MSE News: Car insurance industry faces competition probe

kjmpde

i was involved in a car accident - the other side admitted liability
despite that fact and that i had paid for protected NCD - the accident is mentioned in my insurance documents 4 months after the incident
when the time comes for the renewal - i need to mention the accident so it will have an impact on my premiums

the car industry gets you to pay for protected NCD at about £50 but when it comes to the push - the consumer is made to suffer

the industry needs to be investigated

dunstonh

kjmpde wrote: »

i was involved in a car accident - the other side admitted liability
despite that fact and that i had paid for protected NCD - the accident is mentioned in my insurance documents 4 months after the incident
when the time comes for the renewal - i need to mention the accident so it will have an impact on my premiums

the car industry gets you to pay for protected NCD at about £50 but when it comes to the push - the consumer is made to suffer

the industry needs to be investigated

part of the problem is that the retail of car insurance has moved a lot towards DIY. This means people are buying a product that many of them do not understand. For example, you indicate you dont understand what NCD protection means. We have seen other events posted on this board in the last week where the person bought the wrong car insurance product and had their policy voided and claim rejected.

Maybe the risks of DIY buying should be highlighted more and comparison sites forced to display the risks clearly

Arg

Ectophile wrote: »

If you did that then millions of people wouldn't have insurance. Would you like to be left pursuing someone with no money and no insurance who has just wrecked your new car, or worse, left you severely disabled?

People are hardly going to turn into maniacs because of it so people can just buy slightly less fancy cars and insure themselves.

Norman_Castle

Arg wrote: »

Scrap mandatory insurance altogether and let them face a proper free market.

Scrap comprehensive insurance. The risk of drivers paying the full cost of their losses would reduce accidents.

thor

Insurance companies are always bleating on about how they need to continually up premiums to pay for the rise in personal injury claims and to cover costs due to accidents involving uninsured drivers. Well surely the following two options will cut most of that out immediately:-
1. Whiplash claims not allowed - Don't know if this is legally possible but it has to be one of the most abused excuses out there ans is impossible to prove.

2. Require that all cars have an insurance disc just like they need to have a tax disc. This could be done with almost no effort considering the precedent is already there with vehicles tax. Why has this not already been made a legal requirement?

Of course insurance companies will keep 95% of the savings and only pass on a tiny amount in reduced premiums but at least it will make it harder for them to hide behind their whines.

magpiecottage

thor wrote: »

1. Whiplash claims not allowed - Don't know if this is legally possible but it has to be one of the most abused excuses out there ans is impossible to prove.

You would not be able to scrap it but insurers could require a higher burden of proof.

[/quote]2. Require that all cars have an insurance disc just like they need to have a tax disc. This could be done with almost no effort considering the precedent is already there with vehicles tax. Why has this not already been made a legal requirement?[/quote]

Actually, an insurance disc could be forged. On the other hand, it would be possible to put the details of every car on a central database so that the Police could use a device that checked the registration of each car passing and if it was not insured they could stop it.

Oh - they do that already.