im a 19 year old trying to find car insurance

hello to all, thanks in advice for you're answers. i have a few questions about car insurance that remain unanswered. i consider myself a 'car enthusiast' so getting my first car has always been important to me. however, those who know about insurance prices in the UK, they're not too good when it comes to young drivers. long story short, i want to get insured and all quotes are above 6k without a blackbox (not getting one so don't recommend....please). ive even added my mum as a additional driver, but that didnt seem to help.

and by the way, im trying to get insured on either a mk1 mx-5, or a bmw e36 318i/318i

i have a friend who drives a subaru wrx....he is 18. he is apparently with a insurance broker, which gave him a quote of 62 pounds a month. he is now driving happily, and i want the same.

by the way, just to add, i do have a job that pays 1300 to 1400 a month so i dont mind paying like 3-400 a month just on insurance (which im not getting for some strange reason)

my questions are:

1:tricks for cheap insurance quotes?
2: why are so many young drivers not getting similar quotes to me? im getting 6-12k quotes
2: how to set myself up with a broker?
3: is there a catch for being with a broker? i question this because its so cheap and wonder why everyone doesnt do it.
4:anyone young answering? please let me know what you are getting quoted and how.


basically tell me anything related, i need a few answers. thank you to all.

Tricks for cheap insurance... Make sure you say its only for personal use and if you have a garage say you will leave it in the garage whether you actually will or wont thats your choice, things like that.

it means that the car technically isn't insured, so it could be impounded and the driver can get six points and a fine

That's actually not true; due to the fact an RTA insurer is required by law to pay out on third party claims whilst a policy was active (irrespective of whether it was obtained fraudulently or not) - the vehicle would in law have been insured, so no prosecution could come from a lack of insurance.

Of course, this is not the case should the insurer seek Article 75 status, but this is only for rare cases of deception on the part of the policyholder, for extremely false information given at the time of inception.

@sek510i is technically correct, any false information given to the insurer can result in the insurer treating the claim as if you were never even insured with them; therefore the insurer is not required to pay out in an event of a claim for the policy holder and would also mean that the car was also not insured whilst it was on the roads, which would lead to prosecution.

No. An RTA insurer is obliged by law to pay out to the third party unless it goes Article 75, and as third party is all that is needed to be road legal, there is no viable prosecutable offence pertaining to lack of insurance.

They can (and most definitely will) refuse to pay out any comprehensive element of the policy, but they HAVE TO pay third party damages - they can of course take legal action against the policyholder to recoup these, but in terms of insurance related law, they have to pay the third party regardless.

Source: Many many many many conversations with insurers, and RPU officers - you can find the same information on Wikipedia though, if you're interested - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTA_Insurer under the section titled "RTA Insurer".

Read what I said... I said "the insurer is not required to pay out in an event of a claim for the policy holder" I said for the POLICY HOLDER.

by the way, just to add, i do have a job that pays 1300 to 1400 a month so i dont mind paying like 3-400 a month just on insurance (which im not getting for some strange reason)

Read what I said... I said "the insurer is not required to pay out in an event of a claim for the policy holder" I said for the POLICY HOLDER.

And in future don't reference to Wikipedia, as due to being edited by volunteers renders it to be an unreliable source.

Yes but that isn't the same as driving without insurance. The legal requirement is for third party cover, which the insurance company would pay out for. You would probably find your insurance being cancelled if this happened so would have difficulty getting insured afterwards, for a reasonable cost! There are other charges possible, but my cursory research indicates that IWMTom is correct, so driving without insurance couldn't be one of them.

Engine size is your problem here; you're never going to get cheap insurance without a no claims bonus under 25 on such large engines... that surely must have been an obvious deduction for you..

Your mate isn't "with" an insurance broker; the broker finds a cheap quote with an underwriter, usually with a hefty commission charge (and they tend to "bend" the facts a little - be cautious if you go down this route).


To answer your questions:
1) Get a cheaper and less powerful car
2) Most young drivers aren't trying to insure 2l engines without any experience
3) Contact one? If you really want to, that is..
4) Because the difference is only significant for special cases - mainstream it's cheaper to go to an insurer directly
5) 2k on a 1.2l car in first year, 1.3k second year.



Be aware that lying on an insurance policy is not only grounds for cancellation, but fraud - one should always be entirely truthful with an insurer. Also, you'll tend to find that putting a car inside a garage whilst intuitively would seem cheaper, is actually not (due to the damage which could occur driving into and out of a garage) - my comment there is based on anecdotal evidence and numerous conversations with insurance underwriters and assessors.