Why are insurance companies/assessors so dishonest?

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

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.

So the current system may not be yielding the figures that truly reflect a cars value on the "first touch" as it were, so now insurers seem to be trying a different method?

Still not seeing dishonestly. I'm seeing a system that might no longer be absolutely fit for purpose and an industry evolving to resolve that?

loskie

I bought an old Forester in Oct 2014 for £1450 was hit by a third party start of feb. Car was written off although damage slight.
Initial offer was £1500 increased to £1725 after a reasoned chat with the assessor.
Bought back car for 9% salvage.£155
Admittedly I wont get rich on this but it seems fair.
OP your initial post is ott and shows a complete naivety of how the world works,

maddogb

motorguy wrote: »

So the current system may not be yielding the figures that truly reflect a cars value on the "first touch" as it were, so now insurers seem to be trying a different method?

Still not seeing dishonestly. I'm seeing a system that might no longer be absolutely fit for purpose and an industry evolving to resolve that?

Dishonesty can take many forms including omission of facts for financial gain, if you find something and fail to take steps to return it its called theft by finding.
Have you ever heard of an insurance company offering a higher price without any prompting?

maddogb

loskie wrote: »

I bought an old Forester in Oct 2014 for £1450 was hit by a third party start of feb. Car was written off although damage slight.
Initial offer was £1500 increased to £1725 after a reasoned chat with the assessor.
Bought back car for 9% salvage.£155
Admittedly I wont get rich on this but it seems fair.
OP your initial post is ott and shows a complete naivety of how the world works,

Being a cynic I imagine this wasn't luck, more likely they were over generous due to it being a third party claim in the hope you won't pursue them for whiplash damages etc.

takman

I can't believe so many people can't understand why they use the system they do.
Obviously some cars are in good condition and some are in poor condition. So they will start with the assumption that the car is near the lower end of the price. Some people may agree that their car was in a poor condition and accept the offer. But if you disagree it's simple to tell them and get a higher offer or provide proof and get an even higher offer again if it's in a very good condition or is worth more for some reason. So seems like a sensible system to me!.

Just like when you buy a car or any other item privetly a sensible person will make an offer which is lower than the most they would pay. If this offer is not accepted then they will increase their offer. This doesn't make them dishonest!

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

Dishonesty can take many forms including omission of facts for financial gain, if you find something and fail to take steps to return it its called theft by finding.
Have you ever heard of an insurance company offering a higher price without any prompting?

As an ex motor trader, and having looked at the prices out there for '04 Kas, it was a fair price at £600.

You pushed back on that based on the rust free status and condition of the Ka in question and they upped their offer a bit to reflect that.

I'm really not seeing an issue here. Genuinely - if that is "dishonest" in your books and causes you so much bitterness, you're in for a long hard life.

s_b

motorguy wrote: »

As an ex motor trader, and having looked at the prices out there for '04 Kas, it was a fair price at £600.

You pushed back on that based on the rust free status and condition of the Ka in question and they upped their offer a bit to reflect that.

I'm really not seeing an issue here. Genuinely - if that is "dishonest" in your books and causes you so much bitterness, you're in for a long hard life.

as a current motor trader that price is derogatory
cars pan out even at the bottom of the scale
so the first offer was an insult
oh and to reply to your earlier comment to me
yes
ive had plenty of dealings with insurance assessors but i would rather talk to the fishes

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

Being a cynic I imagine this wasn't luck, more likely they were over generous due to it being a third party claim in the hope you won't pursue them for whiplash damages etc.

Yes you are a cynic - what you feel is over generous was just due to the same process that they followed for your KA.

Valuing cars is not an exact science so theres alway going to a be a bit of +/-.

Its funny because if the insurance company under value in your view, then they're dishonest, however if they over value in your view, then they're doing it to avoid a whiplash claim? So damned if they do and damned if they dont?

Or maybe, its like what everyone else thinks - that its not a perfect system, however the insurance companies are open to a bit of reasoned negotiation if you think the price is wrong?

motorguy

s_b wrote: »

as a current motor trader that price is derogatory
cars pan out even at the bottom of the scale
so the first offer was an insult
oh and to reply to your earlier comment to me
yes
ive had plenty of dealings with insurance assessors but i would rather talk to the fishes

A quick sweep of gumtree shows 2004 KAs between £400 and £800. So hows a slap-bang-in-the-middle offer derogatory?

If i was going out to buy a 2004 KA in the morning i'd expect to get a nice one with long MOT for £500. £600 tops. And i could do that no probs. If you have any evidence to suggest i couldnt, then please let us know.

And i asked had you any evidence you could demonstrate to back up your "claim" - and again, clearly you havent.

s_b

motorguy wrote: »

A quick sweep of gumtree shows 2004 KAs between £400 and £800. So hows a slap-bang-in-the-middle offer derogatory?

If i was going out to buy a 2004 KA in the morning i'd expect to get a nice one with long MOT for £500. £600 tops. And i could do that no probs. If you have any evidence to suggest i couldnt, then please let us know.

And i asked had you any evidence you could demonstrate to back up your "claim" - and again, clearly you havent.

been in the job 35 years
gumtree
dont make me laugh