'I put the wrong date when getting a comparison quote... and my EXISTING insurer hiked my premium'

JuicyJesus

miller wrote: »

At the minimum the insurer should double check/verify with the policy holder if they are going to effectively accept potentially anonymous/malicious information from a third-party webform.

It'd be a pretty weird thing to do to be malicious in this way given there's every chance it could have no payoff.

peterbaker

JuicyJesus wrote:

I'm interested to know what people think is happening otherwise when they input information into comparison sites to get quotes, other than that information being sent to insurance companies.

I'm interested to know what you think is happening, because other than perhaps Confused.com probably having a direct link to their parent Admiral, I think you may have it quite wrong, but maybe you are partly right?

Insurers who wish to play ball (Directline doesn't for example and it took a very long time for many of the others to decide to co-operate) provide their rating data and algorithms to price comparison sites and that is how the comparisons are made. As far as I know, this is quite unlike getting a cheap car hire quote via ryanair or cheapflights quote via one of the trawling sites.

Aviva is an interesting one because it is a major shareholder in MoneySupermarket.com, and thus of MSE too, but I am fairly sure it doesn't get quoted via comparison sites.

The whole thing is a kind of confidence trick against consumers which disguises the nature of links both to the real players (the insurers), and to any significant regulated activity, and even as far as who actually is entitled to receive and process the data you have entered for a quote or several variations of quotes. The industry has become a massive churned information gathering game and that is why ICO and others should be regulating it far more closely i.r.o. the sharing of clearly dirty unverified personal data, as if it is verified when it clearly isn't unless a sale occurs.

Variations of the price comparison theme have existed since the 80s when you could for example get a comparison quote from players such as AA Insurance Services but the major insurers were reluctant to let AA use their main brand names e.g. Norwich Union now part of Aviva, when quoted by AA were quoted via the brand name Haven if I recall correctly.

In those days, what was different was that there was no internet channel in use - it was high street outlets or call centres only, and those were all robustly regulated as insurance brokers not as nefarious "introducers" or "mediators". What's more, they had proper delegated underwriting authority from insurers so AA could issue the policies.

Banks muscled in on some of the high street action but most of them use Budget Insurance Services Ltd's (BISL's) comparison engine or BGL Group as they now call themselves. Banks are generally not regulated as insurance brokers. They shy from that sort of regulation and almost all the insurance they currently sell is on a non-advised basis. That makes their insurance service and regulatory position extremely questionable if you agree that insurance is a complex product that can only be properly sold and serviced by advisors. Obviously FCA hasn't wished to delve to deeply as to come to that conclusion, so you won't be alone if you don't understand it either, especially if we follow FCA's kowtowing lead with regard to their regulation of the big players.

The whole personal insurance sales channels thing is one of smoke and mirrors, especially when claims occur and you find everything outsourced to outfits you've never heard of who ignorantly and most unfairly are disposed to decline claims at first notification unless hammered into their proper corner and forced into performing the contract by someone that knows the real ropes. Every time I do that either for myself or my extended family (and I can't recall failing), I shudder to think of the thousands who don't know enough to argue against a declinature.

So, back to the quote stage, JuicyJesus, please tell us how you think the car insurance price comparison world actually works (I am sure that not all comparison sites work exactly the same, so please share what you know because some of it will surely differ from what I have gleaned over decades). Also it'd be nice to know why you think it is ok for anyone to share quote request data in bulk when we all know it is full of informal unchecked unvalidated test data, except in the limited case where quotes actually get converted into sales. Surely only payment systems data and some other additional data required at point of sale finally achieve some kind of acceptable 'fuzzy' validation?

paddyandstumpy

Jesus. You don't half ramble. And spout fecal matter.

Insurers don't share their rating algorithm with the comparison sites.

The comparison sites send the data electronically to the broker/insurer using a specific format, quotes are then generated at the broker/insurer and returned instantly.

As to your suggestion dats should only be validated post sale, a lot now days is done pre sale as it forms part of the rating. Things like credit checking, electoral role, claims, NCD entitlement.
This is all done pre sale so there is no need for validation teams to review and process post sale.

miller

JuicyJesus wrote: »

It'd be a pretty weird thing to do to be malicious in this way given there's every chance it could have no payoff.

Not financially to the perpetrator, but it could inconvenience the policyholder as it has done in this self-inflicted instance.

JuicyJesus

miller wrote: »

Not financially to the perpetrator, but it could inconvenience the policyholder as it has done in this self-inflicted instance.

That's what I mean - there's every chance no inconvenience actually occurs. It would be a very odd thing to do to p*ss someone off when, if you're some weird harassing !!!!!!, there's many far more direct and effectual ways to make someone's life miserable than putting some duff information into MoneySupermarket and hoping it makes them have to make a few phone calls.

JuicyJesus

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Jesus. You don't half ramble. And spout fecal matter.

Insurers don't share their rating algorithm with the comparison sites.

The comparison sites send the data electronically to the broker/insurer using a specific format, quotes are then generated at the broker/insurer and returned instantly.

As to your suggestion dats should only be validated post sale, a lot now days is done pre sale as it forms part of the rating. Things like credit checking, electoral role, claims, NCD entitlement.
This is all done pre sale so there is no need for validation teams to review and process post sale.

Well put, and with the sort of brevity that doesn't (for instance) make a weird unhinged rant take up most of the height of a 5K monitor.

peterbaker

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Jesus. You don't half ramble. And spout fecal matter.

Care to moderate your not very clever insult? I see you have nevertheless piled in to engage with what I have posted so don't forget to wash your hands, will you? The historical development of the personal insurance market sector has taken many turns over the years - many of them quite mucky.

Insurers don't share their rating algorithm with the comparison sites.

Really? In the beginning they had to.
So now we have all of them (comparison sites AND delegated authority brokers and actual insurers) all constantly using enormous bandwidth across the internet and using the same specific messaging format?

The comparison sites send the data electronically to the broker/insurer using a specific format, quotes are then generated at the broker/insurer and returned instantly.

Who checks the security of these messaging systems? If you are right, and I am prepared to accept that insurance price comparison sites may have developed that far and perhaps hand in hand in a way your brevity implies, does it not also raise enormous questions about price-rigging?

As to your suggestion dats should only be validated post sale, a lot now days is done pre sale as it forms part of the rating.

Part of whose rating? Every insurer's?

Things like credit checking, electoral role, claims, NCD entitlement.
This is all done pre sale so there is no need for validation teams to review and process post sale.

It sounds like data-sharing has got completely out of control.

I say again, who is constantly checking the security of the messaging systems you matter-of-factly describe in such brevity?

Personal data is enormously valuable in black market terms when it arrives in a constant stream in a pre-packed semi-validated form.

Does this begin to explain why we often seem to receive targeted phishing emails after we have engaged with comparison sites?

Can we trust all the brokers involved and all the insurers and all the comparison sites implicitly? Or are some just signed up to receive the constant streams of data and with little intention of winning business on a price comparison basis?

Why are Aviva a major shareholder of MoneySupermarket.com if they don't participate in comparison websites?

paddyandstumpy

peterbaker wrote: »

Care to moderate your not very clever insult? I see you have nevertheless piled in to engage with what I have posted so don't forget to wash your hands, will you? The historical development of the personal insurance market sector has taken many turns over the years - many of them quite mucky.

Really? In the beginning they had to.
So now we have all of them (comparison sites AND delegated authority brokers and actual insurers) all constantly using enormous bandwidth across the internet and using the same specific messaging format?

Yes.

Who checks the security of these messaging systems? If you are right, and I am prepared to accept that insurance price comparison sites may have developed that far and perhaps hand in hand in a way your brevity implies, does it not also raise enormous questions about price-rigging?

I'll regret asking, but care to explain your "price rigging" suggestion?

Part of whose rating? Every insurer's?

Well I don't work for every insurer so can only talk about the ones I've worked for or heard about. But for those, yes. And those who don't use this rating would get selected against so I'll hazard an educated guess and say most if not all would use this data enrichment rating.

It sounds like data-sharing has got completely out of control.

Rubbish

I say again, who is constantly checking the security of the messaging systems you matter-of-factly describe in such brevity?

Completely irrelevant attempt to swerve from the main topic. What has security got to do with it?

Personal data is enormously valuable in black market terms when it arrives in a constant stream in a pre-packed semi-validated form.

Does this begin to explain why we often seem to receive targeted phishing emails after we have engaged with comparison sites?

