I think because when your car is nicked the police notify DVLA, and you are obliged to notify your insurers in case it is involved in an accident. Despite my insurer at the time (admiral) promising me that my no claims would not be affected as i had not made a claim, and even sending me written proof of 'no claims', when i came to insure the same car again, the premium was 100 quid more because the theft had been recorded. Basically, when this happens, i and everyone else have insult added to injury. I didn't claim because i didn't want my premium to go up, so the insurance company didn't have to pay out. Then they put my premium up anyway. Because they can and there is nothing i can do about it. They make me furious, greedy good for nothing money grabbing [edits].

Well... i take your point, and if insurance companies weren't making such extortionate profits i would concede. I dont know, it all just seems so unfair, and the lack of competitiveness affects all of us, not just the younger drivers. If we did a poll.... i wonder how many people would shout 'excellent service and value for money' about their insurance deal/company? In our capitalist system, we the consumers are supposed to be able to demand the best, not be over a barrel - aren't we?

Hi, I've been thinking about this for some time and i'd be interested to know what others think... i don't know if anyone remembers the spitting image comedy sketch on 'the armadillo tax'? basically, it was a political joke about conservatives finding anything to tax people on and amounted to a 5% tax on Armadillos, and a new law that forces everyone to keep at least one male and one female Armadillo, thus ensuring escalating taxation. Very funny at the time. I'm a police community support officer, and the other day i was talking to the local yoofs about their first forays into motoring. They told me that to insure (3rd party only) a peugeot 106 as a young driver with a clean license cost 3,000 pounds. I nearly fell over. This is what it has come to, and we are all being robbed one way or the other by insurance companies. It strikes me that if having a minimum of 3rd party insurance is a legal requirement (which of course is a no-brainer). Then the cost of the minimum insurance should also be regulated by law. Insurance companies are free to refuse to insure, but 3rd party insurance should be available to anyone for £250. The sheer amount of money that is lifted from drivers every year by this uncompetitive and self serving industry is criminal. If the above was implemented, insurance companies would have to compete to sell the fully comprehensive packages, and their service would necessarily improve. Lets face it, it's not like their profits are low is it? As it is, we are all at their mercy, its just not right. I speak as someone who is able to get fully comp on an average car for under £500, and the same on a ZZR1100 (motorcycle) for £120. It isn't me that's suffering, but i still recognize the bottomless greed and social injustice of it. Surely as a nation of motorist we have enough power to force a change?

Hi everyone, having just endured a year of 'cover' with IGO4 insurance i thought i'd share some balanced cautions. Having received a good quote i took out insurance. Within a day or so, i got a threatening email saying that the fraud department would cancel my policy if i didn't pay an extra 102 pounds. It turns out that this was because i had a no claim, no loss, theft and recovery of my vehicle, and the wording of the IGO4 online quote system was inadequate i.e 'have you had a claim in the last xx years' to which i honestly answered no. All of the communication was conducted by email, and the level of customer service when i phoned was shocking. I felt thoroughly ripped off. As has been reported elsewhere, they demanded scanned and emailed copies of my driving license and no claims letter (why they can't check like other companies do i don't know), once again, on threat of policy cancellation. i then made the mistake of getting a different vehicle (that was 8 insurance groups lower than the original vehicle), now i remember when a minor adjustment like this would be free from a reputable insurer..... £102 pounds!!! once again, the level of customer service on the phone was pretty bad, with the operative refusing to allow me to speak to his supervisor. All in all, IGO4 gave a competitive quote, then put as many reasons to sting me in place a they possibly could - i ended up paying much more than the more professional companies quote, for a lower level of cover and the pleasure of dealing with their customer services. I'm horrified and disgusted and will never insure with them again. has anyone else had a similar experience with them? Toads

anyone that thinks that either experience or training alone is enough on todays roads is out of their mind, one requires as much as possible of both these things. Training needs to be updated regularly, because road systems and users change (just look at the traffic situation over even the last 10 years) Weird al - looking at someones driving history cannot predict their driving future. in expressing a preference for experience over valid recent training you have eluded to what is certainly a bigger cause of accidents than speed "i've been doing this for 20 years, i know what i'm doing" the reason i protest so strongly against speed cameras is not because i've ever been nicked, as i have repeatedly stated: 1) they are there to make money out of otherwise law abiding citizens who are just going about their daily business and not hurting anyone. 2) they do not contribute at all to road safety. 3) the are an invasion of my privacy and civil liberties 4) they are the expression of a general attitude of 'get the motorists, they are easy targets' by the establishment.

your post is irrelevant, and adds nothing to the discussion, which anonymous poster whom you know nothing about are you now refering to as a 'speed demon'.

