MSE News: David Cameron vows action on car insurance costs

chanz4

thought new regs were in now about male/ female driver prices

Parking_Trouble

Downing Street summit = Sound good, make out you care but don't actually do anything. :mad:

Kite2010

What will come out of the summit will be a lot of hot air & lots of meaningless promises.

Nothing will change for the car insurance companies, they like making the profits

smala01

Again i still maintain that this explosion is the result of no-win no fee case take up by legal firms.

Ban any form of advertisement / proactive approaches from lawyers and charge a fee that is at risk should the case fail.

Referral fees are just the tip of the problem.

Smala01

Crazy_Jamie

smala01 wrote: »

Ban any form of advertisement / proactive approaches from lawyers and charge a fee that is at risk should the case fail.

Whilst unsolicited targeted communications certainly could be banned, suggesting that solicitors as a whole should be banned from advertising of any kind is utterly ludicrous.

On the 'charging a fee that is at risk should the case fail' point, that is exactly what 'no win no fee' is. The clue is in the name. Solicitors receive an uplift on their fees when they win to (in theory at least) balance the risk of the case failing. If they case is unsuccessful they receive nothing. So I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

smala01

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Whilst unsolicited targeted communications certainly could be banned, suggesting that solicitors as a whole should be banned from advertising of any kind is utterly ludicrous.

Why is it ludicrous? I have received at least 4 text messages in the last month informing me im entitled to 3000pounds for my recent car accident (which i have not had)

I have received two phone calls with a similar offering. When i explained to one agent that i have had no crash, she asked if i could think of any occasion in the last 6 years where i have had a crash however minor - because she could 'get me compensation'

My point is to ban TV/Newspaper/text advertising or proactive approaches for compensation due to car accidents as that is what is at question here.

I don't have an issue with solicitors advertising themselves as a general service.

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

On the 'charging a fee that is at risk should the case fail' point, that is exactly what 'no win no fee' is. The clue is in the name. Solicitors receive an uplift on their fees when they win to (in theory at least) balance the risk of the case failing. If they case is unsuccessful they receive nothing. So I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

You are missing my point. I'm suggesting that the claimant (not the solicitor) puts his own money at risk that is NOT refunded should the case fail. My argument is that a 'fake' claimant is less likely to file an initial claim if he has to pay a regulated fee.

This problem is more a making of 'no-win, no-fee' than it is of referral fees.

Smala01

atrixblue.-MFR-.

before long insurers will price themselfs out the market for any uk citizen under 30 thats has just passed or have no NCB, the result will be youngsters looking for jobs in the local area where they know the bus routes and train trips leave early enough to be on time for work, if not a moped is cheaper, than car insurance thats not to say youngsters prefuring this method of transport are not being hit with higher premiums as moped rider, but atleast its affordable for them.

with the gender statistic being ruled out at the end of the year insurers are not going to level the price down to what a woman would pay for a male they will round up a womans premium to what a male would pay generating more revenue.

were seeing an increase in a cap on NCB to 5 or 6 years because thats the maximum that insurer offers taking away in some cases 12 years NCB they left with a previous insurer why there is no need for them to do this, if the discount maxes out on 6 years the rest of the NCB show the proposer is low risk, by doing this i can only "assume" they are deliberatly removing NCB earned to increase the price for ones premium we only have their word their max discount for NCB is 5-6 years im yet to see proof.

ive seen a rise in the last 2 years for those who declair theyre unemployed, yet cashing in on the economic down turn and those who are unemployed due to no fault of their own if theyre made redundant.

named drivers earning thier own NDD give the illusion they would recieve a discount for being a good driver on someones policy and when the times comes for their own will have earnt a discount i founf NOT in my case, infact one company DL, was dearer that i had earned NDD with them compared to not declairing i had been on a family member policy for 3 years when going online and running with and without quotes it was cheaper by £300 without declairing the NDD just another marketing ploy to make you believe and stick with them.

use of second hand parts/pattern parts i believe should be made available to insurers to be able to put vehicle on the road not clutter scrap yards who struggle to keep up the amount they take in its not green to scrap a car IMHO.

oldvicar

As always its

'Compensation culture pushing up premiums'

Parking_Trouble

oldvicar wrote: »

As always it

Quote:
'Compensation culture pushing up premiums'

Agree but goes much deeper than that. a sad indictment of a general loss of integrity in the UK - everyone trying to rip each other off.

Crazy_Jamie

smala01 wrote: »

Why is it ludicrous? I have received at least 4 text messages in the last month informing me im entitled to 3000pounds for my recent car accident (which i have not had)

I have received two phone calls with a similar offering. When i explained to one agent that i have had no crash, she asked if i could think of any occasion in the last 6 years where i have had a crash however minor - because she could 'get me compensation'

My point is to ban TV/Newspaper/text advertising or proactive approaches for compensation due to car accidents as that is what is at question here.

I don't have an issue with solicitors advertising themselves as a general service.

But how can you possibly justify banning certain solicitors from advertising simply because they practise in the area of personal injury law? You forget that in principle there is nothing wrong with claiming when you are injured as a result of someone else's negligence, nor is there anything inherently wrong with practising in that field. The texts and calls that you mention are different because they are unsolicited, and I'm very much in favour of banning those, but banning advertising for personal injury firms generally is just not justifiable.

You are missing my point. I'm suggesting that the claimant (not the solicitor) puts his own money at risk that is NOT refunded should the case fail. My argument is that a 'fake' claimant is less likely to file an initial claim if he has to pay a regulated fee.

Again, in principle such a move is not justifiable. There are plenty of Claimant's who are seriously injured who would simply not have the money that you suggest to put down to file the initial claim. As such your approach would prevent many legitimate Claimants from bringing a claim, which is clearly not desirable. Your approach also wouldn't work in practice either because there would be no way to verify that a Claimant's money that they put forward is their own, but practicalities fall by the wayside when a move isn't principally justifiable in the first place.