CRT RIP OFF ALERT!! :(

[Momac]

16 minutes ago, rasputin said:

Maybe it is not me that is the idiot, maybe a lot of folks are risk averse

 

No. You were correct the  first time.

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, MartynG said:

No. You were correct the  first time.

That's not very nice. 

[rasputin]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

Depends on the risk. A friend's boat sank last year, uninsured. It cost her about ten grand to get it lifted, and she lost everything on board.  Total cost to her was about twenty five grand so far and she now needs to fully refit her boat.

My fully comp insurance is about a hundred quid a year, and covers me up to 5 million quid.

Uninsured, or not insured fully comp?

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

That's not very nice. 

He may be correct, but so far in life I have would say I have not been an idiot in this matter. Insurance is just a gamble, I'm loosing out big time on house insurance, the only policy I am not forced to take out.

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, rasputin said:

Uninsured, or not insured fully comp?

Third party only, so legal but she had not considered the risk to herself.  She thought she had saved on a survey (older boat) and fifty quid a year on insurance.

When her boat sank it was an uninsured loss, so she has to pay for the lot.

[rasputin]

I thought most 3rd party insurance included wreck recovery, 

 

She would have not only saved £50,but another £600 for a survey 

Edited February 27, 2018 by rasputin

[TheBiscuits]

4 minutes ago, rasputin said:

I thought most 3rd parties included wreck recovery, 

She would have not only saved £50,but another £600 for a survey 

Hers didn't and crane access was a nightmare as it was under a pylon next to a motorway.

The survey is every 5 years for an older boat, and some insurance companies waive the regular checks if it is still your boat.

It's not £600 per year saving.  

As MtB said above if you can afford to self insure, go for it.  I haven't got five million to set aside in a separate account, so I pay around 2 quid a week to insure my boat.

[David Mack]

You can get 3rd party cover which includes wreck removal without a survey. Not expensive either.

[Momac]

2 hours ago, David Mack said:

You can get 3rd party cover which includes wreck removal without a survey. Not expensive either.

That would be the minimum anyone should have.

Apologises to everyone  for being rude earlier but I do think not being insured is daft and potentially inconsiderate .Many years  ago my wife wife had an accident caused  by an uninsured car driver . We had to claim on our own insurance and the uninsured driver was poor so no point in taking it further . If he had been insured my wife would have received something for her injuries. In this sort of situation being uninsured is at the very least inconsiderate to others . If the same accident happened now  there would have been plenty of lawyers wanting to assist with a claim. Anyone with any assets would incur substantial financial pain.

 

 

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

27 minutes ago, MartynG said:

That would be the minimum anyone should have.

Apologises to everyone  for being rude earlier but I do think not being insured is daft and potentially inconsiderate .Many years  ago my wife wife had an accident caused  by an uninsured car driver . We had to claim on our own insurance and the uninsured driver was poor so no point in taking it further . If he had been insured my wife would have received something for her injuries. In this sort of situation being uninsured is at the very least inconsiderate to others . If the same accident happened now  there would have been plenty of lawyers wanting to assist with a claim. Anyone with any assets would incur substantial financial pain.

 

 

 

 

 

At a slight tangent (but I think still relevant)

Coming up to 3 years ago my wife had a car accident (T-Boned by a driver coming out of a side road at an estimated 60mph not realising it was a junction) in which my Daughter in law's back was broken in two places. The insurers (the Co-Op) have since said that as the driver had not notified them of a change in his licence (he had some speeding points) his insurance cover was invalidated.

Our Insurers (Saga) appointed a firm of Solicitors who 6 months later went 'bust' and we had to start all over again with a new practice that had 'bought the solicitors portfolio of cases'

Now - after almost 3 years we are still awaiting a court date and council suggest another 2 years before any compensation is paid.

 

It doesn't pay to hide things from your insurers.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Alan de Enfield

[Naughty Cal]

23 minutes ago, MartynG said:

That would be the minimum anyone should have.

Apologises to everyone  for being rude earlier but I do think not being insured is daft and potentially inconsiderate .Many years  ago my wife wife had an accident caused  by an uninsured car driver . We had to claim on our own insurance and the uninsured driver was poor so no point in taking it further . If he had been insured my wife would have received something for her injuries. In this sort of situation being uninsured is at the very least inconsiderate to others . If the same accident happened now  there would have been plenty of lawyers wanting to assist with a claim. Anyone with any assets would incur substantial financial pain.

Much like the chap who owned the boat the boat that set the fuel berth and another boat on fire at Burton Waters last year. He had no insurance in place amongst other things. He is now having to sell his home.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

10 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Or someone well off enough to self insure. 

Or just the opposite: it is all very well getting an award against someone (eg by the owner of the said gin palace) but if the person against who the debt is owed is a 'man of straw' then it benefits you not a lot. You cannot get what someone does not have.

With road vehicles, the state long ago took the view, on social justice grounds as well as economic, that third party was a minimum to be legally on the road. At least this means that the state does not have to pick up the tab of many of the costs that ensue.

[David Mack]

13 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

 

With road vehicles, the state long ago took the view, on social justice grounds as well as economic, that third party was a minimum to be legally on the road. At least this means that the state does not have to pick up the tab of many of the costs that ensue.

Although I believe there is also a (industry funded?) fund which can pay compensation in cases where the driver at fault is uninsured.

[furnessvale]

11 hours ago, David Mack said:

Although I believe there is also a (industry funded?) fund which can pay compensation in cases where the driver at fault is uninsured.

Yes, but funded by all those drivers who play by the rules and take out insurance.

George

[Horace42]

3 hours ago, furnessvale said:

Yes, but funded by all those drivers who play by the rules and take out insurance.

George

How about boats?  - I doubt it - but all the same I have 10% IPT added to my premium - so what do I get for that?

[furnessvale]

2 hours ago, Horace42 said:

How about boats?  - I doubt it - but all the same I have 10% IPT added to my premium - so what do I get for that?

IPT is a tax pure and simple.  It is not hypothecated in any way to pay for non insured persons.

George