View Full Version : insurance - the megahappyawesomefunbussuperslide ride
Wideboy
01-10-12, 12:45 PM
its a fun ride isn't it. A super fun and mysterious ride. What's the weirdest things they've said to you?
i'll start of with the weirdest most ridiculous thing I've ever herd. That i have just found out about 20 mins ago whilst renewing the thunderace insurance;
some may remember a few years back when i was a duck head i jumped a red light and ended up going over the bonnet of a golf, SV being well and truly mullerd (hence being rebuilt to as it is now) as well as me being mullerd. The case was ongoing for years and i gave up chasing it after 2 years, i came to the conclusion that they were leaving it open and unsettled to sting me for as much money they could and stop me going elsewhere..... turns out i was wrong. Despite me admitting to the person that hit me, the police that attended, the ambulance crew that attended and my insurance company that >IT WAS MY FAULT< they felt that it wasn't. Just been informed that the case was closed and settled in my favour as me not being at fault...ok :confused:, feel sorry for the guy that hit me but meh i did the right thing.
my points run out now and i need to send off my license to have them removed, but i still have to declare them for another year despite not having any.
my car insurance is believe it or not, cheaper with points. so I'm now off to commit some road crimes.
when Helen had a provisional car license she could insure my 3 series for half the price of what it costs me with 4 years no claims.
i have had to declare my non fault car incidents on my bike policy and despite it being 100% not my fault and all claimed back and settled, it bumped up my policy £4 and it bumped up being a name driver on Helens car by £60.
seriously why is there not some sort of massive investigation into these companies, they are criminals! they are no different to you average conman on the street!. back stabbing robbing stinking thieving ****s!.......... and its legal!
Ahhhhh Insurance, one of the only legal forms of sexism..... Don't see women complaining about this one though.
Think the BBC did a story about it not long ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12600284
Twins both 18, 1 male 1 female.... Females was £1700 (ouch) Males was £3400 (OUCH!!) same car same age both related.
Spank86
01-10-12, 12:55 PM
I think there IS a massive investigation.
Or at least the proposal to have one, it was on the news the other day.
Cymraeg_Atodeg
01-10-12, 01:21 PM
I agree whole heartedly.
Something simular happened to me with my insurance company. I was involved in an incident with an old man in which he tried knocking my off my bike, but, I wrecked his fun by dropping the bike instead. But, because the bike carried on without me and made a slight mark in his rear bumper he said I was to blame.
I argued, my insurance company never said what had happened with the claim in two years, they just said it was outstanding.
Well, after two years I found out apparently they settled in the favour of the other side and need to charge me another £100 for the year.
Robbing *******s
Ahhhhh Insurance, one of the only legal forms of sexism..... Don't see women complaining about this one though.
Come 21st December, all insurance premiums have to be gender neutral. This is thanks to some European legislation caused by some Belgian group called Test-Achats. Whether this means the cost for men will go down to meet the cost of women in the middle somewhere, or whether premiums will just inflate to the same cost as men, is to be seen, as it'll be up to each individual underwriter to price accordingly. As time goes on, an industry standard will emerge and people will have to follow it to be competitive.
The same group is launching a court case against age discrimination in financial services as well, so expect the 25 year old premium band to disappear in about four years time. Of course, this means premiums might increase as a whole to absorb the cost.
That is, if we haven't ditched Brussels by then.
Owenski
01-10-12, 01:41 PM
I dare not even try to understand how they can get away with charging what they do, IMO a simple rule of thumb should always be the policy is for "x"% of the vehicle value dependant on a number of factors (no claims/convictions etc) but with a maximum of 100% of the vehicle value for FPFT and 200% for fully comp.
Saying that I think we've got it backwards anyway, I think it should be more like the Spanish system in that the car is insured and anyone with a licence and the owners permission is able to drive it. That way you never get uninsured drivers so you solve two problems there.
widepants
01-10-12, 01:59 PM
Saying that I think we've got it backwards anyway, I think it should be more like the Spanish system in that the car is insured and anyone with a licence and the owners permission is able to drive it. That way you never get uninsured drivers so you solve two problems there.
mmmm but then they will asume that the youngest driver is going to be a mad loon of a 17 year old and shaft you anyway.
