Is it time the insurance companies were reigned-in?

rs65

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Insurers are long overdue being reigned in but the government are spineless and happy to be under the thumb of large financial institutions and enjoy the substantial financial donations they make.

Don't forget the billions in IPT income.

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

Time for a levy on fuel to cover mandatory third party cover and give these bloated outfits a kick up the backside.

I don't think a government run scheme would make things cheaper.

System

Just to add my tuppence's worth to this thread. Yesterday, I got an invitation to renew my limited mile car policy with a premium increase of over 50%. I called to ask 'why?' and got a lot of waffle back in return, so I cancelled my renewal. I then received a letter from the insurer confirming that my renewal of my Unlimited mileage policy had been cancelled.

I ran the insurer and left them with two scenarios to comment on:

1. They had varied my contract without discussion or consent. I opined that it was not possible to cancel the renewal of a policy that I wasn't on unless I was on it.

2. They had the right not to offer me a renewal of my existing contract, and they could offer instead a different type of policy with new contract terms. That said, this should have been something to be discussed not hidden under a generic renewal notice with no indication that there had been a change of policy.

I finished by saying that if I had varied my part of the contract without telling them, I could guess what their response would have been had I had an accident.

I guess that they will be getting no more business from me. I am not sure that they were that bothered.

Doghousebob

There does seem to be a certain amount of support for paying admin fees, and while I agree people should be paid for their work, this seems to be quite a new thing, the first time I was charged 'admin fees' was 2010 when we moved to this house, but that's another story.

The phone number thing, my bad, I mean non-geographical numbers, for which some people still have to pay to call.

As for paying for someone else's claim, as in the example I gave, I can't see how anyone could agree with the insurance companies there.

dunstonh

There does seem to be a certain amount of support for paying admin fees

Because there are two options. Higher premium with no admin fees (so everyone pays for the costs) or lower premiums with admin fees (so only those creating costs pay).

this seems to be quite a new thing,

about 10-15 years in the mainstream. admin fees were actually quite high at one point but they have been falling back and some insurers have moved to a position where they charge if you call their call centre but dont if you do it online. That is quite a good way.

Nick_C

The insurance industry is a large competitive market. There are still mutuals offering insurance as well as plcs. Shop around.

HornetSaver

I once needed to phone up to change my address.

Rather than pay the fee, I phoned up to cancel the policy, and when they asked me why I wanted to leave I said I was doing so on the grounds that it was cheaper to leave, pay the relevant admin fees, and get a new, cheaper policy elsewhere, than to stay and pay the charge. Ended up getting the change done free and £30 off my policy.

dacouch

Doghousebob wrote: »

There does seem to be a certain amount of support for paying admin fees, and while I agree people should be paid for their work, this seems to be quite a new thing, the first time I was charged 'admin fees' was 2010 when we moved to this house, but that's another story.

The phone number thing, my bad, I mean non-geographical numbers, for which some people still have to pay to call.

As for paying for someone else's claim, as in the example I gave, I can't see how anyone could agree with the insurance companies there.

It's similar to what Ryan Air have done to flyiing, they charge extra to those who cost them extra eg hold luggage or needing checing staff for those he didn',t check in online and print out their own boarding card.

If Ryan Air didn't charge those costing them money by levying extra charges they would spread the cost out among all their passengers meaning those not creating the extra work pay extra for those that created the costs.

In a similar vein there are airlines who do not charge extra fees fir baggage etc so you can avoid the fees although in most cases these airlines are more expensive than RA because of the costs being shared out among all passengers

Doghousebob

dacouch wrote: »

It's similar to what Ryan Air have done to flyiing, they charge extra to those who cost them extra eg hold luggage or needing checing staff for those he didn',t check in online and print out their own boarding card.

If Ryan Air didn't charge those costing them money by levying extra charges they would spread the cost out among all their passengers meaning those not creating the extra work pay extra for those that created the costs.

In a similar vein there are airlines who do not charge extra fees fir baggage etc so you can avoid the fees although in most cases these airlines are more expensive than RA because of the costs being shared out among all passengers

When you say sharing out the costs, do you refer to the additional money my colleague had to pay or the phone charges?

If it's the additional premium, then I really don't get it. My colleague had loads of NCB, so wasn't, in himself, a high risk. The insurance company our employer uses is totally different to the one he (and I, it's a specialist one which doesn't quote on the comparison sites) uses, and neither the company which insures him, or the company car his sister-in-law drives, had to pay a penny for the claim, the other driver was 100% at fault. So why is it, in any way, right or fair, that the loading should be applied, and will be applied for the next 3 to 5 years?

This is what I find really wrong about the industry, that if you're a victim of someone else's mistake, you still have to pay for the next few years, even if the companies involved are unrelated.

dunstonh

This is what I find really wrong about the industry, that if you're a victim of someone else's mistake, you still have to pay for the next few years, even if the companies involved are unrelated.

There are two reasons for this.

1 - statistically, someone who suffers an accident, even if not their fault, is most likely to have another claim in the short term compared to someone who has had no claim.
2 - Some people just put their cars in the way of damage or an accident even if they are not to blame. e.g. bad parking, aggressive driving or not thinking ahead.

Doghousebob

dunstonh wrote: »

There are two reasons for this.

1 - statistically, someone who suffers an accident, even if not their fault, is most likely to have another claim in the short term compared to someone who has had no claim.
2 - Some people just put their cars in the way of damage or an accident even if they are not to blame. e.g. bad parking, aggressive driving or not thinking ahead.

Yes, I've heard of the first one being used as an excuse to load a premium, but a driver's history should be taken into account. I could understand his sister-in-law's insurance being loaded on those grounds, but not his. Incidentally, she now has her own car, so she will also be paying the extra.