Breakdown assistance quote

[muon]

Is that per year or per month?

Annual policy.

Only available through price comparison websites.

https://www.confused.com/breakdown-cover

The non zero excess option doesn't show up on Green Flag directly. From memory, even the zero excess option was cheaper through the price comparison website.

 

[Haggisman]

Annual policy.

Only available through price comparison websites.

https://www.confused.com/breakdown-cover

The non zero excess option doesn't show up on Green Flag directly. From memory, even the zero excess option was cheaper through the price comparison website.

Thanks, will definitely check that out come renewal time

 

[Sui]

I don't bother. I've not had breakdown corver for a few years, figured if I do breakdown I will call up the AA, ask to get rescued and sign up there and then...

Just to let you know, incase you hadn't already assumed, to become a member and get recovered on the fly, costs a lot more than a normal membership would. I guess if you're not paying £60/year and you rarely breakdown you're going to still save money.

I broke down without breakdown cover on Xmas Eve a few years back just as I was leaving work. Managed to limp it back to the secure work car park and got someone to pick me up after being quoted a silly amount of money by AA on the phone, went home, bought some breakdown cover and got them to come and look at it a few days later when I was back at work

 

[SkodaMart]

Got everything but home start with the RAC, 2 drivers, any vehicle. (We have 5)
Costs around £110 but had to start over with them to get a better deal.

 

[OverDrive]

Thank you everyone, I didn't expect my OP to start such a constructive discussion!

 

[Mysterae_]

Got my renewal through from the RAC, for 3 cars, myself and my partner covered - £255. That was for roadside rescue, at home, recovery and onward travel.

Checking alternatives now.

Edit - The AA have an offer on at the moment, 1/3 off. The same cover for £14 a month (it was cheaper to pay monthly).

 

[Razor-BladE]

Got my renewal through from the RAC, for 3 cars, myself and my partner covered - £255. That was for roadside rescue, at home, recovery and onward travel.

Checking alternatives now.

Edit - The AA have an offer on at the moment, 1/3 off. The same cover for £14 a month (it was cheaper to pay monthly).

Check autoaid/startrescue as others have mentioned in the thread, probably only about £60-70 for the year.

Once my current cover runs out, I won't renew (unless I can get that £20 plus excess one mentioned earlier) because for the 7-8 years I've been driving, I've not needed to use it. And I'm driving a reliable car so will likely save money just having to pay out on the rare occasion should I find myself stuck somewhere.

 

[Mysterae_]

I like to think that being with a larger company that may outsource as well increases your chances of having a quicker recovery time and more likely to have a low-loader. With a company that purely outsources your at the mercy of how many recovery companies are around your location.

 

[Haggisman]

I like to think that being with a larger company that may outsource as well increases your chances of having a quicker recovery time and more likely to have a low-loader. With a company that purely outsources your at the mercy of how many recovery companies are around your location.

Possibly true, but also possibly works the other way? E.g. with AA you're stuck waiting for one of their drivers, when the nearest one might be 60 miles away, heard quite a few stories about people having to wait 4-5 hours because they're a 40 year old man instead of an 18 year old girl with a baby on board (which is fair enough to prioritise, but still sucks for the guy waiting 4 hours)

 

[Pentland]

Yes it does, unless they take the car without your permission.

In fact, it covers ANYONE irregardless of whether they are living with you or not.

From Nationwide's Policy (emphasis mine):

You/Your: the Nationwide FlexPlus current account holder(s) and any driver authorised by the account holder(s) to use the vehicle registered to the account holder(s)

Can confirm, having just used Nationwide Flex Plus breakdown, it covered recovering my wife (and car obvs), who is not a nationwide customer, and her 2 pals in her car, which is registered to me. I’m pretty sure they can find out who the car is registered to but they sure didn’t check it was my wife they were picking up lol.
The insurance covers anyone so long as the vehicle is registered to me. It’s the car that’s covered, not the person.

In this instance she was met by the recovery guy within 30 mins and transported 200 miles home. On a bank holiday Monday. Top service.

side note: the Nationwide phone insurance is worthless. For a screen breakage, the excess is no cheaper than getting a local repair shop to do the work and it takes about 10 days from sending the phone for repair to getting it back. A local shop will do it while you wait.

