You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Had a car insurance quote which was ok. During the chat the subject of windscreen replacement cost came up - because I had a replacement on this car 2 years ago which I paid £100 excess for BTW with a different insurer my quote went up £25…is this a new thing? I was surprised but he said this is something people are getting stung for…first I’ve heard of it - anyone else?
All insurance companies are robbing shysters so I’m not surprised.
Indeed they are.
I cannot understand the cost increases. Two years ago a 17 year old just passed a and a 19 year old were £1300. This last week I got a quote for my youngest, now 19 and two years passed his test last week - £2600 on top of what we already pay.
Apparently he's 'high risk' at 19 - no accounting for the fact he spent most of last year driving either a 2.8lt Toyota people carrier for a posh hotel in New Zealand or a 2.5lt Subaru Forrester around dirt roads in the outback of Eastern Australia without incident. Before that he drove at home in Ibiza estate....He's driven far more miles, in far more challenging conditions, in different cars and counties, in high powered cars than our other two. But at present I cannot afford to insure him.
Indeed they are.
I cannot understand the cost increases
Collectively the car insurance industry had 2 very bad years in terms of losses in 2022 and 2023
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/motor-insurers-record-major-losses-in-2023-but-profitability-expected-to-return/1452457.article#:~:text=The%20fir m's%20UK%20Motor%20Insurance,up%20from%20111.1%25%20in%202022.
Apparently he’s ‘high risk’ at 19
He may be the safest driver in the world, but as far as insurance companies are concerned, a disproportionate amount of 19 year old guys will have claims, so he gets rated in the same way
Not answering the question, but had a replacement windscreen this year* - without insurance it would have been well over a grand, due to the sensors in the screen.
2020 Audi so fairly typical of a large number of cars on the road.
can see how they are trying to get costs back.
*came home from holiday to find that one of the delightful local scum class had thrown a full can of beer over the fence from the adjacent street - so quite literally nothing I could have done apart from move to a better Postcode.
Isn't this the standard model insurance companies operate on; if you make one claim, you're statistically more likely to make another?
without insurance it would have been well over a grand, due to the sensors in the screen.
This will be the thing. Theres much more involved in a screen than they used to be. Not that long ago I needed a replacement screen and it turned out if I went to the same windscreen company that my insurers used as a cash customer the screen and fitting actually cost less than £150 my insurers would have charged as the excess.
Some screens aren't just sensor-laden they're also have to go back to the dealer to have those sensors recalibrated
So collectively through our policies we're all carrying the cost for £1k+ windscreens
He may be the safest driver in the world, but as far as insurance companies are concerned, a disproportionate amount of 19 year old guys will have claims, so he gets rated in the same way
Having spent a previous career dealing with motor claims, I understand why costs are shooting up. Seen too many pics and read too many medical reports on youngsters left needing 24/7 care for life.
Yes, it sucks. I have a 21 year old and an 18 year old. Been a very expensive 4 years.
"Having spent a previous career dealing with motor claims, I understand why costs are shooting up. Seen too many pics and read too many medical reports on youngsters left needing 24/7 care for life."
But 19-24 year olds have always been killing themselves in cars. I don't buy this at all. I'd like to see some data that shows its the 24/7 medical costs pushing up prices for the statistically tiny amount of these type of accidents compared to the millions of accidents which involve claims management companies pushing courtesy cars and spurious whiplash plus the above mentioned 1k windscreens and general impossibility of repairing cars economically due to them being specifically designed that way.
Its all a massive grift.
Some screens aren’t just sensor-laden they’re also have to go back to the dealer to have those sensors recalibrated
Not true. Not all screen fitters can do it, but I used to take cars from Westbury where I worked over to Autoglass at Cribbs Causeway in Bristol for screen replacement, because they have a setup that allows the screen sensors to be recalibrated. The sensors are built into the big black plastic box that the rear view mirror is attached to, the sensors ‘look’ through windows in the black area printed on the glass. The car had to have as near to a full tank as possible, and it would take two, two and a half hours to complete the job. I would jump at the chance to take one over, it was an hour drive each way, so if traffic was bad that could be five hours out of my working day, I’d spend my waiting time in the Maccy D’s a couple of minutes walk away, having something to eat, drinking coffee and reading a book on my phone and getting paid for it! [img] 
[/img]
And yes, if the screen has a heating element in it, like Ford, Range Rover, some Qashqai, then anywhere north of £1000 just for the glass. LED headlights can be £1200+ if one gets damaged, so it’s little wonder insurance companies are trying hard to keep making money - cars are just getting more and more expensive because of the technology involved.
