Another over priced car insurance renewal quote!

DullGreyGuy

HillStreetBlues said:

Bigphil1474 said:

Lazy people auto renew and some would be paying that £550. Same as some people are still on the standard British Gas tariff they took out in 1978, and some people pay full price for Sky TV or Virgin Media. The companies rely on people not being price savvy, and the ones that are savvy, don't pay stupid prices (although having said that we are on the standard rate at British Gas as we've just moved into a house with that )  

To be fair, my car insurance went up by £140 earlier this year on renewal, and it was still the cheapest I could find, so you've done well to find a good deal. 

It just shows how bad the new law was draughted  with old customers not paying more than new ones.
Your increase is just under what I paid.

How does that show how badly the new law was drafted?  Their renewal was the cheapest they can find which goes beyond what the law says which it must be as cheap than their current provider. If you mean that that the tech savvy are now paying more because insurers cannot give deep discounts to attract new customers then that is not a drafting issue but is a fundamental disagreement with what the law was trying to achieve... unfortunately the FCA recognised that this would be a likely outcome, and accepted that some of those impacted would be vulnerable customers, but decided the protection of the elderly in particular was a better overall outcome.

Grumpy_chap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

things that insurers have to pay for have increased 

We, collectively, do bring this on ourselves, though.  There should be rules to enforce "minimisation" of costs incurred as a result of an incident and excess costs incurred through the "claims management" and hire car companies should be outwith insurance.

My neighbour had an accident in his A-Class at the beginning of the year.  He grumbled about the courtesy car (equivalent size, but non-premium brand) and then went via a claims management company who furnished him with an Audi S5 Quattro (far better than the A-Class).
Now, several months on, the insurers are quibbling over the hire car costs - they have accrued to £14k - and the claims management company are pursuing my neighbour directly.
This type of extreme expense simply should not fall to insurance to cover, IMO.

They didn't learn, though. Yesterday, the neighbour's daughter dented her A-Class, but currently very happy because she went straight to the claims management company and enjoying the top-spec C-Class.  No doubt, she'll also accrue excessive hire car costs and end up with the same discussion around liability for costs as her Dad...

Both should have been charged at the A Class rate, sometimes hire firms give a higher grade vehicle because they dont have an appropriate vehicle in stock but it still maximises their revenue as give a C class and they charge at A class rates whereas give a Focus and they have to charge at Focus rates. 

Ultimately a lot of costs could easily be capped with legislation, how our laws work make insurers much more liable for long term third party losses whereas in many developed companies they ultimately are covered by the state rather than an insurer. It's debatable if it's better that we pay for it via our Car Insurance or via our taxes. Australia is a good example where a government body pays out loss of earnings for all injury cases irrespective of blame etc and no one gets any payment for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. Spend 3 years in hospital recovering from an injury, you'll get your wages paid but nothing for your life being on hold 

Grumpy_chap

DullGreyGuy said:

Both should have been charged at the A Class rate, sometimes hire firms give a higher grade vehicle because they dont have an appropriate vehicle in stock but it still maximises their revenue as give a C class and they charge at A class rates whereas give a Focus and they have to charge at Focus rates. 

Yes, you would think so.

I know, in the case of my neighbour, his insurer initially provided a similar-sized but non-premium brand equivalent car - Peugeot 3008 IIRC.  He was making a lot of noise about the car being "below" his status but his insurer stood firm.  He then went to the Claims Management Company and was over the moon because they, apparently, simply asked what car he'd like and sent him a list of available cars to select the "equivalent" and, as my neighbour said, he "obviously" took the best thing offered, hence the S5 Quattro which he loved swanning about it.  He made a lot of noise at the time of how he'd told his insurer they could take their "rubbish" car back and he'd sort himself out - he was rather loudly grandstanding while on the phone them in the street and dismissing their service levels.

Everything is now resolved, except the Claims Management Company are seeking recovery of £14k related to the Credit Hire Car (is that the correct term?).  Neighbour's fully comprehensive is not paying because the policy related hire car was rejected and costs should be recovered from the at fault third party.  Third party insurer is challenging as excessive cost.  My neighbour is now being pursued by the Claims Management Company.

On the basis that individuals don't tend to have the spare £14k laying about, one can only assume that somehow this hire cost, even if discounted down, will end up being paid for by one of the two insurers.

DullGreyGuy

Grumpy_chap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Both should have been charged at the A Class rate, sometimes hire firms give a higher grade vehicle because they dont have an appropriate vehicle in stock but it still maximises their revenue as give a C class and they charge at A class rates whereas give a Focus and they have to charge at Focus rates. 