 

[muon]

Can confirm, having just used Nationwide Flex Plus breakdown, it covered recovering my wife (and car obvs), who is not a nationwide customer, and her 2 pals in her car, which is registered to me. I’m pretty sure they can find out who the car is registered to but they sure didn’t check it was my wife they were picking up lol.
The insurance covers anyone so long as the vehicle is registered to me. It’s the car that’s covered, not the person.

In this instance she was met by the recovery guy within 30 mins and transported 200 miles home. On a bank holiday Monday. Top service.

side note: the Nationwide phone insurance is worthless. For a screen breakage, the excess is no cheaper than getting a local repair shop to do the work and it takes about 10 days from sending the phone for repair to getting it back. A local shop will do it while you wait.

So you confirm post #17 do you, since you decided to back that poster up. He is obviously wrong as what you've said isn't covering anyone in the household but confirmed what the person he was arguing against said.

 

[Pentland]

So you confirm post #17 do you, since you decided to back that poster up. He is obviously wrong as what you've said isn't covering anyone in the household but confirmed what the person he was arguing against said.

I confirmed post 35 which is why I quoted it. post 35 and what I said is quite clear, if the car is registered to the account holder, it (the car) is covered as long as the driver has your permission to use the vehicle.

 

[muon]

I confirmed post 35 which is why I quoted it. post 35 and what I said is quite clear, if the car is registered to the account holder, it (the car) is covered as long as the driver has your permission to use the vehicle.

Except that post is attempting to defend the conversation that is ongoing.

Imagine if you were having a conversation with someone and I randomly enter and out of context side with someone when what they are saying is essentially wrong.

You might have quoted post 35, but that isn't the beginning. This is a thread of conversation.

The very first sentence is 'Yes it does' in reference to post 17. Fezster is correct, it does not cover anyone in the household. Check what post 35 is actually quoting. As you said it's the car that is covered, not anyone in the household.

 

[Pentland]

Except that post is attempting to defend the conversation that is ongoing.

Imagine if you were having a conversation with someone and I randomly enter and out of context side with someone when what they are saying is essentially wrong.

You might have quoted post 35, but that isn't the beginning. This is a thread of conversation.

The very first sentence is 'Yes it does' in reference to post 17. Fezster is correct, it does not cover anyone in the household.

Sorry to upset the thread police.
I responded to a particular quote so it’s all in context. I also said, “ I can confirm…” and followed with what I was confirming. I also clarified, just for you, what I was confirming.

Pretty sure no one reading my post, other that you, is confused or really bothered.

Imagine if a thread had 2000 posts, and someone responds to post 1998 yet the poster of post 1998 said something in post 2 which he later clarified.


I bet you also correct people on their use of “their”, “there”, and “they’re”.

 

[muon]

Sorry to upset the thread police.
I responded to a particular quote so it’s all in context. I also said, “ I can confirm…” and followed with what I was confirming. I also clarified, just for you, what I was confirming.

Pretty sure no one reading my post, other that you, is confused or really bothered.

Imagine if a thread had 2000 posts, and someone responds to post 1998 yet the poster of post 1998 said something in post 2 which he later clarified.


I bet you also correct people on their use of “their”, “there”, and “they’re”.

Im not asking you to consider the entire thread if you can't be bothered. Just look at the post quoted in the post you are replying to. You must have seen it before you pressed quote.

 

[Pentland]

Im not asking you to consider the entire thread if you can't be bothered. Just look at the post quoted in the post you are replying to. You must have seen it before you pressed quote.

Jeeze, 5 posts of clarifying a perfectly clear post. Get a grip.

 

[muon]

Jeeze, 5 posts of clarifying a perfectly clear post. Get a grip.

You confirmed an incorrect post. The post in question replies 'Yes it does' when told the policy does not just cover anyone in the household. They even bolded that exact statement.

Theres no point saying you meant something else when your very first statement is about confirming that post. Your interjection is contradictory.

'Get a grip' isn't a valid retort. You just failed to read a relatively short thread.

 

[M1k3H]

So, to summarise, your objection to my post (and to Pentland's above) is that if someone who is staying with you in the household steals your car because they have access to your keys it does not cover them.

Otherwise, it covers anyone in the household (and outside), for the majority of households.

A statement doesn't need to cover 100% of scenarios to be correct, which mine doesn't, but it does cover the majority of households.

 

[bloodiedathame]

This has to be the most pointless argument I've ever witnessed.

 

[ron3003]

Oh no it isn't