Okay, this thread seems to have gone round and round in circles and it's quite heated. So, I guess I'll just be adding fuel to the fire (as usual) LOL!

Right then. blueTooth has the best answer so far. If I remember rightly, blueTooth often contributes to the mobile/technology forums and gives sound advice in that area. His efforts here in making others think outside the box shouldn't be discarded - especially where he is the only one showing signs of logical thought!

The topic RE 'being charged more' (which isn't the case) has cropped up before, and therefore please see: http://www.moneysupermarket.com/community/forums/t/children-under-16-increases-premium-19710.aspx

...remembering to 'think outside the box' as you read into the reasoning and the calcuations. It is certainly not discrimination and any suggestion that it is, is nothing more than daft!

With regard to the comment about becoming 'diabetic' and 'premium increase' because of it, then this is also complete rubbish and not just 'daft' but more wholly incorrect, absurd and quite slanderous considering the Disability Discrimination Act, the insurer's legal compliance and the different provisions within DDA and Insurance.

An insurer can choose to accept a person with diabetes, or it can choose not to accept a person with diabetes. It will not load extra onto a premium because of this. Under the DDA, an insurer must prove that a specific group of people are a higher risk due to that specific disability in order to increase it's premium. You may find that this is confused whilst dealing with a broker. If you get a quotation on the internet and you call to confirm cover, the question RE: medical conditions should be asked. If everything on the quotation was correctly transmitted from the internet then it should be the same premium. If the question RE: medical conditions was not specified on the internet or there was a failure to complete this section accurately, the underwriter still needs to be made aware of this material fact. IF the price has subsequently increased, then it should be noted that the particular insurer quoting on the internet are now not, and so the next best insurer is being quoted at it's prevailing premium. The insurer is not loading a premium - they are simply not offering cover. The broker is not loading a premium because brokers don't load premiums, as this is beyond their boundaries of control.

Unfortunately, as this is a technical area of insurance, I can appreciate why this may not be fully understood. The RNID website contains the following piece of information: (note that several other websites tell you the same information).

Insurance

Providing insurance is classed as a service under the DDA. However, there is a justification for discrimination in insurance provision because it is considered reasonable for insurance providers to rely on relevant information to provide insurance. For example, an insurance provider may be able to justify refusing insurance or increasing the insurance premiums for a deaf person. This is possible if they have reliable figures to show that a deaf person was more of a risk and a deaf person could not produce evidence to prove that they were not at risk.

I can assure you that, although this appears on RNID.org.uk, the part mentioning increasing premiums just simply isn't the case (anymore) due to the implications that could arise in proving the risk is increased with that specific disability. The option to increase a premium is there however, and it does fall in line with the DDA. But I re-iterate that insurers either provide one premium or do not provide any premium. If a certain disability starts to give cause for concern, then it will be well documented throughout insurance media and in the national press, especially where changes are set to be implemented.

I do hope this clears the matter in it's entirety. Comments, such as the ones contained in this thread, are derogatory to the insurance industry and thorough research into the matter should be completed before commenting. If there are qualms within certain areas, then say 'Let's discuss why it might be', or 'why it seems unfair'... but comments like "That's disgusting", "That's discrimination" simply makes the OP look silly as the research into their argument clearly hasn't been sought.

As I have stated in a different thread, MoneySupermarket is a vital tool within the financial industry. It's soaring popularity, especially within the forums, means that not only is it one of the leading comparison sites but that it's powerful one. Therefore it is imperative that information is as factually sound as it can be. Of course it is stressed that information within the forums do not represent that of a body wishing to accept liability arising out of any advice given, and that professional advice should be obtained; but people do take things on face value. It's true to say that Insurance is very technical and it can be very confusing which is why MoneySupermarket allow for the raising of awareness in this area. Let's put it to good use!

shiverkitten:

daryl1987:

That, to me atleast, seems to indicate that these insurers deem it unfair or are atleast aware enough to realise that this will cause more trouble than it's worth.

I think you will find it is only the latter point that gives the insurers pause. God preserve us from being skittles under the wheels of nacroleptic diabetics out celebrating their cheap insurance.

Apologies but I don't see the validity of this post. It's the DVLA's job to issue restrictions in the event that a medical condition can effect an individual's driving ability.

daryl1987:

That, to me atleast, seems to indicate that these insurers deem it unfair or are atleast aware enough to realise that this will cause more trouble than it's worth.

blueTooth:

No I'm not an underwriter, just a member of the public.

The logic is simple, underwriters single out most things that they deem to be a risk to safe driving. If an underwriter deems that having children in the car that can be noisy, kick the back of the drivers chair, throw themselves around the back fighting, be sick or any other reason cause a distraction that could lead to an accident, it is within their rights to add a premium to that. If you have points on your licence then you have to pay a greater premium. I would imagine that (although someone might correct me on this) if you ran a quote through as a healthy driver, then put in exactly the same details but delcared a medical condition then the quote would be different. I know of people who have been unable to drive because they have epilepsy - simply screaming "discrimination" at this point would be madness - an eplileptic fit could lead to a serious accident including death and as such the danger would need to be accounted for.

