Car insurance more expensive when divorced...Fuming!(41 Posts)
Join the discussion
About to renew car insurance, asked to check my details for accuracy (lots of companies won't pay out if there are any inconsistencies), previous quote stated I was married, I am divorced, pointed this out and new quote is £80 more!, Asked for clarification, apparently insurance companies deem that you are more high risk if single or divorced, so it would've been fine previously when I was married ?, my husband didn't drive so I was the sole driver then too...we are in the dark ages, bloody ridiculous, I've got less money than ever and now have to pay more , unbelievable
I agree it's shit but some algorithm somewhere says that single people are higher risk than married people like when I use one of my job titles I get a lower quote than when I use the other job title. It is based on past data of claims etc.
The really shit thing is that it doesn't apply for single men.
My insurance is £100 cheaper with husband on the policy, but having me named on his policy does not make his insurance cheaper. I have 12 years NCB, he has 2
DHs insurance is always cheaper with me on it and has been since we were 25 even though he's been driving since 17 and I didn't until 21.
@M4J4 adding me to my husband's policy made his much cheaper, my occupation is a low risk one.
My insurance company told me it was legal to leave my ex-husband insured on my car to save money on the insurance costs because he was just named as a second driver
I had this. Was livid
It seems if you are a divorced woman you are a bit mental.
Said a few harsh things to insurance broker then had to suck it up. They are all the same
It might seem unfair. However men said it was unfair when women got lower premiums - they got lower premiums as they had less accidents. Insurance companies dont make much profit from car insurance. There is loads of competition. They are not ripping you off. Your price is made up of loads of factors and it's all based on statistics - type of car, where you live, your job, age, previous history, etc etc. Its all worked out by computer not people. So no one is being discriminatory. The stats just work out that for your specific circumstances single people are higher risk. You can shop around and find a company who has different stats and different prices for your answers
Insurance is a murky business at best. I used to work in it.
I'd be curious if there's a difference between "divorced" and "single" when both can be true ? Especially as it's your martial status, not history ?
What Meringue says is correct. I work in car insurance, each quote is based on 100s of different rating factors- marital status is just one of these. It is all just statistics, not discrimination.
I work in car insurance, each quote is based on 100s of different rating factors- marital status is just one of these.
So the OPs status is "single" and that's that. Solved.
Married people apparently have less accidents.
My insurance increased when I went from being a bank manager to a 'housewife'. I'm still me, I didn't start driving any differently when I stopped working!
It's just one of those swings and roundabout things 🤷♀️.
if it's all statistics, then why aren't they allowed to use male/female as part of the process anymore? I thought it was deemed discriminatory to give females lower rates.
And similarly with age. I thought they could only use number of years driving now, rather than age, despite statistics showing that there was a difference between different ages even with the same number of years driving.
Maybe because sex and age are protected characteristics and some of the others aren't? I don't know. But it seems strange that certain factors can be used and not others, if there is a clear statistical difference between the groups (not just a blanket policy)
My friend's insurance went up when she stopped being a student and got a 'proper' job. She didn't drive to work.
We moved house 5 mins walk away to a flat with a gated car park. Went up massively. Presumably because the area was rougher.
I have heard issues before with divorce when one partner has no no claims bonus and the price soars.
picklefish Because it was men having to pay more.
Meringue puts it very well.
Previously, there were plenty of men who were charged more because more men made claims. Some said it was because women were safer/more cautious drivers and some cited the fact that, on average, men drive more miles per year. Nevertheless, an individual 60yo man who had never claimed was no more or less a proven risk than an individual 60yo woman who had also never claimed; however, because more other men had proven themselves to be a risk than other women, he was charged more.
The occupation question is an interesting one. Usually, stating that you're 'unemployed' hikes your premium, ostensibly because you could be driving all day whilst full-time employed people are at their workplace. Obviously completely ignoring the fact that you're much less likely to be driving in busy rush-hour traffic and that, if you have less money, being unemployed, you can't afford to buy nearly as much petrol/diesel, so may be driving very seldom anyway.
Entertainers - especially TV celebrities - tend to be charged a fortune. This might be skewed by the fact that they can afford much more expensive cars than the average person. They might also have to drive more defensively to escape the Paparazzi or crazed fans - or have people target their homes to steal their cars when they're on live TV or are featured in the press
putting on a VERY busty display and showcasing their endless pins on the beach in Malibu on their family holidays, who knows?
IIRC, the people who get whacked with the highest premiums at all are those with 'dangerous' jobs such as stuntmen or professional extreme sportspeople - even though they don't actually use a vehicle whilst doing their jobs and, one could argue, they are probably more aware of the need to take precautions and be more risk-averse than a teacher or a plumber.
Statistics do mean that you get lumped in with others who share one or more relatively minor characteristics or life circumstances with you. It's essentially endorsing stereotypes and, you could quite reasonably suggest, perpetuating discrimination.
It's just statistics, though. Right or wrong, you can see the thinking in it - how many people would run at the sight of an escaped lion but not upon seeing a pigeon, even though neither that lion nor that pigeon has (yet) ever done them any harm? - but the only alternative to statistical risk-based pricing would be to charge every driver exactly the same, regardless of age, experience, claims record, location, vehicle type/power/age etc.
We get charged extra for all insurance because h was not born in the uk so it doesn’t surprise me.
As a widow, would it be incorrect to state you are married (because you never divorced)? Asking for a friend....
Married people apparently have less accidents.
That's it. It's not discrimination, or spite, or sexism. It's risk statistics.
It's often cheaper to have another person - even if it's just a friend (as long as they have a clean licence ) - on the insurance than to be the only one named
I'm on my dad's insurance for that reason
Join the discussion
Please login first.