Actually, whilst mentioning police beat cars breaking the speed limit, i know for a fact that the police regularly break the speed limits when not attending an emergency, i once lived next door to a police constable and over heard a garden conversation and i quote "..... i was testing my new car the other evening and i had 125 out of it on the M**, it was ok though, i had the area car behind me for protection ...." these are the very same public servants that apparently have such a dim view of speeding drivers, that is a classic example of 'the law doesn't apply to me' driving i have also personally seen a police rider on the M5 travel past me at approx 100 mph, take a slip road off, go around the round about system, then come back down on to the motorway and overtake me again at 100mph, then do it again!! the officers tactic is clear - they all think i've left the motorway, so now i'll catch them up and see if i can catch them speeding - in order to do this, i am allowed to speed with impunity. a clear indication that in the view of even the police, 'correct use of speed' has little to do with arbitrary speed limits

Thank you Questioning, this was the info i was looking for, i'll send them a take it leave it offer and see what they say, and i'll pay barclays a visit on monday, thanks again, toads

i'm dealing with them through a 'care of address' they don't know my home address

patdavies - i agree with your motorway analogy 120 is illegal, but in that situation may not be dangerous. no one else around? it is not the job of the government or the police to protect me from myself and this is major point, regarding the civil liberties that we don't fight for and are losing.

thanks i'll have a look. But even still my credit reference file will be updated with my new address? and then DCA will be easily able to find me?

ha ha ha, reality check! i would gladly accept a short ban - (a much more effective penalty) but guess what IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. mark my words, soon they will up the fine and reduce the amount of points so that they can get more money before they have to ban you. when that happens you will know that i was right all along. to clarify, i do not routinely speed, i do not teach my pupils to speed, i have never had a speeding ticket. i know that there is a certain type of motorcyclist that has a very very bad attitude to use of speed on her majesty's highway, those riders don't tend to be riding for very long

hi, because if i do the bank will run a credit check, and of course i'll have to give my address, as soon as that happens all the DCA has to do is a 'trace' through a credit reference agency and my address comes up, then they will be able to hassle me at home. not to mention that a bank is unlikely to give me an account anyway because of the default on my credit history... ya know?

it's coming up for 2 months since they received the second request.... would love to kick back but can't even open a bank account until this is settled you know? hmm...

sorry to bump this one guys but i could really do with some pointers... anyone?

I think we are a little off the point here guys (and gals) this is not about whether it is legal or recommended to drive over the speed limit . speeding is not a serious criminal offence its a minor motoring offense which becomes more serious and can develop into dangerous driving as the 'needle climbs' Weird Al Yankovic - with an attitude like that you MUST be a member of the constabulary, i am very busy in my work thank you very much. My point is that excessive speed is something that needs to be judged by a human - not just looking at the numbers, everyone without exception who has ever overtaken someone on a motorway has broken the speed limit and risked the points etc.. human says 'that was an overtaking maneuver officer' machine says 'your nicked' me and many many other motorists feel harassed and over policed in this (and probably many other) areas. i take the point that cracking down on minor offenses helps to detect and prevent more serious offenses - but it takes a human being to do that! Fixed speed cameras are next to useless, the good drivers (like me!) don't need them, and the bad drivers learn where they are... just revenue machines to catch the unwary commuter out whilst he going about his business (and make everyone stamp on the brakes as a reaction, speeding or not). Don't even get me started on the mobile speed traps and enforcement officers hiding by the side of the road, public servants hunting the public... what next.

hi, yes traveling at 80 is speeding (over the limit) but the offense is not 'speeding' or '80 in a 70' its 'excessive speed'. is 80 miles an hour excessive speed if everyone is doing it, or making progress? would it actually be safer for me to obstruct the flow of traffic by slowing down? etc.. actually, my biggest complaint is that drivers can and DO get done for 2-3 mph over the limit (tho perhaps not on a motorway). more traffic cops, less cameras, safe driving cannot be measured or guaranteed in mph. speed limits, no i'll rephrase that... the way that speed limits are enforced removes responsibility for correct use of speed from the driver, speed cameras anywhere outside city areas and schools are a danger and a disguised form of road tax. safespeed.org.uk was worth a look, thanks for that!

