HAVING an interest in consumer affairs means I often have to look in details about issues around insurance.


For example, you won’t find me paying hundreds to insure my new washing machine as, I believe, it’s hardly ever worth the cost and companies will do everything they can not to pay out when there’s a problem.

But here’s my latest and very personal gripe.

My daughter  is 17 and has just passed her driving test. Remember what that felt like? The freedom. The promise of independence.


I remember when I was in her position, it felt like the world was my oyster and I was suddenly free. No more relying on my parents (my dad only had a motorbike) or catching buses at awkward times.

My parents weren’t well off, so whatever I had I had to pay for – a good lesson in life I think. But with a Saturday and holiday job, and using my savings to buy a car, this was all within my reach.


But for my teenage girl, there’s a shadow over all of this – the phenomenal cost of car insurance.



This is on top of the decision of whether or not to go to university and thus take on the 30-year ‘tax’ burden of paying for her higher education.
Initially her car, worth maybe £300 at a push, would cost her £1,900 to insure for a year. But just before she passed her test, the equality change came in and pushed her premium up to £2,400.

My girl is not lazy, she has a weekend job, works extra during the week when she can, so she knows the value of money. She’s studying, so is not in full-time work.


But her car insurance is more than double that of the two cars in our household which are insured for two drivers, high mileage and full business use! I find it so hard to justify that.

I don’t fully blame the insurance industry for this need to promote equality between male and female drivers but I do question whether this is about equality at all.

I would normally be first in line to defend the rights of women or men against discrimination.


But insurance is based on risk – and risk statistics dictate (it’s a fact) that young boys aged 17 – 25 are the highest risk for having an accident.

I know this better than most having made a documentary about it a few months ago. Their risks are much higher and part of this is to do with their psychological development. They are at the height of their risk-taking vibe during this time. Fact.

Also the insurance industry in bringing in these changes could be said to be hypocritical.

Isn’t it unfair to charge someone over the age of 65 more for their travel insurance? Isn’t that discrimination too? Age-ist? To have a blanket policy for everyone over the age of 65?

If asked to justify this, the insurance industry would probably say that these people are at ‘higher’ risk of a problem while on holiday.

This just proves my point – insurance should be based on risk, risks which can be proved through independent data, and issues around gender should not come into it.


To me, teenage drivers, particularly females, are seen as a cash cow for picking up the cost of more claims. Claims, in my view, should go up according to how many accidents you have, how many times you commit a driving offence etc. Oh, but I forgot, they do go up then don’t they? So the insurance industry wins whichever ‘line’ it chooses to take.

picture of a green car's front will on angle

why should young girls pay thousands in car insurance?

What do you think?

Motorhome story – a pr dilemma?

Last week I described a scenario to you where a police officer had almost come to blows with a company over the purchase of a very expensive motorhome.


To re-cap, the £40,000 vehicle was a lemon and the company was refusing to replace it, blaming everyone under the sun, especially the manufacturer of the vehicle.


Under the Sale of Goods Act, it’s the retailer who is responsible for providing a product that’s fit for purpose – not the manufacturer. This is especially true if faults occur during the first six months of ownership. But this police officer was getting nowhere.


That’s where the journalist comes into the mix (me) as the police officer contacts the programme I’m working on at the time. After said police officer guarantees that nothing will stand in his way of taking part in any filming – I get to work. This involves collating and verifying paperwork against story, contacting the relevant company.


After much to-ing and fro-ing, the company says it will back down and replace the vehicle.


Result! Happy police officer.


I contact him to arrange filming but he doesn’t answer. And he doesn’t answer, and he doesn’t answer. No e-mails are answered either.


Eventually after some days, I get hold of him when he rather sheepishly admits that he knows he’s going to get a new vehicle. But the catch is that he will only get it, if he pulls out of any filming.

I ask him if he is going to pull out – and despite all of his earlier protestations of ‘I’m my own man’ and ‘no one will manipulate me’ – he’s well and truly manipulated.


