1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192 
CM'S conclusion on how we were treated
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The variations in the cost of basic vehicle cover certainly prove the old adage that it pays to shop around: from this sample you could more than halve the price by doing so. Other than this, security systems certainly look well worth investing in. On public liability and goods-in-transit it obviously pays to get a combined policy, although the variaton is peanuts next to the vehicle cover. More discrepancies than you could shake a stick at cropped up during this investigation, both in the way we were treated and the cover itself, but space doesn't permit us to go into them all.
Perhaps most baffling, however, was iNhy four out of six brokers didn't even bother to send us a proposal form. Anyone would think they didn't really want the business.