Refused insurance because of age.

[frenchie46]

I'm 79 and was shocked when I tried to get a weeks temp insurance to drive my granddaughter's car. Apparently no ins co will insure an over 75 for short term ins. I have read that there is a law that makes it illegal to refuse ins on the basis of age, yet this is ignored by ins cos. This makes me worry about the difficulty of getting normal ins when I'm 81 (2 years time! ) as apparently it used to be a cut off point for ins.

I would be grateful if any of you who have reached this great age of wisdom (I wish!) could comment on their experience. Have you been refused? What did you do?

Many thanks.

 

[L' Hobo]

The 1940 cohort had an average life expectancy at birth of about 62. Their parents' life expectancy at birth was 10 years shorter.

I think those numbers were probably misleading as that includes WW2?

I and my 5 siblings born between 1935 & 45.
Except for the 2 that died of Cancer in their mid 60's and my eldest brother who died at 86, the rest of us are still alive!

 

[L' Hobo]

A lot of old people will soon just drive without insurance , licenses or Tax ,, you dont piss off the elderly as we have nothing to lose .

The kids can do it, why shouldn't we have a second childhood?

 

[Lenny HB]

My father in law had many years NCD until he reached his 80s when he suddenly started bouncing off other cars, the garage door and the garden wall. He was never to blame,

I had a mum like that, round her house one day waiting for her, a bang outside she had shunted my car a foot down the road and then completely denighed it. Another time she said someone's hit my car and broken my indicator. White paint on the wing of her car guess what colour the neighbour who car parks in front was.
When her car needed something doing to it I took it home and left it on my drive for 6 months and she got used to not having a car she was 84 at the time.

 

[L' Hobo]

I had a mum like that, round her house one day waiting for her, a bang outside she had shunted my car a foot down the road and then completely denighed it. Another time she said someone's hit my car and broken my indicator. White paint on the wing of her car guess what colour the neighbour who car parks in front was.
When her car needed something doing to it I took it home and left it on my drive for 6 months and she got used to not having a car she was 84 at the time.

I had a brother like that and he was 23!

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

 

[Dorwyn]

A lot of old people will soon just drive without insurance , licenses or Tax ,, you dont piss off the elderly as we have nothing to lose .

Well many youngsters do it. Why not!

 

[Barryh]

Years ago I was sat in my parked car. A gentleman of very advanced years got into the car in front of me, put his car into reverse and then shot backwards into the front of my car. No need for insurance he says, just take it round the corner to Gordon’s Ford and they will fix it for you. Turns out he was “old Mr Gordon” and “he does it all the time”. Anyway the car got fixed with no insurance involved. Clearly he shouldn’t have been anywhere near driving and I just wonder if he was insured at all.

 

[PaulW2]

I think those numbers were probably misleading as that includes WW2?

I and my 5 siblings born between 1935 & 45.
Except for the 2 that died of Cancer in their mid 60's and my eldest brother who died at 86, the rest of us are still alive!

The long term graph looks like this. Some dips and peaks, but things have really taken off for recent generations.

 

[Nanniemate]

I'm 79 and was shocked when I tried to get a weeks temp insurance to drive my granddaughter's car. Apparently no ins co will insure an over 75 for short term ins. I have read that there is a law that makes it illegal to refuse ins on the basis of age, yet this is ignored by ins cos. This makes me worry about the difficulty of getting normal ins when I'm 81 (2 years time! ) as apparently it used to be a cut off point for ins.

I would be grateful if any of you who have reached this great age of wisdom (I wish!) could comment on their experience. Have you been refused? What did you do?

Many thanks.

Be put onto her insurance as named driver

 

[vanphil]

The camping and caravan club will not quote for anyone over 75.

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

 

[Lenny HB]

And now when you seek out new insurance you will have to answer the question

‘’ have you been refused insurance in the past”’

You will have to answer that truthfully and that alone will load your premiums…

You only get refused for serious offences what they normally do is decline to quote.