Just had my renewal for my van which was run on a trade insuwerance.I told them that no longer would I be self employed and running around the county , but was a carer with a motabilty car at my disposal and that the van would be used for occasional use only ..
Sooooooo they took into the consideration the lack of miles and the fact it was no longer trade use and reduced it by £00.00 .WTF tossers
we are all getting robbed as insurance companies used to make money threw investments and shares now that the brown stuff has been thrown at the fan they now need joe public to front their lifestyle that they are accustomed to. it's the same all over the board in other industry's which also include power and fuel.
the worst thing that ever happened was banks set intrest rates to a stupid unrealistic low level which has had a knock on effect all down the chain. if banks don't make money from interest on loans and investments then where are they supposed to make money.
Fallout
01-10-12, 07:48 PM
Apparently pay outs on average are approx twice what they used to be since the suing/blame culture took over, plus when you take into account all those hidden legal fees when lawyers skim off the top, premiums have to rises loads to cover all that.
We really need regulation on the suing culture if we want lower premiums. If you get whiplash, unless you physically can't work and don't get sick pay (contractor), people shouldn't be entitled to claim for cash. Cash isn't going to fix your stiff neck. Nobody actually uses all the money to pay for private physio. They buy a new TV and a 3 piece suite to watch it from.
keith_d
01-10-12, 07:56 PM
Years ago we only needed to keep a bunch of insurance underwriters in Bentleys. These days we're keeping a shed-load of lawyers in Ferraris too. And, who do you think is paying for all those 'no win no fee' adverts on the TV?? Not to mention all the people inflating their claims and staging fake accidents.
ClunkintheUK
02-10-12, 10:23 AM
seriously why is there not some sort of massive investigation into these companies, they are criminals! they are no different to you average conman on the street!. back stabbing robbing stinking thieving ****s!.......... and its legal!
Should be the job of the regulators. The insurance company concept is pretty simple, the build a model based on a variety of factors to estimate the expected payout, then add 10% (or however much) skim for their profit/work/account for fluctuations. These models have to be approved before they can use them.
The problem with this is that the regulators (FSA) are even more simple, and have absolutely no ability to pick the models apart themselves, in my experience. Instead they just say "Your model is not conservative enough" So they add a fudge factor. The result, an extra 20% on your premiums.
More related to some of the other posts, I have absolutely no idea what ruddy factors they use. I think because my name begins with a C and I was born Venus was transitting Uranus through the Wotsit region 3 months 5 days 28 hours, 3 minutes and 38 seconds after I was born I was designated to have my no claims ignored for life, and my lack of motoring convictions.
Sir Trev
02-10-12, 11:00 AM
I also hate the way you have to give them your email address now... Unless you watch your inbox like a hawk you miss fairly important mails, like:
- we will cnacel your policy unless you prove your no claims
- we checked some other quotes you generated via Moneysupermarket and have decided you lied on your application, so we're charging you extra
The brain-dead monkey on the phone usually caves in when you point out "you were my last insurer, so you already know what my no claims is!", or "I went through this on the phone when I took out the policy and corrected your useless system records, just like I did last year!"...
Wideboy
02-10-12, 11:24 AM
But have you found now that the operators get all high and mighty if you pull them up about something and threaten to cut you off the moment you disagree?
Pretty much everytime I disagree with an operator now I'm spoken down even before I can finish my sentence and they don't seem to like it when you do the same back and then drop in the "I'm the customer, I'm the one with the money, not you". I am by no means rude to these people but I dont expect to be spoken to like some goit
Fallout
02-10-12, 11:50 AM
but I dont expect to be spoken to like some goit
Have you not considered the fact they may actually know who you are?
