BBC Panorama: The Great Car Insurance Swindle

Peter_Piper_picked

Car Insurance isn't that profitable for insurance companies with the exception of a few insurers.

Who are the few insurers profiting from car insurance? are they owners of any comparrison sites, and if so, which?

What is it that makes few insurers profit over other insurers, price, more; better cover, do they invest your money better than others, sheer luck?

lisyloo

I didn't realise I was obligated to give any pictures? however, take a look at the majority of curent complaints on the forum, that might give you the clear picture you require.

I didn't realise I was obligated to give any pictures? however, take a look at the majority of curent complaints on the forum, that might give you the clear picture you require.

Analyse the above.

Your not obligated to do anything Peter.
But if you throw around allegations and then can't back them up when asked to present your analysis, then you are unlikely to be taken seriously.
Anecdotes from a few dissatisfied punters who don't understand all the issues, do not necessarily mean there is a widespread underlying problem on it's own.

Analyse the above.

Basically a throw away comment based on sparse anecdotal evidence without any solid analysis to back it up, and therefore not really likely to be taken seriously or change minds on the subject.

Peter_Piper_picked

Your not obligated to do anything Peter.
But if you throw around allegations and then can't back them up when asked to present your analysis, then you are unlikely to be taken seriously.
Anecdotes from a few dissatisfied punters who don't understand all the issues, do not necessarily mean there is a widespread underlying problem on it's own.

It was more of a rant than an allegation, I should have made that clearer it seems. Sorry, and for future reference, most if not all my posts are rants.

Basically a throw away comment based on sparse anecdotal evidence without any solid analysis to back it up, and therefore not really likely to be taken seriously or change minds on the subject.

I don't totally agree, but to an extent I do.

lisyloo

No worries :-)
We just see a lot of "rip off" and "scam" remakrs all over these forums which are sometimes based on emotional responses without people fully understanding the situation.
I'm trying to be less judgment and more open minded and base my opinions more on analysis.

Unfortunately I think insurance is an area where a certain amount of dissatisfaction is inevitable because certain situations that are inherently unfair are inevitable.
e.g. a pedestrian who is a fault but has no means to pay.
I'm sure the industry can improve but I don't think it's any worse than many others and at least it's regulated so there is a (very effective) safety net.

Peter_Piper_picked

I'm trying to be less judgment and more open minded and base my opinions more on analysis.

I would love to see the actual data!

Y'know... Who was paid what, shareholders, employees, solicitors fee's, courtesy cars, injury and damage payouts type data, the real figures, but I can't seem to find anything, anywhere.

So, I'm left guessing/ranting or just taking the evidence I'm being told on TV, radio and the forums and comparrison sites as truth, fact without the ability to research for myself with true actual data?

unless there is data and I'm just not finding it? (data like in the Panorama show, showing dates, amounts, scrub the names, but yeah, real transactions/data with dates.)

e.g. a pedestrian who is a fault but has no means to pay.

Maybe pedestrians will need insurance in the years to come to walk the streets.

Arg

lisyloo wrote: »

No worries :-)
We just see a lot of "rip off" and "scam" remakrs all over these forums which are sometimes based on emotional responses without people fully understanding the situation.

Protection racket is also a good term.

lisyloo

I would love to see the actual data!

We all would, but no other business is expected to provide this so why are insurers singled out?
They are already regulated and if you think you are being treated unfairly you have recourse to complain for free.

Who was paid what

For public companies a certain amount of data is public regarding sharholders and top employees.
For my company I get my data from Yahoo finance.

just taking the evidence I'm being told on TV, radio and the forums and comparrison sites as truth

Well I would say that taking what you see in the media at face value has big issues.

Maybe pedestrians will need insurance in the years to come to walk the streets.

Pedestrians and cyclist do not currently need insurance and I have a feeling that horse riders don't either.
I don't think it would be right for people to need insurance just to walk on the streets (and I note your smiley) but insurers could build a fund for such events which is spread across everyone, so there are potential solutions to that one.
Another inherent unfairness is an accident where there are no witnesses. Generally they go 50/50.
This is generally unfair on someone but in this case it's impossible to judge objectively who is too blame.

It would be lovely to live in a perfect world, but we don't and to an extent sometimes we just have to accept these things.
Obviosuly I'd prefer a perfect world, but I think some people are going to have to accept that it will pretty much NEVER happen.
To have aboslute fairness we'd need CCTV everywhere 24/7 and infinite amounts of money to spend on legal resources, so that we could do fingerprinting, lie detectors and paint forensics on every tiny claim (I think complete fairness would put the cost due to this). I'm not saying I don't want fairness, just that I think it's completely impossible.
Improving things is not impossible, but I haven't seen too much constructive action come out from these kinds of discussions.

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

Your not obligated to do anything Peter.
But if you throw around allegations and then can't back them up when asked to present your analysis, then you are unlikely to be taken seriously.
Anecdotes from a few dissatisfied punters who don't understand all the issues, do not necessarily mean there is a widespread underlying problem on it's own.

Basically a throw away comment based on sparse anecdotal evidence without any solid analysis to back it up, and therefore not really likely to be taken seriously or change minds on the subject.

I don't think I've ever seen any data in any of your posts, all your opinions have been based on anecdotes to justify price increases.

lisyloo

I don't think I've ever seen any data in any of your posts

Well I think you are wrong.
In fact I'm certain you have argued with me over data I've linked to in the past.

all your opinions have been based on anecdotes to justify price increases

I don't agree with you.
I'm asking for Peter's analysis of his statement for precisely the reason that I can then base my opinions on the analysis and data and not some throw away unjustified comments.
I base my opinion on information from industry experts and data from the industry.
However I'm not making any allegations or judgments here so I have no position to justify.
I have merely asked for the analysis so I can be open minded about it.

Similarly I don't believe that your opinions are based on any factual analysis.
At least you've never presented it.

Spiderham

Peter_Piper_picked wrote: »

I would love to see the actual data!

Y'know... Who was paid what, shareholders, employees, solicitors fee's, courtesy cars, injury and damage payouts type data, the real figures, but I can't seem to find anything, anywhere.

On things like shareholder dividends and employee salaries, the issue is also if they are made available people would be very likely to say "it's far too much" without deeper thought.

A CEO of a an insurance company is going to get a high salary, they are in charge of vast amounts and it is a very responsible job. The issue over what is fair pay and fair shareholder dividends is a hard one also.

People will very easily say company A pays some employees over £x which is far too much because it is a fair bit higher than they get paid but actually it may be at or below market rate. Similarly company B may have paid £y in dividends which seems like a lot in isolation but it needs to be seen in return on investment terms.

As has been said, other companies don't have to do it and I don't see why insurance companies should be a special case. Also, a lot of things are kept quiet as if competitors found them out they would be able to use them to their own advantage, plus there are aspects of competition law hindering disclosure too.