Changing Address with car insurance firms

stugib

nevica wrote: »

For that, post 120 is the light at the end of the tunnel.

Insurance companies already adhere to TCF principles and outcomes. Just because you don't think it's fair doesn't mean mid-term fees aren't TCF.

nevica wrote: »

You badger me to answer your questions in the attempt to convert me to your way of thinking

You didn't join any debating societies at Cambridge then? :rolleyes: Raskazz has asked a pretty simple question: why are the fees not ethical? Answering 'just because others do doesn't mean they are' is not an explanation, it's just avoiding justifying your accusations.

pedro123456

The ABI’s Priorities for 2009-2011

Introduction
The last year has shown the need for the ABI to be flexible in response to turmoil. We have done that successfully so far, and recognise that in 2009 we must continue to pick up new challenges and opportunities quickly and effectively, adapting our priorities if that becomes necessary.

These priorities also highlight areas where particular investments are needed: in relationships with public authorities and the media, in fully understanding members’ concerns and in the quality and industry knowledge of our staff.

The ABI’s watchwords for the next three years and beyond are ‘consumer confidence’. At the heart of, and cutting across, all our work is the ABI Consumer Strategy. Our aim is simple: to help the industry enhance its customers’ experiences by improvingservice and dealing with problems wherever it can through collective action, and so justifiably enhance its own reputation and markets.
Stephen Haddrill Director General
Overview
The ABI’s core aim is to enable the insurance industry and its investment businesses to grow their markets, increase their profitability and to enhance their reputation with consumers and stakeholders.

The ABI’s priorities for action to achieve these goals over the next three years are:
• Improving outcomes for consumers
• Developing markets
• Securing better regulation to build market confidence
• Reducing risk and unnecessary costs
• Enhancing the operation of capital markets

An outline of each of these five priorities follows.

Improving outcomes for consumers

Objective: To promote and enhance the reputation of the industry with consumers and stakeholders, based on action to improve real outcomes for customers.

Rationale: ABI members want to increase confidence and trust in the industry and stimulate demand for products. To do this, the industry needs to improve outcomes for customers by dealing with areas of detriment that can be addressed through collective action.

Strategic Focus focus on the development and implementation of an industry-wide Consumer Strategy through a four-stage process:

• proactively identifying areas of detriment
•developing and implementing plans to improve outcomes for customers
•gathering evidence to demonstrate improvements
•using that evidence to secure justified reputational gains and seeking regulatory reform, to the benefit of consumers and members

Developing markets

Objective: To enable ABI member firms to meet consumer needs more effectively and in new ways and so develop new and existing markets.
Rationale: Through collective action, ABI members can persuade authorities to tackle regulatory and legal obstacles to the industry in its development of new products and services that will then better secure consumer confidence and larger markets. In doing so, the ABI needs to work across savings and protection objectives to ensure that key workstreams are aligned.
Strategic Focus: To focus on:
• Building the case in current economic circumstances for the need to ‘save and protect.’
•Ensuring the regulatory regime is developed to enable effective distribution.


Regulation and market confidence

Objective: To promote market confidence in the financial services sector through better regulation combined with encouragement of competition and market-based solutions to problems.
Rationale: Our aim is to ensure the regulatory regime secures a proper balance for consumers between being well-protected and being able to enjoy competitive and innovative markets.
Strategic Focus: Our principal focus, through work with the FSA, EC and international regulators, is to secure confidence in the solvency of insurers in current market conditions and ensure that the solvency regime, in the UK and internationally, protects consumers from risk at appropriate product cost and enables the efficient use of capital to be achieved internationally.


Enhancing the operation of capital markets

Objective: To promote confidence in markets in the wake of the financial crisis, by securing a considered approach to regulation and supervision that avoids protectionism and inhibition of innovation, by supporting the rights of ABI members as responsible providers of long-term capital and by securing recognition of their contribution. We also aim to enhance the status of the insurance industry with its customers, the authorities and other stakeholders through our work on corporate governance.
Rationale: Our aim is to protect the value of insurers’ investments in the short term and build foundations for longer-term growth.
Strategic Focus: To underpin much of the work we will reassess the effectiveness of governance and the contribution it can make to investment value creation in the changed environment.


Reducing risk and unnecessary costs

Objective: To reduce risk and unnecessary cost to consumers and the industry.
Rationale: Our members’ costs, and customers’ premiums, are driven by claims experience and risks that determine their cost base. We aim to prevent and reduce risk, and therefore the frequency and cost of claims, and to tackle the unnecessary costs that our members face. This will help to bring down the cost of insurance, increase profits and grow markets, and improve customers’ experience.
Strategic Focus: To focus in particular on: Securing Government commitments on flood prevention Tackling fraud and financial crime Developing a new strategy for ABI work on motor insurance

pedro123456

Now unless I’m missing some thing, what with the ABI promoting public Confidence, because obviously there is a lack of it and with the FSA looking at regulating the IC more by imposing TCF (Treating Customers Fairly) because, they and the public, are concerned about it

I suggest the IC’s are soon to be brought into line like the banks (fingers crossed).

