Car Insurance companies scam prices

Sharingcaring

DE_612183 said:

Sharingcaring said:

400ixl said:

Sharingcaring said:

Its criminal ! i remember when your insurance would go down every year if you didn't have any accidents. It was one of the few perks of getting older.
Now premiums go up annually and so to does insurance companies pre-tax profits. There's a correlation here! 

No there isn't. Insurance has gone in cycles for decades depending on the financial position of the world economy. General insurance is not a profitable business for most insurers, the very best make at best 6% with many making a loss.

It has been proven that statistically someone involved in an accident, fault or non fault is more likely to be involved in another, meaning their risk is higher and as such their premium will be more.

There is no scam it's about statistically spreading the risk to those items applies to.

We are currently in a financial cycle where costs for insurers are increasing due to cost of repairs, ambulance chasers and accident management companies.

People who use accident management companies and use credit hire vehicles as part of their claims add significantly to everyone's premiums.

Hope you didn't use either as part of your 3rd party claim.

Someone rear ending me does not make me more likely to have an accident in the future - to the point they increase my premium by 25% !!!!
This is the entire point of having insurance - you shouldn't be penalized when you need to use it through no fault of your own.
Have a quick look at some of the larger insurance firms pre-tax profits over the last 5 years. They've increased more than my insurance has!
It's joke and they shouldn't be defended.

Well it probably does.

It means that you drive in an area where people are less careful, and if you have had one rear-end, then the chances of it happening again are increased.

The insurance companies don't look at it personally - it's all about risk - if something has happened once - then the natural conclusion of it happening again are greater - hence the increased risk.

That's why premiums go up even if it's not your fault.

Companies also look at the postcode you live in - if more accidents happen to cars in your postcode area, then that's an increased risk as well....

This is totally illogical.
You are just regurgitating insurance lingo to justify unfair price hikes on motorists. Show me a single study (not funded by an insurance firm) demonstrating the correlation between a non fault incident and future incidents. This is all BS tactics by insurance firms to 'justify' these types of price hikes.
It's shocking how OK the British public is about it.
As i stated in the OP - this has nothing to do with any other variables. It was a 25% price hike on the renewal quote after the incident occurred.

DE_612183

Sharingcaring said:

DE_612183 said:

Sharingcaring said:

400ixl said:

Sharingcaring said:

Its criminal ! i remember when your insurance would go down every year if you didn't have any accidents. It was one of the few perks of getting older.
Now premiums go up annually and so to does insurance companies pre-tax profits. There's a correlation here! 

No there isn't. Insurance has gone in cycles for decades depending on the financial position of the world economy. General insurance is not a profitable business for most insurers, the very best make at best 6% with many making a loss.

It has been proven that statistically someone involved in an accident, fault or non fault is more likely to be involved in another, meaning their risk is higher and as such their premium will be more.

There is no scam it's about statistically spreading the risk to those items applies to.

We are currently in a financial cycle where costs for insurers are increasing due to cost of repairs, ambulance chasers and accident management companies.

People who use accident management companies and use credit hire vehicles as part of their claims add significantly to everyone's premiums.

Hope you didn't use either as part of your 3rd party claim.

Someone rear ending me does not make me more likely to have an accident in the future - to the point they increase my premium by 25% !!!!
This is the entire point of having insurance - you shouldn't be penalized when you need to use it through no fault of your own.
Have a quick look at some of the larger insurance firms pre-tax profits over the last 5 years. They've increased more than my insurance has!
It's joke and they shouldn't be defended.

Well it probably does.

It means that you drive in an area where people are less careful, and if you have had one rear-end, then the chances of it happening again are increased.

The insurance companies don't look at it personally - it's all about risk - if something has happened once - then the natural conclusion of it happening again are greater - hence the increased risk.

That's why premiums go up even if it's not your fault.

Companies also look at the postcode you live in - if more accidents happen to cars in your postcode area, then that's an increased risk as well....

This is totally illogical.
You are just regurgitating insurance lingo to justify unfair price hikes on motorists. Show me a single study (not funded by an insurance firm) demonstrating the correlation between a non fault incident and future incidents. This is all BS tactics by insurance firms to 'justify' these types of price hikes.
It's shocking how OK the British public is about it.
As i stated in the OP - this has nothing to do with any other variables. It was a 25% price hike on the renewal quote after the incident occurred.