Yes, you would think so.

I know, in the case of my neighbour, his insurer initially provided a similar-sized but non-premium brand equivalent car - Peugeot 3008 IIRC.  He was making a lot of noise about the car being "below" his status but his insurer stood firm.  He then went to the Claims Management Company and was over the moon because they, apparently, simply asked what car he'd like and sent him a list of available cars to select the "equivalent" and, as my neighbour said, he "obviously" took the best thing offered, hence the S5 Quattro which he loved swanning about it.  He made a lot of noise at the time of how he'd told his insurer they could take their "rubbish" car back and he'd sort himself out - he was rather loudly grandstanding while on the phone them in the street and dismissing their service levels.

Everything is now resolved, except the Claims Management Company are seeking recovery of £14k related to the Credit Hire Car (is that the correct term?).  Neighbour's fully comprehensive is not paying because the policy related hire car was rejected and costs should be recovered from the at fault third party.  Third party insurer is challenging as excessive cost.  My neighbour is now being pursued by the Claims Management Company.

On the basis that individuals don't tend to have the spare £14k laying about, one can only assume that somehow this hire cost, even if discounted down, will end up being paid for by one of the two insurers.

Credit Hire is the correct term, it is always recovered from the third party insurer as it's an uninsured loss not a policy benefit. 

In my days it was simpler, credit hire company gives the car on tick to the non-fault party and carries the risk that they cannot get their money back either because circumstances are disputed, the third party is uninsured or there is a dispute in the claims management. Then due to legal arguments the terms were changed such that effectively its still that but the wording will state something along the lines of that the hirer's liability is capped to the defendant's liability which has the same legal effect as the old situation at the end of the day but gets around the previously successful defences mounted against the charges. 

The law is clear on betterment but the rules around mitigation are much less strong than they once were and hire companies have managed to set precedent that a like for like hire is reasonable in all cases rather than saying they should mitigate their losses by having a non-prestige mark etc if they cannot justify a need for one. 

It's unlikely they are being pursed by the claims management company unless they failed to return the car when instructed etc. More likely they are having to support them in attempt to claim against the third party insurer which can be fairly invasive having to share unredacted bank and credit card statements etc to illustrate the need for credit hire

Grumpy_chap

DullGreyGuy said:

Grumpy_chap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Both should have been charged at the A Class rate, sometimes hire firms give a higher grade vehicle because they dont have an appropriate vehicle in stock but it still maximises their revenue as give a C class and they charge at A class rates whereas give a Focus and they have to charge at Focus rates. 

Yes, you would think so.

I know, in the case of my neighbour, his insurer initially provided a similar-sized but non-premium brand equivalent car - Peugeot 3008 IIRC.  He was making a lot of noise about the car being "below" his status but his insurer stood firm.  He then went to the Claims Management Company and was over the moon because they, apparently, simply asked what car he'd like and sent him a list of available cars to select the "equivalent" and, as my neighbour said, he "obviously" took the best thing offered, hence the S5 Quattro which he loved swanning about it.  He made a lot of noise at the time of how he'd told his insurer they could take their "rubbish" car back and he'd sort himself out - he was rather loudly grandstanding while on the phone them in the street and dismissing their service levels.

Everything is now resolved, except the Claims Management Company are seeking recovery of £14k related to the Credit Hire Car (is that the correct term?).  Neighbour's fully comprehensive is not paying because the policy related hire car was rejected and costs should be recovered from the at fault third party.  Third party insurer is challenging as excessive cost.  My neighbour is now being pursued by the Claims Management Company.

On the basis that individuals don't tend to have the spare £14k laying about, one can only assume that somehow this hire cost, even if discounted down, will end up being paid for by one of the two insurers.

Credit Hire is the correct term, it is always recovered from the third party insurer as it's an uninsured loss not a policy benefit. 

In my days it was simpler, credit hire company gives the car on tick to the non-fault party and carries the risk that they cannot get their money back either because circumstances are disputed, the third party is uninsured or there is a dispute in the claims management. Then due to legal arguments the terms were changed such that effectively its still that but the wording will state something along the lines of that the hirer's liability is capped to the defendant's liability which has the same legal effect as the old situation at the end of the day but gets around the previously successful defences mounted against the charges. 

The law is clear on betterment but the rules around mitigation are much less strong than they once were and hire companies have managed to set precedent that a like for like hire is reasonable in all cases rather than saying they should mitigate their losses by having a non-prestige mark etc if they cannot justify a need for one. 