Its time as already stated they had to standardising their T&C, loopholes, small print call them what you want, in order to provide clarity for the policy holder, clarification of the T&C etc doesn’t not imply that all policies have to be the same, policies can differ in thousands of ways, thereby offering choice and promoting competition and autonomy, but the fundamental underpinning of the policy i.e T&C should be standardised.

Definitions should also be standardised and choice given as what a individual IC want s to provide can be declared, in turn they can then go and seek policy holders for their particular niche.

I make reference to the definitions of CI in particular here, because this is what I know best.

The medical profession have a criteria in order to attain a definition, and within the medical criteria there is often differing opinions within different medical bodies, these differences will not be a million miles apart but none the less slightly different.

So how does the IC’s define these medical conditions, they sell insurance after all, so what do they know about medical definitions?

Well this is how it works, the IC’s employ/and or retain their own medical personnel, this medical personnel looks at differing medical definitions, and as opposed to say “well lets use this or that definition” they decide to use one in particular definition and THEN add the other criteria from differing definitions.

Looking at CI we are under the misapprehension that should we have say a “heart Attack” or “a stoke” or whatever we are covered, but of course we are not, the heart attack has to be “of specific severity” or the stroke has to educe a specified loss use etc.

Now these loopholes or T&C aint (even if they are made aware) of any relevance to the man on the street, he wants to know “if” he buys a CI policy that cover a heart attack or a stroke that that’s covered him, he doesn’t want to hear at a later stage of the illness, “yes but, not but, what about loopholes”.

The man on the street IMO is in general honest, (and if this wasn’t correct claims rates would infinitely exceed 10%) and will have paid his dues and demands, (and here I refer to policy payments) in the hope that “if” a rainy day arrives and he “has” to make a claim then his Insurance policy will be there for him.

And although yes Its there for some, it must be said that for many it isn’t or the lack of public confidence would be so prevalent.
T&C and Definitions (as we speak) are unfairly unbalanced in favour of the IC, and of course again as already stated, this imbalance has led to both the “lack of public confidence” and also the guidance from the FSA to enforce TCF

I conclude by saying until such times the ABI, IC’s stop the greed, look at the unfair/unbalanced T&C/definitions and listen to the man on the street you within the Insurance Industry will be the next on the unemployment list.

Fell free to contradict me and support/defend your Industry, but in reality it don’t matter to me I am not dependent on the Insurance Industry for my future, you lot are though, and fundamentally they (can't fill our pocket quick enough brigade) are letting you down too.

And that’s my opinion thank you for listening.

mattymoo

I don't know enough about CI to comment Pedro but I'd just thought I'd say thanks for a genuinely constructive post. Perhaps if we had a few more like these we would bicker less?

vikkifg

nevica wrote: »

Glider,

I truely find your post offensive. You have failed to give a reason why an insurance company can charge so much for getting me to do all of the work. I will have to print off my own policy. What administartion has the company done? You fail to see the point I am making. Insurance companies have to treat their customers better or they will loose business.
Nevica

The reason that the insurance company can charge you that amount is because you have entered into a contract with them to do so. You were not forced to go ahead with this contract and in doing so have agreed to abide by the terms - one of which is to pay administration fees as advised in the policy documents issued to you. You will have had 14 days after receipt of these documents to decide whether or not the contract was suitable.

Vikki

pedro123456

Well you see matty in my world I call a spade a spade, I believe in a fair day pay for a fair days work, what goes around comes around & if you cant (for whatever reason) help someone don’t harm them

Of course we on this board cyber communicate and in this cyber communication (because we are reading words without supporting visual or audible confirmation to help with clarification) and these words often get misinterpreted.
You think I’m thick I think your pompous , one neither, or both, of us may be correct, who knows anyway.

I now want you to consider written only T&C within your industry, they are words on a piece of paper just like these words on your screen now.

We as the policy holder can (in the main) read all the words as individual words, however the “actual” meaning of these collective words are often ambiguous, and of course by it very nature ambiguity is confusing for the policy holder, now not all but many of these ambiguous need clarification.
They aint ambiguous for you Insurance bods you have to read and understand them every day I suppose.

Anyway it’s not until such times that the general public feel “comfortable” with understanding the basic T&C of a policy that they will actually “understand” what they are buying into. This understanding would bring the IC & policy holder closer together (hopefully), but I’m afraid the IC have cut very deeply, and confidence will take some restoring (IMO)

And although I except that it won’t happen over night, people wont rush out and buy policies because they understand the T&C better, it will make in roads to promoting confidence & reducing mistrust.

If these T&C were stabilised, the message would be easier to get across the general public, it would open doors to education about life decisions to within the educational field, promoting transparency to the future policy holders (our children).

If the public have such mistrust now about the IC’s isn’t it feasible their views are transpired to their kids, I think it is.

There are thousands of ideas way for the Insurance Industries to address public confidence and the above example is just one, but unfortunately I’ll say this once more “they can’t see outside their box”

Now if you were to ask why nevica started this thread, my guess is that its along the lines of the IC setting its own agenda and to a degree being able to impose a tariff as it see's fit, and the concern is they reach a figure put it in their T&C and suddenly that’s ok?, I guess it's of no relevance "how much is charged" nevica is concerned with that charge being justified, just like the past bank charges have been found to be unlawful in the past.
My impression is that nevica is concerned about him/her have to print and do the job for a IC and then still be charged.