Can we trust all the brokers involved and all the insurers and all the comparison sites implicitly? Or are some just signed up to receive the constant streams of data and with little intention of winning business on a price comparison basis?

Why are Aviva a major shareholder of MoneySupermarket.com if they don't participate in comparison websites?

BGL own compare the market, they are siloed companies from one another and don't 'favour' themselves or self promote BGL affinities over other insurers on comparison websites.

eddddy

ValiantSon wrote: »

You also shouldn't need to see what effect convictions have as you have no right not to declare them, so the information you glean is completely useless to you.

I think this is valid and important information - and I have used 'dummy' quotes in the past to find this out.

For example, it's important to understand that the true cost of getting a speeding ticket is much more than £100 and 3 points.

As my kids passed their tests, I added them as named drivers on my insurance. I used comparison sites to indicate to them what would happen on renewal, if they got speeding tickets etc.

Similarly, if I got a speeding ticket, I might add/remove it on a comparison site to find out how much my stupidity had cost me.

peterbaker

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

BGL own compare the market, they are siloed companies from one another and don't 'favour' themselves or self promote BGL affinities over other insurers on comparison websites.

Oh well that's comforting to hear, I am sure, as in "Trust me, I'm a comparison website owner with fingers in an amazing number of pies ":rotfl:

You ask how I conclude that the system creates Price-rigging opportunities? Well just ask yourself how might you do it given the almost endless access to data and feedback opportunities each of these players/"partners" gains by being "in" rather than "out" like Directline? I can assure you, if you allow yourself to think like a dodgy senior insurance industry executive, you won't be having too many original thoughts, more likely simple contemplations of original sin, and marvellous realisations of what can now be got away with in that regard.

So what's the rating significance of a credit check in motor insurance? Or are we all potential fraudsters about to make fraudulent claims at the first opportunity because a credit check shows we are skint? Oh wait - yes - unless we are financial services senior executives, or drug dealers there's a pretty good chance we are bumping along at ground zero looking for any opportunity for the price of the next meal or seeing the kids through school ... almost forgot where I was for a moment!

And who does these credit checks and which CRA's (and other very shady outfits like LexisNexis) partner which insurance players to provide instantaneous checks? Surely the quoting insurers do not all do a credit check instantaneously when they receive the quote request in a special format from the comparison site?

And electoral roll checks? Isn't our electoral roll data, especially in inner cities, a bit of a bad joke anyway? Why not just ask for NINo, or are those two a penny too? And regarding convictions, why not ask for drivers licence number and a DVLA access code like car rental companies do? Or don't insurers trust DVLA data? (I wouldn't - DVLA declared my licence clean when I knew it should have 5 points on it a few years back!).

NCD entitlement checks? At quote stage? Really? How can they be verified without at least a policy number? Oh wait - via a car registration number checked against a recent central motor insuranc edatabase and then some? So why if I forget that I may have NCD entitlement because my vehicle has been insured on some apparently flat premium specialist vehicle scheme do I not get prompted and told what NCD I am actually entitled to? Or if I have recently disposed of another vehicle and have a still valid NCD entitlement sitting in the shared insurance industry insider databases for all industry players to pick up if they cared? Only works one way again does it?

If I am daft enough not to know as much about my own affairs as the comparison sites, then I deserve a higher quote than I am entitled to, is that it? Customers daft enough not to actually use money off coupons and still buy at full price are rich pickings. All adds to the industry's bottom lines, doesn't it? No need to make it easier for customers to get the real best deal, eh?

It may surprise you to know that the UK is rather unique in the extent of the data sharing that we now suffer, a concept which you dismiss as "Rubbish". There are no CRA's in some parts of Europe, only very bad boys and girls lists which you really do have to be bad to find your name listed. Yet many of the same UK operating insurers operate and compete in these rather more enlightened countries who are perhaps more trusting of their citizens and immigrants with residency status.

In UK we are all treated like suspects by corporates and that includes the associated poker-faced rough handling suspects get as we are processed through systems that are constantly on the look out to exploit our mistakes.

I personally have had a total of around ten motoring convictions in my driving history and probably half a dozen claims. I do not carry the dates and conviction codes around in my head. Why would I? They are no longer relevant are they because from what paddyandstumpy says, the information is already in the insurer domain?