Also, car screens are thinner than they used to be, which makes them much more prone to cracking if hit by a stone or other object, in order to save weight. This was confirmed by the fitters at Autoglass, after I asked them because I’d seen so many cracked screens while working in vehicle logistics.
A £25 increase is more likely just a standard annual increase, I'd be surprised if the person on the other end of the chat had specific info about your renewal that it was due to a previous windscreen claim (more likely they just saw that and gave it as a possible reason).
As for the query about a 19 year old driver, a lot of companies just don't really want that sort of business so will quote high as they're not trying to be competitive (if, as an insurer, you have too many high risk driver policies your overall risk increases so your underwriting costs will increase). And when producing quotes it's only really the average risk profile for that driver's category + negatives (previous claims etc.) that are factored in, they could care less that he's done a lot of incident-free driving in a different country already. You're probably better off trying to arrange it through a broker (if you've not tried already) as they can likely find cheaper policies for a high risk driver.
Fuzzy - the hike was SPECIFICALLY because of the new windscreen I had 2 years ago. I had a quote online and called them to query something else - online price was confirmed when the chat swung to replacement windscreen cost at which point he said he had to requote because it is deemed a ‘claim’, at which point it jumped another £25. Bastards.
no accounting for the fact he spent most of last year driving either a 2.8lt Toyota people carrier for a posh hotel in New Zealand or a 2.5lt Subaru Forrester around dirt roads in the outback of Eastern Australia without incident.
Well I wouldn't reasonably expect an insurance company to factor in that someone had been driving on a company policy on the other side of the world.
Its all a massive grift.
Feels that way, specifically on the inflated repair and hire car costs you mention. The insurance market is broadly competitive enough to not be gouging people for the sake of it. Though as an industry in general it's awash with money.
But as someone else said about young drivers, I do think there's an increasing number of "we don't want your business" high quotes. And not just for young drivers.
It was a claim – not sure why you are surprised that impacts premiums
It’s never been treated as a claim in the same way if you’re in an accident/theft etc, and it was never brought up when I renewed in Oct 22 & 23…so it is a new element which wasn’t there before
Its all a massive grift.
Can I guess that you've zero professional experience in the insurance business?
they used to be relatively simple bits of factory safety glass, now they are full of tech as above. Youngest (18 yr old) had a replacement windscreen fitted on his 23 plate base Polo last week, after it got a huge stone chip which gave him a massive fright..
I paid the £120 excess for him, the fitting place said without insurance it'd be a £850 job, they had the car for a couple of hours which included test driving it after calibrating the tech.
From what I have read on the BMW i4 FB page, a replacement for my i4 is somewhere around 2k, so I can see why these are now much more material to the insurers.
But as someone else said about young drivers, I do think there’s an increasing number of “we don’t want your business” high quotes. And not just for young drivers.
I've been driving (and paying insurance) for over 40 years, it's ALWAYS worked like this - and it's the same for any type of insurance.
I’ve been driving (and paying insurance) for over 40 years, it’s ALWAYS worked like this
Indeed. And 40 years ago, the cost to repair a Vauxhall Nova would be considerably less than it would be to fix a Vauxhall Corsa in 2024 given all the tech that exists in a 2024 Corsa vs a 1984 Nova
Windscreen claims often don't affect your no claims discount. But they, obviously, sometimes can per the OP.
It'll be part of the race-to-the-bottom on price. Qv every single insurance thread on here about getting the "best" (i.e., cheapest) premium each year... Closely followed by the "why won't this cheap insurance company pay my claim...." follow up.
