We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Help needed arguing Esure's valuation
Options
Comments
-
For reference here is a revised version of the list I have compiled arguing against the current system of valuation, I have since thought of additions such as the bias against owners of cars newer than 7 years old, slightly against the current green policies circulation.
Also I have been unable to find any actual consumer case arguing for the use of this system.
I have sent a complaints letter to the FOS including this list.
1. Using guides as price lists.
This allows insurers to make decisions based on maths alone possibly contravening industry guidelines.
2. Using "historical data"
With the exception of Glasses online free service, all other guides use historical data and compile it from considerable past sales contradicting insurers own conditions that the value of pay-out is fixed at time of loss which may be affected by shorter term (<1yr)large scale environmental or economic issues (e.g. floods).
3. Reliability
The price guides are vulnerable in nature, compiling and amalgamating data presents many areas of risk from human input error to digital errors. quick calculations suggest that each guide may contain as many as 2500 errors. (research suggests that common data input errors can average 0.5% I found one published figure quoting a price guide as containing prices for 5600 Cars, have allowed for 10 years(so x10) and 5 model variants (x5)
4. Selective use of Guides.
The FOS allows selective use to attempt to combat the possibility of error with two of the three companies utilising data sharing, propagation of an error increases the risk of the insurers exploiting any error and also allows the insurers to exploit this by ignoring %50 of the data.
This is published on their website.
5. Selective use of Data
The ombudsman adjudicators appear to allow this, very dangerous as increases the likelihood of errors being over looked, I can produce evidence of this in my own personal circumstance, being the only write off claim I have made in 30 years of motoring I must assume its common place.
6. In at least one instance ,the insurers are using a special version of the guides, I have a statement from a publishers representative confirming it is not the same as their trade publication and does not allow for external influences that can affect the value of a vehicle by a considerable margin, e.g. a 4x4 with a large powerful engine will have a premium value in rural areas but would fetch considerably less in central city areas.
7. The guides are designed to be used by experienced automotive retailers and traders, they are not designed to be used by mechanics and engineers.
8. The guides include data on cars sold at discounted rates not available to a normal person using his insurance settlement to pay for a replacement, i.e. discounts for high profit finance deals, discounts for poor condition or high mileage.
9. The companies involved in producing this data appear to decline verification requests from individuals, I contacted two and they have not even bothered to reply to a reasonable civil request.0 -
Only those that make incorrect statements
sorry instead of typing Esure I shall refer to them as "my venerable insurers"
(actually no I won't, that's a lot of extra typing)
really don't understand why anyone involved in the motor trade would have a problem with my case, more money for me is more to spend with a car dealer...
Ok, whatever you feel like.
I am sure they are quaking in their boots at your attempts to "intimidate" them with your online campaign.
Though if people do find this thread and read it when deciding wether or not to insure with your insurer they might just think they are a very patient company to still be conversing with somebody like you after losing at every step.
You will probably get them more business.
So you crack on.0 -
Ok, whatever you feel like.
I am sure they are quaking in their boots at your attempts to "intimidate" them with your online campaign.
Though if people do find this thread and read it when deciding wether or not to insure with your insurer they might just think they are a very patient company to still be conversing with somebody like you after losing at every step.
You will probably get them more business.
So you crack on.
it's really makes me laugh when people argue yet have no idea what they are arguing about.
You have no basis whatsoever to think I have overestimated the value of my car, or even that I have ever valued my car.
To accurately value a car you need to have way more experience in the retail motor trade than you or I have.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards