Have car insurance companies lost the plot?

AndyGuil

dunstonh wrote: »

Correct. That means he doesnt give advice.

Ok thanks for clearing that up.

dunstonh

argh, typed a response and it timed out and didnt post....

Introducers are not advisers. They refer people to companies that are authorised, usually in return for an income. They are not allowed to give advice unless they are authorised and qualified to give advice.

Journalists are given a wider scope to be able to say things about regulated products. That is an area that is hotly debated in financial services as unqualified and inexperienced journalists can get away with saying incorrect information and not presenting the warnings that someone that is qualified and authorised would have to say. Martin is quite good at avoiding the higher regulated areas. The same cannot be said for others (such as an article in the Mail last year which was talking about ISAs but went on to comment on to explain the offering from one provider. However, instead of talking about their ISA, they talked about their investment bond).

The problem is that many people perceive those in the media talking about money as being advisers. They are not. They fill a role that is actually not really defined. You are not going to phone up your IFA to ask which credit card is best (you could do and some IFAs would do it but its not the sort of thing an IFA is there to do).

The crux of my comment was though that the BBC are running a programme on insurance and rather than get in an expert in that field, they get in Martin. Sure, 10/10 for picking the right person as a consumer champion but not as an adviser of regulated financial services.

leicester27

Something has gone wrong this year my van renewal is up 56% I have an extra year no claims bonus nothing else changed in fact estimated milage is expected to be less and van price is less as it is a year older. I have tried other companies and search engines to get a better quote but the next best quote is over 150% more than last year. I hate to see what is going to happen to the car insurance.

Clive_Woody

dunstonh wrote: »

Not for giving advice.

What authority do you need to give advice?

Not sure even Dear old Gordon Brown considered the idea of issuing licences for people wanting to share advice with others.

dunstonh

Clive_Woody wrote: »

What authority do you need to give advice?

Not sure even Dear old Gordon Brown considered the idea of issuing licences for people wanting to share advice with others.

You have to be authorised by the FSA to give advice on regulated products. This involves getting qualified to a certain level as well.

It was this way before Labour even got into power. So, he didnt need to come up with the idea.

Clive_Woody

dunstonh wrote: »

You have to be authorised by the FSA to give advice on regulated products. This involves getting qualified to a certain level as well.

It was this way before Labour even got into power. So, he didnt need to come up with the idea.

I am not sure the BBC person specified what sort of advice Martin would be giving.

As far as I am aware giving advice on how to save money and look for the best pirces on insurance deals requires no authorsiation from the FSA (or any other body), although as you quite rightly state giving specific advice on the suitability of a product is regulated. In this respect Martin is well qualified and fully 'authorised' to offer advice so long as he doesn't proceed to overstep his remit which I am sure he is fully aware of.

foggytown

dunstonh wrote: »

Not for giving advice.

Why bless your little protectionist socks. The very concept of anyone other than (alarum) "an IFA" giving sensible financial advice really makes you feel threatened, doesn't it.

Tammer

radial wrote: »

I'm male, 33, no convictions, 1 accident in 2007 (my car was hit by another car) 7 years no claims and never even a sniff of a ticket!

.

Hi,

Probably worth noting you don't have 7 years no claims as you made a claim in 2007 (albeit the other driver was to blame). This will have increased your premium.

Quentin

Tammer wrote: »

Probably worth noting you don't have 7 years no claims as you made a claim in 2007 (albeit the other driver was to blame). This will have increased your premium.

No.

If the third party was to blame your NCD isn't lost. (If you claim off the guilty third party there is no NCD to consider, and if you claim off your own insurance your NCD is reinstated when your insurer is reimbursed by the third party or their insurer)

mikey72

But the insurers do appear to be redefining no claims discount.
It did used to be if you didn't make a claim from your own insurer, for a fault accident, you lost out. Sounds fair to me.
Now though, it appears if you are involved in a claim for any reason, you lose out.
As all the insurance advocates will say, somewhere, unseen and unpublished, the insurers have statistics to prove you are a greater risk if a third party hits you, or your car is stolen.
So next, you'll probably lose your ncd (remember, it's no claims discount, not no blame, as we keep getting told on here) as well.
After that, if you're a witness to the accident maybe?
You must be a higher risk, as you travel on a road where accidents occur after all.