Change of Address Fee - Rip Off - Views Please

lisyloo

Hi Mikey (in reply to #66)

Here's one
http://www.money.co.uk/article/1000336-motor-insurance-industry-soon-to-be-in-profit.htm

2009 could finally see the motor insurance industry make a profit after 14 consecutive years of losses according to a report by independent market analyst Datamonitor.

another one

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2008/03/13/car-insurance-companies-set-to-make-a-profit-as-premiums-outstrip-claims/

A report from market analyst, Datamonitor, has said that UK’s private motor insurance market look set to make a profit next year for the first time in 14 years.

Your turn.
I'll show you mine, you show me yours :-)

Datamonitor are claimed to be independent but I can't verify I've done research on that.
If you think these reports are wrong, perhaps you can explain why to us?
I'm always keen to learn.

I didn't realise you were referring to ONE company and you did not make that clear.

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

Hi Mikey (in reply to #66)

Here's one
http://www.money.co.uk/article/1000336-motor-insurance-industry-soon-to-be-in-profit.htm



another one

http://www.financemarkets.co.uk/2008/03/13/car-insurance-companies-set-to-make-a-profit-as-premiums-outstrip-claims/



Your turn.
I'll show you mine, you show me yours :-)

Datamonitor are claimed to be independent but I can't verify I've done research on that.
If you think these reports are wrong, perhaps you can explain why to us?
I'm always keen to learn.

So your "source" is one unverified report from 2008, over 3 years ago.
And you've been using that to justify all the increases in premiums?

If you don't mind, I'll keep using Admiral year end reports, unless you know any other company the returns figures based only on car insurance, and no other business?


You could just jump on the bandwagon, and buy the Datamonitor report, just out this year


Capitalizing on the Emerging Online Behavior of the Motorists in the UK


This report, part of the Datamonitor Motorist Survey 2010, analyzes the emerging cluster of motorists in the UK who use internet for aftermarket specific activities and provides actionable recommendations to tap them.


Very reputable, and only $1895 so an American company, so very active in the UK I assume.

Are you still sure you want to quote them as your only source, repeated in two out of date new articles?

mikey72

Dangermac wrote: »

Mikey72. As you know, the insurance sector is extremely competitive. There are many providers, and I can assure you that there is no cartel.

If you accept that there is no cartel, then there would only be one reason why premiums are going up right accross the board - the cost of sale (i.e the claims costs) are increasing.

I appreciate that you would argue that black was white and vice versa and that the insurance industry is simply a licence to print money. Let me assure you that, particularly with regards to Motor Insurance, this is quite simply not the case.

End of. No ifs, no buts. No cospiracies. No cartels. Its a fact.


DM

Don't argue with me over Admiral's figures.

If you don't like their profits, you tell them they should be making a loss, to conform to your view of the industry.
Maybe others can manage to turn in a loss, maybe Admiral aren't playing fair and they are making hundreds of millions instead just to upset the rest of you?

edit - end of

(what, the mis-information hopefully)

dunstonh

If you don't mind, I'll keep using Admiral year end reports, unless you know any other company the returns figures based only on car insurance, and no other business?

Thats hardly a balanced position though is it. That would be like taking JPM Natural Resources as an example that all investments should double in a year because that one did.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

Thats hardly a balanced position though is it. That would be like taking JPM Natural Resources as an example that all investments should double in a year because that one did.

If you know any others that report solely on car insurance, rather than a mix of insurances, you're welcome.
Otherwise so far I'm afraid it's speculation, rumour, and hearsay.

lisyloo

And you've been using that to justify all the increases in premiums?

No I don't think I have.
Losses are ony ONE factor out of many.
Snow (for example) is another. Increasing Fraud another. Ambulance chasers another etc. etc.

I don't personally need to justify their profits or bonuses.
What does that have to do with admin fees?

Otherwise so far I'm afraid it's speculation, rumour, and hearsay.