It's unlikely they are being pursed by the claims management company unless they failed to return the car when instructed etc. More likely they are having to support them in attempt to claim against the third party insurer which can be fairly invasive having to share unredacted bank and credit card statements etc to illustrate the need for credit hire

Ultimately, every event like this, and every £14k claim for car hire (which does seem ridiculously inflated) feeds through to higher premiums for us all.

Over-and-above the premium options.  When I took my policy I had options:
- standard policy 
- guaranteed hire car (whatever basic car)
- like-for-like hire car

DullGreyGuy

Grumpy_chap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Grumpy_chap said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Both should have been charged at the A Class rate, sometimes hire firms give a higher grade vehicle because they dont have an appropriate vehicle in stock but it still maximises their revenue as give a C class and they charge at A class rates whereas give a Focus and they have to charge at Focus rates. 

Yes, you would think so.

I know, in the case of my neighbour, his insurer initially provided a similar-sized but non-premium brand equivalent car - Peugeot 3008 IIRC.  He was making a lot of noise about the car being "below" his status but his insurer stood firm.  He then went to the Claims Management Company and was over the moon because they, apparently, simply asked what car he'd like and sent him a list of available cars to select the "equivalent" and, as my neighbour said, he "obviously" took the best thing offered, hence the S5 Quattro which he loved swanning about it.  He made a lot of noise at the time of how he'd told his insurer they could take their "rubbish" car back and he'd sort himself out - he was rather loudly grandstanding while on the phone them in the street and dismissing their service levels.

Everything is now resolved, except the Claims Management Company are seeking recovery of £14k related to the Credit Hire Car (is that the correct term?).  Neighbour's fully comprehensive is not paying because the policy related hire car was rejected and costs should be recovered from the at fault third party.  Third party insurer is challenging as excessive cost.  My neighbour is now being pursued by the Claims Management Company.

On the basis that individuals don't tend to have the spare £14k laying about, one can only assume that somehow this hire cost, even if discounted down, will end up being paid for by one of the two insurers.

Credit Hire is the correct term, it is always recovered from the third party insurer as it's an uninsured loss not a policy benefit. 

In my days it was simpler, credit hire company gives the car on tick to the non-fault party and carries the risk that they cannot get their money back either because circumstances are disputed, the third party is uninsured or there is a dispute in the claims management. Then due to legal arguments the terms were changed such that effectively its still that but the wording will state something along the lines of that the hirer's liability is capped to the defendant's liability which has the same legal effect as the old situation at the end of the day but gets around the previously successful defences mounted against the charges. 

The law is clear on betterment but the rules around mitigation are much less strong than they once were and hire companies have managed to set precedent that a like for like hire is reasonable in all cases rather than saying they should mitigate their losses by having a non-prestige mark etc if they cannot justify a need for one. 

It's unlikely they are being pursed by the claims management company unless they failed to return the car when instructed etc. More likely they are having to support them in attempt to claim against the third party insurer which can be fairly invasive having to share unredacted bank and credit card statements etc to illustrate the need for credit hire

Ultimately, every event like this, and every £14k claim for car hire (which does seem ridiculously inflated) feeds through to higher premiums for us all.

Over-and-above the premium options.  When I took my policy I had options:
- standard policy 
- guaranteed hire car (whatever basic car)
- like-for-like hire car

Yes, the credit hire companies' arguments are that they provide a valuable service for non-fault customers who may be unable to afford to hire a car at their own expense on a day by day basis for an unending period whilst the third party gets round to reporting their accident and establishing liability between the parties. That its better that nurses, firemen etc remain mobile and working than not be able to get in to work because some idiot t-boned their car. 


The last one normally is capped at a standard mark and medium family sized so if you have and need a 7 steater it may not be fit for purpose (we'll ignore if someone "needs" to turn up in a Bentley or Mercedes etc). 

The other problem with the last 2 is that there is typically a cap of 14 or 28 days on the hire so if your car is undrivable and it goes in and there is a month delay on the parts you have to give the hire car back before the repairs even start. 

The government managed to significantly reduce whiplash claims through legislation, they could easily do the same with other heads of claim. There was an interesting article once that got lawyers in different jurisdictions to estimate the likely claim size of an adult male on £50k with wife and child who was left quadriplegic after a non-fault accident. The UK was by far the highest compensation, US wasnt included but statements were that it would have been much higher, than the other countries included. However in the less sever cases the gaps were smaller and in a few we weren't the highest compensation.