Why are insurance companies/assessors so dishonest?

s_b

Just for the record most of these assessors or more correct term loss adjusters work on paying the least possible they can get away with, which means the more they save their clients the more they make for themselves in bonuses

motorguy

Stoke wrote: »

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?

They offered a fair price for an average KA.

You pushed back and got a bit more because you believe yours was better than average.

Thats not dishonest. Dishonest would be offering £300 when an average one was making £600.

Kwik Fit get a kicking because the invariably make up work for themselves to do on your car, and try to put the Fear of God into you and tell you your car is unroadworthy to let them do it there and then so you dont have time to think. THATS dishonest.

motorguy

s_b wrote: »

Just for the record most of these assessors or more correct term loss adjusters work on paying the least possible they can get away with, which means the more they save their clients the more they make for themselves in bonuses

Have you any actual evidence that they are bonused on paying out less or is it hearsay or something you read on the internet so must be true?

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

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

And thats fairly typical, and common advice - dont accept their first offer.

I'm not sure why this comes as a surprise to some people - we all pay the minimum possible for our insurance by shopping around and using comparison sites, then seem shocked when that budget insurance policy turns out not to offer a 5 star service.

You get what you pay for. If you want an agreed value insurance policy, then buy an agreed value insurance policy.

maddogb

bit of a blanket assumption there, I certainly didn't go for the cheapest option, wish I had now, they could not be any worse than esure


and where are these freely available policies that have agreed value payouts for standard cars? you would think if they can charge more for such insurance companies would be selling them down your throat..

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

bit of a blanket assumption there, I certainly didn't go for the cheapest option, wish I had now, they could not be any worse than esure


and where are these freely available policies that have agreed value payouts for standard cars? you would think if they can charge more for such insurance companies would be selling them down your throat..

So if you didnt buy based on price, what did you get with the policy that made it worth paying more in the first place?

Fixed value insurance policies are typically sold for classic or rare cars - not typically on a 12 year old Ford KA, or something at a few thousand.

My point being - if getting your perception of what your car is worth, compared to what its typically worth is important to you, then it may be worth seeking out one.

For me, not worth the hassle or extra cost - i'll just poke the insurance company at the time if it happens - which is the common recommendation

Car_54

I don't see where dishonesty come into this.

The insurer makes an offer based on its perception of the market value (which is not an exact science). The customer has a different value in mind. They reach a compromise. So they were both initially "wrong" - why does that make the insurer dishonest and not the customer?

motorguy

Car_54 wrote: »

I don't see where dishonesty come into this.

The insurer makes an offer based on its perception of the market value (which is not an exact science). The customer has a different value in mind. They reach a compromise. So they were both initially "wrong" - why does that make the insurer dishonest and not the customer?

Exactly. It could just as easily have been a "i got one over on the insurance company as they valued my car £600 but i made a huge fuss and got an extra £160 out of them for no good reason as i knew they wouldnt want the hassle"

maddogb

Car_54 wrote: »

I don't see where dishonesty come into this.

The insurer makes an offer based on its perception of the market value (which is not an exact science). The customer has a different value in mind. They reach a compromise. So they were both initially "wrong" - why does that make the insurer dishonest and not the customer?

No one pays insurance on the basis of "getting a sale of their car to webuyanywreck.com"
If insurance companies want to "honestly" treat their customers fairly they should maintain a network of trusted car dealers to simply drop an email to requesting a comparable replacement and payout on that basis with an option to buy that replacement.
I know a couple of insurers have now started doing this and I shall be taking my renewal to one of them.

bigjl

The amount offered was not that bad for a 12 yr old Ford Ka, leather seats or not.

If the accident wasn't your partners fault then it would likely have been the other parties Loss Adjuster making the offer.

So what does that have to do with your own policy?

They will always start at the low end of the range t save a few quid I suspect.

When my car was stolen and not recovered it went through Admiral and it was painless and I got more than expected, all they took was my excess.

Had the money in a matter of days.