Quick quezzie - does a SP30 mean you're a greater risk?

Ed...So the basic fact that I did not go along like others and offer unbending support for your argument has once again led you to be insulting. I find that from you, (of all people on this forum) very dissapointing. But so be it.

[timwilky]

Ed.

Sorry mate, as you well know insurance rates are set based on loads of criteria. including :-

Cost of vehicle, cost of repairs, potential for high cost repairs etc. and the driver risk.

An SP30, means that you have been proven to exceed the limit and are therefore a higher risk.

Imagine how annoyed I was when I discovered that as a result of having had my company car broken into and having to make a claim because the *******s punched the lock through the doorskin causing £900 of damage that the cost of my SV insurance went up by £20 dispite a further years no claims. Simply because there was a claim in my name where I was not at fault.

It is a scam, we all know it. Therefore shop round, I have been told, but never had to establish for myself that many insurance companies do not penalise a one off SP30 as with the increasing occurance of revenue scameras so many people have picked up at least one. and their customer base would desert them should they start unfairly penalising customers.

[steveg]

My wife had a accident in my car on my insurance ( cheaper to insure in my name ) , I was not even driving and was penalised at renewal time as accident had occured on my insurance policy .....

Also had a SP30 which increased 20 quid which I could live with .

As mentioned already if someone breaks in & damages car you get penalised as it effects your insurance history, not fair but to be honest life ain't always .



Cheers Steve

Is this hike at renewal or because you have declared the SP30 during the life of the policy? If at renewal, go elsewhere. If during the term, I'd investigate whether the T&Cs allow them to hike the premium and if so, I'd be surprised if you weren't allowed to cancel at no penalty. If not, it smacks of unfair contract, and I'm sure you know all about that.

I know it smarts (and I'd be fighting too), but you also need to weigh up the cost of your own time and the agro vs the cost.

[Biker Biggles]

I was under the impression that insurance companies ignored one speeding endorsement these days as they are so common as to be meaningless.The rise in the scamera culture has meant that so many have been issued that they almost become the norm.
Having said that,they have been muttering about putting up their prices recently,so maybe this is part of a new regime.
As for the academic question about whether you are a worse risk if you have an SP30,that's a tricky one.Many endorsements could indicate a reckless personality,or devil may care attitude,but one endorsement hardly justifies that.I would guess that they think along the line that no endorsements mean you either obey all the limits or have excellent observation skills,and any falling off that wagon means you are slipping up somewhere.Either way I would shop around for a better deal.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Ed

no doubt pinched from the Halifax / HBOS 'How to Fob Off Customers' book:

It's a very big book that. A lot of companies now disregard one SP30, but we don't. The excuses- and there's some truth to it- is that one of the reasons we're cheaper than most is that we don't give the same sort of discounts. Before you get too worked up about the weighting of the premium, find out how the base price compares, I'd say. And if it doesn't measure up, go somewhere else.

another thing to conisder is insurers will state you are a higher risk when you have speeding convictions because based on their claims stats you probably are. I haven't had too much to do with bike insurance but with cars the evidence does suggest you are more likely to claim if you have points on your licence.

I know lots of people with 6+ points (and even bans) that are much safer drivers than lots of people with pristine licences. I know people with clean licences who have had several accidents that are their fault and I know people whose licences are in tatters who have never been involved in a prang at all.

It's just an excuse to charge you more money; it's not based on any real scientific "calculation of the odds" as they claim. If it were, insurance quotes would differ by about £20-30 (to account for differing profit margins/operating costs) rather than the hundreds of pounds that they do.

[northwind]

Speeding convictions are linked to accident rates. It's meaningless to take single cases- people with 6 points who're very safe, idiots like me that crash all the time on a clean license- risk accounting doesn't deal with individuals but with very large samples. Actuaries don't look to show a reason for a correlation, they just see the correlation and know that statistically, a brown car is more likely to incur a claim over £1000, or that forklift operators are more likely to crash than JCB operators. It doesn't mean that one individual speeder is more of a risk, it means that speeders in general are more of a risk.

There's a reason actuaries are very well paid Though I suspect these weighting decisions aren't done by human actuaries any more.

if im honest ed...

id simply say www.confused.com... is ur friend.

i no longer belive in pressure will get you what you want.. i switch.. no questions asked.

hope you get it resolved.

Alex