6 small claims and I've been blacklisted, anyone else?

Debt_Free_Chick

I know it won't work for everyone, but I have an excess of £500 on my contents and £1,000 on buildings insurance.

Whilst, yes, you're entitled to claim ... insurance is really there for those disastrous situations. It's not wholly suited to a string of small claims for this and that. It's one of the reasons why I don't have accidental cover on my contents.

I've only made one claim in 30 years and in hindsight, I wouldn't make that claim today. A watch was left in the pocket of my bathrobe and I put it in the W/M resulting in ruined watch AND ruined WM. Now, I wouldn't claim and take my own stupidity on the chin.

However ..... a string of small claims is going to find you in a tight spot. You won't get good deals when you shop around and you may find no insurer will offer you cover at all.

Think very carefully about what you want your insurance to do .....

pastra

Why would any insurer want to take that risk on!!!!

It would be better to decline that risk than try and underwrite with terms and excess.

Oscar_The_Grouch

borrisspassky wrote: »

justify what I originally said, insurance companies make too much money.

Ermm... 1987 storms, January 1991 storms, Boscastle & Carlisle, Hull.... I can guarantee you that insurers do NOT make too muck money.

borrisspassky wrote: »

My concern is not the increase in premiums, whilst I think they are exorbitant, hiding behind actuarial balderdash is how they get away with it.

Insurance is where you pay someone else to take on the risk of you having to make a claim. You have made an average of one and a half claims a year, meaning that to an insurer you are 150% likely to make a claim if they cover you. They have put your premium up based on the likelyhood of you making a claim. They have put your excess up to stop you making lower value claims and give you a chance of getting back to a "good" position.

borrisspassky wrote: »

(2 X wind damage to greenhouse, trampoline, tar on carpet from dog, water destroyed PC, smashed camera on holiday, paint on new suit, ).

The problem here is that the carpet, pc, camera and suit claims all count as "accidental damage". Accidental damage is considered to be one of the prime targets for people to "make back their insurance premium" - otherwise known as fraud. Your insurers haven't accused you of fraud, which is good.

borrisspassky wrote: »

the insurance company made a substantial profit on me as a policy holder. Premiums paid-admin costs-claims paid out.

The cost of your claims may not have been equal to the permium you paid, but have you taken into account the cost of the staff to manage your claims, let alone the cost of producing all the documentation for you, the overheads for the buildings, the 20% plus that goes to the broker?

Thought not.

borrisspassky wrote: »

how come no one else will quote?

Ermm..... 1.5 claims per year. You are NOT a good risk. Why would anyone want to insure you when, after taking into consideration all the additional costs they will incurr every time you make a claim, they are likely to make a loss? Also, with 4 accidental damage claims, what's the chance of the next one being "I accidentally knocked the candle over and the house went up in smoke?

Why do you think insurance is a charity? There is nothing saying that they have to quote. If you fall outside of the scope of their cover, they will turn you down. It's like saying "I defaulted on my mortgage 10 times and now no one wants to give me a loan". Why would you be surprised?

borrisspassky wrote: »

And arithmetically there is no logic or real truth behind penalizing a 6 claims £2,803 customer more than a 1 claim £20,000 customer.

Someone who makes 1 claim for £20,000 is no more likely to make another claim than someone who makes 1 claim for £200. Someone who makes 1.5 claims a year, regardless of the value, is FAR more likely to make more claims. It's not the value of the claims that is the problem; it's the frequency.

I hope this helps to explain the position. I've been quite blunt because others seem to have tried to give you advice and be nice about it, but you've ignored them and gone down the "poor me" route. I sincerely hope you take up the offer from your existing insurers.

borrisspassky

Past outcomes have no bearing on future outcomes as you know. You supposition that a 1 £20k claimant "probably" only has one claim in 20 years is a fallacy, unless they can use a crystal ball, AND please, of course they do not tell other insurance companies what to do- they simply colour the facts and figures with their opinion. My number of claims is high, relative to what? Relative to the discomfort of the insurance company, for which they are lucratively paid and, not expensive for them in comparison to 1 large claim.They calculate it all this way because it maximizes their profits. Ask yourself simply this, if you were an insurance company would you rather have had 6 claims for £2,803 or 1 at £20k? Remembering that past outcomes are no indication of future ones. In the same way that the likelihood of me having the same rate of claims in the future is exactly the same as the likelihood of the £20k claimant continuing to have the same rate and size of claims in the future. . Besides which the increase is not my main concern, discrimination is. As an IFA you are naturally bias to the whole gamut of financial services which is why you accept and concur with the perverse way the insurance companies work.

borrisspassky

Not at all, I shall not be taking up theirs or any other offer but simply bank the old premiums and save myself the money, I have had no major claims because when it comes to life trauma occurrences extra vigilance is used, I am careful, so actually any future claims would have remained small and kept them making money from me. Tell me would you handle a baby like you would your laptop? No. If you had repeatedly but accidentally broken bottles or knocked over shelves in Tesco and despite your profitable weekly spend they barred you would you expect other supermarket chains to do the same immediately without ever having allowed you in? I think not. Not unless Tesco said something. Cake and eat it, ring a bell?

pastra

You can only use past experience to help understand the potential for the same pattern to of claims to continue.

pastra

borrisspassky wrote: »

Not at all, I shall not be taking up theirs or any other offer but simply bank the old premiums and save myself the money, I have had no major claims because when it comes to life trauma occurrences extra vigilance is used, I am careful, so actually any future claims would have remained small and kept them making money from me. Tell me would you handle a baby like you would your laptop? No. If you had repeatedly but accidentally broken bottles or knocked over shelves in Tesco and despite your profitable weekly spend they barred you would you expect other supermarket chains to do the same immediately without ever having allowed you in? I think not. Not unless Tesco said something. Cake and eat it, ring a bell?

You better hope that you don't suffer a major claim, a £20,000 storm claim isn't rare and you have no control over the weather.

CLAPTON

I'm a bit confused here

Surely when you have applied for further insurance you had to give details of previous claims ?
So it wouldn't have been necessary for your previous insurer to have black listed you.

pastra

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm a bit confused here

Surely when you have applied for further insurance you had to give details of previous claims ?
So it wouldn't have been necessary for your previous insurer to have black listed you.

Black listed

borrisspassky

enjoyed them and I accept there are some valid points but you cannot mathematically state that 6 claims means I will continue at this rate and that 1 claim means that that will continue, its the same probabililty that I never claim again and the 1 claimant has a claim every year for the next 6. Cast your minds back to Lloyds and the names.......raking it in and then blubbering when of all things some claims were made. Secondly your opinions are exactly those of the public who have accepted the widespread shafting that the banks have perpetrated over these last years and which have culminated in today's mess. Just because this is how its always been done doesn't mean its a)effective b)right c) profitable only for the insurance companies. Spot the odd one out! G'night.