How do you know ?

Do you know the risk factors and ratings of the algorithm that this particular insurance company uses?

I was pointing out that you do not know what affects your premium, only what the price is - if you don't like it all you have to do is shop around to find a different company that uses a different algorithm that is better suited to your exact details and position.

renaissance_geek

I have insured my car with the same company - NFU - for around 35 years. I have made barely any claims, and have a spotless licence. Last summer, my car was parked legally on a quiet side street and while I was absent someone drove into my car then drove off, leaving the front bumper hanging off. NFU would not repair and it was declared an economic write-off. I had it repaired (no structural damage, fairly simple job) and Mot'd, and my insurance resumed as normal. They have just sent me a renewal quote which is more than DOUBLE last year's premium and refuse to budge on it, purely because of this one incident. I now have to faff around finding someone else. Has anyone had a similar experience?

DullGreyGuy

renaissance_geek said:

I have insured my car with the same company - NFU - for around 35 years. I have made barely any claims, and have a spotless licence. Last summer, my car was parked legally on a quiet side street and while I was absent someone drove into my car then drove off, leaving the front bumper hanging off. NFU would not repair and it was declared an economic write-off. I had it repaired (no structural damage, fairly simple job) and Mot'd, and my insurance resumed as normal. They have just sent me a renewal quote which is more than DOUBLE last year's premium and refuse to budge on it, purely because of this one incident. I now have to faff around finding someone else. Has anyone had a similar experience?

So the third party was unidentified? If so then this would have counted as a fault claim which is why its had a notable impact on premiums. 

The agent won't know what percentage of the increase is caused by the loss of NCD, the addition of a fault claim or just the general pricing changes since last year so saying it is all due to the claim is probably you misinterpreting what they said. 

Some insurers aggressively price but only target good risks, some insurers accept a more blended book, the former will much more likely increase prices after a claim than the later. 

I'd always be shopping around each year irrespective of claims, Motor doesnt very much between providers and prices move significantly year on year with no claims and so who was good value last year is not necessarily the same as who's good value this year.

dunstonh

renaissance_geek said:

I have insured my car with the same company - NFU - for around 35 years. I have made barely any claims, and have a spotless licence. Last summer, my car was parked legally on a quiet side street and while I was absent someone drove into my car then drove off, leaving the front bumper hanging off. NFU would not repair and it was declared an economic write-off. I had it repaired (no structural damage, fairly simple job) and Mot'd, and my insurance resumed as normal. They have just sent me a renewal quote which is more than DOUBLE last year's premium and refuse to budge on it, purely because of this one incident. I now have to faff around finding someone else. Has anyone had a similar experience?

Did you read the thread you appended your post to?

ThorOdinson

I claimed the premium increase back from the third party once. They were not happy about it but paid up.

See if you can get an indication of what the cost would be without the claim from your insurer.

jimbo6977

When Admiral entered the market they gained customers by being more efficient due to improved IT systems, slimmer management structures and thereby lower costs (plus a massive grant from the Welsh Office/Govt). Their underwriting margins are not enormously different from anyone else's. If another organisation wants to blow the market apart and be profitable, I don't see where the possible angle is. 

DullGreyGuy

ThorOdinson said:

I claimed the premium increase back from the third party once. They were not happy about it but paid up.

See if you can get an indication of what the cost would be without the claim from your insurer.

For what purpose? It was a hit and run?

jimbo6977 said:

When Admiral entered the market they gained customers by being more efficient due to improved IT systems, slimmer management structures and thereby lower costs (plus a massive grant from the Welsh Office/Govt). Their underwriting margins are not enormously different from anyone else's. If another organisation wants to blow the market apart and be profitable, I don't see where the possible angle is. 

Ok, I accept it's a year out of date but no, their COR is significantly below the majority of the market with only Sabre and Ageas having anything really comparable. 

They also launched with a fairly cut down product, one of the few that doesnt cover any optional extras even if declared and heavy use of accident management companies for non-fault accidents which avoids trapped unallocated claims expenses.