Wideboy
02-10-12, 12:06 PM
No, they didn't ask for my autograph.
widepants
02-10-12, 12:29 PM
do they know you are a Baron?
Wideboy
02-10-12, 02:12 PM
No i didnt get my license swapped over yet
they are criminals! they are no different to you average conman on the street!. back stabbing robbing stinking thieving ****s!.......... and its legal!
now that the brown stuff has been thrown at the fan they now need joe public to front their lifestyle that they are accustomed to.
This seems to be the general feeling towards insurance companies, which I find to be funny, since there aren't similar comments made when the price of food goes up due to costs increasing. Heck, even petrol price hikes seem to raise less bile than insurance premiums increasing. However, instead of accusing them of being thieves and criminals, maybe you should check out some of their figures?
Taking one example (for an insurer's entire book of business, not just the motor sector) which I found within about 5 minutes of looking, Aviva's net premium income was £28.1 billion in 2011 compared to £30 billion in 2010. This sounds a lot, but their claims costs were £26.9 billion in 2011 compared to £24.9 billion in 2010. So income premium income dropped £2 billion and claims costs went up £2 billion in the course of a year.
The profit before tax etc. for 2011 was £635 million, compared to £1.94 billion for 2010.
And after tax and other business issues were cleared up, Aviva made a total profit of £60 million in 2011, compared to £1.89 billion in 2010. Now, a large part of that drop was due to discontinuing operations, but the net effect of that was (fudging figures) £1.05 billion, so even if this had not happened, their profit for the year would still be ~£1.1 billion ,representing a drop of nearly £800m, or ~45%.
Please show me another business that could have 45% wiped off its profit margin and not respond by passing on costs to consumers.
I dare not even try to understand how they can get away with charging what they do, IMO a simple rule of thumb should always be the policy is for "x"% of the vehicle value dependant on a number of factors (no claims/convictions etc) but with a maximum of 100% of the vehicle value for FPFT and 200% for fully comp.
This would be a nice, easy way to do it if it weren't for the fact that the largest insurance payouts for motor are not to do with the vehicles, but to do with personal injury or property damage, with payouts often far in excess of the value of the car. As such, linking to the value of a car is a horrible way to price a policy.
It's interesting to note the limits that you suggest, since it is very unlikely that a quote presently given for TPFT cover is going to be for more than 100% of the value of the vehicle. If you get such a quote, it is because the insurer isn't willing to insure you based on whatever underwriting guidelines they have, so they jack the price way up as a way of trying to get you to move the percieved risk of insuring you to another insurer.
If there was a limit of 100% on the price of the policy, the insurer would just decline to insure you. Have you seen the bit on your policy declaration asking if any other insurers have declined to insure you? You REALLY don't want to have to put anything in that box. Ever.
Should be the job of the regulators. The insurance company concept is pretty simple, the build a model based on a variety of factors to estimate the expected payout, then add 10% (or however much) skim for their profit/work/account for fluctuations. These models have to be approved before they can use them.
The problem with this is that the regulators (FSA) are even more simple, and have absolutely no ability to pick the models apart themselves, in my experience. Instead they just say "Your model is not conservative enough" So they add a fudge factor. The result, an extra 20% on your premiums.
This is a nice, brief explanation for one of the reasons that insurers need to have a lot of cash. An insurer is required to hold assets equal to all predicted payouts at any given time. The FSA can tell an insurance company that it needs to adjust its global claims reserves at any point it feels that they are too low, which may result in them having to hike premiums for a while.
My premiums have gone up! Robbing twonks!
There is madness inherent in the system!
Times change; fraud increases; claims costs go up; underwriting guidelines change. If you want to make assertions stating that things are mad, I'd recommend that you try to call an insurance company directly, and receive a quote once per month for a year. I have no idea what the result would be, but I'd bet that it would make a lot more sense than getting a yearly renewal quotation and then being confused and angry that it isn't the same as or lower than last year.
TL;DR version:
Insurers aren't making tons of money - they've been hit hard by the recession.
Times change, insurance premiums change too.
