RSA Rip off Repair Scheme Exposed

PDAH

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.

Well said bro!

dacouch

Looks like RSA won the latest round http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/9333905/Court-ruling-could-force-motor-insurance-premiums-to-rise-by-25pc.html

mikey72

So, all costs at top book price, all claims for brand new parts, and in reality it'll be done as cheap as possible, a final bill just invented, and the insurer keeps the difference. That'll make referral fees seem cheap by conparison. You could only beleive it in the insurance industry.

TSx

mikey72 wrote: »

So, all costs at top book price, all claims for brand new parts, and in reality it'll be done as cheap as possible, a final bill just invented, and the insurer keeps the difference. That'll make referral fees seem cheap by conparison. You could only beleive it in the insurance industry.

To be fair, a few insurers have come out against the decision - it's only RSA that are doing this - however, since it gives RSA a competitive advantage, other companies will have to use the same strategy to maximise their income.

Provident are planning on appealing the ruling

dacouch

When they send their invoices to third party Insurers for settlement, ironically the top of the invoice has "More Than" written on it...

mikey72

TSx wrote: »

To be fair, a few insurers have come out against the decision - it's only RSA that are doing this - however, since it gives RSA a competitive advantage, other companies will have to use the same strategy to maximise their income.

Provident are planning on appealing the ruling

At least some insurers appear to want to do the right thing. Hardly seems possible that it's been judged ok for an insurer to blatently profiteer by overinflating a claim, while the customer normally struggles just to get back to where they were before the acccident in most cases.

dacouch

mikey72 wrote: »

At least some insurers appear to want to do the right thing. Hardly seems possible that it's been judged ok for an insurer to blatently profiteer by overinflating a claim, while the customer normally struggles just to get back to where they were before the acccident in most cases.

I'm not a legal expert (Would love someone who is to explain the reasoning behind the judgement) but it does seem to go against the ethos of having to mitigate your losses.

I've never liked RSA (it's quite a common view in the industry) they've always had an elevated view of themselves which has not been justified