[Sennen]

I have always worked on the basis 'only insure what you cant afford to lose'.

For me that is buildings but not contents and if I could get away with just Liability cover on the car I would.

It has always been in the back of my mind not just the profits insurance companies make but also the massive overheads and someone has to pay for that and that someone is ultimately the policy holder.

It has certainly saved me a fortune over the years but I fully understand those that are less financially stable taking the 'Belt & Braces' approach.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Sennen

I have always worked on the basis 'only insure what you cant afford to lose'.

For me that is buildings but not contents and if I could get away with just Liability cover on the car I would.

It has always been in the back of my mind not just the profits insurance companies make but also the massive overheads and someone has to pay for that and that someone is ultimately the policy holder.

It has certainly saved me a fortune over the years but I fully understand those that are less financially stable taking the 'Belt & Braces' approach.

I've currently got the insurance brokers doing something called Risk Finance Optimisation which takes your attitude to risk, your ability to afford the loss and the cost of your finance in determining how much insurance to buy. It sort of takes that approach - we could happily take a £15m hit at work and fund it, but wouldnt sit comfortably and the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere so has a cost - so it works out what the ideal balance is. Looking forward to some science behind it as it has been gut feel so far - which when you spend £2m a year on insurance isnt ideal....

[SkyJawa]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

Its like all insurances, how much value do you place on it and the likelihood of it paying out. Its cheap because it rarely pays out much - if it paid out often and large it would be expensive!

And if the worst happens it wouldnt preclude me getting the same car of the same age again - without GAP.

I've also never had a car nicked or totalled in an accident (well only a Fiat Uno that was worth about £2k) but I may now have tempted fate!

Fair enough, I witnessed first hand my brother in laws situation where he ended up flooding the car about 1.5 years old (long story) and the insurance payout was laughable. Luckily he had gap which not only covered the comedy value assigned by the insurers but meant he could move up a spec level to top of the range as a result. Thats why I go for it!

[Mattyk]

Re gap

If you can afford the loss on finance then it’s not for you

Chap at work bought an Audi A7 coupe, didn’t like it so chopped in within 6 months for an E220, then aquaplaned it into the central res.

13k deficit in insurance payout to finance settlement value and no gap. All due immediately to settle the finance.

For me, £350 to offset a 13k claim is worth it, it’s £75/year over four years

If you wouldn’t miss 13k then it’s a moot point

Each to there own, all about attitude to risk really.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Re gap

If you can afford the loss on finance then it’s not for you

Chap at work bought an Audi A7 coupe, didn’t like it so chopped in within 6 months for an E220, then aquaplaned it into the central res.

13k deficit in insurance payout to finance settlement value and no gap. All due immediately to settle the finance.

For me, £350 to offset a 13k claim is worth it, it’s £75/year over four years

If you wouldn’t miss 13k then it’s a moot point

Each to there own, all about attitude to risk really.

That’s one very specific example with a high pay out. As Ian says, if risk and pay outs were usually at that scale, premiums would be higher.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Sennen

I have always worked on the basis 'only insure what you cant afford to lose'.

For me that is buildings but not contents and if I could get away with just Liability cover on the car I would.

It has always been in the back of my mind not just the profits insurance companies make but also the massive overheads and someone has to pay for that and that someone is ultimately the policy holder.

It has certainly saved me a fortune over the years but I fully understand those that are less financially stable taking the 'Belt & Braces' approach.

Goodness, similar to my approach, but contents of my house certainly isn’t a comfortable replacement. Or the full price of a car.

I insure things that would cause pain to my finances, and they both certainly would. But a wheel, a tyre, a tv, a few scratches on a car, car negative equity, would be annoying, but not lifestyle threatening, so I never insure.

Although I’d love to be in a financial position that meant a hit the size of my house contents didn’t cause a lot of pain.

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Re gap

If you can afford the loss on finance then it's not for you

Chap at work bought an Audi A7 coupe, didn't like it so chopped in within 6 months for an E220, then aquaplaned it into the central res.

13k deficit in insurance payout to finance settlement value and no gap. All due immediately to settle the finance.

For me, £350 to offset a 13k claim is worth it, it's £75/year over four years

If you wouldn't miss 13k then it's a moot point

Each to there own, all about attitude to risk really.

Always had gap. Spent £600 over past 4 years on
3 different cars on GAP(ALA). No incidents so far touch wood but mainly worried about car theft hence took them out(along with ring cameras and monitored burglar alarm with police response and Faraday pouch.)

[Sennen]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Goodness, similar to my approach, but contents of my house certainly isn’t a comfortable replacement. Or the full price of a car.