 

[Winchester123]

You have outlived far more than half of your birth cohort. And a significant percentage of those who are still alive are in poor health. And a significant number also aren't financially well off. All the monkeys do eventually surrender, but not all at the same time

Surprisingly not so. The median age of death is higher than life expectancy (mean age of death)
The median age of death is the age at which half of a population dies before that age, and half die after, while life expectancy is the average number of years a person can expect to live:

• Median age of death
  The middle value of all ages at death in a population. It's less affected by deaths in infancy and childhood than life expectancy.
  
  
• Life expectancy
  The average number of years a person can expect to live, calculated by taking into account the mortality rates at each age. Life expectancy can be influenced by extreme outliers in a number set.
  

Here's some information about median age of death and life expectancy in the UK:

• In 2018–2020, the median age of death in the UK was 85.8 years.
  
  
• In 2020, the median age of death in England and Wales was 81.8 years for males and 85.5 years for females.
  
  
• Between 1841 and 2020, both the median age of death and life expectancy at birth approximately doubled for males and females in England and Wales.

 

[PaulW2]

Surprisingly not so. The median age of death is higher than life expectancy (mean age of death)
The median age of death is the age at which half of a population dies before that age, and half die after, while life expectancy is the average number of years a person can expect to live:

• Median age of death
  The middle value of all ages at death in a population. It's less affected by deaths in infancy and childhood than life expectancy.
  
  
• Life expectancy
  The average number of years a person can expect to live, calculated by taking into account the mortality rates at each age. Life expectancy can be influenced by extreme outliers in a number set.

Here's some information about median age of death and life expectancy in the UK:

• In 2018–2020, the median age of death in the UK was 85.8 years.
  
  
• In 2020, the median age of death in England and Wales was 81.8 years for males and 85.5 years for females.
  
  
• Between 1841 and 2020, both the median age of death and life expectancy at birth approximately doubled for males and females in England and Wales.

He did outlive more than half of his age cohort, however measured. And many of those who remain are in poor health.

 

[The Wino]

Now imagine insurers were told as a matter of regulation that, to the extent that age is a factor, all people older than 70 had to be treated the same. Or all people older than 60. Or all people older than 50.

What would that do?

Put up the premiums for everyone else presumably

 

[The Wino]

From their driving history might be a start?

If that history is no worse when they are in their 80's than it was in their 60's, then it must be Age Discrimination!

Why should Insurance Companies be allowed to Discriminate!

So what happens with people of working age when they change occupation? They can have a big jump in premiums despite no claims because occupation is one of the profiles used to calculate risk. Presumably that's another form of discrimination.
Statistically older people are higher risk. If that's accepted as a general rule ( and there will be figures to support it) not using age to calculate premiums just means everyone else will be subbing older drivers

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

 

[PaulW2]

Put up the premiums for everyone else presumably

A bit. There are fewer drivers in each of the older categories and the claims experience isn’t that dramatically different.

But see for instance the alternative which has already been mentioned, where the car rather than the driver is insured. It’s the norm in many - I think most - countries.

The problem of the oldie who can’t afford it largely disappears in this scenario. They can still live in their house, get to the shops, get themselves to the medics and so on.

In my case (in my 60s) my Portuguese car insurance is roughly equal to in the UK where I have a maximum no claims bonus. And unlike the UK they don’t fret about annual mileage. Or who drives the car, what their health conditions are etc. - that’s for the licensing authorities.

It’s an instance of a class of problem (there are many examples) where the individual versus collective is played off in a particular way in the UK.

A way of balancing judgments about what is socially necessary and desirable.

In our situation there is a greater bias towards profit seeking companies and atomised individuals at the mercy of these companies.

The missing piece is often good regulation and a better handle on the individual/collective aspects.

It’s pretty much everywhere in the UK, even in places we may not expect it. So train prices are high. Therefore travel is expensive. Therefore property prices and rentals nearer town centres are higher. Therefore essential workers have problems. Therefore plans need to be devised.

