Why are insurance companies/assessors so dishonest?

londonTiger

Stoke wrote: »

The car was a Ford Ka Luxury, 2004 model. It was in very good pre-accident condition. No rust/bubbling around the filler cap, no rust on the sills, no rust around the wiper. As far as Ford Ka's go, it was probably as good an example you'll see.

The initial offer was £600 which is !!!! poor. They told my girlfriend they use Glass's to help them, well Glass's valued it at £850. After her initial complaint, they upped that to £700. After the second call they upped it to £760 which my girlfriend decided to accept. I would have pushed for more, I think she could have got £800 if she'd really kicked the !!!! out of it.

I am aware that you can get them off eBay for £600-£700 but none of those are rust free and finding one in as good condition as this one I'd say is quite rare.



Good for you, but I'm guessing you're much older. I am still paying £300 with many years no claims and on a slow hatchback.

London, 4 years NC, £770. Consider yourself lucky.

Nobbie1967

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.

I think it's great that some insurers are trying a different approach and it will be interesting to see how people get on with that system. I suspect it will be more useful for cars upto 5 years where condition is more consistent and the insurance companies can get a good deal.

I can also see a few problems with getting people to accept a vehicle in 'similar' condition as they'll forget all the faults on their car, but notice every single one on the new one. Could be a lot of back and forth until a replacement is agreed.

For me, I'm happy with the current system, you've just got to be an informed consumer and be prepared to support your claims.

maddogb

Nobbie1967 wrote: »

For me, I'm happy with the current system, you've just got to be an informed consumer and be prepared to support your claims.

The problem is insurers(Esure) are not happy with the current system as I have discovered. hence in the push to greater profits they are manipulating customers in contravention of ill defined laws and until someone has the wherewithal to take it to the limit this will continue and more people will get ripped off.

AdrianC

maddogb wrote: »

The problem is insurers(Esure) are not happy with the current system as I have discovered. hence in the push to greater profits they are manipulating customers in contravention of ill defined laws and until someone has the wherewithal to take it to the limit this will continue and more people will get ripped off.

The reality being that ^ this poster's claim was referred to the ombudsman, who followed their published process, and found against him.

bigjl

londonTiger wrote: »

London, 4 years NC, £770. Consider yourself lucky.

That is pretty cheap considering it should be goods in transit coverage due to you delivering parcles as part of your business dealings.

maddogb

AdrianC wrote: »

The reality being that ^ this poster's claim was referred to the ombudsman, who followed their published process, and found against him.

relevant to this thread how?

londonTiger

bigjl wrote: »

That is pretty cheap considering it should be goods in transit coverage due to you delivering parcles as part of your business dealings.

nosey parker, mind your own business. No I'm not a courier.

maddogb

and its not just us
brilliant quote from trading standards


"In the event that a consumer needs to make a claim, less reputable insurance companies can avoid paying reasonable claims by following the strict letter of the law. "


and although sounding more fierce I have doubts as to it's intentions


The Financial Ombudsman Service has said "that the strict legal position of most insurance contracts is manifestly unfair to consumers."

bigjl

londonTiger wrote: »

nosey parker, mind your own business. No I'm not a courier.

Hardly nosey.

You posted it up on here and put it into the public domain.

What's the issue? Don't like people pointing out that perhaps the business "advise" you give is not really worth it.

If you transport good for hire and reward you need the correct Good in Transit Cover, that's just how it is.

You said you were transporting stuff for money, which means for profit.

End of.

Did you think you are the only one that commits to memory things of significance?

Didn't you also say you used short term hire vans without declaring it was for business use?

Or have I mixed you up with somebody else that drives a Golf?

bigjl

maddogb wrote: »

and its not just us
brilliant quote from trading standards


"In the event that a consumer needs to make a claim, less reputable insurance companies can avoid paying reasonable claims by following the strict letter of the law. "


and although sounding more fierce I have doubts as to it's intentions


The Financial Ombudsman Service has said "that the strict legal position of most insurance contracts is manifestly unfair to consumers."

You lost, there is no conspiracy, a 2004 Ka is not worth £10000.