I insure things that would cause pain to my finances, and they both certainly would. But a wheel, a tyre, a tv, a few scratches on a car, car negative equity, would be annoying, but not lifestyle threatening, so I never insure.

Although I’d love to be in a financial position that meant a hit the size of my house contents didn’t cause a lot of pain.

I suspect your house contents are considerably more valuable than mine. No Hi Tech gear, I still have a 'box' TV in the lounge, an old Marantz HiFi from the 80's and no jewellery to speak of.

I am a man of very few luxuries much to my sons chagrin who is a Flash Harry.

[JustChris]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

Always had gap. Spent £600 over past 4 years on
3 different cars on GAP(ALA). No incidents so far touch wood but mainly worried about car theft hence took them out(along with ring cameras and monitored burglar alarm with police response and Faraday pouch.)

You can transfer GAP between cars if it's been a recent change

[ZedsRedBaby]

I know this thread is more about GAP now than LR reliability but I just thought I'd mention that they came bottom of the latest Which? magazine reliability table (yet again).

The comment on the Freelander made me chuckle - "It's not worth it unless you're an enthusiast and a decent mechanic".

That model's a bit long in the tooth of course, but the current ones don't score any higher.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by ZedsRedBaby

I know this thread is more about GAP now than LR reliability but I just thought I'd mention that they came bottom of the latest Which? magazine reliability table (yet again).

The comment on the Freelander made me chuckle - "It's not worth it unless you're an enthusiast and a decent mechanic".

That model's a bit long in the tooth of course, but the current ones don't score any higher.

Freelander!

I can quite see why they are bottom, even for more modern cars. One of the questions in these surveys would, I am sure from memory, be "any faults?" and then perhaps "how many?".

I recently called up to ask the dealer to look at five things under warranty. They are all very minor, but it's exactly why they would come bottom. My answer would be 5.

Judged on the same criteria, I would put my first BMW at one fault and my second BMW at two faults. And our Toyota at zero. Oh and my first LR, the subject of this thread, as one fault!

[ZedsRedBaby]

Originally Posted by MashinBenzin

Freelander!

I can quite see why they are bottom, even for more modern cars. One of the questions in these surveys would, I am sure from memory, be "any faults?" and then perhaps "how many?".

I recently called up to ask the dealer to look at five things under warranty. They are all very minor, but it's exactly why they would come bottom. My answer would be 5.

Judged on the same criteria, I would put my first BMW at one fault and my second BMW at two faults. And our Toyota at zero. Oh and my first LR, the subject of this thread, as one fault!

Yes, they look at the number, frequency and severity of faults (based on whether it renders the car undriveable or not I think). BMW are roughly mid-table and pretty much all the top spots are Japanese (with a couple of Korean), so your experience seems fairly consistent.

[KRS_SN]

whenever I see a carpathian grey RRS HSE dynamic with panoramic roof black pack and espresso almond interior go by I feel how close I was to owning one 6 months ago. Head v Heart.

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

whenever I see a carpathian grey RRS HSE dynamic with panoramic roof black pack and espresso almond interior go by I feel how close I was to owning one 6 months ago. Head v Heart.

Definitely head vs heart. When I see a X7, heart says phew and head says damn. Probably as torn between the two brands as I ever was!

When I see a highlander, the wallet is going to join the head in saying damn.

[JustChris]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

whenever I see a carpathian grey RRS HSE dynamic with panoramic roof black pack and espresso almond interior go by I feel how close I was to owning one 6 months ago. Head v Heart.

Yes every time I see all 37 identical options I wonder what could have been.

That was a very specific list

[KRS_SN]

head heart wallet..beautiful representation of the incredible struggles which would bring a tear to any grown man's eyes.

[iceymayne]

Originally Posted by Rukka

Steps in as plenty of experience rejecting cars.......

I completely understand where people are coming from with the 'it's a fixable niggle' approach and the compensation angle for lack of use/inconvenience etc but is suppose the question you have to ask yourself is how you feel about how reliable it's going to be down the line?

I know none us us have Cristal balls and any car can develop an electrical fault given the complexities of the control systems. In your shoes, I would have been more comfortable if it had developed a fault, had it fixed and didn't re-occur.

Alarm bells would be ringing loudly with me with repeat faults and dealer visits in such a short time.

In your instance, it has had a fault, the dealer has attempted repair and it has failed again. You have every right to reject it should you wish.

Contrary to popular belief, the rejection process is simple. It's a consumer right so it's not really about the dealer or finance company 'playing ball'. They have no choice!

If you decide to go down that route I have a template letter which has served me well which I can share with you.

Rukka

Hi Rukka, do you still have template handy?