Really peeved with Car Insurance

glider3560

Mr_K wrote: »

Seems a lot of the regulars on here are attached or benefit from the insurance industry. Maybe they should get their own website/forum.

Without these regulars posting some sound advice, the insurance board would be full of posts like "You'll be alright hun, that big bad insurer is always wrong" and "You should get your money back because insurers are always wrong". Having these experts here allows people to get accurate responses which contain fact rather than opinion.

raskazz

Mr_K wrote: »

Yes, Dunstonh is right. Insurers have been having a hard time. We should be glad to give hundreds of extra pounds rather than getting the best deal. Stuff Children in Need, Insurers are a far better cause.

For someone who often gives invaluable advice on savings,pensions and investments he doesn't half give some duff opinions/advice on the insurance board. Remember the title of the website - 'Moneysaving' and its supposedly for 'Consumers'. Seems a lot of the regulars on here are attached or benefit from the insurance industry. Maybe they should get their own website/forum.

In relation to Admiral, they are on the the minority of motor insurers to turn a profit, however it would be wise to appreciate that almost half of the reported profit was from sales of ancillary products (legal expenses, breakdown, personal accident cover etc) and £8.8 million of the profit was from its confused.com operation which is not an underwriting business.

You will find that motor insurance underwriting (especially private car) is currently heavily loss making. Indeed in its interim report Admiral themselves point out the prevailing 122% market loss ratio. RBS Insurance recently announced losses of £200 million; NIG recently withdrew from personal lines insurance and its motor book was running at a loss ratio of 162%; HSBC Insurance was placed into run-off as no-one would buy it in light of the accumulated losses; I could go on.

A few other brief points:

• I think everyone is well aware that the site is for the benefit of consumers.
• I have seen far more instances of useful advice being given to consumers by dunstonh than by yourself.
• Dunstonh's post in this thread was accurate
• We are still waiting for your evidence that insurers have colluded in respect of pricing.

vaio

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes. Making a smaller loss or breaking even in general is really doing well.

You are focusing on the retail side and not the underwriting side.

I don't really see why you make a distinction between the retail & underwriting sides but if the group profits have jumped 20% I don't see they have much to complain about (unlike the policy holders funding that increase)

dunstonh

For someone who often gives invaluable advice on savings,pensions and investments he doesn't half give some duff opinions/advice on the insurance board. Remember the title of the website - 'Moneysaving' and its supposedly for 'Consumers'. Seems a lot of the regulars on here are attached or benefit from the insurance industry. Maybe they should get their own website/forum.

Ok, lets stop giving facts and reasons for things and instead just agree with all the rubbish and inaccuracy that is posted on the forums. That will really help people.

Its sooo much better to have ignorant people destroy the forums with their misplaced opinions rather than try to explain what is going on and why.

I don't really see why you make a distinction between the retail & underwriting sides but if the group profits have jumped 20% I don't see they have much to complain about (unlike the policy holders funding that increase)

raskazz confirms why the distinction is important. Especially in the case of Admiral where is shows cross subsidy in play. If people didnt buy those bolt ons then they would be making a loss.

huckster

And if the rumours are correct, Aviva have been looking to sell their personal Insurance portfolio at the right price. The fact is that the Insurers can make more money elsewhere in the world.

If people were not making so many dodgy personal injury claims, the situation would not be as bad. The average value of claims, during the last 5 years or so, has gone up massively. Too many claims accident management companies out there trying to make money !!!

vaio

dunstonh wrote: »

.....raskazz confirms why the distinction is important. Especially in the case of Admiral where is shows cross subsidy in play. If people didnt buy those bolt ons then they would be making a loss.

Yep, I read what Raskazz said but thought i was missing something. I thought the FT article said that the underwriting side (which I assume is just insurance) was profitable (which I assume means they were collecting more in premiums than they were paying out in claims) and was cross subsidising the retail side particularly the loss making (and very irritating) Confused.com

dollywops

My multi-car renewal with Admiral arrived on Friday morning. I did the same as I did last year, going through a completely new quote on the internet in DH's name. This worked out significantly cheaper. I then telephoned Admiral and the CS went through everything and changed a few bits here and there. About 40 minutes of my time spent on the internet and on the phone (0800 no of course) and I saved £380.

