No claim made for car incident but premium still increased

raskazz

JonBoy that really is ridiculous. You have selectively quoted a post in which I have not 'changed my story' at all. I'm not even going to bother responding to such a juvenile ploy. I am beginning to suspect that you are simply trolling.

In terms of vehicle value, the declared value has little effect on the premium. The effect that it does have will only change at renewal because any 'age of vehicle' discount will also change as a year has passed - but this would be exactly the same in terms of new business pricing.

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

i agree, but neither does it mean that it doesn't happen

my experience of insurers is that they do what is commercially best for them. this would be a good reason for backing my suspicion that it does happen. as other posters have said, they are companies who's main aim is to maximise profits, not charities after all.

Like I have said about 5 times now JonBoy - what is the point in continuing the discussion if your mind is made up? If your argument is that it must happen because there is no absolute evidence to the contrary then that is a very perverse point of view. There is literally nothing that I can post or link to that will ever make you see sense, is there? I could post up the ratings guides of 99.99% of UK motor insurers and you would still insist that the 0.01% omitted does practice this ludicrous scheme you have dreamed up.

JonBoy_SCFC

raskazz wrote: »

Like I have said about 5 times now JonBoy - what is the point in continuing the discussion if your mind is made up? If your argument is that it must happen because there is no absolute evidence to the contrary then that is a very perverse point of view. There is literally nothing that I can post or link to that will ever make you see sense, is there? I could post up the ratings guides of 99.99% of UK motor insurers and you would still insist that the 0.01% omitted does practice this ludicrous scheme you have dreamed up.

the ratings guide of UK insurance companies are private information. you could only possibly post up the ones for whoever you currently work for. who's to say they do things the best way with the latest developments?

If your argument is that it must not happen because it doesn't happen in your current place of work, then that is a very narrow minded point of view.

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

the ratings guide of UK insurance companies are private information. you could only possibly post up the ones for whoever you currently work for. who's to say they do things the best way with the latest developments?

If your argument is that it must not happen because it doesn't happen in your current place of work, then that is a very narrow minded point of view.

Ok JonBoy, let's try to crystallise the two viewpoints:

Me - I have worked in underwriting for three major insurers, two of whom are acknowledged market leaders in technical underwriting proficiency. I work with colleagues who also have backgrounds with a wide range of motor insurers - between us we have experience in most of the leading UK motor insurers. I know many other people in the industry who do not work for my firm. Neither I, my colleagues, nor my friends in the industry have ever come across such a phoenomenon. I have explained why it doesn't happen - due to compliance, inefficency and impracticality, and even provided an explanation of why your 'example' actually supports my case rather than yours.

You - brought it up and have not produced any evidence that it does happen in reality, or any other reasoning beyond 'it could happen'. Not sure of your insurance experience but one could probably write it on the back of a postage stamp if your posting history is anything to go by.

Oh, and by the way - I have by various means acquired the rating guides of some other insurers. You clearly haven't got much serious insurance experience if you think that these things remain confidential...

So, as I said, where shall we go from here? There is no point in continuing in my opinion. Quite simply, you seem incapable of accepting that you are wrong.

JonBoy_SCFC

raskazz wrote: »

Oh, and by the way - I have by various means acquired the rating guides of some other insurers. You clearly haven't got much serious insurance experience if you think that these things remain confidential...

You are right that i don't know about all the murky goings on in your line of work. The above suggests that my experience of insurance company staff being somewhat underhand, is not restrcited to the phone staff.

If the quote above is supposed to reassure me that you and your colleagues don't fiddle around with the extra premium charges throughout the policy, i'm sorry but it does quite the opposite.

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

You are right that i don't know about all the murky goings on in your line of work. The above suggests that my experience of insurance company staff being somewhat underhand, is not restrcited to the phone staff.

If the quote above is supposed to reassure me that you and your colleagues don't fiddle around with the extra premium charges throughout the policy, i'm sorry but it does quite the opposite.

Oh dear JonBoy, so now you are resorting to pure 'suspicion', or even borderline paranoia?

And what you apparently fail to realise - I thought you would to be honest - is that obtaining a another insurer's ratings generally isn't even that useful, although it does make for a good boast. What works for one insurer can easily turn out to be woeful for another - for example, in the past I have seen schemes with exactly the same ratings run through two intermediaries that produce wildly different underwriting results for no apparent reason and which statistically cannot be down to the pure chance of a couple of large lossses - eg a loss ratio of 60% versus a loss ratio of 140%. The ratings are generally pretty formulaic but with minor differences in loads and the sort of underwriting attitude.

JonBoy_SCFC

the fact that what you've obtained is of no use to you doesn't alter my point about the dodgyness of it all:rolleyes:

what you apparently fail to realise is that if insurers weren't so underhand in the way they conduct themselves during the "existing customer" vs "new customer" phone conversations, maybe people would be less suspicious of them when it comes to charges mid way through the policy.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

i don't have my suspicions for no reason you know

JonBoy_SCFC

raskazz wrote: »

The ratings are generally pretty formulaic but with minor differences in loads and the sort of underwriting attitude.

perhaps you can explain then why any quote done on a comparison site comes back with a massive range of prices, easily with a 100% difference between highest and lowest:eek:

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

the fact that what you've obtained is of no use to you doesn't alter my point about the dodgyness of it all:rolleyes:

what you apparently fail to realise is that if insurers weren't so underhand in the way they conduct themselves during the "existing customer" vs "new customer" phone conversations, maybe people would be less suspicious of them when it comes to charges mid way through the policy.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

i don't have my suspicions for no reason you know

Why is it 'underhand' to legitimately maximise profit? May I ask what line of business you work in JonBoy so that I can critically appraise your attitude to such matters?

JonBoy_SCFC

raskazz wrote: »

Why is it 'underhand' to legitimately maximise profit? May I ask what line of business you work in JonBoy so that I can critically appraise your attitude to such matters?

it's not.

you seemed to suggest that people in your line of work use underhand methods to get hold of other companies rate criteria