Practically Classics Forum

Well here is the BBC artical that proves what we have been saying for years,
if your unemployed they say we are a higher insurance risk as we are less
likely to maintain our vehicles.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16652779

Howeber my thought is that if a person is unemployed then they are more
likely to take extra care of their vehicle as they know that they would have
to fork out alot more if they let the fault go unchecked or fixed.

Those of us who are are unemployed and are petrol heads have more time
to maintain not only our own vehicles but that of our family and friends.
This is because we need to to keep busy and keep the old gray matter ticking
over. The problem for us it is not just that we can and will repair our own vehicle
it is that the insurance companies don't see that if we have an accident and
that we can repair the vehicle , but that we can repair the vehicle better and to
a far higher standard and to a far cheaper cost that the over paid idiots they
employ.

Sorry I ranted there, but if you know me then you know what the insurance
companies tried to charge me at my last renewal.

SO
Disabled they add
Diabetic they add
Unemployed they add
On the the sick they add

Surely it depends on what the disability is, I know people who are disabled and it doesn't affect their premium, if there is a higher risk then it will, just like any other "risk" an insurance company takes on.

Perhaps you should read this re diabetic premiums, "Most car insurance companies no longer penalise people with diabetes by charging higher premiums":

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Guide-to-dia ... insurance/

I've never quite worked out how someone who is unemployed and therefore on unemployment benefit (as opposed to DLA or Motability allowances) as their only income can afford to run a car, its a struggle to keep a car in good order even though I'm earning and that's before adding in fuel costs. You may keep your car in good order, M, but there are plenty of people who don't and if money is tight like it would be if they are unemplyed the car would be low on the priority list so I can see their reasoning... I suspect they've got the evidence to prove the increased risk before they did it.

I don't think the unemployed should be allowed to drive myself.

And just how would you expect them to get to a job interview that is not near a bus route?

How about the last 2 times I was unemployed? Once for 3 weeks and once for just over a week.

Maaarrghk wrote:And just how would you expect them to get to a job interview that is not near a bus route?

How about the last 2 times I was unemployed? Once for 3 weeks and once for just over a week.

02 pwns again.

Unemployed status has always brought with it a higher insurance premium, mainly because Endsleigh assumed that students and those in receipt of Unemployment Benefit had nothing better to do all day than drive around in their luxury 4x4s. At least that's what the clerk told me one day in 1987 when I was on the Old King Cole for three and a half days. In the next breath, he said that most people said that they were retired clergyfolk regardless of their actual status, so it must be true then.

Maaarrghk wrote:And just how would you expect them to get to a job interview that is not near a bus route?

How about the last 2 times I was unemployed? Once for 3 weeks and once for just over a week.

Sorry Maaarrghk,poor joke
But seriously though,I've lost my job in the past and had a similar period of time till I've found another,the last thing I would have thought of is informing my insurance company.

Absolved.

I agree to a certain extent but insurance companies use any excuse to put them up. If you're unemployed you pay more because you aren't maintaining your car. If you ARE employed they put them up because you are using your car on a daily basis...its a lose-lose.