But why are train prices high? Public policy that privatised railways will meet their needs from ticket prices. Why are they cheaper elsewhere? Because they view it as a public good and it is to a greater degree subsidised from the public purse.

And are our trains better? On the contrary.

It’s not even properly a capitalist/socialist distinction. Our tax burden is just as high as in those countries, our nanny state at least as overweening and the elements under central command and control are equally formidable.

It’s just how individual citizens are regarded I think.

 

[The Wino]

A bit. There are fewer drivers in each of the older categories and the claims experience isn’t that dramatically different.

But see for instance the alternative which has already been mentioned, where the car rather than the driver is insured. It’s the norm in many - I think most - countries.

The problem of the oldie who can’t afford it largely disappears in this scenario. They can still live in their house, get to the shops, get themselves to the medics and so on.

In my case (in my 60s) my Portuguese car insurance is roughly equal to in the UK where I have a maximum no claims bonus. And unlike the UK they don’t fret about annual mileage. Or who drives the car, what their health conditions are etc. - that’s for the licensing authorities.

It’s an instance of a class of problem (there are many examples) where the individual versus collective is played off in a particular way in the UK.

A way of balancing judgments about what is socially necessary and desirable.

In our situation there is a greater bias towards profit seeking companies and atomised individuals at the mercy of these companies.

The missing piece is often good regulation and a better handle on the individual/collective aspects.

It’s pretty much everywhere in the UK, even in places we may not expect it. So train prices are high. Therefore travel is expensive. Therefore property prices and rentals nearer town centres are higher. Therefore essential workers have problems. Therefore plans need to be devised.

But why are train prices high? Public policy that privatised railways will meet their needs from ticket prices. Why are they cheaper elsewhere? Because they view it as a public good and it is to a greater degree subsidised from the public purse.

And are our trains better? On the contrary.

It’s not even properly a capitalist/socialist distinction. Our tax burden is just as high as in those countries, our nanny state at least as overweening and the elements under central command and control are equally formidable.

It’s just how individual citizens are regarded I think.

I don't know of how claims are processed in Portugal after an accident I suspect a big part of the reason our insurance is so high is the high cost of dealing with accidents in terms of hire cars personal injury claims etc.

 

[L' Hobo]

So what happens with people of working age when they change occupation? They can have a big jump in premiums despite no claims because occupation is one of the profiles used to calculate risk. Presumably that's another form of discrimination.
Statistically older people are higher risk. If that's accepted as a general rule ( and there will be figures to support it) not using age to calculate premiums just means everyone else will be subbing older drivers

I'm not going to get into an argument BUT are older people MORE of a risk?

I read a report recently that said, the recently qualified drivers between 18 -30yrs had more financial and fatal accidents.

I can understand this because, in my experience, older people might have more accidents BUT at a lower speed and rarely cause fatalities.
They do less mileage and there is less of them driving!

I think we must endeavour to remove this belief that ALL older drivers are dangerous and a poor risk!

PS. I have maximum NCB, a clean driving licence despite averaging 46,000 MLS a year until I retired and haven't been in accident for, at least, 30+yrs despite being nearly 80yrs old!

PPS. I honestly think, it is the DUTY of EVERYONE to report, or STOP, ANYONE, however much you love them, from driving IF you believe they are dangerous!

It's hard living with the knowledge that you have taken someone else's life!
Thank God, in my case, it wasn't through driving!

 

[Dutch 68]

"they would not take on any new clients if 80 years old"
That's shocking. And worrying. I'm sure it's against the law. But I suppose they could get round it by offering a ridiculously high premium. I know two 65ish year olds that definitely should NOT be driving. But they go by their actuarial tables rather then the individual I suppose.

My neighbour is 94 years old and drives his jaguar every day, and guess what, it’s a manual gearbox too, he struggles to walk but can drive just fine

 

[PaulW2]

I don't know of how claims are processed in Portugal after an accident I suspect a big part of the reason our insurance is so high is the high cost of dealing with accidents in terms of hire cars personal injury claims etc.

