Is it time the insurance companies were reigned-in?

dunstonh

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.

Insurance is priced on statistics. You get put in a pot with tens or hundreds of others. Recent history is taken into account with the no claims discount. However, the gross starting point is based on statistical measures. You may think she loses out from that but there will be other areas where she could gain.

Doghousebob

dunstonh wrote: »

Insurance is priced on statistics. You get put in a pot with tens or hundreds of others. Recent history is taken into account with the no claims discount. However, the gross starting point is based on statistical measures. You may think she loses out from that but there will be other areas where she could gain.

I knew they based it on statistics, one I'd heard which may be an urban myth is your premium was loaded because you have a red car - statistically more red cars are involved in claims, because at one time, there were more red cars on the road. I don't think this is still the case (red cars being the most popular choice) though.

paddyandstumpy

Given that car colour isn't asked about on all but one system I've seen, I'd be surprised if they did rate on that.

Nick_C

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Given that car colour isn't asked about on all but one system I've seen, I'd be surprised if they did rate on that.

When you apply for an insurance quote on line, you provide the VRN. This gives the Insurer quite a lot of information, including the colour of the vehicle.

So I don't know if they take account of the colour, but they could if they wanted to!

ThinkingOutLoud_2

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Given that car colour isn't asked about on all but one system I've seen, I'd be surprised if they did rate on that.

But, it is false assumption that insurers need to ask you the colour of your car. They can get that detail back from a basic DVLA search. Try it on any humble online tyre website and they get you to confirm your make / model and colour after you give them a registration plate.

However, it is a genuine fact that colour affects risk - http://www.moneysupermarket.com/car-insurance/blog/car-crash-by-colour/
When you look at the scale of the difference - is is fair to charge those who choose "safer" colours for the accidents caused by others colour choices?

Dangermac

Is it time the insurance companies were reigned-in?

I guess it depends what your proposal is.

I don't like admin fees, but the FCA seems to feel that it's a more transparent way of transacting business, insofar as it's only the people making changes who pay the cost of such. As an alternative, I guess insurers could increase premiums for everyone.

As for premiums increasing for non-fault accidents, this is the danger of computers making underwriting/premium decisions. The trouble is, that some accidents are truly non-fault, and some are simply non-fault on paper. But a computer cannot make the distinction.

It's a debate that could go on all day. It's an amazing cul-de-sac that the insurance industry has got itself into, driven by consumerism and the desire for market domination - in equal measure

DM

teddysmum

Doghousebob wrote: »

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.

I order to have our own insurance policies we have car with me as first driver and my husband as first on the other. I had a no fault, no cost to our insurer, accident (I was hit from behind while stationary) in the car for which I am second driver and both of us could be penalised (it affected the car in question, slightly after a haggle, but not that in my name) , yet my husband has a clear record for nearly 50 years (drives for a living) and I for over 30.

Doghousebob

teddysmum wrote: »

I order to have our own insurance policies we have car with me as first driver and my husband as first on the other. I had a no fault, no cost to our insurer, accident (I was hit from behind while stationary) in the car for which I am second driver and both of us could be penalised (it affected the car in question, slightly after a haggle, but not that in my name) , yet my husband has a clear record for nearly 50 years (drives for a living) and I for over 30.

It seems to be something we are not covered for when we insure or claim, the money the insurance companies will add to our policy even though it wasn't our fault. My colleague was only a named driver on the policy, and the policy is held by the company we work for, so it wasn't his insurance, nor was he the main driver.

mattk_180

Was the driver who had the accident even named on the policy or was it more of an "open driving" company car insurance. If they weren't the claim may have just been tied against the only name they had as having access to that vehicle. If your colleague can prove we wasn't the policy holder nor the named driver that was involved in the incident, then there should be no need to declare it on their private insurance.


That being said, I can't believe more people haven't commented on the blatant exploitation of a company car scheme in order to get a family member a car, no doubt at cost to the company. Maybe its this kind of practice that needs to be reigned it?