Wideboy
02-10-12, 04:30 PM
forgetting about passing the costs onto the customer and getting credit, the fact that they can take such heavy losses a still operate as a business goes to show how much they are ripping people off in the first place? going by that reasoning, that means that they've been ripping joe public off for some time to build up that sort of collateral?
They didn't suffer a loss, they made £60 million. However, that's absolutely nothing for a massive, global insurer that is used to making almost £2 billion.
Additionally, did you miss the bit about needing premium reserves to pay out all the claims? They legally need to have a ton of cash in order to operate in the UK.
forgetting about passing the costs onto the customer and getting credit, the fact that they can take such heavy losses a still operate as a business goes to show how much they are ripping people off in the first place? going by that reasoning, that means that they've been ripping joe public off for some time to build up that sort of collateral?
Aviva's figures above are for their whole book.
On a private motor book, most insurers are shooting for a long-term profit margin of about 3% - hardly extravagant. It's such a thin margin for a risk based business that they regularly miss the target and you get an ebb and flow of premiums where they make excess profit for a period (which goes into reserves) and then lose money for a while (and draw on the previous reserves).
Most are making money on motor now but just a couple of years ago the market was basically selling £10 notes for £8.50. If that's a rip-off it's not a very good one.
Premiums ARE a lot higher than they need to be but insurer greed is the wrong target. It's never been easier to shop around and compare prices. As a result, motor insurance is about as close as you can get to a perfect market in terms of competition. It's the underlying costs that are the problem.
Since Legal Aid for personal injury was removed a decade ago it's been replaced by a ludicrously expensive system - it would be hard to come up with something that offers less value for money. Add to that the cost of credit repairs, "like for like" courtesy cars (I've seen several 5 figure bills for vehicle hire), Insurers, Brokers, NHS, Ambulance Service, DWP and Police all getting in about it.
If your average motorist saw the costs attached to their run-of-the-mill bump I think they'd struggle to keep their feckin hats on. I've seen £5k damage claims turn into £25k easy. That's a fairly new phenomenon.
Insurance companies are complicit in all this right enough. While they publicly make a fuss about all the ambulance chasers they are also quietly selling their customers details to those very same firms and driving up the other insurers costs. The last decade has seen the absurd situation that all motor insurers are now involved in attempting to maintain a competitive position by driving up the claim costs of their competitors with legal bills and inflated repair costs. It's ****ed and needs sorting. It's not a situation created by insurance companies though - it's poorly thought out law that's the basic problem.
The recent OFT investigation into motor insurance pretty much agreed with the above and it's now been referred to the Competition Commission who will take another 2 years to come up with what the dogs in the street already know. Hopefully something permanent will get done about it eventually.
There's much else amiss with the private motor market though. Legal Expenses and Helmets/Leathers cover - that's where you're actually getting properly ripped off. :grin:
yes Neeja if you had read my full post instead of just picking something out that looks like insurance company bashing you would have noticed that they are no longer making money from investments and interest. so who is to blame, well the banks are as they have caused all this due to being stupid but as per usual the public have to foot the bill instead of the banks doing the sensible thing and upping interest rates to a normal level instead of keeping them artificially low to encourage spending instead of saving. well i suppose that's what we get for having a consumer based society.
personally i'm feckin pizzed off having to pay for other peoples insurance. in the past 25 years i have had 1 claim and that was 2 years ago for the theft of my bike so why should my insurance go up and up and up when i'm a careful driver who has no points on his licence and 15 years no claims on my car insurance and that is only due to not having a car for a few years. they should be encouroging people not to claim but when young people are paying premiums of £4k for insurance then they are going to claim for the slightest bit of damage. you then get the opposite of those who just cant afford the premiums so drive uninsured to which the clever gov decided that we all need to put into the UDF which further pushed the premiums up and i'll bet my hairy azzhole getting pounded by a big 12" that those funds aren't ring fenced and the gov have spent a vast majority of it already.
so to stop all the stupidity of it all we should all stop buying insurance then watch how careful peoples driving gets.
