Someone drove into me and now it puts £300 on my policy

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

It's good to come back to the usual insurer demanding proof of everything as normal, but using the "trust me, I'm an insurer" arguement to prove his opinion.
You'll forgive those of us that remember every other dodgy salesman from double glazing to bankers hanging onto the same excuse.
I'm sure there's a statistic somewhere that'll tell you the answer to who actually believes that line.

Have you actually got anything useful to add to the discussion mikey? Learned what a loss ratio is yet?

mikey72

I could tell you, but it's confidential, and only on a need to know basis. I do have statistics to show that. I'm sure you understand.
I'm also sure you have more opinions to post, with nothing to back them up, so we look forward to your next gem as you look forward to your bonus again this year.

Parking_Trouble

The point about lies, damned lies and statistics is a general point about the fact that you can always use data and twist to suit your purpose.

I have learnt quickly that the regular users on here are selective in their responses and avoid answering anything that undermines there own personal beliefs.

Pretty much along the lines of insurance is a complex business too difficult for mere mortals (consumers) to understand and the best way to avoid being stitched up is not to be involved in an accident, your fault or not.

The exam question is:- Why is the cost of motor insurance rocketing upwards?

You have to have car insurance to drive your car on public roads so the insurance market have consumers on the back foot.

The government need greater regulation of the insurance market. Insurers are lucky that the banks are taking all the flak. The banks have put aside huge sums to pay back PPI, pretty much without question.

Consumers need to know their rights and contractual terms and especially the subsequent impact of involvement in a claim needs to be transparent.

No surprises.

Simples.

lisyloo

You're now backing uninsured drivers, if they don't find a company they like?

Aboslutely not and please don't twist my words in such a disgraceful way.
I am totally opposed to driving uninsured.
I'm suggesting people don't use companies if they dislike their policies (whether it be insurers, banks or double-glazing).
There are insurance companies that don't load for non-fault claims and I'm suggetsing supporting them if this is a big issue to you.
Surely you would support my suggestion of people supporting "good" companies who treat their customers "fairly".

raskazz

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

The point about lies, damned lies and statistics is a general point about the fact that you can always use data and twist to suit your purpose.

I have learnt quickly that the regular users on here are selective in their responses and avoid answering anything that undermines there own personal beliefs.

Simply bleating the mantra "lies, damned lies and statistics" is really quite puerile. I go back once again to the point which you keep avoiding - that of how a competitive market operates.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Pretty much along the lines of insurance is a complex business too difficult for mere mortals (consumers) to understand and the best way to avoid being stitched up is not to be involved in an accident, your fault or not.

Don't see your point here. Who's getting "stitched up"?

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

The exam question is:- Why is the cost of motor insurance rocketing upwards?

You have to have car insurance to drive your car on public roads so the insurance market have consumers on the back foot.

This is the motor insurance market that is currently paying our more in claims and operating costs than it receives in premium and investment return.

The reasons for recent increases in the cost of motor insurance are multifarious and have been covered on this forum extensively.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

The government need greater regulation of the insurance market. Insurers are lucky that the banks are taking all the flak. The banks have put aside huge sums to pay back PPI, pretty much without question.

You clearly know very little about the regulation of the motor insurance market. It is regulated by the FSA and statute, it has to abide by the rulings of the FOS, motor insurers have to be a member of the MIB and abide by their Articles of Association. Where - specifically, please, no wooly answers - do you feel that regulation is lacking in the market and why?

Your point on PPI is also, with respect, nonsense and ill-informed. Funding for the FOS over PPI has actually heavily impacted on insurance brokers and IFAs, unfairly as most of whom have never even sold PPI - the issues were overwhelmingly caused by banks.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Consumers need to know their rights and contractual terms and especially the subsequent impact of involvement in a claim needs to be transparent.

No surprises.

Simples.

It is more transparant then ever - just go to an aggregator and add a non-fault claim to see what effects it has. Er, "simples"?

Pricing methodololgy is not a "contractual term" so I'm not sure what nebulous point you are trying to make here.

PS - where is your evidence of a cartel? I eagerly await.

lisyloo

and the best way to avoid being stitched up is not to be involved in an accident, your fault or not.

I presonally believe very strongly in the avoidance of both human suffering and cost and also that their are ways to avoid most accidents including those that aren't your fault, indeed if you don't site in a metal box your mind may well be concentrated on it.
My priority being is on the human suffering part and I must admit I struggle to empathise with people who couldn't care less.

Why is the cost of motor insurance rocketing upwards?

Many reasons.
Losses in previous years, higher rates of fraud, increasing claims for whiplash, increased use of no-win no-fee solicitors, increased use of credit hire comapnies, increased cost of claims generally.

You have to have car insurance to drive your car on public roads so the insurance market have consumers on the back foot.

I don't understand that.
I get very good value for money, I don't consider myself "on the back foot".

Consumers need to know their rights and contractual terms

Totally agree about ANY contract (not just insurance).

and especially the subsequent impact of involvement in a claim needs to be transparent.

I've found it very transparent.
If I want to know what it will cost me to claim, I go and do quotes with and without and come up with a totally clear number.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

I could tell you, but it's confidential, and only on a need to know basis. I do have statistics to show that. I'm sure you understand.
I'm also sure you have more opinions to post, with nothing to back them up, so we look forward to your next gem as you look forward to your bonus again this year.

So the answer to my original question is no - you haven't anything useful to add other than your typically ignorant nonsense.

Why do you assume that I am due "a bonus" this year? And if I was due one, why would it not be deserved? Bearing in mind you know nothing about my ability in my job or who my employer is?

I would wager that you're not going to be anywhere near a bonus this year if you take the same ignorant approach to your job as you do to posting on this forum.

real1314

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

The exam question is:- Why is the cost of motor insurance rocketing upwards?

A: Because the cost of claims against motor insurance policies has rocketed upwards.
This is contrary to the view you probably wish was true - that it's due to increasing profits in the motor insurance sector - but the unavoidable truth is that claims costs are increasing exponentially, and have been doing so for some years.

Factors -
Limited repairability of vehicles ; you used to be able to just replace a bumper for a small rear end shunt but more advanced crumple zones / pedestrian buffers etc can result in far more significant repair costs.

Car Hire charges; 3rd Party Claims ; Personal injury claims ; Use of solicitors ; No win-No fee lawyers.


Incidentally, getting back to the OP's point:-

Driver A - 60 mph ; good stopping distance ahead, good view of what's behind; inside lane of motorway approaching a junction where traffic joins the motorway. Another driver comes down the slip road, doesn't look properly as Driver A is in the blind spot ; Joining driver collides with Driver A. Complete no-fault to Driver A.

Driver B - 60 mph ; good stopping distance ahead, good view of what's behind; inside lane of motorway approaching a junction where traffic joins the motorway. Another driver comes down the slip road, doesn't look properly as Driver B is in the blind spot ; But Driver B has noticed the junction already and had checked what was in the middle lane. As there was nothing, they hadn't taken any prior preventative action and having spotted the joining driver, they move across to the middle lane, avoiding a no-fault.
Had the middle lane been busy, they would have increased their alertness to joining traffic and accelerated / slown down to avoid sitting in the joining driver's blind spot.

Driver B has demonstrated a greater degree of road awareness.

Good drivers can not only avoid causing accidents but also avoid being involved in accidents that are not their fault. Therefore the statistically a non-fault can indicate a greater risk.:cool:

vaio

raskazz wrote: »

......Your point on PPI is also, with respect, nonsense and ill-informed. Funding for the FOS over PPI has actually heavily impacted on insurance brokers and IFAs, unfairly as most of whom have never even sold PPI - the issues were overwhelmingly caused by banks.........

I thought the bulk of the FOS funding (80+%) came from case fees so no cases = no cost

The other 20% comes from the levy which is I presume what you are referring to and that only amounts to about £20m (so a couple of directors salaries plus bonuses) but that £20m is collected from the entire financial services industry ranging from AVIVA & RBS right down to the one man band IFA on the high street.

Has the levy element been increased significantly recently? and if not, what is the "unfair heavy impact" of which you talk?

mikey72

No doubt he'll be back to justify his figures, but they're probably confidential, so a quick "trust me, I know they're unfair, but can't tell you why" will be coming soon.