Those of you with panoramic roofs should also check very carefully whether they're covered. A lot of insurers have been taking cover out for those recently. And the costs can be astronomical to replace (but are less likely to happen than a windscreen).
The insurance situation is getting much worse. Son had his policy cancelled a few months after renewal as they decided they weren't insuring young drivers in BMW's - he had to then cancel it as having 'cancelled insurance' on your record isn't good. He's currently paying £300 per month for a 57 plate 3 series that's not worth much.
I pay the insurance for a 14 year old Aygo that both my 'adult' kids have access to - it's £1600 a year as daughter passed just a year ago. Hoping the policy drops this renewal at the end of next month as daughter will have had a year by then.
As has been said many times before the cost of car insurance has little to do with the value of the car (unless it's something special). It covers the clean-up afterwards and all the associated costs with that.
And a young driver in a 3 series BMW will be seen as more of a risk than a young driver in a 1ltr Skoda Fabia.
What's the ratio of insurance premium cost to car value like?
I appreciate everything is getting more expensive, but as an outsider to the industry and customer who has had insurance claims, it seems that some of the cost increases is through inefficiency and overcharging for profit when cars need fixing. Things like huge hire car bills, lack of parts, labour charges to insurance company which at the same garage are 2x what I pay direct etc
I know, but the decision for an Insurance company to stop cover three months after it's been taken out is wrong, but they are cancelling contracts. Cowboys, the lot.
Son actually has a heavily modified Fabia as well. He uses it for track events and that's cheaper to insure on the road - he's not currently got it for road use though.
Just refreshed my 'insurance' search with the correct date for the renewal. Quotes were coming in at £1k a couple of weeks ago, they have just jumped to £6k for no other reason than putting in the date, which is end of this month, not start. I'll see what the existing insurer is offering.
It was a claim – not sure why you are surprised that impacts premiums
It’s never been treated as a claim in the same way if you’re in an accident/theft etc, and it was never brought up when I renewed in Oct 22 & 23…so it is a new element which wasn’t there before
Previously the 'windscreen cover' has been treated as an add-on/ perk added to your core cover, usually a small additional premium if you ticked the box and a distinct excess from your main policy and therefore not treated as part of your claims history. Theres a certain logic to that in that the cause of a broken screen will pretty much always be third party or non fault. Theres not a way you can drive or a pattern of driving behaviour that makes a chipped or cracked windscreen more likely and theres not really a way to pursue a claim against a third party for it. No matter what your experience or vehicle choice or claims history the liklelhood of a windscreen claim will always be about the same.
However in the past windscreen insurance was barely 'insurance', more of a marketing tie-in to steer business to a partner windscreen company. The supplier would be named in the policy, your insurers 'claim line' for windscreens would basically go straight to them. Because people would rarely actually source and pay for a windscreen themselves it wasn't that apparent that between the additional premium and the excess they were likely paying more for a windscreen than if they had no cover at all, they were certainly getting very little real value from the policy, it was simply a discouragement to shop around.
But windscreens are generally a lot more expensive now and even if theres plenty of analogue windscreens about the old model isn't going to work any more.
He’s currently paying £300 per month for a 57 plate 3 series that’s not worth much.
When I buy a car (which I do every 10 years or so) the cost to insure it is one of the things I look at. Even back in my relatively ****less youth 40-odd years back this was the case. Am I totally out of step with the way people look at car ownership these days?
I did reply to this on another thread a while ago
I know, but the decision for an Insurance company to stop cover three months after it’s been taken out is wrong, but they are cancelling contracts.
But I can't find the comment or whether you replied.
Basically, I suggested making a complaint as he'll have lost out on a few months worth of NCD, plus if the insurer cancels then they should refund pro-rata, i.e., with no fees or changes.
He didn't need to cancel it, as they've not refused to insure HIM, they're not insuring anyone like him. The policy wording will include the ability to cancel it, but the outcome would likely be unfair.
Also, name and shame.
Son actually has a heavily modified Fabia as well. He uses it for track events and that’s cheaper to insure on the road – he’s not currently got it for road use though.
