Sheila Hancock, 63 years’ driving. No claims. Why did insurance go from £873 to £2,246
Are motor insurers prejudiced against older people? That’s the question the veteran actor, author and passionate motorist Sheila Hancock is asking after the company that she has been with for three years increased her car insurance premium from an annual £873 to £2,246 within 12 months.
The award-winning actor, who first made her name more than 50 years ago in the BBC sitcom The Rag Trade, and had a lead role in the West End farce Barking in Essex in 2013, contacted Guardian Money this week after being left bewildered and furious by the increase, which even her insurer, Admiral, conceded was “large”.
No clear reason was given for the hike, says Hancock, who is a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists “having passed a very stringent test”. With 63 years of driving without a claim on any insurance policy under her belt, the 82-year-old has been left wondering whether her age and profession are the reasons for the huge rise.
What price loyalty to an insurer? Policyholders should look again
“What is going to happen with this ageing population?” Hancock said. “If I was stuck in the country and couldn’t afford my insurance – and a lot of people couldn’t – what do you do? It’s absurd.”
Hancock’s love affair with motoring stretches back to when she owned a Lambretta scooter in her formative years, before progressing to a series of distinctive cars including a Morgan and a Jaguar XKR. Until 2012 she was leasing cars from Jaguar and paying for a yearly package which included her insurance and tax. She then decided to buy her own car, a Mini Cooper SD Coupe, and insure it herself.
The insurance bill for the first year was £670.39, which then grew to £765.97 in 2013 and £873.29 in 2014. Last month she was told that her premium (including tax) had risen to £2,246.79. While she presumed that her age may have formed part of the reason for previous increases, this latest demand left her incredulous. “I thought, fair enough, I am getting older. But I’ve not got that much older in the last year,” she said.
Hancock, who lives in London, was involved in an accident in 2013 which was found to be the other driver’s fault, and her car was scraped while driving in 2014, but she didn’t claim in either case.
When she wrote to Admiral about the insurance increase she cited the fact that she had “never, ever claimed on any insurance since I started driving 63 years ago”, and included a copy of a letter of apology from the insurer of the other driver in the 2013 incident. This confirmed the accident was “entirely the other person’s fault and … cost [Admiral] not a single penny”.
Hancock refused to renew with the company, saying there was a prejudice against actors and against people of her age. Her letter added: “I don’t think the latter has yet been tested, but I would suspect it is actually against the law.”
A “quality executive” at Admiral wrote back to say that even though the insurer had not paid out on the two “non-fault incidents” in 2013 and 2014, it still took them into consideration when deciding on premiums.
They say if you have two non-fault incidents you'll have a proper accident … Good god, what kind of reasoning is that?
“Looking at our past claims results, we have found customers involved in a non-fault incident often go on to make a fault claim,” the letter stated. “There are many possible reasons for this, the most likely suggesting a higher than average exposure to everyday driving risks. Examples could include driving in rush hour or on typically dangerous stretches of road or parking on busy roads. The higher your exposure, the more likely you may be to claim.”
It added: “Alternatively, you may live in an area that suffers frequent bouts of vandalism, or the type of car you drive may be more prone to malicious damage or theft. Although you may not have made a fault claim, our statistics suggest the likelihood of you doing so increases. These are all non-fault incidents but will add to the risk we are undertaking in insuring your car.”
The company said it could not give details of how the rates were arrived at, but confirmed that age and occupation were two factors which were examined for all customers. The response prompted further fury from the actor. “It is absolutely absurd. And to say they have research to prove that if you have two of those incidents, you are going to go on and have a proper accident … Good God, what kind of reasoning is that?” Hancock said.
“If you look for insurance over the age of 80 there are hardly any companies which will even touch it, and yet I would be pretty sure that if you look at the statistics there are far fewer accidents with older people than there are with butch 30-year-olds who work in the City.”
She added: “I can’t imagine how people with not much money living in isolated areas – which a lot of old people choose to do – manage, because there is no public transport any more.” The answer, she says, is to have a test independently adjudicated for those over 80 to certify you are a competent driver.
After Money got in touch with Admiral it told us that Hancock’s “unusually high” premium rise was “a result of a wide variety of small-to-average increases to our rates for some of the factors that affect her premium … As well as this, Ms Hancock has been involved in two non-fault accidents in the last two years. This is something Admiral takes into account.”
The insurer said her age and occupation were “not a cause for the particular increase in her renewal premium”, adding: “It is not in our interest to overcharge our policyholders, as we would lose profitable business. While we do our utmost to ensure our rates are fair and reasonable for all customers, we can’t always be competitive.”
There is a happy ending of sorts: Hancock later got insurance through Cornmarket at a cost of £1,073.83; Aviva later quoted the same amount.
