Car Insurance Article Discussion

Steve_xx

lisyloo wrote: »

If you are the sort of person that doesn't notice what's happening does that mean you are going to not notice your polciy has ended and drive without insurance?
I think the answer has to be in some cases a resounding yes.

That in itself should not confer a right on a nannying insurance company to let it dip your bank account if you prefer it not to. You make it appear that insurers are actually helping you by instituting continuous authority, when really they are in fact, helping themselves.

lisyloo

That in itself should not confer a right on a nannying insurance company to let it dip your bank account if you prefer it not to.

Arghhhhh
How many times.
If you prefer it not to, then don't AGREE to it.
They don't have the right unless you vountarily give it to them.
No-one has to enter any agreement they don't want to.

If there was absolutely no choice I might agree with you.
But there is choice.

You make it appear that insurers are actually helping you by instituting continuous authority, when really they are in fact, helping themselves.

It does help some people.
It greatly helps my disabled 83 year old parents, who don't have internet access.
They cannot read or understand paperwork very well or hear very well over the phone.
I keep an eye on all their transactions to make sure they aren't being ripped off but it does help a number of people - yes.
The fact that it isn't YOU doesn't mean that this facility should be withdrawn from other people that LIKE it.

BTW - When you get over 80, lots of companies won't take you on.
So there are lots of people who do renew for various reasons. Age is just one of them.

I am pretty confident in saying that this facility which has benefits for insurers, consumers and costs (and therefore everyone) is not going to be withdrawn in a hurry just because a few people don't like it.

If there was a MASSIVE swing towards one-off policies then of course the market place will adapt.
So vote with your feet.
But bear in mind a lot of people with other reasons (like elderly pensioners) also get to vote with their business as well.

Steve_xx

lisyloo wrote: »

Arghhhhh
How many times.
If you prefer it not to, then don't AGREE to it.
They don't have the right unless you vountarily give it to them.
No-one has to enter any agreement they don't want to.

If there was absolutely no choice I might agree with you.
But there is choice.

There isn't a choice, and therefore you have to agree with it if you want to have a policy with a given company. That's the problem. To reiterate, I want to choose a company and I want to have the choice as to whether or not I give authority to that company for it to continually dip my bank account.

It does help some people.
It greatly helps my disabled 83 year old parents, who don't have internet access.
They cannot read or understand paperwork very well or hear very well over the phone.
I keep an eye on all their transactions to make sure they aren't being ripped off but it does help a number of people - yes.
The fact that it isn't YOU doesn't mean that this facility should be withdrawn from other people that LIKE it.

I am not advocating that the facility is withdrawn. I am advocating that there ought to be a choice. And, just to reiterate to you, I am advocating that the choice should be on a per company basis.

BTW - When you get over 80, lots of companies won't take you on.
So there are lots of people who do renew for various reasons. Age is just one of them.

That's another discussion. If being over 80 disqualifies one from having a policy then by allowing a continuous mandate to roll on after the age of 79 years would not mean that one would be insured, would it?

I am pretty confident in saying that this facility which has benefits for insurers, consumers and costs (and therefore everyone) is not going to be withdrawn in a hurry just because a few people don't like it.

I accept that you are confident. I don't agree with you that it benefits everyone. It certainly benefits insurers and it may benefit some consumers.

If there was a MASSIVE swing towards one-off policies then of course the market place will adapt.
So vote with your feet.
But bear in mind a lot of people with other reasons (like elderly pensioners) also get to vote with their business as well.

I often do vote with my feet.

bazza1603

Another vote for CSIS. Saved £100 on renewal. Anyone know which Breakdown company they use for £63 add on? I know the stand alone is Autonational...

lisyloo

To reiterate, I want to choose a company and I want to have the choice as to whether or not I give authority to that company for it to continually dip my bank account.

I understand what you want.
But you aren't going to get it.
You don't get to chose the details of products in ANY store (unless they sell a bespoke service for which you'll be charged).
For example you don't get to choose the salt conntent of any products in ASDA. You can of course choose between products.

And, just to reiterate to you, I am advocating that the choice should be on a per company basis.

I understand what you want.
But you're not in the driving seat to start giving orders.
You can of course continue to want it.

That's another discussion. If being over 80 disqualifies one from having a policy then by allowing a continuous mandate to roll on after the age of 79 years would not mean that one would be insured, would it?

That's not what I said. I said companies wouldn't take you on (as a NEW customer). Lots of companies will continue to insure you to a greater age if you are an existing customer.
I'm sure there are other circumstances, where it's beneficial to stay with the same insurer.
Like for example if you have a guarantee from your insurer not to penalise you for claims but other insurers would (in this case you do have a choice but it's a benefit to stay).

I don't agree with you that it benefits everyone. It certainly benefits insurers and it may benefit some consumers.

Let me clarify what I meant.
For the large number that don't change their address, car or insurance, it saves on admin. The cost saving in effect benefits everyone indirectly in keeping costs down.
If there were increased costs it would have to passed on and that would probably be across the board.
So I agree you might not perceive any direct benefit, but there is a cost saving which ultimately affects everyone.
So whilst you might not want it you should be glad that other transactions are not incurring unnecessary costs.

Steve_xx

lisyloo wrote: »

I understand what you want.
But you aren't going to get it.

If I object enough I might get it. If I do nowt, then I certainly won't.

You don't get to chose the details of products in ANY store (unless they sell a bespoke service for which you'll be charged).
For example you don't get to choose the salt conntent of any products in ASDA. You can of course choose between products.