My point though was that there is plenty of choice in the market out there - if someone isnt happy with having their premium loaded because they have children then the simplest thing is to move on and find another company, not scream DISCRIMINATION as loudly as possible in the hope that the situation will change.

As far as being an unscrupulous underwriter is concerned Daryl, you should be greatfull that there are people out there who watch out for others by restricting certain high-risk groups! It would be awful if you suffered an injury, or indeed lost your life or that of someone close to you due to a collision with a high risk driver - I'm sure you'd be the first to question how that driver managed to get insurance (assuming you were still alive to do so of course).

Its not up to you or I to decide what is and isnt a high risk driver group, that's why we have underwriters. Remember that driving is not a right, its a privilege!!

We seem to be going round in circles here, and while I understand your logic with regards to your explanation as to why insurance companies are within their rights to increase a premium, I do not think you are looking at the bigger picture. Say you were diagnosed with diabetes, would you consider it fair for you to make your insurance company aware of this and for them to increase your premium? I would imagine if that was the case the "lucky" adviser who made you aware of this increase would be in for a stream of verbal abuse.

Also regarding having your kids in your vehicle whilst driving, Diamond are the first insurance company that I have heard of increasing the premium as a result of the policy holder having children, that seems to indicate that your enthusiasm for their decision is not shared by the insurance industry in a whole. I can name a dozen insurers off the top of my head right now who impose no such restriction. That, to me atleast, seems to indicate that these insurers deem it unfair or are atleast aware enough to realise that this will cause more trouble than it's worth.

I get the feelinig your taking exception to the word "discrimination" being used rather than taking offense to the fact that people deem one particular insurance company's rating criteria unfair.

Oh and regarding your assumption that getting a quote with a medical condition included would be more than a quote without, in my experience (and I can assure you it does stand for something) you would be incorrect.

No I'm not an underwriter, just a member of the public.

The logic is simple, underwriters single out most things that they deem to be a risk to safe driving. If an underwriter deems that having children in the car that can be noisy, kick the back of the drivers chair, throw themselves around the back fighting, be sick or any other reason cause a distraction that could lead to an accident, it is within their rights to add a premium to that. If you have points on your licence then you have to pay a greater premium. I would imagine that (although someone might correct me on this) if you ran a quote through as a healthy driver, then put in exactly the same details but delcared a medical condition then the quote would be different. I know of people who have been unable to drive because they have epilepsy - simply screaming "discrimination" at this point would be madness - an eplileptic fit could lead to a serious accident including death and as such the danger would need to be accounted for.

My point though was that there is plenty of choice in the market out there - if someone isnt happy with having their premium loaded because they have children then the simplest thing is to move on and find another company, not scream DISCRIMINATION as loudly as possible in the hope that the situation will change.

As far as being an unscrupulous underwriter is concerned Daryl, you should be greatfull that there are people out there who watch out for others by restricting certain high-risk groups! It would be awful if you suffered an injury, or indeed lost your life or that of someone close to you due to a collision with a high risk driver - I'm sure you'd be the first to question how that driver managed to get insurance (assuming you were still alive to do so of course).

Its not up to you or I to decide what is and isnt a high risk driver group, that's why we have underwriters. Remember that driving is not a right, its a privilege!!

blueTooth:

daryl1987:

blueTooth:

They're a private company and they can impose any rule they like. The beauty of a free-market economy is that you can go elsewhere if you dont like their terms and conditions. And as for "discrimination"? What a load of rubbish, they are perfectly within their rights to impose rules based on what they believe to be acceptable risks. If you think that being offered more expensive car insurance is being discriminated against you should try living in some parts of the world such as China and North Korea!

Honestly people, get a grip!!!!

Car insurance companies are not within their rights to 'discriminate', while I can see the relation between having children and getting distracted by young children while driving I still have never heard of an insurance company increasing a premium as a result of this. Under your defination, do you think it would be fair for an insurance company to impose an additional premium as a result of a medical condition which has no links to safety during driving?

Yes I do. If you dont like it you can go find another insurance company, there are plenty out there, and as I said earlier, insurance companies are free to price as they see fit for whatever purposes. I think you need to get a grip on what discrimination really means - in this case you would be hard-pushed to get a successfull conviction for discrimination simply because a car insurance company wants to charge you more because you have children. If they view children as a distraction that could lead to an accident due to driver inattention then that is their right. If they wish to decide that a driver with a medical condition that has no links to safety will driving is an increased risk (as any medical condition could lead to a sudden illness which may be a safety issue) then that is their perogative.

Honestly some people these days think that all they have to do is spit their dummy out and scream "discrimination" and they'll automatically get what they want.

