Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » Car insurance

Essential car insurance features

Neil Faulkner
by Lovemoney Staff Neil Faulkner on 12 September 2012  |  Comments 9 comments

What makes a car insurance feature essential and which ones can you ditch?

Essential car insurance features

The purpose of car insurance is to protect you from disasters you couldn't easily afford to pay for yourself.

However, there are plenty of features that you might be encouraged to pay extra for that you could afford to pay yourself in the event of an incident.

Unless these come at a low cost, you're likely to pay more in premiums for those features over the coming decades than you receive back in claims – which means you should not shell out for them.

Imagine a feature that costs you £25 extra per year. Let's say over 20 years you're likely to claim on that feature no more than twice and it pays out £150 a time. You've received £300 in benefits but paid £500 extra in premiums. It just wasn't worth it.

This can be hard to stomach when you have an incident and need to pay for it yourself, because you haven't bought the feature, especially if it happens this year. That's how insurers find it so easy to play to our fears and sell us extras.

However, emotions aside, it's logical to only pay for insurance you need, and only consider buying extra when it comes at a bargain price.

The big question is, which features couldn't you easily afford to pay for yourself?

The big one is usually a must

Comprehensive cover is usually essential except for the cheapest of run-down cars. Most people couldn't easily afford to pay thousands to replace their vehicles. For others the price difference between full cover and third party, fire and theft is negligible anyway.

Only in rare cases is comprehensive insurance not essential. If annual cover is hundreds of pounds more expensive, your car is worth a couple of thousand pounds, you have plenty of savings, you rarely have accidents (and no major ones), you have a mathematical mind and the rare kind of laissez-faire, accepting attitude towards financial loss, you might be glad to know it probably makes mathematical sense to buy the lesser cover.

The rest of us, we'll let the insurers play to our fears!

A low excess

If you have a very tight budget but nevertheless can't do without a car, or you're incident prone, it would be sensible to pay a bit extra for a low excess.

However, for everyone else, a low excess is a feature you can do without unless the price difference is small.

If you can save £22pa in premiums by increasing the excess by £170, you'll save money in the long run so long as you average less than one fault incident every eight years.

Windscreen cover

It's a similar story with windscreen cover. For those with savings, paying for these incidents yourself should be affordable, which means you should only normally buy insurance against it if the price difference is negligible. Lots of policies have it as standard anyway.

Another special case for paying extra for it is if you're at high risk, perhaps because of the condition of the roads that you drive on regularly.

Courtesy cars

Most drivers see courtesy cars as their right and they can get pretty cross to discover it's excluded when they have comprehensive insurance. But you should consider whether you really need it.

While policies with courtesy cars are usually priced very competitively, it's only essential if you can't do without a car for a few weeks. If you're paying £10 extra for a courtesy car every year, it might be cheaper in the long run to take alternative transport if and when the time comes, unless you frequently expect to have incidents requiring long repairs.

Breakdown cover

Breakdown insurance is non-essential for most people who have savings and no debts, because you can afford to pay the costs it covers from your own money.

Someone buying standalone UK breakdown cover is very likely to pay more in breakdown premiums in the long run than they'll get back in claims.

However, when attached to car insurance policies this cover can be a real bargain, and worthwhile, providing the overall policy is not many pounds a month more expensive than the cheapest alternative policy.

Legal cover

Legal cover is of very dubious benefit, as I wrote in The next big financial scandal. I consider it a non-essential product and quite probably a rip-off, even though some people would say it has helped them.

If the cheapest policy throws it in for free – then it's worthwhile!

If you're deeply worried about what you'll do in the event of an accident and dealing with these things isn't one of your strengths, you might want the peace of mind of a legal policy, but that might be all real value you get from it.

Personal-accident cover

As I wrote in the above-mentioned article, personal-accident cover is even less likely to prove beneficial to you. Considering credit card companies have often given this insurance away for free, it shows how worthless it is.

New-for-old cover

If you've bought a new car, you might not be able to do without a new-for-old policy, especially since the value of your car can drop by thousands of pounds as soon as you have bought it.

You should know, before you sign on the dotted line, that the small print on this varies a lot. According to Defaqto, the definition of “new” ranges from 12 to 24 months. Also, the level of damage needed to be sustained ranges from 50% to 70% of the car's list price.

Around 40% of policies won't replace new imported vehicles, and most of the rest will only do so if a version is available in the UK.

More on cars:

Compare car insurance quotes

Five ways to make money from your car

10 new cars that will hold their value

Traffic warden numbers rise almost 6%

How to get satnav for free!

Car finance options

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (9)

  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    The price difference between Third Party Fire and Theft and Comprehensive is certainly not negligible if you have a good no-claims and are a reasonable age - Comprehensive actually works out a lot cheaper due to weird underwriting policies these days!

    Report on 06 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • nikkiowilson
    Love rating 0
    nikkiowilson said

    I am not convinced legal cover is not a good idea. This means you have the instant backing of the insurer's solicitors without the worry of the costs which as we all know are famously exorbitant! In an accident which is not your fault your insurance means they will fight for you whereas if you have to find your own solicitor at this stressful time it can increase the amount of stress and delay the case.