Spank86
02-10-12, 05:40 PM
The banks are keeping interest rates low because the Bank of England is setting rates low.
ClunkintheUK
02-10-12, 05:42 PM
so to stop all the stupidity of it all we should all stop buying insurance then watch how careful peoples driving gets.
I mostly agree with the post bibio, except this bit. You honestly think the average knuckle dragger in a white van (or any colour for that matter) would change his driving just because there is no insurance. It would probably make it worse, once they had bumped into you, then probably then run you over to get away and not have to pay £20 for a new clutch lever. (I am aware there is a significant minority of road users who would do this already)
yes Neeja if you had read my full post instead of just picking something out that looks like insurance company bashing
I did read it. However, if stating:
now that the brown stuff has been thrown at the fan they now need joe public to front their lifestyle that they are accustomed to
only looks like insurance company bashing, and is in no way actually insurance company bashing as it appears, then I apologise profusely for any offense that you may have taken.
Spank86
02-10-12, 05:44 PM
Wasn't he talking about the banks at that point?
He was. However, the implication seemed to be that insurance companies can't make money through investments, and therefore must wheedle money from joe public in order to "front their lifestyles", implying that these mysterious people are living large and refuse to give up their lifestyles, and instead leech off the general population's hard-earned rather than doing so.
but they are. how can any insurance company pre empt that a new driver is going to crash so charge extortionate premiums when dozy women and old codgers cause most of the accidents.
it should be a points system. you start off with low premiums then for every claim it goes skyward. £2k to insure a car if your young is ridiculous. or how about cash back if you don't claim. i was always under the impression that insurance was a risk business but it seems that its now a licence to print money.
BTW if you haven't sussed it out i'm doing my usual winderupper :smt052
Because all new drivers (particularly male ones) drive cars that have been highly modded and tuned using Halford's tat, Redex, and an old vacuum cleaner hacked up to make a supercharger. The risk involved isn't an accident as such; it's all the third-party damage from an engine explosion.
A good friend is a risk analyst for a major underwriter. 5 years ago we had one of those lucid discussions were he explained to me that in simple terms the insurance industry is fixed (in a way). The underwriters set the 'cost' of insurance. But even the known major underwriters are 'underwritten' by other companies.
This sounded very familiar to the libor rate. Except, with the banks, volatility was induced by bad investments whereas in insurance the industry reacts to large-loss global events such as 911.
So, he explained that when your insurer says an increase in premium is due to insurance fraud or increased crime/accident risk, this is often a diversion from the truth which is that the cost set by the underwriters increased due to recouping losses from other major events.
Its not to say the localised reasons above won't have an impact on yearly premiums but the overall trend is that, following a major event or financial crisis, premiums and costs will remain on an upward trend for a good few years to allow recovery of these losses.
Whatever the truth, the biggest problem for me as a consumer - and I think also for a lot of people - is that its difficult to understand the link between the cost of this product and its perceived value. You don't have a choice but to purchase it (or the choice is not use a vehicle) yet the cost can fluctuate regardless of your own circumstances.
my insurance premiums are laughably cheap compared to most people so much so that my last insurance i had the girl on the other end of the phone say 'this quote cant be right its about a third of what most people pay' to which i replied 'yes but its gone up and i always thought that it went down every year if you never claimed so why has it gone up?' we then got into a long discussion about me paying for other peoples claims and it was not fair that i should have to supplement other people.
it's funny how ever since comparison sites have emerged that insurance premiums have gone up.
yorkie_chris
04-10-12, 07:55 AM
Years ago we only needed to keep a bunch of insurance underwriters in Bentleys. These days we're keeping a shed-load of lawyers in Ferraris too. And, who do you think is paying for all those 'no win no fee' adverts on the TV?? Not to mention all the people inflating their claims and staging fake accidents.
It's a shame they can't all be taken outside and shot.
