Admiral trying to charge extra for previous year's cover

UsernameAlreadyExists

And yet somehow in NZ, they seem to manage?

You seem to object on the ground of "fairness". yet you pay part of your salary into a massive government "pot"
whilst the most offending claimers for pensions are "old people",
the offending claimers for incapacity are "sick people", the offending claimers for JSA are "unemployed people" ... and you yet claim nothing yourself - however there's a chance that you might lose your job, you might get ill, and you might even get old. And what about all those people making fake claims ? claiming pensions for dead people? claiming incapacity on the grounds of a bad back ? claiming JSA because they "can't be bothered" to get a job ? Is this "fair"?

Also, the amount of salary you pay "in" bears little or no relation to the risk of you claiming from the pot. So that's even less fair.

What is so special about TP cover in motor insurance that it needs whole industry built around it?

InsideInsurance

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

And yet somehow in NZ, they seem to manage?

From an implementation perspective it is much easier to do than what we do here.

Both systems have challenges and I was just highlighting that by switching approach you don't eliminate all problems but remove some and create others - its not a panacea to cure all.

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

You seem to object on the ground of "fairness". yet you pay part of your salary into a massive government "pot"
whilst the most offending claimers for pensions are "old people",
the offending claimers for incapacity are "sick people", the offending claimers for JSA are "unemployed people" ... and you yet claim nothing yourself - however there's a chance that you might lose your job, you might get ill, and you might even get old. And what about all those people making fake claims ? claiming pensions for dead people? claiming incapacity on the grounds of a bad back ? claiming JSA because they "can't be bothered" to get a job ? Is this "fair"?

Also, the amount of salary you pay "in" bears little or no relation to the risk of you claiming from the pot. So that's even less fair.

National Insurance is indeed a compulsory insurance and the most forgotten about when people list all the compulsory classes (Motor and Employers Liability).

Evidently there are many who think the welfare system is abused by some, that it is "unfair" etc and no doubt there are fraudulant claims and avoidance of paying their "premiums" but like insurers the government has departments to catch people who have under paid or over claimed and if your caught (like the OP in this case) they will demand back payment.

The welfare state is a little different to insurance as most would argue there is a stronger moral demand that "the people" look after someone who is born with a condition meaning they'll never be able to work. In the vast majority of cases it is no ones "fault" and so morally the people should pay and payment should be on the basis of affordability.

With motor accidents then there is a party that is responsible and therefore that party should pay and hence there is a one to one linkage between risk and cost.

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

What is so special about TP cover in motor insurance that it needs whole industry built around it?

There is no industry built around TPO Motor cover. I dont even know a single insurer that writes only TPO Motor and nothing else let alone a whole industry

UsernameAlreadyExists

InsideInsurance wrote: »

There is no industry built around TPO Motor cover. I dont even know a single insurer that writes only TPO Motor and nothing else let alone a whole industry

What I was meaning to say was that TP cover is legally required. Anything else is purely optional.
So as it's a legal requirement why is it not government provided and enforced? Why is it being farmed out to the private sector and business? The businesses need to "profit" otherwise they sink - so this automatically means we're paying more than is strictly necessary and this is exacerbated further by the the glossy adverts, the shiny buildings, and huge salaries of the fat cats stitting at the top - who are doubtless in bed with the govt.

Why is there so much "choice" for the TP cover and why does it come at hugely different prices? (obvious really, companies are deciding where they want to sit in the marketplace - in terms of high risk, high turnover, lots of work, and "possibly" lots of profit if they're lucky ... or low risk, low turnover, less profit, for doing little - so it's business "gambling").

If the govt insist it is a legal requirement for TP cover, I think they should collect it ... and not through NI ... but through the most obvious taxation point of the motoring world. The fuel pumps.
VED is a complete farce.

InsideInsurance

Therefore you could ask the same question to Employers Liability insurance as the final compulsory class of insurance.

I have to admit, being a young nipper snapper myself, I dont know the history of how TPO motor insurance came about (nor NI and EL). There will however always be the right wing -v- left wing view about the inefficiency of public entities -v- the private sector such that the rights at least believe the private sector can provide a service for less money than the public sector can despite the private one requiring to turn a profit and that competition ultimately drives down prices.

There is however a key correlation that those where liability is involved (ie motor and EL) that it is private and risk is a factor in pricing -v- where fault is irrelevant and it is publicly funded and risk isnt a consideration

dacouch

Having worked for a while in Whitehall, if the government ran it they would use at least four times more staff than they need and even then it would be badly run

rudekid48

dacouch wrote: »

Having worked for a while in Whitehall, if the government ran it they would use at least four times more staff than they need and even then it would be badly run

and 6 years late....

tberry6686

So basically, ignore any risk factors and peoples driving records and just whack a large lump on fuel costs to pay out for all the bad/dangerous drivers at the expense of all people who drive anything with an engine bigger than 1 litre ?

Somehow I can't think of anything more likely to p*** off most motorists and not to mention businesses that need to use vans, buses etc

anandp

Ok this post has gone far beyond what I had expected!

The amount in question for last year is not small either. At a little under £400 (on a multicar policy premium of around £1200), its a fair whack leaving me without any ability to compare quotes from elsewhere.

InsideInsurance

Hopefully will help to make you remember to declare all points, claims, vehicle modifications etc in the future and £400 to pay now is a lot less than the cost of them voiding either policy and you having to pay inflated premiums on all insurances for the rest of your life for non-disclosure

Quentin

anandp wrote: »

...........The amount in question for last year is not small either. At a little under £400 (on a multicar policy premium of around £1200), its a fair whack leaving me without any ability to compare quotes from elsewhere.

As has been pointed out, this is all your own fault, but why can't you still shop around for the best deal for your renewal?

(If you just renewed, then you are in the time allowed to cancel)