Car insurance in the UK is a subject which resonates strongly with and I know personally dejects and angers drivers in the uk on a national level. If your passionate about changing car insurance premiums please, I implore you to take the time to read my story and get onboard with this petition! As a young, daily driver living in the UK my utter frustration with the extortionate and unjustifiable cost of car Insurance premiums has convinced me that it's time to speak up on behalf of the nation in an attempt to at very least partially reform the way in which insurance premiums are calculated in order for competent people to be able to run and afford a car with a price which is fair and reflective of the person, the vehicle and their personal situation which currently is absolutely not the case! Of course I am no financial expert and I am not all that business savvy, however I can speak for the people because I'm one of them, I pay insurance just like anybody else and we simply have to tackle this issue for reasons that I can best get across with my own personal story. As a 26 year old living in Dorset, south west England it's absolutely vital for me to own and run a car, without it I could not get to work, see my family or participate in most of my social hobbies. I first passed my test in September 2013 at the first time of asking with only 3 minors, quickly after buying my first car, a 1.5 litre Peugeot 106. At the time I fully expected a high premium as a new driver with an old car, and I ended up settling on a quote of £1,188 as a named driver on a parents policy, which was almost exactly twice the total cost of the car itself. Admittedly compared with some quotes out there this one wasn't actually too bad. I was very unfortunate with my first car as I had it parked with a permit in a local public car park and overnight one Saturday just 6 months into my ownership it was torched to a pile of ash. Upon getting in touch with my insurance company (whom I won't name, even though I'd love to) they initially refused to pay up anything on the grounds that I'd taken out a 12 month policy for which I'd not completed upto this point. As you can imagine I was devastated, I was now car-less and over £600 out of pocket. After weeks of negotiation with the company demanding I finish paying for a car that NO LONGER EXISTED, I settled on a payout of £315 with them cancelling my policy...which is naturally what I wanted anyway. 4 months later I bought my second car (which I still own) a 1.6 soda Felicia worth £600. I managed to get a quote of (I forget the exact amount) around £750 which was much better...but please hold on, here comes the goodstuff! Around 8 months into my policy that I was very happy with I was burdened with a letter out of the blue demanding £180 in charges on top of a revised premium of £1,300 due to a "fault claim, which was not properly disclosed" Not being savvy with these sort of things I had no idea whatsoever the fire damage claim from a full year ago counted as an accident claim and so regardless that I'd entirely lost my car due to a very rare act of vandalism, here I was, being asked to pay out double the rate plus back dated charges for something which had absolutely no reflection atall on myself, my driving competency or the car. After paying off the charges I cancelled my policy and in a bid to keep my job I frantically called one insurance provider after another all of which wanted a minimum of £1,330 with other quotes reaching (and I'm not joking!) £10,000 for a car that considering its like for like value I'd have to write off completely between 2 and 17 times every year, despite the fact that apart from the said event, I have nad no claims, no accidents atall in the nearly 4 years that I have been driving. My no claims bonus makes no difference, may age and experience on the road makes no difference and if it wasn't for my now fiancé being a named driver I would still be paying £1,300 per year. When speaking with staff as well as managers at various insurance companies, I have never been given a straight and congruent response as to the price of car insurance, there's is no rhyme or reason and it's a very literal case of "That's what the computer tells us" Im am by no means the only person who has suffered at the hands of apocalyptic prices which these companies who know we can't currently do anything about it and I'm sure there are many stories just like mine which is why I really sincerely hope people get onboard with my petition, take the time to read my story and stop this absolute madness. As a final addition to my story I'd like to add that my fiancé who has been driving for 15 years at the age of 33 with absolutely no claims atall who drives a 2011 1.2 litre Nissan Micra has recently been given her renewal quote to the tune of over £1000 when previously paying £500 per year...why??...not even the insurance companies themselves appear to know why. It makes absolutly no sense! Please people of Britain lets get this sorted and make a difference because soon enough for those on the lower rung of the ladder cars will just become more and more unaffordable.

These are biased and racist and should not be allowed to be seen free of charge.

Food is a precious resource the production of which has an impact on the environment. And people are currently hungry. And you are supposed to be the ethical shop.

I have yet to find a Gym which suits my needs and until that day I intend on opening my own. I aim to create a gym which provides areas for Calisthenics, Power Lifting and Skill development.

I think this is important as it becomes unfair towards people who's difference in age is possibly less than a month for some and one of them gets a whole another year on ponies. This needs to change.

Nothing worse than getting the wrong flavour. Simple as that.

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths. ___________ As a recent graduate taking my first steps in my career, I'm considering long term housing rather than long term renting. Many like me are doing the same in Birmingham, but sadly we may be being cheated of feasible means of settling in our nation's second city. Bottom lines left unchecked don't add up to fair societies. Let's hold companies accountable to their legal responsibilities in required affordable housing. -Sam, Campaigner

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.

Because it's really annoying and an unnecessary invasion of privacy

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths. Manchester has a real problem with housing. If you go out on any day in Manchester you will encounter a large number of people who have been forced to sleep on the streets. The number of homeless people is growing every day and lack of affordable housing is a large part of that. But this doesn't just affect them. More affordable housing will help slow the rise of house prices in ever budget. This is a crisis that affects EVERYONE Notes: [1] Current government policy says that developers can expect to make 20% profit on housing they build. That means that if a developer would make 19% profit on a development that included affordable housing, the developer doesn’t have to build any affordable houses. But because of competition laws these reports can be made secret meaning developers have free reign to manipulate the figures in their favour. [2] The Guardian: Revealed: how developers exploit flawed planning system to minimise affordable housing: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright [3] The Bristol Cable: Councillors strike a blow for transparency regarding housing crisis: https://thebristolcable.org/2016/12/councillors-strike-a-blow-for-transparency-regarding-housing-crisis/ [4] 38 Degrees Weekly Poll: https://home.38degrees.org.uk/2017/04/07/weekly-members-poll-england-northern-ireland-wales/

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.

Current planning law states that if a developer will make less than 20% profit on a new development, they can ignore a council's regulations about building affordable and social housing. Leaked documents from several developers have shown that the maths they use to work out their profit margins are purposefully misleading, allowing them to claim they will make less than 20% profit on a development by undervaluing the prices of the houses they will sell and over-costing the labour. To combat this Islington, Greenwich, Lambeth and Bristol councils have introduced a policy that forces developers "viability assessments" to be made public. By bringing these dodgy maths into the public domain, Councils, campaigning groups and individuals will be able to hold developers to account and force them to use more honest maths.