But what does it have to do with anything? Why is it relevant?
Business are entitled to make profit which a lot of us want for our pensions and investments.
People who do boring office jobs and/or work hard are entitled to bonuses.
Private companies are entitled to make money.
Do you have a better suggestions that capitalism.
I think there are a few problems with it, but it's better than any other system I've seen (like commiunism for example).

You seem to have a problem with other people being successful and making money.
Is your agenda ultimately about envy??

Those of us who can operate our insurance contracts properly don't have any issue with companies making money out of us as all companies do.
Very few of us will do tedious work for nothing.

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

Don't argue with me over Admiral's figures.

If you don't like their profits, you tell them they should be making a loss, to conform to your view of the industry.
Maybe others can manage to turn in a loss, maybe Admiral aren't playing fair and they are making hundreds of millions instead just to upset the rest of you?

edit - end of

(what, the mis-information hopefully)

What colour is the sky in your world?

If I didnt know better, I would say that you are a troll who just wants to provoke a reaction from other posters who know infinitaely more about the subject in question than you likely to ever know.

I dont have the time or inclination to provide you with the 'evidence' that you require. Any idiot could see that, unless the entire industry is a cartel, then some insurers would not increase their rates, in order to sweep up a whole swathe of business.

The fact that they are all increasing their rates shows that they need higher premiums in order to survive and try and be profitable.

I guess that you are just a flat-earth sort of thinker.

DM

mikey72

Dangermac wrote: »

What colour is the sky in your world?

If I didnt know better, I would say that you are a troll who just wants to provoke a reaction from other posters who know infinitaely more about the subject in question than you likely to ever know.

I dont have the time or inclination to provide you with the 'evidence' that you require. Any idiot could see that, unless the entire industry is a cartel, then some insurers would not increase their rates, in order to sweep up a whole swathe of business.

The fact that they are all increasing their rates shows that they need higher premiums in order to survive and try and be profitable.

I guess that you are just a flat-earth sort of thinker.

DM

If you're calling me an idiot, at least spell "infinitely" correctly when you're telling me how much more you know than me.

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

If you're calling me an idiot, at least spell "infinitely" correctly when you're telling me how much more you know than me.

You are 100% correct as usual.

Dabo_2

I have read all the replies with interest (and those from other threads) and I admit they have made me think about things a little differently vis-a-vis amendment fees.

I too have had to swallow amendment charges on my car insurance policy and I still find it a bitter pill. I have gone from paying no amendment fees to paying a fee every time now. Not so long ago my insurance policy even allowed me to add someone FOC for 3 separate days but this too has been discontinued. I have not changed insurance company and obviously wrongly assumed that T&Cs had not changed. I have not seen the cost of my policy go down even though I now pay these fees.

I do make amendments to my policy to add my children when they are home from uni. I suppose I should consider myself fortunate that my amendment fees have only been 15.90 when others have paid up to 50 quid. What really took the biscuit for me is during a recent phone call the insurance company tried to charge me twice, once for a 'permanent' amendment and once for a 'temporary' amendment to my policy. Whilst I do mind paying the fees, I have paid them under protest. I have complained and feel that they are more than you would expect for a short phone call and a computer generated letter.

The admin assistant wanted to charge a second fee for a permanent amendment as I had said that my husband probably drove the car more when at the time of taking out the policy I had said I would drive more. We run 2 cars and insure one each with the other as a named driver. In the past we have tended to drive a specific car each but lately we swap cars more depending on the circumstances, whose got petrol, why we need the car and so on. We are of similar age, with same number of years driving experience and history, use the cars for the same purposes eg travelling to work and I really don't see that it matters who drives what car more than the other partner if we are both named on the policy. If one of us is a higher risk then this would impact on the cost of both policies anyway. This is a needless amendment designed to generate extra income.

Maybe some advice on being more insurance savvi wouldn't go amiss!? I have been thinking about going through a broker as I do find this frustrating! Interested to read comments from others. Thanks