What is going on!

caerleon9176

I am insured with Elephant and have been for the past 2 years. Last year i paid £688 Full comp for my car. This year i have 2 years NCB with them. They have quoted my renewal at £1500!!!! Almost 3 times the original payment!?! I called them and told them that nothing had changed. Then they mentioned that i had called them to state that someone had hit me from behind at traffic lights, i never claimed on my policy the other parites insurers paid for everything. When i asked Elephant what the gigantic increase the excuses i got were, there were more claims last year, the weather is forecast to be bad as the snow last year, you have quoted that you have children under 16 on your policy, there are more uninsured drivers out there ("Really! Must be the over inflated premiums your asking for that makes them do it!) and the best one - "our research shows us that if your involved in a no-fault accident your more liable to get hit again!???!!!????!!! What a complete load of elephant poo!
They said putting my children on the insurance adds £282 to my premium, so where is the over inflated quote being drempt up?

I have managed to circumvent there website to get another quote on the same details on Elephants own site and it quotes me £787 even with the added no fault information i gave them! But they dont let you buy it as your email address, vehicle reg and personal details are all on a database. All other quotes are the 800-1100 range and im still trying to find the best deal.

bigblackdog

they dont want your business obviously

caerleon9176

bigblackdog wrote: »

they dont want your business obviously

They are certainly not going the right way to get it! They also like the auto renewal - shame that card expired in May! Like to see them try that one!

no-oneknowsme

caerleon9176 wrote: »

They are certainly not going the right way to get it! They also like the auto renewal - shame that card expired in May! Like to see them try that one!

Regardless of whether or not the payment card has expired , if a new card has been issued to you by the card provider , elephant would still be able to use the new card to auto renew.

dunstonh

They also like the auto renewal - shame that card expired in May! Like to see them try that one!

As mentioned above, auto renewal is done on a continouous payment agreement and for those, the date of the card does not matter. So, they will be able to collect the money if you dont tell them you dont wish to renew.

the best one - "our research shows us that if your involved in a no-fault accident your more liable to get hit again!???!!!????!!! What a complete load of elephant poo!

Its also correct. Those involved in a no fault accident are statistically more likely to have another accident in the near future.

Insurers are cherry picking more nowadays. Higher risk drivers are being penalised more by some insurers (whilst lower risk are actually seeing little or no difference or even less than last year). You need to remember that the bulk of the reasons why premiums have gone up are external to you. Fake claims by consumers, increased accident costs, no win no fee solicitors, claims companies have all had an inmpact. Also, lower investment returns has made a significant difference. Insurers pay out around £123 for every £100 of premium they get. Thats loss making. However, cross subsidy and investing the money had allowed them to get away with that. When investment returns are poor (as they were in 2007,2008 and 2009), they cant make up that shortfall easily without more cross subsidy sales (such as breakdown cover) and increasing the premiums. Like all financial firms, insurers are also having to increase their assets for solvency requirements.

Some insurers have decided to price themselves in a way to discourage you from renewal. If you accept the price they cover their costs. If you take the business elsewhere then they have not made a loss.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

As mentioned above, auto renewal is done on a continouous payment agreement and for those, the date of the card does not matter. So, they will be able to collect the money if you dont tell them you dont wish to renew.

Its also correct. Those involved in a no fault accident are statistically more likely to have another accident in the near future.

Insurers are cherry picking more nowadays. Higher risk drivers are being penalised more by some insurers (whilst lower risk are actually seeing little or no difference or even less than last year). You need to remember that the bulk of the reasons why premiums have gone up are external to you. Fake claims by consumers, increased accident costs, no win no fee solicitors, claims companies have all had an inmpact. Also, lower investment returns has made a significant difference. Insurers pay out around £123 for every £100 of premium they get. Thats loss making. However, cross subsidy and investing the money had allowed them to get away with that. When investment returns are poor (as they were in 2007,2008 and 2009), they cant make up that shortfall easily without more cross subsidy sales (such as breakdown cover) and increasing the premiums. Like all financial firms, insurers are also having to increase their assets for solvency requirements.

Some insurers have decided to price themselves in a way to discourage you from renewal. If you accept the price they cover their costs. If you take the business elsewhere then they have not made a loss.

Haven't we been here before, the figures you quote here have been shown as incorrect, even by other insurance advocates such as Raskazz.
The simple answer is it's a very underhand marketing ploy, hoping to charge a ridiculous price on auto renew, then even if you try to cancel they try to charge a punative cancellation fee.
I would love to see some actual source for those "statistics" we keep hearing about for the non-fault victims as well, as that is looking more like a revenue source rather than reality.

dunstonh

Haven't we been here before, the figures you quote here have been shown as incorrect, even by other insurance advocates such as Raskazz.

I was just going by what the Govt used and are used as official figures.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

I was just going by what the Govt used and are used as official figures.

No probs then, what's the govt website it's on?

nancyo

You should never get your insurance company involved unless you are going to make a claim.
My car insurance went up with them this year also, I thought getting older it was supposed to go down! Mine went up £150 this year, I too pay fully comp in full for the year, I got another quote from Admiral which was around £100 cheaper and they were able to match this )

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

Like all financial firms, insurers are also having to increase their assets for solvency requirements.

That is what happens if you want a regulator that insists that the amount of capital held doing nothing "just in case" is increased.

It is also what happens if you want to have a scheme where all insurers and advisers have to pay a levy into a scheme which will pay out if somebody goes bust.

It is what happens if you want an Ombudsman scheme that is "free" to complainants who can make spurious allegations with impunity.

It is what happens if society decides a firm should pay redress to somebody who lost out because they couldn't be bothered to read the documents the adviser gave them.

Yes financial services does have some crooks and some fools, like everywhere else and, like everybody else, all those in it are capable of the odd !!!! up.

But if we want them to redress the consequences of our own inadequacies we must expect to pay a premium for the transfer of that risk.

dunstonh wrote: »

Some insurers have decided to price themselves in a way to discourage you from renewal. If you accept the price they cover their costs. If you take the business elsewhere then they have not made a loss.

That is not an unreasonable approach. In fact, since other insurers are likely to be very circumspect if they actually refuse cover, it is actually fairer. Your reason for moving is not that they refused it or offered special terms but simply that they were uncompetitive.

dunstonh

mikey72 wrote: »

No probs then, what's the govt website it's on?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/591/cmi17.htm