologies

OK DL (like all insurance companies) charge premiums that reflect the risk they are insuring, and over the years their own personal experiences will show what they need to charge on premiums to cover overheads and make a profit.

I am sure you will agree that high powered cars in the hands of new drivers or younger drivers is a higher risk (I'm not saying that all new or young drivers are a bigger risk, rather that statistics show that in general they are), therefore DL have 3 choices either INCREASE all their policies to reflect this, charge exceptionally high premiums on just those policies, or REFUSE to insure them.

My guess is the DL have had to pay out some potentially huge claims (think personal injury and thinks hundreds of thousands), and therefore no matter what they charge it will never cover the risk they are exposed to and therefore they don't want that business.

Had the OP replaced the original car with a similar one then they would have quite happily changed the vehicle on cover, Had the OP decided to swap car WITHOUT making a claim then they would not have had to pay full premium and could have gone to an insurer who does cover the high risk market.

To summarise the OP went to DL for 12 months cover on a 'low group' car, they were insured for a 'low group' car for 12 months, refusing to insure a 'high risk' car is not DL being unfair, the OP should have replaced the car with one of the same grouping.

Mossy

OP - you stated that you renewed the insurance 2 weeks before the incident. Did the theft take place after or before renewal? If after, then Mossycat, as usual, is correct.

just having read my last post I would just like to clarify. somepoeple take "renew" to mean "pay". If the policy is not due for renewal for a month, I could pay the next years premium now and say that I have renewed it. I only wanted to clarify whever the policy had actually passed from one year to the next.

Good point Gyzmo, I never thought of asking that.

Mossy

I too feel that Mossycat is correct on this.

I would never buy a car without first checking the cost and availability of insurance.

My son was insured with Tesco and was a total loss (due to an engine fire). They took the outstanding payments for the rest of the year from the total loss pay-out.

Not directly related to DL or OP, but an illustration of the need to complete the annual contract

At the time of the theft I had 5 years NCB protected.

 

If I pay them until next summer for a car I don't have, I presume I will get 6 years NCB? What about if I pay them in full now?

 

Why would you expect an increase to 6 years (most companies have a max. of 5 anyway) - you've claimed on the policy?

Why would you expect an increase to 6 years (most companies have a max. of 5 anyway) - you've claimed on the policy?

Because his NCB was PROTECTED.

Mossy

I'm not going to correct you MC as you know much more than me on this but doesnt protected mean the number of years doesnt DROP on a claim, but wont actually increase by another year that year?

Depends on the actual company involved.

Some will, as you say protect what was there prior to the accident, others will let this year accrue into the total.

Mossy

I am sure, from my experience, that NCD will not increase, but should not drop if a claim is made within the tolerances. I personally think that if a claim is made, it should not increase for that year.

I personally think that if a claim is made, it should not increase for that year.

That's my personal view too that it should only protect what you had already accrued but some smaller Companies ignore the claim if the NCD is protected and effectively add the year of claim onto what you already had.

I suspect it's probably computerised and it was easier (cheaper) to write the software this way.

Mossy

probably! NCD is a con anyway.

Direct Line's no claims discount only goes up to 5 years, so it wouldn't increase to a 6th year anyway. However, as it is protected, you should be able to keep the 5 years you do have.

just going a bit off topic (and I think I have said this before) but with NCD be careful. One company advertises that you can now have upto 9 years NCD with them. Whoo! Except it takes you 3 or 4 years longer to get the same % discount that you would get with other insurers.....

the moral is always look the end price and ignore the discount given.