compulsory theft excess??

since when has this been on insurance policies. Obviously just since I
renewed last year, but why (other than to maximise profits/reduce
payouts).

Any one know if there is a get around?

Surely all it will do will make the "value" that is acceptable to the
claimant be whatever that may be plus the excess amount?

 

Since always. Just reinsured with Aunty Carole and couldn't avoid a
massive £250 excess. Makes a bit of a mockery of FC insurance really.
I queried it and the drone reconed all the inscos they dealt with were
a minimum of £250, some £500 ffs !!

 

let me clarify this a bit, there has always been a compulsory excess,
but there is now a specifically listed compulsory excess for
theft/fire/malicious damage.

all my quotes so far a have had a comp. excess of 350, with the other
theft excess the same or in some cases 550

so are they perhaps just listing this out now as in some cases it may
differ for accident to theft/fire/malicious damage.

 

TPO perhaps?

 

In another place someone was bemoaning the increasingly common practice of
levying a fee to make any changes to a policy.

Both are simply a consequence of the pressure on base premiums driven by
"comparison" sites. I have paid around £100 for a full comp policy
including breakdown recovery for the last 5 or 6 years. Usually with C Nash
but one of the years was with Ebike.

It seems insurers have adopted the same model as the cheap airlines. Offer
a low base price to pull the punters in and then make money on the added
value transactions. This suits me and seems to suit them, looking at the
profits some are making. I've had the same bike and address for 8 years and
made no claims, benefitting from the low base insurance price.

The alternative is that those extra charges are aggregated across all
premiums and I'd rather the Niges of the world get stung for a £30 admin
fee every time he changes a bike. I'm also happy to see that all claimants
pay an admin fee (that's what a policy excess is effectively) when they
make a claim, regardless of circumstances. Why should a crasher be treated
different to someone who has a bike stolen from the Arndale Centre?

No. It's a supplier controlled market. The alternative is SORN.

I think not. The insurers have all of the trump cards and use the same used
price guides as the motor trade.

 

Which with some ins co's costs more than fully comp as you are seen as
HIGH RISK.

 

I wonder just how many people adjust the 'value' of their vehicle to
take into account the excess?

 

I advised V to do exactly that when she was renewing her scooter
insurance last week.

Daft not to, really.

 

Cool. Pint of Waggledance please.

 

If you'd paid attention I stated something very similar earlier in the
thread. You'd have to work hard to get an assessor to move from the lower
end of the NCAP figures. They'll quite happily use the scales to reduce the
value for higher than average mileage but just like car sales people, try
to avoid using the scales that add value for low mileage vehicles.

 

Last (two) times we had very little difficulty. Once because, really,
it was the insoco's fault. They lost my Triple.

On the other occasion, the car was pretty unusual, and there were very
few ad in autotrader that validated there value, and far more that
validated mine.

Wasn't top end of scale, though.

C

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
#www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk