Admin Fee for Change of Address

mikey72

KimberleyMaria wrote: »

But surely changing an address is only a tiny part of what regulation and compliance is involved with, it definitely is when it comes to supervisors and IT, and so if it is the biggest expense for the company then surely a large portion of customers' premiums will be going towards them anyway...? I think it's hard to draw the line on when to charge a customer for a service like that because arguably a customer who calls up at all is using up more of the company's resources by keeping an employee busy on the phone and so should they then be charged more too?

The company I worked at was actually a really nice place to work, great ethos and seemed to really care about their employees, but apart from having flexi-time I don't think there were many benefits... it was a part of the Perkz benefit scheme, but 28 days holiday is standard isn't it?

It depends how you report the figures.
If you look at ratios that show underwriting that makes a loss on car insurance, and insurers pay out more than they receive in premiums, it's then justifiable to raise the premiums, and the figures are happily repeated.
Then you consider the amount received including all the admin fees, cancellation fees, commission from personal injury companies, credit hire commission, the losses don't seem so bad anymore.

ROY47

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The reality is that this isnt new at all, insurers have charged them for decades, what has changed is that insurers must now give breakdowns of costs. 10 years ago, before the ICOB rules came in you'd do a COA and get told thats going to be an extra £30 and people accepted it. Now they get told its an extra £5 premium and £25 admin fee and they get annoyed by the admin fee portion.

I completely disagree with that

I've had car insurance for 35 years and have regularly changed details on my policy
address changes and mainly putting my private plate on my cars
Only in the last 3 yrs have I been charged for doing it
Yes they got to pay wages for the person I spoke to to do the changes BUT it's still a damn rip off !!

ROY47

mikey72 wrote: »

commission from personal injury companies,

Ban the lot of them commission for ripping insurance companies off you should say

Too many times we read that someone had a slight bump and the whiplash claim wa a few grand !!!!!!!!!!

mikey72

I had to make a change to personal details recently. Not one of my insurers made any charge, Swinton mentioned there should have been one, but waived it.
I find it very odd how different cutomers get treated by these companies.

property.advert

The person taking the call is likely on little more than minimum wage and even if it takes 6 minutes, that would be around £1 of their time, perhaps £2 with employer costs. So why does it cost more ?

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

Then you consider the amount received including all the admin fees, cancellation fees, commission from personal injury companies, credit hire commission, the losses don't seem so bad anymore.

Please stop talking rubbish mikey. These figures are ALL accounted for in the expense ratio element of a COMBINED OPERATING RATIO.

If you read through an insurer's set of accounts you will note that in the profit and loss account expenses are usually described as "net operating expenses". The word "net" is the important one. It is a net figure because revenues from admin fees, cancellation fees, commissions etc have been deducted from the gross operating expense.

The combined ratio of the market last year was 122%. Please go away and do some basic research instead of perpetually filling the board with nonsense.

I asked you a couple of days ago whether you had bothered to learn what a combined ratio is, clearly the answer is no.

raskazz

property.advert wrote: »

The person taking the call is likely on little more than minimum wage and even if it takes 6 minutes, that would be around £1 of their time, perhaps £2 with employer costs. So why does it cost more ?

Doyou think that the infrastructure to enable that person to take the call in the first place is free? Think about it.

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

Doyou think that the infrastructure to enable that person to take the call in the first place is free? Think about it.

Rubbish again.
Or are you trying to make us believe it's a separate infrastructure to the one that gives the quote in the first place, sets up the policy, deals with the claims, sends out the renewals.

Think about it.

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

Please stop talking rubbish mikey. These figures are ALL accounted for in the expense ratio element of a COMBINED OPERATING RATIO.

If you read through an insurer's set of accounts you will note that in the profit and loss account expenses are usually described as "net operating expenses". The word "net" is the important one. It is a net figure because revenues from admin fees, cancellation fees, commissions etc have been deducted from the gross operating expense.

The combined ratio of the market last year was 122%. Please go away and do some basic research instead of perpetually filling the board with nonsense.

I asked you a couple of days ago whether you had bothered to learn what a combined ratio is, clearly the answer is no.

The only place we ever find this "122%" is in your posts.
Even the insurers never have the same figure for some reason, they all appear to think they're doing a lot better.


Personal lines

(51% of the total premiums) were stable at €1,013 million. Motor was up 10% to €293 million primarily due to tariff increases within the UK and Ireland. Non-Motor was down 3% to €720 million.

Current accident year loss ratio

decreased by 0.9 point to 69.2% reflecting tariff increases in the UK and Ireland across Personal Motor and Property

http://www.axa.com/lib/en/uploads/hfr/group/2011/AXA_2011_Half_Year_Financial_Report.pdf.pdf

"Ageas UK delivers record half year growth and strong profitability"

24/08/2011

Ageas Insurance Motor (combined) ratio continues to improve to 96.9%

http://www.ageas-uk.co.uk/media_centre/press_releases/Ageas_UK_delivers_record_half_year_growth_and_strong_profitability/


Maybe you should read

http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news-analysis/2105916/motor-drives-combined-operating-ratios-it-s-traffic


Motor drives combined operating ratios down but it’s not all one way traffic

Read more: http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news-analysis/2105916/motor-drives-combined-operating-ratios-it-s-traffic#ixzz1cXMXJxCk
Insurance Age - Serving the broker community.
Claim your free subscriptions today.

Admiral 90.4 % (82.9% 2010)
Allianz 96.1% (95.3% 2010)
Aviva 96% (98% 2010)
Hiscox 87.9% (91.8% 2010)
RSA 98.5% (98.95 2010)
LV 98.1% (101.9% 2010)

Even the poor performers
Brit Group 104.8% (96.5% 2010)
Ageas 100.5% (106.5% 2010)
RBS 103% (124% 2010)


so 2010 data, a lot clearly below 100%, so profit making, and none anywhere near 122%. All on motor insurance only.

So unless they have all got it wrong, maybe you should stop supplying mis-information that is clearly not accurate.

Unless your figure is confidential data again, that only you can see, unlike the companies published results?

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

The only place we ever find this "122%" is in your posts.
Even the insurers never have the same figure for some reason, they all appear to think they're doing a lot better.


Personal lines

(51% of the total premiums) were stable at €1,013 million. Motor was up 10% to €293 million primarily due to tariff increases within the UK and Ireland. Non-Motor was down 3% to €720 million.

These figures are just written premium, so are not relevant to profit.

mikey72 wrote: »

Current accident year loss ratio

decreased by 0.9 point to 69.2% reflecting tariff increases in the UK and Ireland across Personal Motor and Property

http://www.axa.com/lib/en/uploads/hfr/group/2011/AXA_2011_Half_Year_Financial_Report.pdf.pdf

The section of the report you quote refers to all Property and Casualty Insurance for Axa and also includes Ireland. You cannot draw any conclusions about UK motor operations from this.

mikey72 wrote: »

"Ageas UK delivers record half year growth and strong profitability"

24/08/2011

Ageas Insurance Motor (combined) ratio continues to improve to 96.9%

http://www.ageas-uk.co.uk/media_centre/press_releases/Ageas_UK_delivers_record_half_year_growth_and_strong_profitability/

I see that you have disingenuously omitted the final part of that sentence, namely the equivalent 2010 result: H1 2010: 109.0%

mikey72 wrote: »

Maybe you should read

http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news-analysis/2105916/motor-drives-combined-operating-ratios-it-s-traffic


Motor drives combined operating ratios down but it’s not all one way traffic

Read more: http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news-analysis/2105916/motor-drives-combined-operating-ratios-it-s-traffic#ixzz1cXMXJxCk
Insurance Age - Serving the broker community.
Claim your free subscriptions today.

Admiral 90.4 % (82.9% 2010)
Allianz 96.1% (95.3% 2010)
Aviva 96% (98% 2010)
Hiscox 87.9% (91.8% 2010)
RSA 98.5% (98.95 2010)
LV 98.1% (101.9% 2010)

Even the poor performers
Brit Group 104.8% (96.5% 2010)
Ageas 100.5% (106.5% 2010)
RBS 103% (124% 2010)


so 2010 data, a lot clearly below 100%, so profit making, and none anywhere near 122%. All on motor insurance only.

Once again you have no eye for detail. The ratios that you have pulled from that page are NOT motor only - they are UK general insurance combined ratios so, again, you cannot draw meaningful conclusions about UK motor from those figures.

mikey72 wrote: »

So unless they have all got it wrong

It is you who has got it wrong mikey, as explained above.

You seem unwilling or incapable of distinguishing between motor underwriting results and general insurance underwriting results.