Classic insurance with provisional license?

[Benzine]

Hi, I've had a few cars over the years that I've had a classic car policy with (Volvo 740, 940, 960) but now that my fiancée is learning to drive I wanted to look into getting a car she can drive as well. Does anyone know if there are any classic insurance companies that will insure another drive who only has a provisional license?

Thanks for any info

[Young Farmer]

Adrian Flux have a young drivers section as well as classic cars so should be able to help. Depending on her age be prepared for a shock as most young drivers are being asked £2500+ to get cover. This is putting a lot of youngsters off learning to drive so there are going to be a lot more unlicenced drivers on the roads.

[mr rusty]

When miss Rusty, 17, tried to insure her Metro none of the classic companies were remotely interested, none would quote on a 17 year old on a provisional, not on a classic policy anyway. I could easily get a classic policy on it but a learner, particularly a teenage one, no chance!!

The best deal we could find was from Collingwood who do a learner insurance package, it's around 1200 quid in monthly instalments for her to insure the car and drive it with a full licence holder supervising.........and it's me sitting in the passanger seat of terror

[Benzine]

Thanks for the replies I should have added in my first post that she's 25, so I think that ticks the age box for most classic insurers.

[rich.]

is it me or are insurance companies ripping off young drivers??

[TerryG]

is it me or are insurance companies ripping off young drivers??

Their quotes are all based on statistics. Young drivers crash more, your car is more likely to be stolen in a city than the country, the more miles you drive the more likely you are to crash, men have major accidents, women have a larger quantity of accidents but they are normally minor ones, etc.
They aren't allowed to be sexist anymore which has pushed the cost of insurance right up for young women.
There are systems to bring your insurance cost down. You can get a camera fitted to the car that films you’re driving and a GPS unit that tracks your location. Then you only pay insurance for the journeys you do and how recklessly you drive. Personally I would rather pay more and do what I like but for a new driver it could be a good option.

[Maaarrghk]

No Rich, it's not you.

What they are doing is legalized theft and prison sentences should be handed down to whoever is behind all this.

Sadly we all know that this will not happen and these criminals know it. They just keep on trotting out the same excuses that Terry lists despite the fact that they are quoting these mad charges at drivers who generally have a completely clean record.

If the risk is so high for them, then surely we would have seen car insurance companies in serious financial trouble because of all the payouts they have to make due to claims by/against younger drivers. To the best of my knowledge, we have seen no such thing.

Aren't the insurance companies currently being investigated over the recent across the board 40% hikes? I'm not too optimistic as I'm sure we can all guess where those doing the investigating will be looking for future employment.....

[suffolkpete]

There's always been a differential between insurance costs for younger and older drivers. Back in the sixties, when I was learning to drive, most of my contemporaries would buy an old car, insure it third-party only and build up a decent no claims bonus before getting something better. These days, even the most basic of entry level cars can do 100mph (anybody see that episode of the Inbetweeners with the Fiat Seicento?). I believe the differential has widened, not only because there are more claims, but because the cost of claims has rocketed. Garage costs are huge, repairers often won't touch non-insurance jobs because there's no money in it. Personal injury claims have increased, fuelled by the insurers themselves giving referrals to ambulance chasing scum lawyers. And then there is the hire car scam, with "Accident Management" companies charging huge sums for hire cars. Lightly damaged cars are often written off because the insurers want to avoid hire car charges. Insurers collude with all this, because they can just get their cost back by hiking premiums, especially for younger drivers. They could reduce costs a great deal if they had the motivation.

[mach1rob]

It is legalised theft, and something needs to be done to stop it, continuous insurance is a complete waste of time, and is just another scam from the insurance companies to empty your pockets.

I really don't know how kids these days can get on the road, even on a £500 heap of junk you have to pay 3 times its worth just for TPF&T as a learner, and this generally doubles when you pass the test! OK I can see how young Jonny wants to show off his new found driving skills in front of his mates, but not all new drivers will tear down the High Street at 100mph at the earliest opportunity when they no longer have to have someone sitting them up.

We bought a £400 1.3 Polo for our nephew, 17 year old male, we live in a good postcode, yet cheapest we found was £1300 while he learnt, this would then go up to £3,300 when he passed his test! Is it any wonder there are so many uninsured drivers on the road with costs like that? The fine for driving with no insurance comes in cheaper, one of these traffic cops shows showed a bloke stopped driving a bmw, no insurance etc, he got fined £320 and 6 points! LESS than one months instalment for insurance. No wonder then they take the risk, and to avoid it showing up on MID, insuring it in some 50 year old made up persons name.

Sooner they stop insurance companies taking the mick with premiums, the sooner they'll cut the amount of uninsured drivers on the road.

Since I started driving in the late 80s my insurance has never been more than £500, hell at 18 I was driving around in a 320 bmw, if I tried that today I'd have to sell a kidney to pay to insure it!

[TerryG]

I won't put too much effort into defending Insurance companies as like everybody else I would like lower premiums but everybody is in business to make money.
Two examples for you both within the last year.
In the farm yard a pair of 19 year olds were paid to wash lorry’s and tractors. They decided to take a JCB Fastrak to McDonalds to show off to a mates. They got 1/4 mile before pranging it by going too fast, not being able to stop for a corner and writing off the tractor (twisted chassis) and a 60 plate Hilux belonging to a local farmer. The farm insurance paid out for the Hilux but refused to pay for the tractor as the drivers were too young. Richard has had to buy a replacement out of his own pocket.

17 year old farm hand in a 1.3 diesel Astra van, bought it with his birthday money, 3 days after passing his test it was on its roof in a field in a road coming back from Alton towers.

I will freely admit most young drivers aren't tearaways but I completely agree they should have to pay for the damage they cause. I put my car on its roof at 17 and drove like a moron. If I worked for an insurance company I wouldn't insure a 17 year old me or if I had to I would charge a fortune to make sure it was worth my while. Have a look at the accident statistics and see how much more likely a 17 year old is to have a crash compared to a 25 year old.
It is a shame that they have been forced to match the price men and women pay for insurance as it means that teenage girls have ended up paying the price for teenage boys driving wrecklesley.