No claim made for car incident but premium still increased

raskazz

pedro123456 wrote: »

Thank you Raskass..............yes I'm sure you are correct, other board members would like to shut me up, possibly for financial reasons, ( such as the ones involved in the Insurance Industry) others (the paying policy holding public) not......who knows?

It's very disingenuous of you to say that. Nowhere in my post did I state that I or anyone else wanted you to 'shut up'. What I said was that I (and I'm sure other people too) would prefer it if you could (i) stay on-topic and (ii) debate things in an adult manner, which involves providing evidence, thinking logically, responding to points raised rather than evading them, and having an open mind - abilities which you don't seem to possess based upon your contribution so far.

pedro123456 wrote: »

Its interesting how I keep gaining negative comment from just certain Individuals, the ones who work within the Insurance/Finance sectors………..I don’t see the ordinary person pulling me up……………………although you and the other Insurance/finance bodds will no doubt address that soon,

This is not true. For starters the impartial admin of this site did pull you up by deleting the thread which you ruined.

pedro123456 wrote: »

I will however continue my journey and expose the Insurance industry in all its mucky waters, until you and your supporters can develop a way to get me banned from this site

The only person who will get you banned from the site is yourself, by continuing to disrupt threads and continuing to make little or no positive contribution. In any case, as evidenced by a thread elsewhere, the longer you continue in this vein, the more people will simply put you on ignore.

pedro123456

Raskass...........please feel free to put me on ignore ASAP

and no you didn't say you would like to shut me up......i did........and you would

Z

pedro123456

sorry raskass nothing personal

Z

JonBoy_SCFC

Dan_Thomas wrote: »

In short, I won't patronise you, but insurance premiums are all related to risk.

I won't patronise you, as i'm sure you know that what you said is only partly true - customer price sensitivity is a large factor going into the price.

If all premiums were related to risk, then how can an identical risk be given two very different prices i.e. one "new customer" price and another "existing customer" price?

lisyloo

Luckily I've discovered the date and time of the call after digging into my O2 online bill. I hope that my long telephone conversation with them back then can be forwarded to me.

As a test I will be calling again to ask other advisors just to see the response. May be I should also inform them that the call is being recorded for training & other purposes...

It's quite possible that the claims team have been informed not to give the incorrect advice since my phone calls.

I'm gald you've found it, but you should be aware but just because a call operator said something does not make it legally binding.
I've had the experience multiple times when the operator has made a mistake, but this does not bind the company.
It might shift the weight of evidence towards you as part of a case and is certainly very frustating but it doesn't mean you are automatically entitled to what they said.
They could have simply made a mistake and it just isn't biding on the company.

lisyloo

so annie.........no claims and your premiums go up,

Any explinations ladies and gents from the Insurance sector?

How come they have increased the premium despite a further year no claim for this lady?

I don't work in the insurance sector, but busineses have to relate their prices to costs.
If the cost of replacement parts, repairs, wages etc. rise, then insurer need to raise their prices generally.
Individually risk is a factor not the only single thing that affects the price.

pedro123456

valid point lisyloo.................I wonder if is it because you are outside the box, that were able to offer a reasonable explination?

not that I TOTALLY agree,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but I see some validity in your statement.

Z

JonBoy_SCFC

Dan_Thomas wrote: »

I said "related to", not "directly proportional to".

Just because a new business is offered cheaper, it does not mean that it is not related to the risk. The insurers are just happy to make less profit (or even a loss) on new business, as they have potential to win these back at renewals.

i agree with that, but when posters from within the industry try to justify extra premiums by saying that the whole process of setting these premiums is based on the relative risk (or "material info" as some call it), it just feels to me like theyre deliberately creating the wrong impression;)

If the setting of the price at the start of the process is heavily linked to "willingness to buy", why are we meant to believe that the setting of price when you change your details isn't linked to "willingness to accept extra premium"

it would seem perfectly logical to me

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

i agree with that, but when posters from within the industry try to justify extra premiums by saying that the whole process of setting these premiums is based on the relative risk (or "material info" as some call it), it just feels to me like theyre deliberately creating the wrong impression;)

Yes of course a factor in premium rates will be down to pricing (differential rates for renewals and new business, pricing according to distribution channel) rather then pure underwriting - but in the context of this thread that is irrelevant. All other things being equal - the change in premium due to the change in material fact (in this case a non-fault incident) would affect the rate regardless of whether it was at renewal or new business - as the OP has confirmed, in fact.

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

If the setting of the price at the start of the process is heavily linked to "willingness to buy", why are we meant to believe that the setting of price when you change your details isn't linked to "willingness to accept extra premium"

I can assure you that the setting of price when facts change isn't linked to willingness to accept an extra premium.

JonBoy_SCFC

raskazz wrote: »

I can assure you that the setting of price when facts change isn't linked to willingness to accept an extra premium.

you may be correct, but given that the practise of setting the start price linked to willingness to buy it would seem totally logical for it to.

This practise causes some mis-trust amongst the consumers - understabdably so. So I hope you can understand why i am less than convinced that this doesn't happen for changes mid-way through the policy. Especially when it would be virtually impossible for the consumer to know it was happening

As i said before, it seems exactly the same principle, and so all common sense would suggest that doing this would not be beyond insurers's morality;)