Without meaning to sound rude, are you an insurance underwriter? Because you seem to have a very keen interest in the calculation of prices and the various things that would make a person higher risk. If you are an underwriter, can you please tell me which insurance companies you do underwrite for so that I can avoid them in the future.

I was informed yesterday by a leading insurance underwriter that they are not aloud to discriminate (their words not mine) against an individual as a result of a medical condition. I would assume that there will be something under the FSA guidelines regarding this. I fail to see the logic in your opinion that insurance companies should have the right to single people out as the result of a medical condition or because they have children. Next you're going to be telling me that people of asian descent should be penalised on the basis of the (incorrect) stereotype that they are all particularly bad drivers.

mooreaz:

testydonkey:

TBH kids are only ever in cars at around 8:45 in the morning and then again at 3:15.You shouldnt be allowed a car if you have kids, it will solve many problems:

1) Less fat kids. Children may be forced to walk further therefore get more exercise

2) Less CO2. This follows as there will be less cars on the road

3) Less cars on the road meaning i can spend more quality time in bed. Less congestion will mean that journey times will be reduced

4) No more 4x4's trying to reverse into me and parking in rediculous places. A lot of 4x4s are seen on the school run - eliminate the school run and this arguement isnt far off the mark

Oh do grow up, Donkey. This is a very silly argument.

Whilst it might be an extreme view, he does have some valid points (highlighted in bold) There's no denying his logic is sound!

Discrimination is "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. "

By the definition above, every driver buying insurance is discriminated against, as we belong to groups who have points on their licence, groups who drive high mileage a year because of their jobs, groups who have 1year NCD, groups who have 10years NCD, groups who are under 25 - the list is endless and nobody complains about discrimination here, so there's NO reason why having children should be any different.

testydonkey:

TBH kids are only ever in cars at around 8:45 in the morning and then again at 3:15.You shouldnt be allowed a car if you have kids, it will solve many problems:

1) Less fat kids.

2) Less CO2.

3) Less cars on the road meaning i can spend more quality time in bed.

4) No more 4x4's trying to reverse into me and parking in rediculous places.

Oh do grow up, Donkey. This is a very silly argument.

daryl1987:

blueTooth:

They're a private company and they can impose any rule they like. The beauty of a free-market economy is that you can go elsewhere if you dont like their terms and conditions. And as for "discrimination"? What a load of rubbish, they are perfectly within their rights to impose rules based on what they believe to be acceptable risks. If you think that being offered more expensive car insurance is being discriminated against you should try living in some parts of the world such as China and North Korea!

Honestly people, get a grip!!!!

Car insurance companies are not within their rights to 'discriminate', while I can see the relation between having children and getting distracted by young children while driving I still have never heard of an insurance company increasing a premium as a result of this. Under your defination, do you think it would be fair for an insurance company to impose an additional premium as a result of a medical condition which has no links to safety during driving?

Yes I do. If you dont like it you can go find another insurance company, there are plenty out there, and as I said earlier, insurance companies are free to price as they see fit for whatever purposes. I think you need to get a grip on what discrimination really means - in this case you would be hard-pushed to get a successfull conviction for discrimination simply because a car insurance company wants to charge you more because you have children. If they view children as a distraction that could lead to an accident due to driver inattention then that is their right. If they wish to decide that a driver with a medical condition that has no links to safety will driving is an increased risk (as any medical condition could lead to a sudden illness which may be a safety issue) then that is their perogative.

Honestly some people these days think that all they have to do is spit their dummy out and scream "discrimination" and they'll automatically get what they want.

TBH kids are only ever in cars at around 8:45 in the morning and then again at 3:15.You shouldnt be allowed a car if you have kids, it will solve many problems:

1) Less fat kids.

2) Less CO2.

3) Less cars on the road meaning i can spend more quality time in bed.

4) No more 4x4's trying to reverse into me and parking in rediculous places.

blueTooth:

They're a private company and they can impose any rule they like. The beauty of a free-market economy is that you can go elsewhere if you dont like their terms and conditions. And as for "discrimination"? What a load of rubbish, they are perfectly within their rights to impose rules based on what they believe to be acceptable risks. If you think that being offered more expensive car insurance is being discriminated against you should try living in some parts of the world such as China and North Korea!

Honestly people, get a grip!!!!

Car insurance companies are not within their rights to 'discriminate', while I can see the relation between having children and getting distracted by young children while driving I still have never heard of an insurance company increasing a premium as a result of this. Under your defination, do you think it would be fair for an insurance company to impose an additional premium as a result of a medical condition which has no links to safety during driving?

testydonkey:They also charge you more if you are young and male. Now thats a joke.

They're a private company and they can impose any rule they like. The beauty of a free-market economy is that you can go elsewhere if you dont like their terms and conditions. And as for "discrimination"? What a load of rubbish, they are perfectly within their rights to impose rules based on what they believe to be acceptable risks. If you think that being offered more expensive car insurance is being discriminated against you should try living in some parts of the world such as China and North Korea!

Honestly people, get a grip!!!!

Oh don't be silly.