Admiral trying to charge extra for previous year's cover

TSx

Insurance, for the majority of people is going to be a case of paying in more than they get out. The whole point of insurance is to avoid catastrophic costs which you wouldn't be able to pay on your own (there was a topic on here about someone who didn't have insurance and has had an £40k claim made against him - that debt will stay with them for life, until it's paid off).

Of course they aim make a profit, they're not charities.

The fuel alternative is a great idea, but it would mean those with 9 years driving experience and claim free years paying the same as someone who's crashed twice in the year since passing their test - and is that really fair?

UsernameAlreadyExists

Paying the same for 3rd party cover? yep, sounds entirely reasonable - the more you drive, the more you pay.

Do you not think that the "dangerous youth" ... actually learn a lesson in life when they end upside down in a ditch having killed someone? If they do it once, I doubt they'll do it again.

Like speeding ... if you get caught, you get fined, or sent on a rehabilition course. That's the penalty. Get caught again ? pay a bigger fine ... what has speeding offences got to do with insurance risk and what you pay? People speed every day ... and the moment they kill a kid ... they slow (the f*ck) down, and don't speed the next day ... or the day after. What does paying an massive amount extra on insurance for the next 5 years do ... compared to the knowledge that they've killed someone from their bad driving?

If they have to drive for their jobs (and aren't banged up, or lost their licence completely) ... they'll not stop buying fuel ... but they will be more careful.
And if they're not ... and/or don't care ... they'd not stop driving anyway.

UsernameAlreadyExists

TSx wrote: »

Insurance, for the majority of people is going to be a case of paying in more than they get out.

Insurance, for the majority of people, is going to allow insurance companies to exist, have big shiny buildings, pay their staff wages, fund their IT/phones/advertising, allow the managers to have big and shiny company cars, make the directors stinking rich, pay out dividends to the share holders, and STILL profit from paying out less in claims than they collect from premiums. Business.

InsideInsurance

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

and STILL profit from paying out less in claims than they collect from premiums. Business.

Depends what line of business you are talking about. Many consumer lines make a loss on a pure comparison of premium to claims and operating expenses but you are missing investment income from the equation

UsernameAlreadyExists

Interesting that you have nothing to say about my other points

maninthestreet

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

And whether he had 3 points, or 9 points, the risk doesn't matter because he didn't claim, and no-one claimed against him. There is no risk anymore.

Moving rubble = "doing work", "effort" & "actual expense". Fair enough

Back charging for covering risk that never transpired = blatent money making!!! Hurrah for more insurance scamming!

The OP gained a pecuniary advantage to the insurance company's detriment by failing to declare the SP30 offences. The Insurance company are seeking redress by asking them to pay the difference between what the OP would have paid had they declared those offences compared to what the OP actually paid.

UsernameAlreadyExists

That has already been said and it's moved on from there.

Quentin

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

That has already been said and it's moved on from there.

If it irritates so much for you to read posts repeating comments already made, then this forum is not a good place for your ulcer!

UsernameAlreadyExists

I was rather hoping for some responses to my pointy and aggressive comments towards the insurance industry from the insurance people, so I was mildly disappointed
I don't have an ulcer. Yet

InsideInsurance

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

Yes, I understand that. And you don't think this could work equally as well from fuel consumption?

I personally do like the idea of TPO cover coming from fuel as it totally removes the uninsured driver issue and the hit & runs. Likewise it encourages people to buy more economical cars.

From a pure claims perspective however it does create a new issue of people having single party accidents and then claiming they were a hit and run to get the claim settled by "the government" rather than hitting their own Comprehensive cover.

That said, it isn't a fairer system. Some of the biggest offenders of accidents are young drivers with hot or luke warm hatches (106, fiesta, saxo in the old days etc) and these cars are often more fuel efficient than a medium sized family car. Likewise they are often driven less because its just used at the weekend or for social uses -v- doing the school run twice every day and commuting to work and back. They not only have the highest claims rates but also have a higher rate of PI claims (mother dinks car parking, teenager totals car around lamp post with 4 mates crammed in it)

As others have also pointed out, it doesnt factor in your personal history. You could have the worlds most economical car but if the only time you go driving is after you've had ten pints on a friday and saturday night then your claims to mileage ratio (and even more your claims to L of fuel ratio) would be much worse than the person with an older inefficient car who does high commuting mileage but has never had an accident in their life.


Where the current system could be improved is via greater data capture by the likes of the DVLA and for that data to be freely available to insurers. Add to that each person having a unique ID (eg driving license number) and it being compulsory both for insurance and for insurers to populate the CUE or another DB

The problem there is you are talking a couple of billion pounds spend of both public and private money to develop a series of systems that bring no competitive benefit to companies and is there simply to remove the need of honesty from people filling in a form to buy insurance.