In fact, we are paying less now for 4 cars, Lexus 300, X reg Accord, 1.0 Corsa driven by 19 year old DD and 1.4 Corsa driven by 21 year old son (with 3 points for speeding) than when I had to insure the 1.0 Corsa for DS once he passed his test, and that only cost me £1600 4 years ago.

I know car insurance prices have increased, but I am paying significantly less than last year, around £650 less.

vaio

huckster wrote: »

......The fact is that the Insurers can make more money elsewhere in the world.....

Do you really think the decision to offer insurance in the UK is anything other than a commercial one? If they could make more money elsewhere they would be gone like a shot. I have knowledge of car insurance in Germany & France and both are considerably cheaper than the UK. I think someone posted a link recently that car insurance has fallen significantly this year in France (unlike the 20% plus hikes we are told to endure)

Sounds more like the bankers to me where we have to keep paying bust bankers bonuses lest they take their talents overseas.

huckster wrote: »

......Too many claims accident management companies out there trying to make money !!!

Maybe there would be less accident management companies around if insurance companies stopped referring policy holders to them and (*novel idea warning*) actually looked after the interests of their policy holders in house (like they used to) and/or settled third party claims quickly and fairly.

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

In relation to Admiral, they are on the the minority of motor insurers to turn a profit, however it would be wise to appreciate that almost half of the reported profit was from sales of ancillary products (legal expenses, breakdown, personal accident cover etc) and £8.8 million of the profit was from its confused.com operation which is not an underwriting business.

You will find that motor insurance underwriting (especially private car) is currently heavily loss making. Indeed in its interim report Admiral themselves point out the prevailing 122% market loss ratio. RBS Insurance recently announced losses of £200 million; NIG recently withdrew from personal lines insurance and its motor book was running at a loss ratio of 162%; HSBC Insurance was placed into run-off as no-one would buy it in light of the accumulated losses; I could go on.

A few other brief points:

• I think everyone is well aware that the site is for the benefit of consumers.
• I have seen far more instances of useful advice being given to consumers by dunstonh than by yourself.
• Dunstonh's post in this thread was accurate
• We are still waiting for your evidence that insurers have colluded in respect of pricing.

Not sure the figures agree, but from March this year,

http://www.postonline.co.uk/post/news/1594219/admiral-international-arm-contributes-gbp47m-profit-jumps

(Admiral) added its customer numbers were up 19% to 2.08 million (2008: 1.75m), profit from UK car insurance was up 15% to £207m (2008: £180m).

Admiral reported profit before tax at £216m for the full year ended 31 December, 7% ahead of 2008, whilst turnover rose 18% to £1.08bn.

It added its customer numbers were up 19% to 2.08 million (2008: 1.75m), profit from UK car insurance was up 15% to £207m (2008: £180m).

Confused profits were up slightly to £25.7m, (2008: £25.6m).


Similar story for interim figures from 2010 from a lot of insurers who state they are increasing premiums to maintain profits, and some even moving back into the market.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

Not sure the figures agree, but from March this year,

http://www.postonline.co.uk/post/news/1594219/admiral-international-arm-contributes-gbp47m-profit-jumps

(Admiral) added its customer numbers were up 19% to 2.08 million (2008: 1.75m), profit from UK car insurance was up 15% to £207m (2008: £180m).

Admiral reported profit before tax at £216m for the full year ended 31 December, 7% ahead of 2008, whilst turnover rose 18% to £1.08bn.

It added its customer numbers were up 19% to 2.08 million (2008: 1.75m), profit from UK car insurance was up 15% to £207m (2008: £180m).

Confused profits were up slightly to £25.7m, (2008: £25.6m).


Similar story for interim figures from 2010 from a lot of insurers who state they are increasing premiums to maintain profits, and some even moving back into the market.

Which insurer or insurers have 'moved back into the market' this year in relation to private motor insurance? These figures which I used were from Admiral's 2010 interim results. The figures above really don't mean much though, as I explained earlier in the thread, a substantial portion of Admiral's profits are derived from activities other than motor insurance underwriting.