I think because when your car is nicked the police notify DVLA, and you are obliged to notify your insurers in case it is involved in an accident. Despite my insurer at the time (admiral) promising me that my no claims would not be affected as i had not made a claim, and even sending me written proof of 'no claims', when i came to insure the same car again, the premium was 100 quid more because the theft had been recorded. Basically, when this happens, i and everyone else have insult added to injury. I didn't claim because i didn't want my premium to go up, so the insurance company didn't have to pay out. Then they put my premium up anyway. Because they can and there is nothing i can do about it. They make me furious, greedy good for nothing money grabbing [edits].

Well... i take your point, and if insurance companies weren't making such extortionate profits i would concede. I dont know, it all just seems so unfair, and the lack of competitiveness affects all of us, not just the younger drivers. If we did a poll.... i wonder how many people would shout 'excellent service and value for money' about their insurance deal/company? In our capitalist system, we the consumers are supposed to be able to demand the best, not be over a barrel - aren't we?

Hi, I've been thinking about this for some time and i'd be interested to know what others think... i don't know if anyone remembers the spitting image comedy sketch on 'the armadillo tax'? basically, it was a political joke about conservatives finding anything to tax people on and amounted to a 5% tax on Armadillos, and a new law that forces everyone to keep at least one male and one female Armadillo, thus ensuring escalating taxation. Very funny at the time. I'm a police community support officer, and the other day i was talking to the local yoofs about their first forays into motoring. They told me that to insure (3rd party only) a peugeot 106 as a young driver with a clean license cost 3,000 pounds. I nearly fell over. This is what it has come to, and we are all being robbed one way or the other by insurance companies. It strikes me that if having a minimum of 3rd party insurance is a legal requirement (which of course is a no-brainer). Then the cost of the minimum insurance should also be regulated by law. Insurance companies are free to refuse to insure, but 3rd party insurance should be available to anyone for £250. The sheer amount of money that is lifted from drivers every year by this uncompetitive and self serving industry is criminal. If the above was implemented, insurance companies would have to compete to sell the fully comprehensive packages, and their service would necessarily improve. Lets face it, it's not like their profits are low is it? As it is, we are all at their mercy, its just not right. I speak as someone who is able to get fully comp on an average car for under £500, and the same on a ZZR1100 (motorcycle) for £120. It isn't me that's suffering, but i still recognize the bottomless greed and social injustice of it. Surely as a nation of motorist we have enough power to force a change?

Hi everyone, having just endured a year of 'cover' with IGO4 insurance i thought i'd share some balanced cautions. Having received a good quote i took out insurance. Within a day or so, i got a threatening email saying that the fraud department would cancel my policy if i didn't pay an extra 102 pounds. It turns out that this was because i had a no claim, no loss, theft and recovery of my vehicle, and the wording of the IGO4 online quote system was inadequate i.e 'have you had a claim in the last xx years' to which i honestly answered no. All of the communication was conducted by email, and the level of customer service when i phoned was shocking. I felt thoroughly ripped off. As has been reported elsewhere, they demanded scanned and emailed copies of my driving license and no claims letter (why they can't check like other companies do i don't know), once again, on threat of policy cancellation. i then made the mistake of getting a different vehicle (that was 8 insurance groups lower than the original vehicle), now i remember when a minor adjustment like this would be free from a reputable insurer..... £102 pounds!!! once again, the level of customer service on the phone was pretty bad, with the operative refusing to allow me to speak to his supervisor. All in all, IGO4 gave a competitive quote, then put as many reasons to sting me in place a they possibly could - i ended up paying much more than the more professional companies quote, for a lower level of cover and the pleasure of dealing with their customer services. I'm horrified and disgusted and will never insure with them again. has anyone else had a similar experience with them? Toads

anyone that thinks that either experience or training alone is enough on todays roads is out of their mind, one requires as much as possible of both these things. Training needs to be updated regularly, because road systems and users change (just look at the traffic situation over even the last 10 years) Weird al - looking at someones driving history cannot predict their driving future. in expressing a preference for experience over valid recent training you have eluded to what is certainly a bigger cause of accidents than speed "i've been doing this for 20 years, i know what i'm doing" the reason i protest so strongly against speed cameras is not because i've ever been nicked, as i have repeatedly stated: 1) they are there to make money out of otherwise law abiding citizens who are just going about their daily business and not hurting anyone. 2) they do not contribute at all to road safety. 3) the are an invasion of my privacy and civil liberties 4) they are the expression of a general attitude of 'get the motorists, they are easy targets' by the establishment.

your post is irrelevant, and adds nothing to the discussion, which anonymous poster whom you know nothing about are you now refering to as a 'speed demon'.

Actually, whilst mentioning police beat cars breaking the speed limit, i know for a fact that the police regularly break the speed limits when not attending an emergency, i once lived next door to a police constable and over heard a garden conversation and i quote "..... i was testing my new car the other evening and i had 125 out of it on the M**, it was ok though, i had the area car behind me for protection ...." these are the very same public servants that apparently have such a dim view of speeding drivers, that is a classic example of 'the law doesn't apply to me' driving i have also personally seen a police rider on the M5 travel past me at approx 100 mph, take a slip road off, go around the round about system, then come back down on to the motorway and overtake me again at 100mph, then do it again!! the officers tactic is clear - they all think i've left the motorway, so now i'll catch them up and see if i can catch them speeding - in order to do this, i am allowed to speed with impunity. a clear indication that in the view of even the police, 'correct use of speed' has little to do with arbitrary speed limits

Thank you Questioning, this was the info i was looking for, i'll send them a take it leave it offer and see what they say, and i'll pay barclays a visit on monday, thanks again, toads

i'm dealing with them through a 'care of address' they don't know my home address

patdavies - i agree with your motorway analogy 120 is illegal, but in that situation may not be dangerous. no one else around? it is not the job of the government or the police to protect me from myself and this is major point, regarding the civil liberties that we don't fight for and are losing.

thanks i'll have a look. But even still my credit reference file will be updated with my new address? and then DCA will be easily able to find me?

ha ha ha, reality check! i would gladly accept a short ban - (a much more effective penalty) but guess what IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. mark my words, soon they will up the fine and reduce the amount of points so that they can get more money before they have to ban you. when that happens you will know that i was right all along. to clarify, i do not routinely speed, i do not teach my pupils to speed, i have never had a speeding ticket. i know that there is a certain type of motorcyclist that has a very very bad attitude to use of speed on her majesty's highway, those riders don't tend to be riding for very long

hi, because if i do the bank will run a credit check, and of course i'll have to give my address, as soon as that happens all the DCA has to do is a 'trace' through a credit reference agency and my address comes up, then they will be able to hassle me at home. not to mention that a bank is unlikely to give me an account anyway because of the default on my credit history... ya know?

it's coming up for 2 months since they received the second request.... would love to kick back but can't even open a bank account until this is settled you know? hmm...

sorry to bump this one guys but i could really do with some pointers... anyone?