No compulsory ‘theft’ insurance.

If you drive on the roads you should be insured in case you damage someone's Jag or kill someone. But if you want extras like insure against theft, its up to you. 

Why is this idea important?

If you drive on the roads you should be insured in case you damage someone's Jag or kill someone. But if you want extras like insure against theft, its up to you. 

Remove insurance companies’ exemption from rules governing unfair clauses and disclaimers

Insurance companies are exempt from the regulations which prohibit unfair clauses and disclaimers in contracts.  This means that insurance companies are effectively exempt from consumer law.  They can charge as much as they like, but deliver as little as they like – and for any reason they like.

 

This exemption needs to be removed as soon as possible.

Why is this idea important?

Insurance companies are exempt from the regulations which prohibit unfair clauses and disclaimers in contracts.  This means that insurance companies are effectively exempt from consumer law.  They can charge as much as they like, but deliver as little as they like – and for any reason they like.

 

This exemption needs to be removed as soon as possible.

Move road duty and insurance into petrol prices

Remove separate road duty and provide 3rd party only insurance paid as part of the duty on petrol prices.  This would involve a raise in the price of petrol, but is the ultimate pay as you drive charging mechanism without having any heavy process/technology involved.  The more you drive, the more you pay, the more inefficient your vehicle the more you pay.  

This removes all un taxed and un insured vehicles from the road.

Clearly most drivers would still buy insurance to provide comprehensive cover of vehicles.

Why is this idea important?

Remove separate road duty and provide 3rd party only insurance paid as part of the duty on petrol prices.  This would involve a raise in the price of petrol, but is the ultimate pay as you drive charging mechanism without having any heavy process/technology involved.  The more you drive, the more you pay, the more inefficient your vehicle the more you pay.  

This removes all un taxed and un insured vehicles from the road.

Clearly most drivers would still buy insurance to provide comprehensive cover of vehicles.

Cyclists should be insured and carry a registration plate

These supposed 'green' crusaders are clogging up streets in every city across the UK, causing more problems than they solve by slowing up automotive traffic. They aren't the solution, they are part of the problem.

Why is this idea important?

These supposed 'green' crusaders are clogging up streets in every city across the UK, causing more problems than they solve by slowing up automotive traffic. They aren't the solution, they are part of the problem.

Make basic 3rd party car insurance part of the road tax or fuel duty

I believe this is already done in some countries (Australia?) – theis would avoid the situation where a non-insured driver does damage to a third party – any damage to his own car would not be covered and premiums for future cover could still increase.

Why is this idea important?

I believe this is already done in some countries (Australia?) – theis would avoid the situation where a non-insured driver does damage to a third party – any damage to his own car would not be covered and premiums for future cover could still increase.

The Law and Car Insurance

The Law of the Land says that if we drive we must have the appropriate Insurance in place.  This is fair enough, but with Insurance Companies imposing more and more restrictions on who  they will Insure and under what circumstances, it is becoming clear, that being ' sure' that you are 'actually' insured is more difficult.  Web-sites quote assumptions that are made before we apply, but these are not always easy to locate.  Documentation is becoming very complicated and  often there is a clause saying that we  should disclose anything we are not sure about that may be a 'material' fact, otherwise we may not be insured, even if we think we are.  The lines are being constantly redrawn and the goalposts moved and the situation is becoming overly confused. A premium is paid for the benefit of insuring us against the unforeseen. Yes there must be some eligibility requirements, but these should be set out in a clear and concise manner, where a specific question is asked and the relevant answer is given, whether application is by web, post or phone.  It should be  the responsibility of the Insurer to decide whether or not to insure having asked specific questions, received specific answers and having completed  any of their own checks that they feel necessary.   It should not be the responsibility of the individual to rack their brains as to whether of not they have revealed some fact that may possibly  be  'material'.  After making the decision to insure and the Insurer having collected premiums, it should be clear to the policyholder that their Insurance is in place for the duration of the policy.  Although it may be only vehicle Insurance that is required by Law all forms of Insurance should come under scrutiny.

Why is this idea important?

The Law of the Land says that if we drive we must have the appropriate Insurance in place.  This is fair enough, but with Insurance Companies imposing more and more restrictions on who  they will Insure and under what circumstances, it is becoming clear, that being ' sure' that you are 'actually' insured is more difficult.  Web-sites quote assumptions that are made before we apply, but these are not always easy to locate.  Documentation is becoming very complicated and  often there is a clause saying that we  should disclose anything we are not sure about that may be a 'material' fact, otherwise we may not be insured, even if we think we are.  The lines are being constantly redrawn and the goalposts moved and the situation is becoming overly confused. A premium is paid for the benefit of insuring us against the unforeseen. Yes there must be some eligibility requirements, but these should be set out in a clear and concise manner, where a specific question is asked and the relevant answer is given, whether application is by web, post or phone.  It should be  the responsibility of the Insurer to decide whether or not to insure having asked specific questions, received specific answers and having completed  any of their own checks that they feel necessary.   It should not be the responsibility of the individual to rack their brains as to whether of not they have revealed some fact that may possibly  be  'material'.  After making the decision to insure and the Insurer having collected premiums, it should be clear to the policyholder that their Insurance is in place for the duration of the policy.  Although it may be only vehicle Insurance that is required by Law all forms of Insurance should come under scrutiny.