He refuses to cooperate further, while acknowledging that he wouldn’t have had this offer if it hadn’t been for my intervention.



I asked you what you would do if you were the police officer? Would you feel any commitment to me, the journalist, who brought about this offer? Or not? Would you give in to, what is effectively, blackmail?

I’m not sure what I would do – I would want to say no and go ahead with the story. After all, there’d been months of anguish and I would be entitled to a replacement or my money back if I’d gone to court. But who knows what pressure I’d be under to give in?


What could I as the journalist do about this man’s decision? The truth is very little.


I’d not filmed a shot so I was stuffed for a tv story about him – though we had looked at other complaints about the same company. This had been the strongest of the lot. I could (as he’d willingly given me his paperwork to back up his story) have written an article for the local newspaper, naming him and the company and there would have been little he could have done about it. If it’s true, it’s true. I didn’t do this.


For the company, they’d had a lucky escape from bad publicity, though if that company had had any gumption they might have seen it as a chance to get their brand on air, with an apology and shots of ‘here you are Mr Police Officer, let me hand over the keys to your new vehicle’.


Even though it is, on the face of it a bad news story, it’s precious air-time which you might not otherwise get. You could have put a spin on it of ‘ here’s company that puts rights its mistakes’ etc. But few company bosses are that courageous.

As a viewer, how do you feel about companies which actually turn up to

row of caravans in woodland setting

would you throw away your principles for a new motorhome?

put their side on programmes like the BBC’s Watchdog for example. I always think ‘well at least they’ve had the courage to stand up and be counted’. To me it always looks as if you’ve got something to hide if you are super defensive.


Regardless, this is a very common if frustrating problem when you work in consumer journalism – and I suppose us journalists will never totally overcome it.

Motorhome dilemma – what would you do? pr opportunity?



line of caravans parked up

Dilemma - motorhome or no motorhome? (thanks for pic humblebee)

You are a journalist working on a national television show which often deals with consumer issues.

You speak to a police officer who’s having problems with a company which supplies motorhomes. He’s paid out more than £40,000 on a wonderful vehicle but it turns out to be a complete lemon. The money took his life savings – a silver wedding anniversary present for him and his wife. It was a dream purchase.
It leaks, it’s mouldy, it’s not fit for purpose and he doesn’t want it in this state. But the company refuses to resolve the issue, insisting that repeated repairs are the answer.
He’s at the end of his tether, it’s causing arguments with his wife and he just wants his money back or a brand new vehicle. The company won’t budge – court action looms.


As a last resort, he contacts you – a journalist.

You listen, ask him to send in copies of paperwork and photographs to verify his story. It all checks out.


But you know from experience that chasing this could take weeks of writing, fending off lawyers, talking to lawyers, and that’s before you’ve filmed a shot. All of that takes money and time.


So you want a firm commitment that if you take up this case – he’ll agree to be interviewed and filmed.

He says to you ‘I’m my own man, no one will force me to do anything’.


You proceed and take up the case. Letters, e-mails fly around. Many talks take place with the retailer of the motorhome. It tries to fob you off with talk of it being the manufacturer’s problem. But you know that under the Sale of Goods Act, the responsibility lies with the retailer.
Eventually, some weeks later, the company contacts you to say the matter is resolved, they’ve backed down. But you need to contact the police officer, your interviewee. You know that this is a  situation that would not have come about had it not been for your intervention.


But you feel that there’s something to this deal that you won’t like – what could it be?


The police officer doesn’t contact you. You leave several messages but none are returned. Eventually, you catch him by surprise and he’s forced to talk to you. He confirms what you suspect – he’s been told he’ll get his new motorhome if he calls you off and refuses to cooperate.

So what happens next?

Consider this – what would you do if you were that journalist? what about that police officer? What about that motorhome company? How would you try to deal with this dilemma? Do let me know…..if I get enough comments – I’ll let you know what actually happened next week!


Recent Comments