Basic nationalised third-party car insurance policy

InsideInsurance

vaio wrote: »

Can't really see any increase in the use of illegal/blackmarket fuels all fuel goes through the duty stage at some time and veg oil/smuggled fuels is likely to be insignificant in the scheme of things

Its always these plus red diesel that have been muted as a potential issue.

The other possible complication is how to deal with foreign vehicles that come here. In theory they have paid into the fund if they fuel up here so do they get an exclusion? Get a rebate when leaving? Do they get protection under the scheme whilst they are here? Likewise how do you deal with those that do and dont fill up here?

For now at least, there would potentially be EU legislation that could cause a headache with the above and equal rights etc.

These arent things that say it cant or shouldnt be done, just to point out it isnt straight forward.

I though South Africa also did it, but cant find anything online about it, and they had a significant issue with collection of the revenues for it but evidently a very different country to the UK (or at least mainland UK and before scottish independence )

vaio

Tractors & diggers etc generally spend some time on the roads so need insurance. Add the extra duty to red diesel and that would cover the vast majority of red diesel usage. The rest, generators, cement mixers etc would just have to lump it for the greater good. The insurance duty would be tiny compared to normal fuel duty so no great increase in illegal red diesel use and existing enforcement would carry on unchanged.

Foreign vehicles pay it and get covered whilst they are over here. The odd few that come over and don't buy fuel get covered for free although if that looks like costing significant amounts then I'm sure we could come up with a solution.

Age and driving record is the big stumbling block

InsideInsurance

vaio wrote: »

Age and driving record is the big stumbling block

You accept it as the flaw that you replace the flaw of commerciality/ uninsured drivers etc with

No system is ever going to be perfect unless you can simply stop all accidents from ever happening thus eradicate the need for insurance.

magpiecottage

InsideInsurance wrote: »

No system is ever going to be perfect unless you can simply stop all accidents from ever happening thus eradicate the need for insurance.

Man with a red flag walking in front?

antrobus

InsideInsurance wrote: »

That is for different reasons.
....

What different reasons?

Fairly obviously, it's allways going to cost more to buy two insurance policies, than it is to buy just one.

InsideInsurance wrote: »

...If you stripped out TPO as a standalone thing it would be priced differently to as TPO/TPFT is as you lose marketing costs, negative selection, commercial considerations etc

You could make the same claim about anything. Once you strip out the 'marketing costs', 'commercial considerations' etc etc, the state owned monopoly will be able to deliver the product/service at a cheaper cost. It just doesn't seem to work like that in practice. See British Leyland for example.

Lit_Up wrote: »

T... It's a scam, and it's funny how you're so willing to take it on face value

Oh dear I didn't realise it was all a scam. Silly me. The fact that insurers have made an underwriting loss on private motor insurance for seventeen successive years would be neither here nor there I imagine.

https://www.abi.org.uk/~/media/Files/Documents/Publications/Public/Migrated/Facts%20and%20figures%20data/UK%20Insurance%20Key%20Facts%202012.ashx

rs65

Insurance companies can make a loss on motor and subsidise it with other classes.

What would the government do if it made a loss? We would pay for it.

The thought of a government dept and associated IT systems managing a nationalised scheme worries me.

I would rather have a competitive private market.

vaio

antrobus wrote: »

......Oh dear I didn't realise it was all a scam. Silly me. The fact that insurers have made an underwriting loss on private motor insurance for seventeen successive years would be neither here nor there I imagine.

https://www.abi.org.uk/~/media/Files/Documents/Publications/Public/Migrated/Facts%20and%20figures%20data/UK%20Insurance%20Key%20Facts%202012.ashx

17 years? the poor darlings, perhaps we should have a whip round for them. Looking at the ABI document they also appear to make a thumping great loss on employers liability too.

Is it just coincidence that the "loss" makers are also the compulsory insurances?

If this isn't creative accounting in that they are ignoring non premium income streams arising from insurance then I find myself wondering *why* they stay in the business and seem to be falling over themselves to write new business rather than getting out or writing less business.

Dangermac

Lit_Up wrote: »

What "nationalised services" are you referring to?

All you have done in this post is raise a bunch of questions but haven't said why nationalising would be impractical for the situations you specify.

One thing's for sure - the insurance industry wouldn't like a switch to a national system, and that more than anything else would motivate them to talk down any change.

They're crooks, the bunch of them.

Best call the police then.


You are just a little bit silly, aren't you?


DM

InsideInsurance

antrobus wrote: »

What different reasons?

Fairly obviously, it's allways going to cost more to buy two insurance policies, than it is to buy just one.

Never said that it would be cost saving, just that if everyone had to buy TPO as a standalone policy then TPO would be cheaper than it is now because of the many of the following reasons I gave having been stripped out.

My comments about the above were in direct response to someone else having pointed out that TPO is more expensive than Comp in most cases but that is only when you consider the current situation. If you broke out the TPO element of Comp/ TPFT and averaged it with the TPO then obv the average cost that people are paying for the TP aspect of their insurance is less than the average cost of Comp

Ignoring the arguments over state inefficiency for now, having two is not necessarily going to be more expensive where one is simply a state provided solution funded through taxation. There is no additional sales type activities or administration. Cover is automatic and if we take use of fuel duty as the revenue source then the mechanism for collection already exists.

You also find no additional claims handling costs, the body could allow the private insurers to continue arguing liability and it simply settles on their agreed splits. Where one party has no relevant insurance then the body represents them so again no duplication. You may even find some cases become easier to settle as liability is less contentious when insurers dont have a big PI claim to settle.

Eg Car A switches land without looking Car B swerves to avoid Car A and hits Motorcyclist C who sustains life altering injuries. Currently A and B fight it out for years whilst C is left hanging. In the new world everyone agrees C is an innocent party and so can be settled straight away by the central body.

antrobus wrote: »

You could make the same claim about anything. Once you strip out the 'marketing costs', 'commercial considerations' etc etc, the state owned monopoly will be able to deliver the product/service at a cheaper cost. It just doesn't seem to work like that in practice. See British Leyland for example.

That isnt what I was saying, my comments were around why currently TPO is more expensive than Comp and how this wouldnt be the same if TPO was state provided. Not saying it is going to be cheap or more cost effective than private sector provision but if TPO was bought by 100% of people, for example, then the negative selection issue would be removed and that alone would massively drive down the cost of the product.

In my very first post my comment against the proposal is the fact that state run bodies tend to be highly inefficient and therefore despite the potential benefits they would probably be lost/ outweighed by this fact.

dacouch

If you take into account Insurers generally lose money on motor insurance but tend to make their profit on investing the money can you imagine the UK government investing money and receiving a good return?

I've worked in Whitehall, if you've ever been in any ministry buildings or had dealings with Whitehall you would know they waste unbelievable money.

My friend has a reasonable size business that contracts to a Whitehall Ministry. He is the only company of his type that is allowed to quote for their business so can almost quote what he wants. His staff tend to work 4 or 5 hours a day but get paid for 10 due to him over quoting for work and wanting to ensure it takes the amount of days he quoted them.