Sorry but if you want those kinds of cars in your youth you'll pay through the nose for insurance.
There were loads of hot hatches I wanted back in the 80s/90s but insurance was silly money as they were always getting knicked!
Withdrawing cover a few months in is a shitty move, but at least they gave you chance to cancel.
He did complain, so awaiting answers. When he insured said vehicle, the renewal was £1.5k, but it suddenly jumped when he had to re-insure. The BM is for towing his car to track events.
The BM is for towing his car to track events.
Has he got a quote for a diesel Avensis or something equally uncool instead?
Received wisdom is insurance companies charge more for cars typically driven by knobbers, I always wonder how that shakes out IRL.
A replaced windscreen increased my wife's premium by £100 (15 years NCB) and despite shopping around. With any insurer we found, taking off the windscreen claim immediately dropped it by £100 (or more), so it was definitely the cause in their premium calculation.
My premium dropped this year, no other changes made, and that's with two windscreen claims in two years (one chip repair and one properly cracked and replaced)
A good few insurers won't cover BMW at all -- Chris Knott do - we use it for ours @fossy
The real horror story of windscreens is Motorhomes - we've recently bought a new-to-us A-Class Hymer - Insurance policies for those can have limitations of the value covered to replace those - considering a new screen is 3k+ then it's worth looking at the small print
Windscreen claims often don’t affect your no claims discount. But they, obviously, sometimes can per the OP.
don’t confuse no claims bonus and premium not increasing because of a claim. Your NCB (a marketing trick by the industry really) is a %age off the premium - but if you have claims, even no fault claims, the headline premium will increase.
Theres a certain logic to that in that the cause of a broken screen will pretty much always be third party or non fault. Theres not a way you can drive or a pattern of driving behaviour that makes a chipped or cracked windscreen more likely and theres not really a way to pursue a claim against a third party for it.
im not so sure - I bet there are ways of driving that increase your chances of windscreen damage (fast in newly surface roads? Up the chuff of gritters?) and also where you park - dodgy areas, under trees, and I’m sure many a kettle of water in winter has been claimed as “just happened”. Perhaps even the typical STW demographic a few decades ago would have kept their car in the garage but now there is no space because of all the bikes and logs!
Modern cars don’t fit in garages, do they?
Had a windscreen replaced last year - quote this year was £294.99, down from £451.88 last year.
That's including RAC cover on a group 31 car in South Wales for a 60 year old driver.
Maybe the 20mph limit has something to do with it?
The whole insurance thing is crackers. I'm wary of the comparison sites and 'running scenarios' through them, as they can cause issues, and quite rightly, the algorithm can think you are 'trying it on'. Took the £7k quote (with four named drivers) and removed the kids, dropped to £300. Put on daughter, £800. Put on son (£7k). Right, went back in and took business use off, dropped back to £1k.
We put business use on in May last year and it barely affected the policy as my son had to use the car for visiting sites - his employer wouldn't let him use the pool cars due to their insurance being all tied together, and the two bosses had £100k plus cars, so, being under 25 couldn't go on the business policy and drive a Corsa as the Porsche was on ti).
We no longer need the business use as my son no longer works for said company (and has another car). There is obviously something in the comparison algorithm that doesn't want young males driving for business !
The whole insurance thing is crackers. I’m wary of the comparison sites and ‘running scenarios’ through them, as they can cause issues, and quite rightly, the algorithm can think you are ‘trying it on’. Took the £7k quote (with four named drivers) and removed the kids, dropped to £300. Put on daughter, £800. Put on son (£7k). Right, went back in and took business use off, dropped back to £1k
It's almost as though there's a bunch of different and complex factors that influence the risk
As someone who's spent the last 20 years earning a living by pricing insurance, I'm changing my LinkedIn job title to "grifting shyster"
Car insurance companies have been making a loss for years so they're clearly not taking the piss. Complex cars that cost a lot to fix - not just windscreens, loads of parts are complex now where they didn't used to be. Wing mirrors are motorised, heated, with blind spot sensors in. A crash bad enough to set the airbags off has trashed a whole load of the interior, not just the bumper. They're wider so a lot more scrapes I'd guess. And relatively 'ordinary' cars have acceleration that would have been in supercar territory a few decades ago. Even more so for electric cars.