    Report on 13 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • time2go
    Love rating 66
    time2go said

    nikkiowilson - In my experience I find that the insurer only backs you up if:

    - there is an independent witness.

    - there are photos identifying where the accident happened

    - all parties 'tell the truth'

    [In which case there is no dispute to argue about]

    The solicitors are 'panel solicitors' so it is pot luck whether you get someone good or not. Most solicitors doing this kind of work will only take on the case if you are likely to win, (i.e. a 'No Win No Fee agreement'). If several law firms don't take on your case, it is likely you will lose, so you may as well stop there.

    Also, in my experience the insurers solicitors are paid lower hourly rates than they normally get, so the work is often handed to paralegals. I think that a good local firm where you can meet the lawyer is a better bet.

    Insurance companies like you to use their panel solicitors as it saves them costs, it is never for your benefit. Insurers never do anything unless it increases their bottom line!

    The insurer often scares you about delays, really the delays happen no matter who you use, but insurers solicitors are under added pressure in that they have their 'Legal ethics' to consider as well as keeping their Business 'partner' happy, the insurer often brings in most of the firms work in that area of law.

    Report on 13 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • PoohBah
    Love rating 18
    PoohBah said

    "... you're likely to pay more in premiums for those features over the coming decades than you receive back in claims ... "

    Doh - isn't that the whole basis of insurance? If the insurance companies expected to pay out more than they took in, they either wouldn't offer the cover, or they would increase the premiums. I pay my AA membership not because I expect to require their services sufficiently often to make it a winner, but because on the rare occasions that I have needed them, it has taken away so much of the worry and frustration.

    Yes, some insurance is patently not worthwhile (retailers' extended warranties come to mind), but sometimes things need to be viewed from other than just the bean-counter perspective: "The cost of everything and the value of nothing."

    Report on 13 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Aitken B
    Love rating 109
    Aitken B said

    An insurance claim is a civil claim which ultimately could end up in the County Court. My experience is that you are better off pursuing your claim yourself. If you employ a solicitor, whether directly or via an insurance company, despite winning your claim, the defendant might not be ordered to pay your solicitor's cost. I have had only one case actually get as far as preliminary hearings in the County Court (not that I have pursued all that many) but all through the proceedings my solicitor tried to persuade me to settle for something less that proper compensation to the point that I had to tell him to "have the courage of my convictions (not legal ones of course)". The company settled for the full amount.

    I do not take legal cover, you might have it in a home policy anyway, because I pursue the cases myself with significant success and never had to go to a claim hearing.

    The features I would like to see in an insurance company are truth, honesty and integrity. At every contact they stress that we, their victims, must be entirely honest with our information yet they themselves are dishonest to the extent of fraud and they are supported in this by the Ombudsman.

    Report on 13 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • time2go
    Love rating 66
    time2go said

    Aitkin B - Totally agree with your last paragraph.

    Report on 13 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • GaryDean
    Love rating 56
    GaryDean said

    I also wholeheartedly agree with Aitken B's last paragraph. They are absolute fraudsters with little or no moral decency some of whom belong behind bars.

    What's the point of paying for a lower excess if you are prepared to bear more than the cost of the excess anyway to avoid to the steep hikes on following premiums? Once you report a claim within the 5 year period you are heavily punished even if you change providers & end up paying well over the the cost of the repair anyway. The problem with compulsory insurance is these people are at liberty to act in any way they choose as it's difficult to regulate virtually unbridled greed. Having said that I do concede for the benefit of 3rd parties compulsory is absolutely necessary.

    Report on 19 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    Is there some point to car insurance?

    I can understand insuring the value of the car, but legally you don't need that option.

    I have been hit by an uninsured driver. Not my fault. I was supposed to get the excess back but the RAC failed to do so because he was uninsured, and nothing was done about it. The same has happened to family members.

    Presumably, insurance covers seriously hurt people, but how often does that happen considering the millions who drive? Surely a separate fund can be available to cover this. It does not require millions not involved to pay. I think insurance is a con, a money making racket.

    Report on 19 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 362
    CuNNaXXa said

    As quite a few people have said, insurance companies use our ignorance of the legal system against us at every opportunity. I had legal cover on my home and contents insurance, and when I needed legal cover, they refused, citing their terms and conditions.

    So, when I spoke to my solicitor, he was adamant that I WAS covered. In fact, he rang up my insurer, Churchill/DAS, and quoted some legal jargon/ Acts of Parliament etc. to them, and they agreed to fund my case.

    So, never trust what an insurer tells you. You have to be open and honest with them, otherwise you will void your policy, yet the same rules don't apply to them. You are best asking a third party, such as a solicitor or CAB, to verify anything you have been told by your insurer.

    Oh, and as for fraud, if you lie to your insurer, you can be penalised, but if they lie to you, they profit. Where is the fairness in that?

    Oh, and as for legal cover, if you have it with your home and contents insurance, don't pay the extra for motor insurance legal cover. Also, if you are in a Union, they may offer you free legal cover with your membership. Also, check your AA or RAC (or other motoring organisation) membership. You might be covered under the terms of your membership. It is worth checking before paying for something you may not need.

    Report on 19 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Virgin Money Credit Card MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.99% fee) Representative 17.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 17.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 17.9% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4