thank you for these interesting responses! first off.. G&M - i have a clean license.. if i didn't have, the DSA would revoke my warrant card and i'd be out of a job (that i love), i do not choose to speed. secondly, the highway code is a book of guidelines, it is not the law - although it is often quoted in police proceedings. In no way am i advocating a disregard for the rules of the road, having driven extensively in third world countries (asia- 3 years) i have seen the 'no rules' carnage first hand. i am simply saying that driving (a privilege not a right, i agree) is a distinctly human skill, it cannot be replicated by machine because it involves judgment. why should mine or anyone else's driving ability be judged by a machine? at such a high cost! pin1onu makes some valid points here... Schools + children = 20 limit + speed camera. no problem. Busy commuter road with people just trying to get to work? speed camera = extortion. my point is, dangerous drivers need to be nicked, we should have a clear definition of what constitutes dangerous driving and it should be realistic. The law and its enforcement officers were not invented to protect me from myself, they were invented to protect vulnerable members of society from other people. if i choose to travel at 80 miles an hour on the motorway (along with everyone else!) this is the safest thing to do - keep up with the flow of traffic - but it could cost me my job, what should i do? at the same time someone passes me at 99 mph with a mobile phone stuck in his ear, i am 'making progress' he is 'driving dangerously' (imho)- but the penalty is the same - 3 points and a fine. As Rob S said, it is the emphasis that is all wrong.

this is going to be controversial.... but i make no apologies for that . I am an experienced and and well qualified motorcycle instructor, i know the highway code very well and i spend at least 6 hours of every single day riding my motorcycle - on the roads of this fair country. who amongst us thinks that speed limits, the use of speed cameras and traps etc is right? useful? promotes safety on the roads? i have seen more erratic and dangerous behaviour in front of speed cameras/traps than anywhere else, why? because no matter how fast you are going, if you suddenly see one - you stamp on the brakes. this whole 'hounding motorists for money' thing is now bordering on extortion. for those interested, the actual offence is not '33 in a 30' its 'excessive speed' of course we've all forgotten that point, and so have the police. the policies of local police forces to always issue a FPN is not a legal requirement, there was a time when a police officer was allowed to judge for him/her self whether or not this was needed - now it is a matter of policy. enforcing speed limits achieves the sole purpose of removing responsibility for 'correct use of speed' from the driver, i wonder how many police have attended an accident involving a pedestrian and heard the famous 'i was only doing 30' line. because 30 is the pre judged speed for that road - the average driver no longer thinks, and people get hurt. the whole logic behind speed limits/cameras/traps just defies belief to me, it's like being fined/endorsed etc 'in case you crash' its all very scarey to me and i can't believe that as a nation we put up with it. all polite comments/criticisms appreciated

hi saintly, i defaulted on this loan in mid 2005. i left the country actually- i have made no payments and no aknowledgment of the debt since. Credit resource solutions were harrassing some friends of mine at a previous address, i CCA'd them through a 'care of' address in order to stay below their radars for a while longer...

hello! i've been dealing with a lloyds tsb loan default for some time now.. ive got as far as 1) obtaining my CRA files from equifax and 2) sending a second CCA request to Credit Resource Solutions. these two things, but particularly the CRA files were a real mountain to climb but they have finally arrived. Looking at my credit reference agency files i do not appear to have a CCJ, that is indeed brilliant news. Two and a half months after sending my second CCA request to Credit Resource Solutions (recorded delivery of course) and i still haven't heard a thing from them. i want to get on with my life! what should i do now to settle this? should i be making a low offer to settle the debt in view of the fact that i have not recieved the CCA? any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks, toads.

thanks for this, unfortunately i am only able to provide photocopies (or originals actually) of my passport and driving license, this is ridiculous, i'm stuck. toads

hello all, my saga continues and i need some expert opinions on the following please: i've been out of the uk for 3&1/2 years, and i'm now trying to sort out some debts (Lloyds TSB personal loan) i've CCA'd the DCA in question (credit resource solutions), no response yet but it has only been a week or so. Also trying very hard to get my credit reference agency files and that is the problem. i sent requests with payment to two agencies, experian and equifax, heard back from one of them today "we are unable to issue your files to you via the 'care of' address you have provided because of the nature of their content" - the nature of their content is exactly why i want them!!! please provide 3 months of original utility bills - they know that this is impossible, i told them ive been out of the country for 3 years! with the request i sent signed and dated photocopies of my passport and driving license. There really is nothing else that i can provide. even if i gave them my home address instead of a forwarding address i still don't have any bills or anything to substantiate my address. - surely its my ID that they are required to substantiate, not my address? -can they really withhold my records on the ground that they aren't sure where i live? i really need those files as they help to determine my course of action... would a solicitor be able to get them for me? any advice most welcome at this stage, thanks, toads

an another thing..... surely the point of a bank or creditor obtaining a CCJ is so that they can do something about it? my friends have not received a single visit regarding this.... i mean, doesn't a CCJ mean that the courts compell you to pay?... nobody has even tried to compell in the past three years.... toads

thank you, that nails it then, got to get that report somehow.... thinking....thinking..... thanks, toads