Insuring yourself against risks that you opt to take

Life is, and always has been, a risky business.

I think that you should, if you wish, insure yourself against those risks, not rely upon other people's insurance so that you can sue them. Only use other people's insurance when there is no option but to use their services.

For example, going to school is more or less compulsory, so you have to rely on other people to look after your child. Hence the school should have insurance to cover this. But opting to send your child on a school trip is your own choice and therefore you should bear the risk and insurance.

Branches do fall off trees, conkers do split; there have always been risks in most things that we enjoy doing. So let us take out our own insurance to cover these, if we feel it necessary, don't put the onus on other people. Only be able to sue on other people's insurance when there is no choice but to use their services, eg at work or at school. Accidents happen, so let us live with this fact and insure against it ourselves. We are all human and it is human to err, even if there may be unfortunate consequences for someone else.

Why is this idea important?

Life is, and always has been, a risky business.

I think that you should, if you wish, insure yourself against those risks, not rely upon other people's insurance so that you can sue them. Only use other people's insurance when there is no option but to use their services.

For example, going to school is more or less compulsory, so you have to rely on other people to look after your child. Hence the school should have insurance to cover this. But opting to send your child on a school trip is your own choice and therefore you should bear the risk and insurance.

Branches do fall off trees, conkers do split; there have always been risks in most things that we enjoy doing. So let us take out our own insurance to cover these, if we feel it necessary, don't put the onus on other people. Only be able to sue on other people's insurance when there is no choice but to use their services, eg at work or at school. Accidents happen, so let us live with this fact and insure against it ourselves. We are all human and it is human to err, even if there may be unfortunate consequences for someone else.

End pernicious ‘No-win, no-fee’ litigation

Much of the time people's freedom of action is curtailed by the fear of over-arching organisations that they will, in some way, be subject to damages due to failures in 'health and safety' practices. Insurance companies raise their premiums astronomically and often also settle claims out of court on behalf of those organisations rather than test the validity of plaintiffs' cases – simply because it is easier and it is not the insurers who (ultimately) pay.

If 'no-win, no-fee' litigation were banned then there would be far fewer trivial claims and far fewer chancers trying to make a quick buck despite the lack of a real case… instead the whole system has become self-propelling with income for insurers and ambulance chasing lawyers at the expense of the public purse and the freedom of the individual to act on their own discretion – and to take responsibility for their actions. Small businessmen find that they cannot generate trade because their working practices are so bound up in 'safety-related' red tape and public pursuits from simple youth club and school events to cheese-rolling and other ancient ceremonies are eliminated by this scandalous system.

Why is this idea important?

Much of the time people's freedom of action is curtailed by the fear of over-arching organisations that they will, in some way, be subject to damages due to failures in 'health and safety' practices. Insurance companies raise their premiums astronomically and often also settle claims out of court on behalf of those organisations rather than test the validity of plaintiffs' cases – simply because it is easier and it is not the insurers who (ultimately) pay.

If 'no-win, no-fee' litigation were banned then there would be far fewer trivial claims and far fewer chancers trying to make a quick buck despite the lack of a real case… instead the whole system has become self-propelling with income for insurers and ambulance chasing lawyers at the expense of the public purse and the freedom of the individual to act on their own discretion – and to take responsibility for their actions. Small businessmen find that they cannot generate trade because their working practices are so bound up in 'safety-related' red tape and public pursuits from simple youth club and school events to cheese-rolling and other ancient ceremonies are eliminated by this scandalous system.

compulsory insurance of aircraft weighing over 500kg against hijack

It is a legal requirement to insure all aircraft over 500kg in weight against hijack and terrorism;  this includes single seat gliders!  Although the risk of hijack of a single seat glider must approximate to zero, the average premium is about £175 per year on top of the usual insurance for airframe and third party.  This is nonsense.  I understand the legislation was supposed to be aircraft over 5000 kg ( five THOUSAND ) not 500kg. but the error will not be rectified.

Why is this idea important?

It is a legal requirement to insure all aircraft over 500kg in weight against hijack and terrorism;  this includes single seat gliders!  Although the risk of hijack of a single seat glider must approximate to zero, the average premium is about £175 per year on top of the usual insurance for airframe and third party.  This is nonsense.  I understand the legislation was supposed to be aircraft over 5000 kg ( five THOUSAND ) not 500kg. but the error will not be rectified.