Don't renew home insurance as likely to be cheaper to take out a new one

SootyNotts

I am putting this information on this forum as I don't want other people to be ripped off by renewing their home insurance when the chances are it will be cheaper to take out a new policy even if it's with your existing provider.

Having been insured with Prudential for 12 years, we decided to shop around when our renewal came through recently as the premium seemed to have gone up excessively. When on line, we discovered that we can get more cover with Prudential for half the current premium - that's loyalty for you isn't it?

Hasten to add, we have cancelled our hold plan and took out a new one with Prudential and when we queried why the difference in premium they said that they can price match what they want.

We won't be using them again!

dunstonh

that's loyalty for you isn't it?

Why should they be loyal to you? Consumers are not loyal to them. So, it works both ways. Loyalty doesnt come into it nowadays (in either direction).

when we queried why the difference in premium they said that they can price match what they want.

That answer is not correct for your question though is it. What they should have said is along the lines of the fact you bought your policy 12 years ago when the costs of distribution were higher and the version you are on reflects that. Their current pricing (and discounting) reflects their current distribution channel costs and decisions on market share and level of cross subsidy which will have little relevance to that of 12 years ago.

We won't be using them again!

Its best not to take that attitude as they are no different to the rest. If you apply that argument to them then you should apply it to all or not at all. In future just check each year and go with whom you think is best and dont give a monkeys about loyalty.

mikey72

Quick translation of the points above.

dunstonh wrote: »

Why should they be loyal to you? Consumers are not loyal to them. So, it works both ways. Loyalty doesnt come into it nowadays (in either direction).

Translation:
They need someone to pay for the champagne at the shareholders meeting. It's you.


That answer is not correct for your question though is it. What they should have said is along the lines of the fact you bought your policy 12 years ago when the costs of distribution were higher and the version you are on reflects that. Their current pricing (and discounting) reflects their current distribution channel costs and decisions on market share and level of cross subsidy which will have little relevance to that of 12 years ago.

Translation:
You haven't noticed before, they will bleed you dry for as long as they can, only new customers need to think they are getting a fair price.


It’s best not to take that attitude as they are no different to the rest. If you apply that argument to them then you should apply it to all or not at all. In future just check each year and go with whom you think is best and don’t give a monkeys about loyalty.

Translation:
None of them give a monkeys about loyalty, so spread it around, they all want champagne, asti spumate is just not the same, and they still make a profit even at the lower price.

Thinking about this, I bet your local BMW/Audi garage love you,
"Why is my service charge about twice the price of everyone else's?"
"Well sir, it's because you're a loyal customer, you keep coming back, so we charge you more"
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

vaio

bigjl wrote: »

.......There was an opinion in the American insurance industry years ago that the longer a driver was without an accident then the more likely they where to have an accident, so they started to increase premiums for accident free drivers.....

vaio wrote: »

Sounds just like the UK insurance companies, premiums go up if you have an accident and premiums go up if you don't

I think I’ve also seen something similar written about house insurance long the lines of if you’ve gone a long time without a claim then you become higher risk

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

I think I’ve also seen something similar written about house insurance long the lines of if you’ve gone a long time without a claim then you become higher risk

The house one may have some legs although in my experience a very significant percentage of older retired people take a great pride in never claiming. They have a habit of looking at their insurance as just for major catastrophes and look at the minor mishaps as the normal running costs of being a home owner.

I have had customers where it comes up in conversation that they had a minor incident and I really have to convince them to put a claim in. Even then they feel guilty.

adamc260

dunstonh wrote: »

Why should they be loyal to you? Consumers are not loyal to them. So, it works both ways. Loyalty doesnt come into it nowadays (in either direction).

That answer is not correct for your question though is it. What they should have said is along the lines of the fact you bought your policy 12 years ago when the costs of distribution were higher and the version you are on reflects that. Their current pricing (and discounting) reflects their current distribution channel costs and decisions on market share and level of cross subsidy which will have little relevance to that of 12 years ago.
.

Think you missed the point - they should be loyal to him as he's been with them for 12 years... and also the price last year wasn't the price 12 years ago either so shouldn't of shot up that much to cover 'distribution?'.....