Car Insurance Increase

rs65

Roosters72 wrote: »

I dont get what the idea was for me to do a dummy run with them, unless im missing something?

To make sure they were treating you fairly as a 'captive' customer.

Roosters72

rs65 wrote: »

To make sure they were treating you fairly as a 'captive' customer.

Ahh, I see. If the new address quote was lower I could have called them out type of thing, gotcha. Thanks.

In reality I cant see how any insurer could be described as fair though (just less of a rip-off) as far as I'm concerned its the biggest legalized scam in the world. A lot of people who should genuinely be making claims don't do it, as the resulting increased premium would hurt more.

Thanks to all for responses

forgotmyname

Just because an area is better with less crime doesnt mean its less of a risk for the insurer.

It maybe a case of premiums in that area dropped and people made claims for small scratches where they catch a gatepost or garage door/wall. Where they may not have claimed if the premium was higher.

Thinking back a few months to a member who made something like 6 claims in a year for minor scratches and dents and i think a windscreen claim?

Possibly one issue. But maybe your a captive customer and they know its going to be costly for you to stay with them. But possibly more costly to leave so try it on with the prices?

Your quotes being lower at the new address as a new customer may show that. Or it may show that the company your with quote higher where a new policy would choose a different company. Are you with a broker or direct?

Dangermac

Roosters72 wrote: »

Ahh, I see. If the new address quote was lower I could have called them out type of thing, gotcha. Thanks.

In reality I cant see how any insurer could be described as fair though (just less of a rip-off) as far as I'm concerned its the biggest legalized scam in the world. A lot of people who should genuinely be making claims don't do it, as the resulting increased premium would hurt more.

Thanks to all for responses

The 'fact' that you referred to in your first post is clearly not. You tried to backtrack on a subsequent post (changing the fact that you were apparently referring to)

As you believe that insurance is a scam, I am presuming that you dont purchase any more insurance than is legally required. i.e presumably you only buy Third Party Motor Insurance. Presumably, you dont purchase household insurance etc.

Or is it just another one of your 'facts' ?

DM

thor

Dangermac wrote: »

The 'fact' that you referred to in your first post is clearly not. You tried to backtrack on a subsequent post (changing the fact that you were apparently referring to)

Or is it just another one of your 'facts' ?

DM

Eh? How do you know that the op's 'fact' is clearly wrong? It might be or it might not.

Dangermac

thor wrote: »

Eh? How do you know that the op's 'fact' is clearly wrong? It might be or it might not.

Er. Read post 8. OP obtained a quote from existing insurer which confirmed that his insurer rates the new post code as being higher.

As such, the OP's 'fact' in post 1 is clearly wrong.

DM

whatmichaelsays

Roosters72 wrote: »

it is still a 'fact' my car is safer where I am now than my old place, doesnt matter how the insurer rates it, theyre simply wrong, I should know, I lived in both areas, they havent.

OK, so you have anecdotal evidence of risk based on living in two areas.

The insurer, on the other hand, has years of tangible experience of paying out claims in both areas.

thor

Dangermac wrote: »

Er. Read post 8. OP obtained a quote from existing insurer which confirmed that his insurer rates the new post code as being higher.

As such, the OP's 'fact' in post 1 is clearly wrong.

DM

Sorry but you are being naive. Just because the cust rep says that the postcode is a higher risk does mean it is so. If it was then why do they not allow access to the raw data they use to come up with their 'fact'?

Aretnap

thor wrote: »

If it was then why do they not allow access to the raw data they use to come up with their 'fact'?

Because it's commercially sensitive information. Having spent years building up their claims histories insurers aren't going to hand over their data to the public in general or their competitors in particular. Obviously.

thor

Aretnap wrote: »

Because it's commercially sensitive information. Having spent years building up their claims histories insurers aren't going to hand over their data to the public in general or their competitors in particular. Obviously.

Here we go again. It's the same tired old excuse why companies cannot release 'commercially sensitive information'. That's just bull! There is no value in withholding this information unless they have got something to hide. If it's so obvious then please enlighten me?