Why are insurance companies/assessors so dishonest?

Stoke

takman wrote: »

But like you said they offered you £600 which is a pretty average price for a car with average wear. They then increased it to £700 then £760 with little effort, which you then accepted. If you thought the car was worth a lot more then you could have explained why and showed proof of how much it is worth.

But you also can't base the price on just one advert you need to show two or three cars at that price. You then also have to take into consideration that a Ford Ka advertised at £900 can probably be bought for £800 on the day. So then when you take into consideration most sell for a lot less you have got a fair price!

Thanks for your response (At least you're not just taking pot shots at me).

I agree that while the insurer has to offer a 'base' or average price, why were they so keen to up it after a little bit of a push. Doesn't this scream dishonesty? Is this no different to garages wrongly over-charging naive customers? Or shops? Or any other kind of service industry? There's hell up on here when a garage intentionally over-charges a customer? Kwik Fit has a whole thread dedicated to it!!

As I said, the £760 we accepted was probably fair considering they are not aware of the pre-accident condition of the vehicle, excluding the parts that weren't involved. We know it was in good nick, but they don't, and I can accept that.

dacouch

Stoke wrote: »

Thanks for your response (At least you're not just taking pot shots at me).

I agree that while the insurer has to offer a 'base' or average price, why were they so keen to up it after a little bit of a push. Doesn't this scream dishonesty? Is this no different to garages wrongly over-charging naive customers? Or shops? Or any other kind of service industry? There's hell up on here when a garage intentionally over-charges a customer? Kwik Fit has a whole thread dedicated to it!!

As I said, the £760 we accepted was probably fair considering they are not aware of the pre-accident condition of the vehicle, excluding the parts that weren't involved. We know it was in good nick, but they don't, and I can accept that.

Or is it them being prepared to pay out a further £160 to save themselves further admin along with costs and get the case closed

Stoke

dacouch wrote: »

Or is it them being prepared to pay out a further £160 to save themselves further admin along with costs and get the case closed

Maybe, depends how much their admin costs are worth? Does the person filling out all the paperwork demand that much money? No idea.

At the end of the day, the situation is resolved, the case is closed and the money will be with my missus in the next day or so.... (assuming they don't spring a £760 admin charge )

motorguy

Stoke wrote: »

I'm not upset, I'm trying to make a point, engage you and others in debate if you will. I am used to haggling and I have no problem with it.

My girlfriend on the other hand is a bit intimidated by such situations. She's more of the trusting kind who allows people to do their jobs and trusts they will treat her fairly (garages, insurance, any kind of sales company). Not everyone has the personality to argue the toss over these things and while my missus probably got a fair pay out (maybe a bit less) some people would have accepted the derisory (imo) offer she was first given. £160 may not seem much to some, but to others, it's a lot.

Yes, i can understand your frustration and in a "fair" world it wouldnt happen like that - just trying to explain why.

I've a beef with insurance companies too - i've a thread about it if you're bored and fancy a read, just search for my threads - a woman drove into the side of my son by changing lanes as she didnt follow the lines on the road. Although its TOTALLY her fault, her insurance company are trying for 50/50. Bunch of chancers. Having to get a solicitor involved. Its adding £60 a month to my sons insurance as is because its not been settled.

motorguy

Stoke wrote: »

Maybe, depends how much their admin costs are worth? Does the person filling out all the paperwork demand that much money? No idea.

At the end of the day, the situation is resolved, the case is closed and the money will be with my missus in the next day or so.... (assuming they don't spring a £760 admin charge )

I have to say i still dont get where the aggression from the first post or from the heading comes from?

"Why are insurance companies/assessors so dishonest?"

"The initial figure he offered her was absolutely disgusting. So low that I would have been genuinely insulted and yet some people would accept this figure, unknowingly thinking it was a fair offer for their car."

"they continue to operate by offering ludicrously low amounts of money for your vehicle"

"they're hell bent on basically short changing her"

"they're a business and they make a !!!!ing shed load out of the extortionate premiums we pay?"


They offered you a typical price for an average car - £600 - and you pushed back and got a better price?

I'm not getting how that makes them dishonest or their initial offer disgusting?

Stoke

motorguy wrote: »

I have to say i still dont get where the aggression from the first post or from the heading comes from?

"Why are insurance companies/assessors so dishonest?"

"The initial figure he offered her was absolutely disgusting. So low that I would have been genuinely insulted and yet some people would accept this figure, unknowingly thinking it was a fair offer for their car."

"they continue to operate by offering ludicrously low amounts of money for your vehicle"

"they're hell bent on basically short changing her"

"they're a business and they make a !!!!ing shed load out of the extortionate premiums we pay?"


They offered you a typical price for an average car - £600 - and you pushed back and got a better price?

I'm not getting how that makes them dishonest or their initial offer disgusting?

They are dishonest because quite evidently, they were hoping she'd accept the £600. As I've said, Kwik Fit and various other companies have threads tearing them apart over similar issues, so why are insurance companies (just doing their jobs) and Kwik Fit etc the birth of all evil?

AdrianC

Stoke wrote: »

They are dishonest because quite evidently, they were hoping she'd accept the £600.

But £600 is a fair price for an average condition 12yo Ka.

The OP complained that his was better than average, so the insurer adjusted the value to match that, without requesting proof, because it was cheaper and easier to just do that than to start to get into arguments.

maddogb

Got to agree with OP tho he was lucky to get a second offer of a 25% increase mine was only 5%
Think the pont here is you insure to protect yourself against loss not to get a payout,
payouts are a method of cutting cost for the insurers, for them to attempt to limit liability further is in my eyes very immoral and something needs to be donel about this.

AdrianC

maddogb wrote: »

Got to agree with OP tho he was lucky to get a second offer of a 25% increase mine was only 5%

His increase was £150. How much was yours?

maddogb

Funnily enough it was the same £150 but mine was on an original offer of £2850