The defence of this is "well do you want a more expensive policy in the first place or a cheaper one the charges you for changes, and in reality it shouldn’t be a either or choice as these are little add on they purely and simply to promote short financial fill our pocket gains, and this mentality is what is ensuring the demise of the Insurance Industry.

mattymoo

I think I've mentioned in the past that I work in commercial insurance on the risk management side. Everyone gets treated as equals in terms of negotiating power so we don't have half of the problems that you see here.

I do know from my days in personal motor insurance that the margins are tight on this class of business. Some years you will make an underwriting loss (claims and expenses exceed premium income) so you would shore this up with your investment income. The profits on motor and household were certainly never obscene although some classes like PPI probably were.

Customers have changed over the last 5 years or so. There is now a greater willingness to shop around to get the best price and the comparison sites certainly facilitate this. Insurance has been largely commoditised as a result of this so that people buy on price alone, in the same way they would a can of beans.

In order to compete (which is really a requirement of survival in the free market) you have to aim to score highly in the comparison sites or sell yourself in a different way, rather like Direct Line, Hiscox and NFU do.

I can therefore understand why insurers look to strip out the frills and extras and offer a basic policy that meets a basic customers needs. It will compete on price but when you look at adding in the extras it might not do. Rather like an Audi A4 costing the same as a Mondeo - until you starting looking at the extras list to bring it up to a similar spec.

Admin charges do get added to these basic policies and they are clearly set out. If not, you have grounds to complain. Just because they are there does not mean the policy fails the TCF requirements.

I would however agree that £25 and you have to print the thing out yourself is a bit rich.

At the end of the day, customers need to start viewing insurance as less of a commodity and stop selecting on price alone. Until that happens, my feeling, (looking as an outside observer to that part of the market) is that the insurers will just continue to sell on price alone.

Insurance is however a cyclical market. At the moment there are a lot of firms looking for growth and making a profit. This drives down the price - supply and demand economics.

Normally the market has a 10 year cycle of price. We are currently at the low point (soft market). The last high point was 2002 when Independent Insurance collapsed. The soft market has been the longest anyone in the business can recall. Had AIG not been bailed out then the market would have hardened overnight simply down to their size.

The hard market occurs when people exit markets (usually because they are making a loss) or insurers realise profits are taking a dive. They then revert to what is known as the "technical rate" for the risk. No discounts, no inducements, thats the price and if it doesn't suit look elsewhere.

The comparison site sector hasn't been through a hard market situation yet. It will be interesting to see what does happen then. Perhaps we will see more insurers adopting the basic policy plus fees model simply to keep insurance affordable for everyone.

Re the T+C.
Insurers have improved greatly over the last 20 years. The vast majority of policies are now in Plain English and many have crystal marks for this. Certain words that carry a legal meaning or intention within the policy are also clearly defined. It is a difficult balance - to make it easy enough to understand but still give a non-vague meaning that will stand up to scrutiny. You should see some of the stuff we get in the commercial insurance world.

The scrutiny comes in the form of the ombudsman and the FSA regulatory bodies. I don't know if you've read any of their judgements but I would hope you feel they take a balanced view without any bias. There are not many industries with this degree of control and oversight.

pedro123456

Yes matty you have said what you do before and yes I remember.

As for reference to motor policies margins I would have a clue what you were on about, except in a general profit/loss business sense etc


Yep customers have changed in recent times as have IC’s,

I recall the days when the Insurance man would come round every Friday collect his cash, have a cuppa, give advise as to the best policies, he got paid every week, his employer earned from it the policy payer knew how the land lied, and would be guided and supported by “their Insurance man”.

Moreover families would ensure they budgeted for their insurance in order that “if” the sh!te hit the fan, they would have at least some help.

Now there aint any Insurance man collecting premiums and we “have” to shop around. And policies are bought on price as opposed to produce.

And no I’m not suggesting IC’s should trudge the streets, but that whole ethos worked, for the salesman, company and policy holder, profits without greed

Do DL,Hiscox, NFU score highly and is this partly reason for their, I don’t know I’ll take your word for it. What I do know is that they provide Insurance as sure as eggs are eggs they will feel the effects of lack of public confidence sooner or later.

Basic policies, well they have a place obviously, but just because they are basic they should also be transparent/honest and fully understood by the policy holder, as should the upper end more specialised policy. You know that when you buy a Audi you aint buying a Mondeo because the more basic cover will tell you so, certainly your Insurance man would have pointed this out.

Your comments about Customers need to view as less of a commodity and stop selecting on price, can’t work IMO, economics may affect this.I know “what” you are trying to say though.

There is room for budget Insurance and bespoke Insurance and as long as the public is aware of the difference and they arte informed and educated both should have a place.

The Insurance Industry is a cynical market, but the problem is the cynical market is trying to lure the cynical public, and the only one they catch is the cynical but needs must compulsory must have policy holder, and this isn’t where the IC’s make their profits from.