Maybe. But those things you wouldn’t expect to be very different between countries.

But the insurance architecture we’re working with in the UK forever strives to slice people into ever finer risk categories.

Age, post code, history, points on licence, mileage, time of day you drive, whether it’s to a place of work. On and on.

Take it far enough and you have a risk group of 1.

Who are the winners and losers in this?

Obviously the companies are winners or they wouldn’t do it.

What do they win? Bigger profits - that’s what winning means after all.

And who loses? Anyone who falls off the edges. Or who stops paying attention for one year, gets whacked with a premium increase and doesn’t consult the meerkat. Or who falls foul of one of the endless changes to factor loadings, shifts in market positioning and so on.

How can this be balanced so that people don’t fall off the edges? Regulation. Where are the regulators? Nowhere to be seen.

The counter example wasn’t really about Portugal as such, but a different way of tackling the problem which probably delivers better social utility. Which most of Europe does.

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

 

[PaulW2]

Maybe. But those things you wouldn’t expect to be very different between countries.

But the insurance architecture we’re working with in the UK forever strives to slice people into ever finer risk categories.

Age, post code, history, points on licence, mileage, time of day you drive, whether it’s to a place of work. On and on.

Take it far enough and you have a risk group of 1.

Who are the winners and losers in this?

Obviously the companies are winners or they wouldn’t do it.

What do they win? Bigger profits - that’s what winning means after all.

And who loses? Anyone who falls off the edges. Or who stops paying attention for one year, gets whacked with a premium increase and doesn’t consult the meerkat. Or who falls foul of one of the endless changes to factor loadings, shifts in market positioning and so on.

How can this be balanced so that people don’t fall off the edges? Regulation. Where are the regulators? Nowhere to be seen.

The counter example wasn’t really about Portugal as such, but a different way of tackling the problem which probably delivers better social utility. Which most of Europe does.

To my mind there’s a bit of an analogy with something in my early career.

Life assurance company, run by actuaries. CEO was an actuarial prodigy and his executive team were in awe of him.

He created a bonus programme for them. It was mathematically perfect, of course. The man was very clever. But it was absurdly complex. No one ever properly understood how it worked. It produced bonuses, sure. But did it change behaviour? Not if the recipients didn’t understand it.

Here too I’m sure that the maths and actuarial work adds up. And it’s profitable of course. Does the product deliver what it should in terms of benefits to the population? Not sure.

 

[The Wino]

Maybe. But those things you wouldn’t expect to be very different between countries.

But the insurance architecture we’re working with in the UK forever strives to slice people into ever finer risk categories.

Age, post code, history, points on licence, mileage, time of day you drive, whether it’s to a place of work. On and on.

Take it far enough and you have a risk group of 1.

Who are the winners and losers in this?

Obviously the companies are winners or they wouldn’t do it.

What do they win? Bigger profits - that’s what winning means after all.

And who loses? Anyone who falls off the edges. Or who stops paying attention for one year, gets whacked with a premium increase and doesn’t consult the meerkat. Or who falls foul of one of the endless changes to factor loadings, shifts in market positioning and so on.

How can this be balanced so that people don’t fall off the edges? Regulation. Where are the regulators? Nowhere to be seen.

The counter example wasn’t really about Portugal as such, but a different way of tackling the problem which probably delivers better social utility. Which most of Europe does.

It could well be that a hybrid of the two would work very well where third party cover applies to any vehicle whoever drives it but any cover above that for theft parking dammages etc is purchased as an add on and based on claims history etc. I think the number of dents dings etc on cars I see in other countries reflects claims not being dealt with in the same way as the UK . The increased risk of accidents as people age could be dealt with by a recertification system over a certain age

 

[scotzsue]

Wonder if OP would have been accepted if put on for the life of the policy rather than for a week?

 

[CAB96]

And now when you seek out new insurance you will have to answer the question

‘’ have you been refused insurance in the past”’p

You will have to answer that truthfully and that alone will load your premiums…

frenchie46

Not 'Refused'

'Declined to quote'