Are motor insurers prejudiced against older people? That’s the question the veteran actor, author and passionate motorist Sheila Hancock is asking after the company that she has been with for three years increased her car insurance premium from an annual £873 to £2,246 within 12 months.
The award-winning actor, who first made her name more than 50 years ago in the BBC sitcom The Rag Trade, and had a lead role in the West End farce Barking in Essex in 2013, contacted Guardian Money this week after being left bewildered and furious by the increase, which even her insurer, Admiral, conceded was “large”.
No clear reason was given for the hike, says Hancock, who is a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists “having passed a very stringent test”. With 63 years of driving without a claim on any insurance policy under her belt, the 82-year-old has been left wondering whether her age and profession are the reasons for the huge rise.
What price loyalty to an insurer? Policyholders should look again
“What is going to happen with this ageing population?” Hancock said. “If I was stuck in the country and couldn’t afford my insurance – and a lot of people couldn’t – what do you do? It’s absurd.”
Hancock’s love affair with motoring stretches back to when she owned a Lambretta scooter in her formative years, before progressing to a series of distinctive cars including a Morgan and a Jaguar XKR. Until 2012 she was leasing cars from Jaguar and paying for a yearly package which included her insurance and tax. She then decided to buy her own car, a Mini Cooper SD Coupe, and insure it herself.
The insurance bill for the first year was £670.39, which then grew to £765.97 in 2013 and £873.29 in 2014. Last month she was told that her premium (including tax) had risen to £2,246.79. While she presumed that her age may have formed part of the reason for previous increases, this latest demand left her incredulous. “I thought, fair enough, I am getting older. But I’ve not got that much older in the last year,” she said.
Hancock, who lives in London, was involved in an accident in 2013 which was found to be the other driver’s fault, and her car was scraped while driving in 2014, but she didn’t claim in either case.
When she wrote to Admiral about the insurance increase she cited the fact that she had “never, ever claimed on any insurance since I started driving 63 years ago”, and included a copy of a letter of apology from the insurer of the other driver in the 2013 incident. This confirmed the accident was “entirely the other person’s fault and … cost [Admiral] not a single penny”.
Hancock refused to renew with the company, saying there was a prejudice against actors and against people of her age. Her letter added: “I don’t think the latter has yet been tested, but I would suspect it is actually against the law.”
A “quality executive” at Admiral wrote back to say that even though the insurer had not paid out on the two “non-fault incidents” in 2013 and 2014, it still took them into consideration when deciding on premiums.
They say if you have two non-fault incidents you'll have a proper accident … Good god, what kind of reasoning is that?
“Looking at our past claims results, we have found customers involved in a non-fault incident often go on to make a fault claim,” the letter stated. “There are many possible reasons for this, the most likely suggesting a higher than average exposure to everyday driving risks. Examples could include driving in rush hour or on typically dangerous stretches of road or parking on busy roads. The higher your exposure, the more likely you may be to claim.”
It added: “Alternatively, you may live in an area that suffers frequent bouts of vandalism, or the type of car you drive may be more prone to malicious damage or theft. Although you may not have made a fault claim, our statistics suggest the likelihood of you doing so increases. These are all non-fault incidents but will add to the risk we are undertaking in insuring your car.”
The company said it could not give details of how the rates were arrived at, but confirmed that age and occupation were two factors which were examined for all customers. The response prompted further fury from the actor. “It is absolutely absurd. And to say they have research to prove that if you have two of those incidents, you are going to go on and have a proper accident … Good God, what kind of reasoning is that?” Hancock said.
“If you look for insurance over the age of 80 there are hardly any companies which will even touch it, and yet I would be pretty sure that if you look at the statistics there are far fewer accidents with older people than there are with butch 30-year-olds who work in the City.”
She added: “I can’t imagine how people with not much money living in isolated areas – which a lot of old people choose to do – manage, because there is no public transport any more.” The answer, she says, is to have a test independently adjudicated for those over 80 to certify you are a competent driver.
After Money got in touch with Admiral it told us that Hancock’s “unusually high” premium rise was “a result of a wide variety of small-to-average increases to our rates for some of the factors that affect her premium … As well as this, Ms Hancock has been involved in two non-fault accidents in the last two years. This is something Admiral takes into account.”
The insurer said her age and occupation were “not a cause for the particular increase in her renewal premium”, adding: “It is not in our interest to overcharge our policyholders, as we would lose profitable business. While we do our utmost to ensure our rates are fair and reasonable for all customers, we can’t always be competitive.”
There is a happy ending of sorts: Hancock later got insurance through Cornmarket at a cost of £1,073.83; Aviva later quoted the same amount.
Comments
Post a Comment