MSE News: Jobless get walloped when buying insurance

mikey72

Well Raskazz, I have to admit I'm impressed. You have totally dismissed an ABI report that has used insurers own data to come to the conclusion - The ABI results show that a potential fraudster is morelikely to:• Be male.• Be in full-time employment.• Be between 18 and 34 years old.• Have a gross household income over £30,000.• Have non-pension savings and investments worth less than £5,000 - you have then plucked figures out of the air, solely made up to show you can prove by some number crunching you are self justified, and drawn a conclusion to prove a premium rise is justified. Then called us all uneducated. Perhaps you should address your complaint to the ABI, and point out their errors in the report they issued, and advise them to ammend it accordingly? (I wouldn't tell them they were uneducated in your first draft though, they may not agree with you) I think you have proved my point with the insurers apologists being quick to justify the insurer, witout any evidence, even when it's relatively easy to find reliable information proving the opposite, (but admittedly you did make some up to justify them. but I'm afraid we can't count that) By the way, your need to check your example again, it has a few glaring errors, and mutually exclusive statements. At least make up workable figures for us un-educated.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

Well Raskazz, I have to admit I'm impressed. You have totally dismissed an ABI report that has used insurers own data to come to the conclusion

What is the weather like on planet mikey72??!

I didn't "dismiss" it at all. I pointed out that you need to look deeper into the information presented in order to understand what the report is actually saying, what facts you can conclude from it, and the parts of it you need to apply some critical thinking to.

mikey72 wrote: »

you have then plucked figures out of the air, solely made up to show you can prove by some number crunching

I plucked some numbers "out of the air" because it was, as stated, an example of why you need to exercise some degree of critical thinking before drawing conclusions from headline-type statements.

For the avoidance of doubt, do you understand that principle that my example was illustrating, i.e. that a likeliness within a global population can give a misleading impression of the comparative likeliness when that global population is segmented into groups?

mikey72 wrote: »

Then called us all uneducated.

I didn't at all. I said you were "not uneducated" - do you understand what this means? Perhaps I should revise that assessment though in light of your evident lack of English comprehension skills.

mikey72 wrote: »

Perhaps you should address your complaint to the ABI, and point out their errors in the report they issued, and advise them to ammend it accordingly?

Nowhere in my post did I use the words "error", "incorrect", or "wrong". What I was pointing out was that you need to understand what the report is actually saying before jumping to conclusions from it.

You clown! :rotfl:

Edited to add:

mikey72 wrote: »

By the way, your need to check your example again, it has a few glaring errors, and mutually exclusive statements. At least make up workable figures for us un-educated

For the sake of clarity, could you please give details of what specifically these "glaring errors" are?

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

I didn't at all. I said you were "not uneducated". Perhaps I should revise that assessment though in light of your lack of English comprehension skills.
............You clown! :rotfl:

Edite to add:



For the sake of clarity, could you please give details of what specifically these "glaring errors" are?

I'll have to put my hand up and apologise to you on that, I'll go back to my english class. And another apology as I've scored a massive own goal by mis reading the example "20% are males aged 18-34. 8% are unemployed." I now realise you mean they are two different groups , not the same group of 20% with 8% of them unemployed, so again my humble apology, (with a little bit of an excuse for the way it was worded)

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

I'll have to put my hand up and apologise to you on that, I'll go back to my english class. And another apology as I've scored a massive own goal by mis reading the example "20% are males aged 18-34. 8% are unemployed." I now realise you mean they are two different groups , not the same group of 20% with 8% of them unemployed, so again my humble apology, (with a little bit of an excuse for the way it was worded)

WEll that was an unexpected turn of events, thank you for accepting that.

westv

callum9999 wrote: »

I don't think voluntary work counts as "employment".

Why not? Just because you aren't being paid doesn't mean you aren't there to do a job. The main difference between someone who is paid to work and someone who is is employment rights.

westv

dacouch wrote: »

A homemaker is not drawing JOB SEEKERS Allowance

Neither do the unemployed if they have already claimed for more thasn 6 months and have more than £16k in savings.

OnAndUp

MSE You have left people who can't work due to health problems out of this article and statistics!!!!!

I am not able to work due to health problems, but having just renewed my car insurance the "Unemployed" price can go the other way too!

Some providers have the option "Not employed due to Disability" which is how I class myself as opposed to others which do not have the option. As I can't just pick any of the jobs listed or Retired as I'm way too young I have no option but to choose Unemployed which I define as everyone has said as "someone who is actively seeking work" - which I can't.

One quote was £100 more when I changed from "Unemployed" to "Unable to work due to Disability" which surely must be some sort of discrimination too.

There must be lots of other people in the position too?

Is there anything MSE could do to campaign about the Unemployed and Disabled being unfairly treated in this way? Especially with there being so many people unemployed at the moment, therefore the insurance companies are raking it in more than ever in this catagory?

deutsch

would a voluntary worker be able to drive under SDP (social domestic and pleasure) or would they need to drive under SDP+C (social domestic and pleasure plus commuting), thus aligning themselves with the same class of use as an employed person or even business class 1 use?

vaio

pretty sure the ABI have ruled that volunteering is covered under SDP

Jemma130

dunstonh wrote: »

PI insurance is in a hard market and firms are reporting 25-50% increases on last year and a doubling of the excesses. It happens and its frustrating but hopefully in a year or two it will move back to soft market as firms are attracted back.

Sometimes it's hard to find the best price for PI Insurance - the quotes get higher depending on your job type and risk. I've found the most competitive prices by Qdos. Although contracting can be tough, rather that than unemployed or being a permie, don't think it would suit me!