Insurance co risk profiles are a bitch though. Our house insurance went up by 260% this year. previous insurer had dropped out of market. the killer for us is 'working from home' with visitors - no matter that the business is in the basement and has it's own entrance (which means vistors never go into the main part of the house), or that it's no different really in what happens or frequency to everyone else's courier deliveries, it massively ups the premium we pay.
As someone who’s spent the last 20 years earning a living by pricing insurance, I’m changing my LinkedIn job title to “grifting shyster”
Have you changed career now to Tory politician?? 😉
(Yes, yes, I'm aware other politicians are grifting shysters too...)
With checking the renewal data, the ‘comparator’ website is now asking for windscreen claims ! So it all adds up.
They’ve been asking the question on the websites for as long as I can remember.
Have you had a claim in the last ‘X’ years, yes , click on drop down menu and select windscreen
Garages exploiting the fact it’s the insurance company paying
Did you not read what I said about what’s involved in fitting a windscreen? Especially one with heating elements in? There are cars with all of the radio receiver elements built into the glass as well - do you seriously believe that such things will cost the same as a screen for a twenty year old Fiesta? Scratch that, my old Mk.1 Ford Puma, W-reg, so it would be 24 years old, had a heated screen. A replacement screen then was £700. Bugger-all to do with the insurance company paying, it’s what you would pay if the insurance company wasn’t.
The point about insurance is that it should be as simple maths as cost of claims versus amount of money taken for premiums plus profit to cover costs.
I paid £95 a few weeks ago to have an £1100 windscreen replaced so that should mean that 1 in 12 people need a windscreen replaced each year and then it balances up with small profit for insurer. If more than 1 in 12 people need a windscreen then put the excess up or put the premiums up to cover that.
I have only had two new windscreens in 40 years of driving so not that common is it?
"It’s almost as though there’s a bunch of different and complex factors that influence the risk"
Yeah, well that has hardly changed over the last umpteen years has it?
I stand by my original post, the reason insurance premiums have shot up by a large amount recently is less to do with the sudden increased complexity of risk or the sudden increase in the number of young drivers needing millions in aftercare and much more to do with various unnecessary middlemen like claims management companies trousering large profits, crazy expensive car parts which are impossible to fix economically and the newish ability to easily adjust pricing on the fly using online algorithms (something that should have reduced premiums but anyway).
I'd also add to this the laughable security holes in keyless entry systems.
So yes, whilst some of these issues cannot be laid at the door of insurance, some can like being in bed with the CM companies, the algorithms etc.
People earn a living where they can but NONE of this is of benefit to the consumer - hence my original phrase, its all a grift and it didn't use to be.
I’ve gone private to replace screens. And found them roughly half what the insurance were paying out on the same car.
Similar on bodywork repairs here, and that was on a 2007 Fiesta so hardly the height of modern integrated tech.
It's a racket, plain and simple.
Its the hassle of dealing with the insurance and also the payment terms. 60-90-120 days......
Where as paying me is cash/bank transfer on completion of job. .....
It IS a massive racket. It’s not necessarily the insurance companies fault per se, it’s more likely every business that gets income from insurance repairs KNOWS they can charge top dollar and get away with it, and there’s no real incentive for insurance companies to crack down on this, because they can just load next years premiums instead, it’s easier. That way turnover grows, and the same percentage of profit becomes a larger number.
“It’s almost as though there’s a bunch of different and complex factors that influence the risk”
That’s very true I’m sure, but people are cynical because ICs are remarkably quick to identify and factor in spurious ‘statistical’ reasons to increase risk (which feel unfair, even if they are not) but absolutely rubbish at identifying factors that massively reduce risk; for example, the OPs example of someone who can demonstrate driving experience, but because it was in a different country it doesn’t count. Well actually, of course it bloody does.
and don’t even get me started on pet insurance…
but because it was in a different country it doesn’t count. Well actually, of course it bloody does.
