We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Third party car insurance could soon be dead
Options
Comments
-
I think you need to read the report with a more open mind, as you appear to be suffering from what an expert in scientific method would call "confirmation bias" - i.e. the tendency to seek out and give undue weight to information which accords with your own predetermined opinion, rather than examining evidence objectively.
Do you know an expert in scientific method, or did you google that?
(probably not the right image then)
0 -
Unfortunately in that position, a large majority of people would be tempted to put in a claim for the vehicle being stolen so they can get some money. It's why Insurers generally have a limit on the value of vehicles they insure for Third Party Twist and Bust which is typically relatively low eg £3000 to £5000.
TPF&T policies have an amazingly high percentage of theft and even fire claims in relation to comprehensive policies
A "Large Majority" and an "Amazingly High Percentage" of budget policyholders are potential fraudsters?
Industry spin!
I bet there are no independent statistics to prove that claim.
In the world of an IFA..
It's only the poor man who steals. It's in his blood, you see.0 -
Yes, and you should state your professional interest, because your bias is bleeding obvious.I think you need to read the report with a more open mind, as you appear to be suffering from what an expert in scientific method would call "confirmation bias" - i.e. the tendency to seek out and give undue weight to information which accords with your own predetermined opinion, rather than examining evidence objectively.0 -
It's probably true tbh, as a percentage of claims.
Most claims on tpf&t will be for fire or theft, whereas fully comp will have a proportion of claims for damage, as well as fire and theft.
So the percentage of claims on fully comp will be lower than the number on a policy where you can only claim for fire or theft.
Makes perfect sense depending on how you use the stats.
Or maybe I'm suffering from cynical b*stard syndrome, as Beaker, sorry, an expert in scientific method would say. (Beaker wouldn't, he was far too nice)0 -
A "Large Majority" and an "Amazingly High Percentage" of budget policyholders are potential fraudsters?
Industry spin!
I bet there are no independent statistics to prove that claim.
In the world of an IFA..
It's only the poor man who steals. It's in his blood, you see.
I've come across plenty of my customers who have crashed their cars and then put a claim in. It's amazing what they tell you when they bump into you in a pub years later. You also see large amount of people who report an accident where no one else is involved, when you explain they are not covered for their own damage they wait a while and then put in a theft claim. The m.o of the thefts are normally the same eg they park it in a pub / club car park overnight and have a great alibi.0 -
Do you know an expert in scientific method, or did you google that?
(probably not the right image then)
I really don't understand why you have to resort to such patent nonsense. Why would I have to know personally an expert in scientific method to be familiar with some of the terminology used? No, I didn't have to Google it FWIW. Have you Googled IBNR yet? Or are you, in the traditional fashion, going to sweep your ignorance under the carpet?0 -
Most claims on tpf&t will be for fire or theft
No, most claims under TPFT cover are third party claims rather than for fire and theft.So the percentage of claims on fully comp will be lower than the number on a policy where you can only claim for fire or theft.
Again you are totally ignoring third party claims here which is quite bizarre as a substantial portion of the thread was devoted to discussing issues around personal injury claims which by definition are third party claims. Risk is not just about the number of claims but also the size of those claims. Which is riskier, a pool of risks with 5% claim frequency and £1000 average severity or a pool of risks with 2% claim frequency and £5000 average severity?
You are also ignoring the issues of adverse selection around TPFT cover.Makes perfect sense depending on how you use the stats.
Or maybe I'm suffering from cynical b*stard syndrome, as Beaker, sorry, an expert in scientific method would say. (Beaker wouldn't, he was far too nice)
Or, back in the real world, makes no sense whatsoever as you have totally ignored third party claims and issues around adverse selection. There's only one Muppet on this thread and it ain't Beaker.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:0 -
A "Large Majority" and an "Amazingly High Percentage" of budget policyholders are potential fraudsters?
Industry spin!
I bet there are no independent statistics to prove that claim.
Do you have any independent statistics to disprove that claim? If TPO and TPFT cover was so profitable, why do you think so many insurers don't even offer it as a product?
These sorts of threads really do bring out the worst of MSE. Ill-thought out, ignorant, biased opinion with the implicit assumption that all corporate entities must all be cheats and liars and that all information presented by them is somehow incorrect. See mikey72's naive and statistically inept use of settled claims figures in a misguided attempt to prove that claims costs are falling.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards