RSA Rip off Repair Scheme Exposed

PDAH

I like the way insurers manipulate a situation to increase their repair expenditure by creating a secret profit but then say to their policyholders that they have to pay higher premiums...........

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/Misc/2011/16.html&query=RSA&method=boolean

PDAH

'Behind this simple story lies a giant struggle which has been going on for many months between RSA on the one hand and a number of defendant insurers over a method of business which is seen on the part of RSA as perfectly legitimate and by a number of defendant insurers as involving methods of business which fall somewhere between very sharp practise and outright fraud. While the sums in each individual case are very modest it is clear that across the industry millions of pounds are at stake. The real parties to and drivers of this litigation are on the one hand RSA and on the other defendants' insurers who in this case are Equity Red Star. '


......and

1. <LI value=61>'Such an attitude stands in sharp contrast to the lofty statement of principle which appears on the RSA website:
   " RSA Business principles
   Integrity
   We will act with openness, fairness, integrity, and diligence. We will always adhere to the applicable laws, regulations and standards in the places that we do business."
2. The court can only express its disapproval of the behaviour of RSA in terms of costs.'

MarkyMarkD

Insurance premiums are set competitively in a market with many participants, so inflation of claims by RSA isn't genuinely a reason for them to inflate their own premiums.

However, it's a pretty virulent judgement and RSA's behaviour - particularly their attempts to avoid disclosing information to the court - is terrible.

vaio

No, but inflating claims increases RSAs profits by unlawfully "stealing" money from other insurance companies.

The "victim" insurers would have to increase their premiums to cover the addition claim cost whereas RSA could use the "stolen" money to either reduce their own premiums or pay bigger shareholder dividends/director bonus.

Presumably the fraud squad are looking into this as we speak

PDAH

RSA-Nobody does it better.............Fraud that is!!

adamc260

RSA has a bad name in the insurance industry, a lot of insurers refuse to even deal with their outlay when it is sent over as they don't disclose a lot of information, they refuse to send engineer reports/estimates etc.

Tirian

PDAH wrote: »

RSA-Nobody does it better.............Fraud that is!!

Haha - certainly RSA seem to have made a better go of it than the rather cack-handed efforts of the Mr Yeates whom you eulogise in your other thread.

On which note ... care to explain how you come to the conclusion that it's a terrible thing for RSA to do, but quite acceptable for the noble Mr. Yeates?

mikey72

But the difference will be even if found guilty, all RSA would have to do was return the overpayments, no one would suggest RSA return all the monies paid by every insurance company that has paid a bill through RSA's set up company would they?

Quentin

Don't think many other insurers have paid them any bills for some considerable time!

vaio

Tirian wrote: »

Haha - certainly RSA seem to have made a better go of it than the rather cack-handed efforts of the Mr Yeates whom you eulogise in your other thread.

On which note ... care to explain how you come to the conclusion that it's a terrible thing for RSA to do, but quite acceptable for the noble Mr. Yeates?

I'm guessing because Mr Yates' company did actually project manage the claim whereas the RSA scam did nothing apart from adding 25% to garage bills and claiming costs for things they hadn't done.

PDAH

Tirian asked

On which note ... care to explain how you come to the conclusion that it's a
terrible thing for RSA to do, but quite acceptable for the noble Mr.
Yeates?

What Yeates did was claim for work he did, it was work that could be recoverable (if it was done by someone else). What RSA did was inflate a loss which would not be recoverable in any shape or form. If the cost of repairs to your vehicle is £1000 and the insurers pay that out, they can only recover your loss of £1000. What they did through the creation of another company was to attempt to mark up the repair costs. Thats why RSA would not disclose the original repair account. What Yeates did was arguably not as a bad as RSA who should know better. Despite that Yeates got nothing and RSA? RSA didnt do that bad in getting back what they paid out. Hope that helps.