Cheaper insurance for same sex couples?

[John Barrett]

I switched to CAMC car insurance today, saving over £100 on the SAGA policy. I mistakenly ticked the Civil Partnership box when describing our 30 unmarried years together. I rang Devitts to correct my error, to be told that the premium would go up by £25!
I was quite miffed at this, so much so that I suggested that I was being discriminated against for being straight!
Silence was the loud reply...

I paid up as it was still a substantial saving, but wtf?

 

[Bill-H]

Civil partnership doesn't mean same sex couple, many hetro couples who chose not to go though a wedding have a civil partnership, gives them the same legal rights as a married couple.
Same sex couples can get married as well

 

[15isto2]

I wonder if it was not the marital status but the making a mistake that made them change your risk profile.

 

[SteveE]

The ECJ banned insurers from pricing based on gender in 2012 (or there abouts), given the round figure I suspect the £25 is an admin fee and not a premium change.

There are of courses proxies that can be used for gender, such as certain occupations which are disproportionately biased towards one gender (at a total guess and not intending to stereotype but for example primary school teachers might be mainly women)… and insurers can legitimately take occupation into account when setting your premium.

 

[SteveE]

Forgot to add… whilst we no longer need to follow new ECJ directives, the old ones still apply unless/until the regulator (in this case the FCA) changes the rules for UK insurers.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[L' Hobo]

I switched to CAMC car insurance today, saving over £100 on the SAGA policy. I mistakenly ticked the Civil Partnership box when describing our 30 unmarried years together. I rang Devitts to correct my error, to be told that the premium would go up by £25!
I was quite miffed at this, so much so that I suggested that I was being discriminated against for being straight!
Silence was the loud reply...

I paid up as it was still a substantial saving, but wtf?

If it had been the BBC, different colours would have got you a 50% discount!

 

[BrochMike]

I switched to CAMC car insurance today, saving over £100 on the SAGA policy. I mistakenly ticked the Civil Partnership box when describing our 30 unmarried years together. I rang Devitts to correct my error, to be told that the premium would go up by £25!
I was quite miffed at this, so much so that I suggested that I was being discriminated against for being straight!
Silence was the loud reply...

I paid up as it was still a substantial saving, but wtf?

Being unmarried is clearly not the same as being either married or in a civil partnership so no, there wouldn't be any discrimination regarding your sexuality.

There is no such thing as 'common law' marriage in UK law and marital status impacts lots of things (not least being implications for inheritance and taxation).

 

[Just smiffy]

It will be the admin charge… you only got to call your insurance for anything and it’ll go up next year…

 

[bobnick]

What Smiffy said.

 

[cyberyacht]

I've often wondered what relevance marital status has on a person's driving ability. Are single people/widows/widowers a greater risk?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Nanniemate]

I've often wondered what relevance marital status has on a person's driving ability. Are single people/widows/widowers a greater risk?

I would have thought less of a risk as the vehicle is only driven from one seat without advice from the passenger seat

 

[meanders]

I would have thought less of a risk as the vehicle is only driven from one seat without advice instruction from the passenger seat

Corrected for you.

 

[Nanniemate]

Corrected for you.

That bu¿¿ered my attempt at being polite

 

[stuartholmes]

I would have thought less of a risk as the vehicle is only driven from one seat without advice from the passenger seat

It's not based on anything lay people's logic or prejudice can divine, it's based on what characteristics their records show are more or less heavily linked with claim costs.

(But I entirely concurr regarding passenger behaviour!)

 

[nicholsong]

I've often wondered what relevance marital status has on a person's driving ability. Are single people/widows/widowers a greater risk?

If there is only one insured, i.e. no other named driver, what relevance is one's social relationship to risk?

Here in Poland, as in many other countries, the insurance attaches to the vehicle, not the person. Many international underwriting companies cover both types of insurance markets, so why these differentiations?

It is instructive that members have quoted different premiums from different 'tied' brokers, backed by the same underwriters. One has to wonder what the Underwriter-Broker premiums are in their contracts, and how they are reflected in the various brokers' quotes to the assureds.

I think there can be made a case for a referral to the FCA for investigation. Something I might be interested in doing, but I doubt that I have the legal standing to do so, since I am no longer resident in UK and am not compelled to insure a vehicle there.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SteveE]

It’s purely driven by historical/actuarial data indicating which risk factors may determine an individuals propensity to claim.

I’ve worked in insurance for 20 odd years and have known of underwriters using data including what ‘day’ of the week someone is born (not their age but day they were born e.g. a Monday v. a Tuesday, or Wednesday, etc, through to the domain of their personal email e.g Hotmail v. Gmail v Yahoo!

All of these things are legitimate in the eyes of the regulator, unlike rating on gender.

 

[John Barrett]

It’s purely driven by historical/actuarial data indicating which risk factors may determine an individuals propensity to claim.

I’ve worked in insurance for 20 odd years and have known of underwriters using data including what ‘day’ of the week someone is born (not their age but day they were born e.g. a Monday v. a Tuesday, or Wednesday, etc, through to the domain of their personal email e.g Hotmail v. Gmail v Yahoo!

All of these things are legitimate in the eyes of the regulator, unlike rating on gender.

I was once friendly with a young underwriter who told me that quite often he just plucked premium costs from thin air!

 

[pappajohn]

and insurers can legitimately take occupation into account when setting your premium.

My mate is a night club manager.
For insurance purposes he's a public entertainment manager.
He isn't lying.

 

[SteveE]

I was once friendly with a young underwriter who told me that quite often he just plucked premium costs from thin air!

Haha… yes there is plenty of that going on too!

 

[stuartholmes]

It’s purely driven by historical/actuarial data indicating which risk factors may determine an individuals propensity to claim.

I’ve worked in insurance for 20 odd years and have known of underwriters using data including what ‘day’ of the week someone is born (not their age but day they were born e.g. a Monday v. a Tuesday, or Wednesday, etc, through to the domain of their personal email e.g Hotmail v. Gmail v Yahoo!

All of these things are legitimate in the eyes of the regulator, unlike rating on gender.

Maybe you remember when the car magazines used to always have a double-page spread of an advert from some motor insurance provider (whose name I unfortunately cannot remember) that proclaimed their research proved that the only factor that affected risk was the driver's age.
Nothing to do with their job, gender or marital status - and especially nothing to do with their car - just their age. (And presumably the validity of their license!)
So they published a big table on which yeu could look up your age and read off your premium.
They apparently got a lot of business until the more established firms closed ranks & got the government to chnge some rule so the newcomer couldn't continue to operate.
It's a dark & sinful business.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[John Barrett]

Maybe you remember when the car magazines used to always have a double-page spread of an advert from some motor insurance provider (whose name I unfortunately cannot remember) that proclaimed their research proved that the only factor that affected risk was the driver's age.
Nothing to do with their job, gender or marital status - and especially nothing to do with their car - just their age. (And presumably the validity of their license!)
So they published a big table on which yeu could look up your age and read off your premium.
They apparently got a lot of business until the more established firms closed ranks & got the government to chnge some rule so the newcomer couldn't continue to operate.
It's a dark & sinful business.

The same thing happened in the 60s to the motorcycle market. Alpha insurance IIRC. THAT didn't work either!

 

[stuartholmes]

The same thing happened in the 60s to the motorcycle market. Alpha insurance IIRC. THAT didn't work either!

So sad! When talking about insurance companies the important word is company, as in make as much money as you can not service, & certainly not mutual benefit society whatever their roots or 'claims'. (No pun intended!)