When is a claim not a claim?

Dangermac

fadetogrey wrote: »

He could have a very valid point,both usually have a very friendly face at the start but also have every intention of screwing you when and where they can,seems obvious.........

As an insurance broker, I spend much time doing battle with insurers. I do understand people's frustrations.

However, let's get it in perspective guys.

There is a lot of [EMAIL="c@@p"]c@@p[/EMAIL] having been written tonight by people who clearly arent the full shilling.

DM

fadetogrey

Dangermac wrote: »

As an insurance broker, I spend much time doing battle with insurers. I do understand people's frustrations.

.

There is a lot of [EMAIL="c@@p"]c@@p[/EMAIL] having been written tonight by people who clearly arent the full shilling.

DM

Or are insurance brokers................:cool::cool:

Dangermac

fadetogrey wrote: »

Or are insurance brokers................:cool::cool:

lol depends on your point of view I guess!!!

dunstonh

fadetogrey wrote: »

He could have a very valid point,both usually have a very friendly face at the start but also have every intention of screwing you when and where they can,seems obvious.........

Consumers screw insurance companies. Insurance companies screw consumers. Its very adversarial. One side is willing to defraud insurance companies so insurance companies are harder on how they treat claims and individuals to protect their interests. Not ideal but you can you really suggest any alternative in modern society?

However, at no point can an insurance company be compared to a !!!!!phile and the comment made by oldhand were out of order on this occasion. - strange board filter to remove the first part of the word!

corbyboy

Insurers explain this using the same reason they use to inflate everybody's premiums for whatever reason they decide: statistics.

Apparently being involved in a non-fault claim makes you statistically more likely to be involved in an at-fault claim in the future.

olly300

Rickenbacker wrote: »

After theft from my car, I contacted the insurance company to find out if I was covered in this particular case. I was not and have therefore obviously had no payout. Nevertheless as I'm now about to renew my insurance, the insurance company has raised the premium significantly as I have made a claim they say. I am arguing that I called to ascertain whether I COULD make a claim, and as they have not paid anything this is not a claim.

First have you read your policy document to see what they define as a claim?

As the others have stated they normally cover themselves by using the phrase "claims, incidents or accidents"

If there is no definition then you are better off sending a letter with the title "Formal Complaint" to their complaints address, then arguing with someone on the phone.

In the letter ask them:
1. Why they haven't clarified the definitions in their policy documents
2. Why your non-claim is a claim

They then have to answer you within 8 weeks and if you don't a satisfactory answer then take your case to an ombudsman.

BTW I've learnt that all companies have a habit of losing complaints if you don't send them by recorded signed for post.

JuicyJesus

corbyboy wrote: »

Insurers explain this using the same reason they use to inflate everybody's premiums for whatever reason they decide: statistics.

Apparently being involved in a non-fault claim makes you statistically more likely to be involved in an at-fault claim in the future.

The whole insurance industry works on statistics. It isn't just a way to "inflate everybody's premiums", it's how the premiums work in the first place.

And yes, being involved in a non-fault claim statistically makes you more likely to make other claims in future. Not just at-fault claims, any claims. This makes you a riskier customer, and thus you have to pay a higher premium to account for the additional risk. This is not rocket science.

chanz4

it is 100% rip off market, why should you have to declare something if they wouldnt cover in the first place

pedro123456

JuicyJesus wrote: »

The whole insurance industry works on statistics. It isn't just a way to "inflate everybody's premiums", it's how the premiums work in the first place.

And yes, being involved in a non-fault claim statistically makes you more likely to make other claims in future. Not just at-fault claims, any claims. This makes you a riskier customer, and thus you have to pay a higher premium to account for the additional risk. This is not rocket science.

And you have evidence to support this claim juicy?, I personally think it's ABI touted bullsh1te to justify raising premiums

Anyway lets have a link to your evidence please.

Oh and happy Christmas to you all

Buttwhy?

This is quite straight forward and was fully explained on Watchdog about a month ago.
If you make an enquiry into making a claim then they see it as you are more likely to make a claim in the future so are a higher risk hence larger premiums. They also record this on the universal data base so other isurers can see it.
If you then change insurer and have made "enquirys" in the last 5 years and dont tell them, then this could mean you are not covered when you make a claim.
While as a consumer this is horrifying, the insurers are trying to protect themselves and their watchdog/ombudsman is on their side not the consumers.
Name calling will not change this, and just detracts from the core facts that as consumers we need to arm ourselves with.