There is a policy available through "And insure" where all a families vehicles can be put on one single policy. The only stipulation is that there are more cars/vehicles than people, young drivers are ok and all drivers earn their own bonus. Give  them a call on 0800 846 846 or go to the website.

I read all these postings when trying to get car insurance for our 2nd small car which my son could learn to drive in. I found the cheapest way to insure it was in my name which was a bit of a shock as I have never had car insurance and therefore had nil no claims discount, with  my husband and son as the named drivers. This saved me about £300. I found Quinn  Direct to be the most competitive of all.

Good luck

I am a Driving Instructor and I find it appalling that young drivers are persecuted in the fact that they have to pay a premium  higher than anyone else. At the point of going for test they are probably the safest drivers on the road at that particular time. I teach several students who are from under priviliged backgrounds who can only afford the most basic of cars but because of their post code pay the most outrageous premiums. Why not set a one fee tariff of say £300 for a new driver and restrict them to 1000 cc for the first year, then if they commit driving offences and other such mis-demeanour*** them with a hefty rise in their second year. The high premiums only lead to a rise in young drivers driving without insurance and when an accident occurs everyone suffers. Older drivers I find are more likely to be involved in accidents or indeed cause them so my next point is that after a certain period of driving then people should be re-assessed for their continuing abilty of fitness to control a motor vehicle. What are your views?

My view is you are talking nonsense,,sorry to be so blunt but its true.

Inusrance stats prove over 50s are 36% less likely to make a claim than under 50s plus over 70% less likely than under 25's.

As for setting a rate of £300,you really have no clue about insurance risk ,people pay a lot more than £300 with more driving experiance and maximum ncd!!

Rates are likely to be because a variety of different reasons

1)driver age and length of experiance driving(in your students cases no experiance means no meaningfull driving awareness/experiance on their own without an aid)

 2)general risk in that age group,area and car group

3)-average of £30 premium is loaded to put towards cost of dealing with un-insured driver claim.

If we gonna talk sense about a set rate lets say upto £1000 for low group cars and upto £3000 for the boy/girl racers wanting to insure turbo cars,im talking about a cap rate cos some younger drivers deserve good rates and some dont!!

There is a scheme for young drivers that manages the insurance risk. I do have an interest in the scheme but also a passion for keeping young drivers and their passengers safe. The risk is managed by supplying newer cars with higher safety ratings with better controls, power steering, ABS brakes etc and insisting upon additional driver training such as Pass Plus. The insurance premiums are, however, a fraction of market rates

Taking a logical approach, a driving instructor teaches a pupil in a new car with modern technology and the chances are all the controls do what they should. After passing a test which is taken in relatively benign circumstances, the young driver now has the ability to drive any heap. Any 10 year old car will still be relatively expensive as they carry small car premiums but they handle like puddings compared to a new car and that is if everything still works properly. Put a few friends in and that pudding turns into blancmange, with an inexpreienced driver at the wheel.

Who teaches young inexperienced drivers to drive these older cars? Any youngster in any era is/was tempted to push the boundaries, some learn by their mistakes, some are risk adverse, others are not so lucky. Of course older drivers will be a better insurance risk, they have a more miles under their belt.

Government stats show that 1 in 5 young drivers will crash in their first 12 months behind the wheel, on this managed scheme it is closer to 1 in 100. Whilst there have been a few write offs out of the 600+ cars on the scheme, only 4 were the fault of the young drivers, with no injuries or worse. In one of those the father is on record as saying that his son and four passengers would not be alive had the car a few years older, such was the severity of the crash As it was they were wearing seat belts, the 6 air bags deployed and they just opened the doors and stepped out.  

OK this scheme won't be right for everyone as it involves a new or nearly new car and economic reality comes into the equation but there will come a point where young driver insurance will be so high that managing the risk will be the only way forward. As from tomorrow, one large company no longer insures under 25 yo, even as a named driver - other companies will follow, reducing the options and this will send premiums up for this sector.

Did you ask Quinn what the premium would be after your son passes his test?

We have seen situations in the past where the premium from that company virtually double after the young driver passes the driving test by which time you are trapped. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but all that glitters is not gold.

 

Chances are he probably has not and chances are quinn probably will raise the premium if the quote he took up is dirt cheap,a lot of people who read this thread that are not regular memembers need to understand that they have to check for all eventualitys cos if they dont you will see it bite you on your backside.

I hope the worst scenario doesnt come around for this customer.

Im starting to have a guilty concience working for insurers for last 4 years till present when i hear cases like this ,just finished a underwriting  course,came across lots of exclusions in my companys policy booklet i never knew about and most of the general public wont find out unless they read the t+Cs beforehand.

How can a insurer not payout if someone steels your car without your permisson and they live in your home,surely if the police are able to prosecute then whats the problem.

Most T&Cs are fair but hardly read in detail or not at all until it is too late.

Raising the premium for a change in risk (ie passing the driving test) will not necessarily be in there, but not telling the insurer that a driver has passed their test could invalidate the policy. A scenario - learner driver is insured as provisional driver in Mum's car, passes the test and takes Mum's car to school. At lunchtime takes a few friends out and showing off,  crashes. Unless they have told the insurance company of the change in status, not insured. 6 points, licence gone until test is retaken - insurance in the future - forget it or think of a number and double it.

Most people believe that a learner driver is a greater risk - wrong.

Don't understand your last paragraph - what is that all about?

An insurance underwriter with a conscience? Steady on, you will have to have that surgically removed if you want to get on in that industry.  

If you are talking about the payout,its something i read in my company t+cs about if someone living at your home i.e family memebr or lodger,steals your car and damages it,the insurer i work for doesnt pay out for any damage or write off caused by this.

I can get on in this industry no problem,you just have to work the system to the customers advantage and do the best you can for them,without impacting on the insurers profits.

That's because the policyholder has contributed to the loss by leaving the keys about. Any excuse not to pay out.

 

But what i dont understand is if policyholder has taken alll reasonable steps to keep car secure and keys in safe place then surely the insurer should be liable still.

You could say policyolder has contributed by living in a bad risk area or buying a highly favoourbale car for car thieves to steal,yet insurers will cover for those risks so why is this one so easy to get out of paying for??

If you were the insurance company and it was your decision with your money at stake, will you accept liability in those circumstances? Insurers don't use vague words such as "should" and "could" as there is an element of doubt in their meaning.