CAr Insurance Hike after moving to New Build Home

mattk_180

If all the insurance companies you've tried have gone up, doesn't that tell you that this is just what it costs to insure your own personal risk in the current insurance market?


Thus, your complaint has generalised from one company putting your premium up unfairly after you moved, to "I don't like it that the insurance industry as a whole has put its prices up this year".


From that, the only response that can be given is - oh well, everyone is in the same boat, find the cheapest and hope it comes down again next year.

confusedmick

I disagree, owning a car is not just a lifestyle choice - for some people it’s a necessity. I use public transport for work and the car is used by my wife for our disabled son. The comment is so urban-centric and ignores the lack of reliable public transport in many areas or the logistics of having to use it to get to where you work.

Plus I’m not after people agreeing with the comparisons or not - you’re missing the basic point which is how can insurance companies justify such extortionate price hikes? It’s quite simply because as rudekid48 pointed out they are FREE to set prices. And perhaps takman might like to show me the statistics that my property is a higher risk (than this time last year) or how their pricing is “pretty spot on compared to the amount of claims they pay out”.

The bottom line is they are nothing but massive corporate professional gamblers - they take premiums, make interest on that money, invest it and then gamble on the fact that the money they make is more than what they have to pay out on losses.

I blame it on the floods - they took a massive hit last year and now they want to get recoup thier losses. I’d hazard a guess that car crime hasn’t gone up and that it’s been on the decrease year on year.

paddyandstumpy

Wow. We have a proper insurance hater here!!

You are partially correct that "the floods" have caused car insurance to increase. Its one factor which has driven up prices. Along with increased PI claims, and increased IPT to name two other factors.

It's a known fact that the car insurance market is often cross subsidised by products which run at a combined ratio less than 100%. As previously mentioned in this post the motor market had made profit or broke even on perhaps 3 of the last 20 years.

Bear in mind the combined ratio also includes any investment returns (currently about 1.5%) and interest on the premiums paid, less the money paid out from claims.Don't forget an insurer hasn't earned the full premium until the risk has finished, but is liable for the full exposure from day one.

Fundamentally the insurance market makes money, but so does the utilities, transport, banking, oil and technology industries.
Are you posting similar rants on forums relating to these industries too?

csgohan4

Whether the premiums is x times 1000%, we have to have one and you just have to shop around like the rest of us.


I have 9 years NCD and they still increase the premiums 50%, it is what it is and you get on with it and shop around.


No amount of raging and frustration will change it, they have a product and we don't have to their brand, but it's their product their rules.

mattk_180

confusedmick wrote: »

The bottom line is they are nothing but massive corporate professional gamblers - they take premiums, make interest on that money, invest it and then gamble on the fact that the money they make is more than what they have to pay out on losses.

:rotfl::rotfl:

confusedmick

Let me put this straight - I do not hate insurance - I just don't like being ripped off.

And me suspects paddyandstumpy work in the business or they're apologists for it. This line just sums up where I feel their sympathies lie and what I've said about it being a gamble "Don't forget an insurer hasn't earned the full premium until the risk has finished, but is liable for the full exposure from day one." It's the equivalent of my placing a bet on a team to win the FA Cup. I don't earn the full premium (of winning) until the final and yet I am liable for losing at every round (exposure from day one.

paddyandstumpy

confusedmick wrote: »

Let me put this straight - I do not hate insurance - I just don't like being ripped off.

And me suspects paddyandstumpy work in the business or they're apologists for it. This line just sums up where I feel their sympathies lie and what I've said about it being a gamble "Don't forget an insurer hasn't earned the full premium until the risk has finished, but is liable for the full exposure from day one." It's the equivalent of my placing a bet on a team to win the FA Cup. I don't earn the full premium (of winning) until the final and yet I am liable for losing at every round (exposure from day one.

Yes I work in the industry, I'm an Underwriter.

I can't say I agree with your analogy though.

But let's leave it as is, you've ranted and I hope got it off your chest.

takman

confusedmick wrote: »

And perhaps takman might like to show me the statistics that my property is a higher risk (than this time last year) or how their pricing is “pretty spot on compared to the amount of claims they pay out”.

Well if you just look up the very small profits that insurance companies are making then that proves the point of the premiums being "pretty spot on". If they were too high they would be making big profits which they definetly are.

In regards to statistics; I obviously don't have access to them but the insurance companies use a massive amount of data when calculating a premium. You also need to realise it's not just your property, it's the area that you live in. Do you have a driveway?, if not that means your specific property has no bearing on the risk and it then becomes the risk of your street. Even if you have a drive you still have to drive your car down your street everytime you go out. So the entire Street you live in is a big factor in your premium.

But really your just saying you premium is "too high". So what data do you have access to that shows it is too high and how much should it be?. Have you even looked at any information or are you just on a rant because it has increased since last year.

mleach101

I think my circumstances are slightly different as I've moved properties and my original point related to the change in premium on an existing property rather than a new policy - where shopping around and moving is a simpler process.

I was always expecting a fee/increase, it was simply that the 60%+ they proposed was unable to be justified to me by them.

As an update I did submit a complaint to my insurer who came back extremely quickly and investigated further. Unfortunately no further detail was forthcoming but they did refund part of the increase (about 25%), meaning that the change cost has dropped from starting at £168 to £100. I've accepted but will as others have suggested be looking at alternative options. In all I don't think it's unreasonable as a paid up customer to ask for someone supplying a service to justify their fee or indeed any change to that.