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

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

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".

You can't have it both ways.
You always say no one makes me use any particular company, and I should use one I like.
So if I don't like any, either you have to admit your advice is impractical, and mere rhetoric to support a system under which compulsory purchase can't be avoided, regardless of the customers view on the t&c's, or you advocate breaking the law to stand by what you post.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

You can't have it both ways.
You always say no one makes me use any particular company, and I should use one I like.
So if I don't like any, either you have to admit your advice is impractical, and mere rhetoric to support a system under which compulsory purchase can't be avoided, regardless of the customers view on the t&c's, or you advocate breaking the law to stand by what you post.

Car insurance is not a compulsory purchase.

mikey72

True, it's a lot cheaper to drive uninsured, but I don't support that viewpoint.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

True, it's a lot cheaper to drive uninsured, but I don't support that viewpoint.

Or to use public transport.

Failing that, if you don't want to purchase insurance you can deposit £500,000 with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court in order to self-insure. Obviously for all of us who work in insurance that is a mere trifling sum compared to our huge bonuses. Pass me another brandy, Jeeves!

Parking_Trouble

raskazz wrote: »

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.

Bleating? I used it twice. he second time to explain why I used it the first time. Get yourself into a field of goats and hear what bleating is.

The point I keep avoiding? What is the count up to?
Insurers have a tough job to make a profit but operate in a world where the overall market is captive. They don't do enough to control the cost of claims. They undoubtedly work together to keep their mutual costs down but just pass the cost to the consumers. As a collective do they really care?

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

Increased premiums for non-fault accident. The insurance intelligentsia like yourself can step through the car insurance minefield. Most punters don't realise the impact until after they are involved in an accident. People don't have time or inclination to spend hours and days comparing. The comparision sites don't compare post accident outcomes, they only hook you in to buy a policy that looks attractive at the point of purchase.

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 Admiral Group made a profit in 2010. This years loss is next years tweak to risk criteria and a hike in premiums.

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

Any you care to mention that are possibly unfair to consumers are or there too many? I am still trying to work out how a low speed rear end knock into a car worth £1500 can equate to a £25k claim. Common sense tells me (yes I have some) and most consumers that this is wrong.

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?

UK Banks were regulated by the FSA before the global financial crisis. The regulation was too lax. Nothing more needs saying on that one I think.
I am new to this game but looks to me as though FOS is about complaints not regulation. Although it clearly lays down some guidelines and rulings which keep insurers on their toes it only comes into play when a consumer files a complaint.

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.

OK I will do more homework on PPI. I just assumed that because it has I for Insurance that some underwriters might be involved rather than a bank with make believe products. The real point was that there will be wholesale uncontested refunds. I think there is mis-selling of Car insurance though not in the same sense as PPI.

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"?

I know for a fact (first hand experience not pub talk) that insurers don't like you creating lots of quotes, fiddling with the parameters. They think it is suspicious. It could become a new risk criteria.

Why should the consumer have to play with the parameters to work out what the different levers do? That is clearly ( :rotfl:) not transparent. Try to remove your blinkers occasionally and put yourself in the shoes of the consumer - a basic management principal that you could learn from.


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.

Sorry to keep you waiting.
We all know that insurers have a working practice that keeps their claims processing costs down. Keep your claim down and we'll nod it through. Pre-medical settlement for whiplash. Pass the costs on to the consumer. There are ways of keeping a bit more profit but none of the insurers will go out on a limb and rock the gravy boat.

Open your mind and think of better ways of running the insurance business.

Think of the consumer and their experience.

What are the blockers to consumer happiness? Find them and remove them.

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

Or to use public transport.

Failing that, if you don't want to purchase insurance you can deposit £500,000 with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court in order to self-insure. Obviously for all of us who work in insurance that is a mere trifling sum compared to our huge bonuses. Pass me another brandy, Jeeves!

"Or to use public transport"

The popular mantra of those who have never had to depend on public transport outside the city, and view it as something the subclass who can't afford to drive can use everyday, at any time.

I'm sure you would support a massive investment in infra structure to bring an underground transport system out to rural areas across britain, accompanied by buses to all villages every ten minutes?

raskazz

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Bleating? I used it twice. he second time to explain why I used it the first time. Get yourself into a field of goats and hear what bleating is.

Yes. Bleating. Throwaway catchphrases don't add any weight to your argument whatsoever.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

The point I keep avoiding? What is the count up to?
Insurers have a tough job to make a profit but operate in a world where the overall market is captive. They don't do enough to control the cost of claims.

OK, so what should they do (that they currently do not) in order to control the cost of claims? What is this secret formula which you apprently know but insurers don't?

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

They undoubtedly work together to keep their mutual costs down but just pass the cost to the consumers. As a collective do they really care?

That's just rubbish. An insurer who can control their expense base and loss ratio will be far more profitable than an insurer who does not. You cannot just "pass costs onto the consumer" because if you do, your premium will disappear down the aggregators and you will sell no policies.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Increased premiums for non-fault accident. The insurance intelligentsia like yourself can step through the car insurance minefield. Most punters don't realise the impact until after they are involved in an accident. People don't have time or inclination to spend hours and days comparing.

In whose world does it take "hours and days" to get hundreds of quotesfrom an aggregator?Ludicrous.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

The comparision sites don't compare post accident outcomes, they only hook you in to buy a policy that looks attractive at the point of purchase.

What? The point is that the "transparency" which you apparently despreately crave is right there in front of you. Get a quote on a comparison site in a couple of minutes. Take 10 seconds to check what prices are with and without the non-fault claim. Hey presto - you can now choose an insurer who has not loaded for the non-fault claim.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

The Admiral Group made a profit in 2010. This years loss is next years tweak to risk criteria and a hike in premiums.

Oh please. Don't let us go down this farcical and ridiculous route again. Admiral are but one insurer amongst tens of dozens. Show me an Admiral and I'll show you dozens of others that are loss-making. The MARKET is loss-making.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Any you care to mention that are possibly unfair to consumers are or there too many? I am still trying to work out how a low speed rear end knock into a car worth £1500 can equate to a £25k claim. Common sense tells me (yes I have some) and most consumers that this is wrong.

It is not insurers who decide the common law in tort. It is the judiciary. Insurers have, through the ABI and other channels, called for tort reform in order to stem personal injury claims costs.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

UK Banks were regulated by the FSA before the global financial crisis. The regulation was too lax. Nothing more needs saying on that one I think.

I think more does need saying. To say that because a regulatory regime failed in its monitoring of a different sector, that it must be failing in another sector is not logically correct. I ask again: Where - specifically - do you feel that regulation is lacking in the market and why?

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

I am new to this game but looks to me as though FOS is about complaints not regulation. Although it clearly lays down some guidelines and rulings which keep insurers on their toes it only comes into play when a consumer files a complaint.

WRONG! The FOS will give out advice to insurers who wish to clarify certain points of interpretation and so on. It publishes case studies which are often referred to by insurers in order to avoid future complaints arising.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

OK I will do more homework on PPI. I just assumed that because it has I for Insurance that some underwriters might be involved rather than a bank with make believe products. The real point was that there will be wholesale uncontested refunds. I think there is mis-selling of Car insurance though not in the same sense as PPI.

Why not do more homework on motor insurance pricing and the market while you're at it?Where is the wholesale mis-selling of car insurance that you think exists?

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

I know for a fact (first hand experience not pub talk) that insurers don't like you creating lots of quotes, fiddling with the parameters. They think it is suspicious. It could become a new risk criteria.

One change does not generally flag anything up unless it is the removal of a fault claim or something similar. You can always use a false name and dummy account purely for testing purposes. Aggregators and insurers do use keyloggers. Why? Because a lot of people lie to insurers.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Why should the consumer have to play with the parameters to work out what the different levers do? That is clearly ( :rotfl:) not transparent. Try to remove your blinkers occasionally and put yourself in the shoes of the consumer - a basic management principal that you could learn from.

But I still do not understand why you think the consumer needs to have this information? All the consumer has to do is answer an insurer's questions honestly and he or she gets quotes which he or she is at liberty to purchase or refuse. He or she can also amend levels of cover in order to purchase a product that is auitable for his or her requirements.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Sorry to keep you waiting.
We all know that insurers have a working practice that keeps their claims processing costs down. Keep your claim down and we'll nod it through. Pre-medical settlement for whiplash. Pass the costs on to the consumer. There are ways of keeping a bit more profit but none of the insurers will go out on a limb and rock the gravy boat.

Once again, please provide some evidence to support this fact-free nonsense.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

"Or to use public transport"

The popular mantra of those who have never had to depend on public transport outside the city, and view it as something the subclass who can't afford to drive can use everyday, at any time.

I have actually. I used to have to sit on a bus for over an hour to get to work when I started. Motoring is not a universal right, no matter what the pseudo Jeremy Clarksons of this world claim.

mikey72

And where was the bus route?

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

Once again, please provide some evidence to support this fact-free nonsense.

I don't think that's a line you could ever use seriously anymore.