So I can have what I want if I am prepared to pay for it, and your suggestion is that I must pay a premium. It isn't always the case that one needs to pay a premium for similar product.

I understand what you want.
But you're not in the driving seat to start giving orders.
You can of course continue to want it.

But I am very much in the driving seat as I am the customer.

That's not what I said. I said companies wouldn't take you on (as a NEW customer). Lots of companies will continue to insure you to a greater age if you are an existing customer.

I think that you will find that an insurer who has an age related condition within a given policy will not reinsure you once you attain that age and you wish to renew your policy. Or, they may reinsure you at a dramatically hiked rate. Contrary to what seems to be your belief, insurers are not such benevolent people.

I'm sure there are other circumstances.
Like for example if you have a guarantee from your insurer not to penalise you for claims but other insurers would (in this case you do have a choice but it's a benefit to stay).

Perhaps

Let me clarify what I meant.
For the large number that don't change their address, car or insurance, it saves on admin. The cost saving in effect benefits everyone indirectly in keeping costs down.
If there were increased costs it would have to passed on and that would probably be across the board.
So I agree you might not perceive any direct benefit, but there is a cost saving which ultimately affects everyone.

It certainly saves on admin and cost, of that there can be no doubt. Whether it keeps costs down is another matter. It certainly keeps costs down for the insurer, but whether that is passed onto the customer is very debatable. I feel it is not so. But I understand that your belief is that it is so.

To my mind such apathy on the part on the policyholder is met with steep prices rises year on year. Nothing in my personal experience with vehicle isurers would persuade me otherwise.

mikey72

bazza1603 wrote: »

Another vote for CSIS. Saved £100 on renewal. Anyone know which Breakdown company they use for £63 add on? I know the stand alone is Autonational...

I found out about them too late this year, but it's bookmarked for next year. As you say, from

http://www.csis.co.uk/breakdown-cover/

"brought to you in association with Autonational Rescue"

for the stand alone,

the optional extra is just stated as provided by the RSA in the policy, so maybe they choose whoever they have the contract with on the day.


Worth a phone call.

lynnpin

Steve_xx wrote: »

To my mind such apathy on the part on the policyholder is met with steep prices rises year on year. Nothing in my personal experience with vehicle insurers would persuade me otherwise.

Totally agree. As I said before, this year my policy included free breakdown insurance - which I don't need by the way as I already have it - so I'm pretty sure next year's auto renewal will also include breakdown insurance on top of a hiked up insurance premium.

lisyloo

If I object enough I might get it. If I do nowt, then I certainly won't.

Go for it !!
I admire the spirit.

So I can have what I want if I am prepared to pay for it

If you wanted a bespoke wedding cake, bespoke suit or a bespoke holiday, then yes of course, if you are prepared to pay more than a mass produced item.
I'm not aware of bespoke insurance, so I think in the insurance context the answer would be no.

and your suggestion is that I must pay a premium.

No, my suggestion is that you write down the date, shop around and if necessary lapse the insurance by letter.

But I am very much in the driving seat as I am the customer.

You can refuse particular insurance products - yes.
You cannot insist on particular product details such as terms and conditions - no.
Those are facts.

I think that you will find that an insurer who has an age related condition within a given policy will not reinsure you once you attain that age and you wish to renew your policy.

Incorrect. (I've checked every year for my parents).
Some comapnies will not take you on as a new customer at an advanced age. The choice dwindles.
You existing company will generally keep you on.
That's my experience of doing it every year and I'm dealing with household names like Aviva and Dircect line.

Contrary to what seems to be your belief, insurers are not such benevolent people.

That's a wrong conclusion (about my beliefs).
They are capitalist money making businesses. I have never said they are benevolent. But they aren't all money grabbling lying scumbags either as you portray them.
I've had quite reasonable service from companies that haven't tried to rip me off. For example my ebaike renewal this year was £102 - no pips squeaking here. They include legal & breakdown cover for that price and no amendement fees.
Don't try to pretend they are evil scumbags trying to rip everyone off for that price. £2 per week for insurance, legal and breakdown is an absolute bargain IMO.

It certainly keeps costs down for the insurer, but whether that is passed onto the customer is very debatable.

If that savings wasn't there I believe the admin costs would be passed on. They are a business, they have to make money.
They won't absorb those costs. They aren't benevolent you know

To my mind such apathy on the part on the policyholder is met with steep prices rises year on year. Nothing in my personal experience with vehicle isurers would persuade me otherwise.

Ok, but do you accept that your personal experience is perhaps not the whole picture?
I certainly accept that mine isn't complete.
As I said me ebike quote was £102 for the year, so I'm not being ripped off.
My parents have had good renewal quotes from Direct Line, so I don't believe all companies are ripping people off.
I accept your personal experience may be different, but I think you have to consider that other people's experience may be different. I certainly accept that my experience my not be universal or even common. I am open minded that people have different experiences, are you? You appear not to be.

lisyloo

Totally agree. As I said before, this year my policy included free breakdown insurance - which I don't need by the way as I already have it - so I'm pretty sure next year's auto renewal will also include breakdown insurance on top of a hiked up insurance premium.

Lynn, surely the answer is to keep your eye on it.
But I have to wonder why you do business with the company if you don't trust them at all. What happens if you had a claim? Woudln't you rather be with a company you had some faith in not to rip you off.
If I felt a company was treating me badly like this, I'd try to find a better insurer.