Well yes but 100% unverifiable in real terms.
In the same way if I stick down that I was general manager at toys r us on my CV..... It can't be verified.
What stops me saying I've driven 2 years in a high performance car in another country on a company policy where I'm not specifically named as a risk - just to get my insurance down.
What stops me saying I’ve driven 2 years in a high performance car in another country on a company policy where I’m not specifically named as a risk – just to get my insurance down.
well the main thing here is that would be lying; whilst you may get away with it, getting found out would make you uninsured and uninsurable. There’s lots of good faith facts that insurance companies do take into account. Also, it could be reasonably verified, they just don’t want to engage, despite it being a huge factor in weighing up a risk.
Which is what I’m saying really, they are more than happy to put a price up, but very reluctant to take any reductive factors into account because it’s ’too hard’.
I don’t think that insurance companies deliberately rip off their customers, I just don’t think they have any real incentive to NOT rip us off, because they know we are a captive customer.
well the main thing here is that would be lying;
And while it can't be verified either way I'm sure if it was a legit system ..... Everyone that's ever been abroad would be claiming they had done it for cheaper insurance.
Maybe, but I’m pretty sure other countries have insurance companies too, and it wouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to check. But y’know, too hard, pay an extra £1500 instead.
Maybe, but I’m pretty sure other countries have insurance companies too, and it wouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to check. But y’know, too hard, pay an extra £1500 instead.
Do you have much experience with cross border bureaucracy?
It hard enough getting companies to speak to each other reliably and in the same format when they are governed by the same industry body never mind internationally.
Oh absolutely. Like I said, too hard, you just pay £1500 extra instead. Which is my point. They don’t take into account plenty of other things that reduce risk, either, but if some uninsured drink driver crashes into me whilst I’m driving the work car (which I wouldn’t be driving if I wasn’t at work, and certainly wouldn’t drive my own car in that area) I’m meant to tell them so they can put my premium up. Because y’know, statistics. Go figure.
heres another one; I buy a second vehicle for occasional/dirty/bikes use and they can’t take my no claims into account despite it still being my driving history. Also, the journeys that you I make are now split between two insurance policies, reducing the actual risk incurred by both policies significantly. Do you get a reduction? Guess.
heres another one; I buy a second vehicle for occasional/dirty/bikes use and they can’t take my no claims into account despite it still being my driving history.
Your using the wrong insurance co's. Plenty do. - admittedly not all. I have my driving history mirrored across three vehicles with the relevent reductions.
Every insurance policy I’ve taken out for another vehicle will offer a discount but not a mirror of the NCD applied to another vehicle.
Youngest, who is a new driver at 18, as posted earlier on in the thread, had to get a new screen in his 23 plate Polo a few weeks ago. A new policy so expecting it’ll impact on renewal. Screen was fitted by insurance approved and authorised national company and arranged by insurers.
Todays twist is when he gets a telemetry notification from ‘Theo’, the blackbox app, with a speeding warning, 48mph in a 30 limit…
Route, time and date stamped as being while car was at windscreen fitters, presumably being road tested by them..
This will be interesting..he has mailed insurance co with the details !
not a mirror of the NCD applied to another vehicle.
That's why I specifically said" mirror driving history and relevent discount"
Your reply to the post about not being able to use NCD across multiple vehicles implied that the poster was wrong and was using the wrong insurance companies. You’re now saying that he was correct (despite you saying he wasn’t) and that you can’t get a NCD across multiple vehicles, but you have a discount for the years you’ve been driving? Well, yes, but that’s a very different thing to the 60-70% full NCD, isn’t it!?
Not according to the prices I'm getting Vs the prices without mentioning the driving history.
But you believe in your NCD mumbojumbo if you will. I'll go by the actual end price.
Insured a car with zero NCB as all in use but mirrored 15 years claim free for 140 quid. It doesn't matter what the car is. That's cheap considering zero NCB.
Worth searching out those policy that allow you to mirror driving history if yours doesn't let you.