I'd have that f***ing underdog put down as well.
yorkie_chris
04-10-12, 07:57 AM
Its not to say the localised reasons above won't have an impact on yearly premiums but the overall trend is that, following a major event or financial crisis, premiums and costs will remain on an upward trend for a good few years to allow recovery of these losses.
It seems patently unfair for me, as committed as I am to running heap of crap vehicles and avoiding claims at all costs... that I should be subsidising a bunch mentally deficient wazzocks who bought houses on flood plains...
widepants
04-10-12, 08:19 AM
It seems patently unfair for me, as committed as I am to running heap of crap vehicles and avoiding claims at all costs... that I should be subsidising a bunch mentally deficient wazzocks who bought houses on flood plains...
dont forget the gready chuffing builders , that built them in the first place , and the local authority that were thinking of all the council tax bills
Wideboy
04-10-12, 08:25 AM
And those that's cannot drive in a straight line, the young lady that hit me the first timewas on her 4th at fault accident in 8 months of driving and I believe I recall her saying those where rear ending someone, so why the feck is she still allowed a license.
If I told you the amount I pay across my 2 bikes and car I think you would pass out, putting it simply this year all 3 insurance's jumped up to a combined total of just a shade under 500 quid despite having more no claims and moving out into the sticks. My old van was half the price and insured for work use plus living in a high theft area
Fallout
04-10-12, 08:44 AM
We could just all drive without insurance. According to those police camera action style programs, if we eventually get arrested for it, we can expect to be given a little tickle and sent on our way. If we do it 8 times in a row, we may be asked not to drive for 12 months, which we can totally ignore if we choose. If caught again, we'll be asked not to drive again (probably more sternly this time). If we get caught 13 or 14 times without a license, we may be asked to do community service, which is also optional.
That's 100% factual btw. I don't want to hear any "you may be exaggerating comments".
You are also allowed to stab people.
widepants
04-10-12, 08:51 AM
Whe n I was in NZ a few years ago I was supprised to see loads of school kids , driving to school in their imported skylines .When I spoke to them about ins cost and they simply looked at me with the reply , "its opptional over here" .Dont know how true it is , but most of them were doing it ./
yorkie_chris
04-10-12, 09:33 AM
Whe n I was in NZ a few years ago I was supprised to see loads of school kids , driving to school in their imported skylines .When I spoke to them about ins cost and they simply looked at me with the reply , "its opptional over here" .Dont know how true it is , but most of them were doing it ./
I think the bumraping bit (3rd party liability) is included with your tax disc and it's only F+T/comp part that is optional. I don't think ambulance chasing is allowed either.
yes but they only have a population of around 4m but the islands are roughly the same size as mainland uk. i think the largest city has a population of around 1.4m so the rest of the country would be even more sparse then the north of scotland.
widepants
04-10-12, 09:53 AM
you are right Bibs , we were travelling north to the bay of islands and met a car coming the other way.My lad who was driving , stopped the camper van in the middle of the road and got out for a chat .We were there long enough to make a brew and when a car did come up behind us , there was no honking of the horn and gesticulating . He just joined us for a brew . Chilled out or what?
yorkie_chris
04-10-12, 10:03 AM
I suppose the Highlands aren't that chilled out... you just get pulled over by the police because they're lonely.
Wideboy
04-10-12, 10:08 AM
Ah yes but NZ is renowned for its lamb........
widepants
04-10-12, 10:10 AM
no comment
The outlook for premiums seems positive as a result of the referral to the Competition Commission.
http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/oft-motor-referral-may-hurt-insurer-profits-warns-moodys/1398944.article
Despite that headline, this is being viewed pretty positively by everyone except the credit hire guys. A bit more work on the personal accident/whiplash side of things and we could be getting back to some kind of sensible cost base.
yorkie_chris
04-10-12, 01:17 PM
The outlook for premiums seems positive as a result of the referral to the Competition Commission.
http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/oft-motor-referral-may-hurt-insurer-profits-warns-moodys/1398944.article
Despite that headline, this is being viewed pretty positively by everyone except the credit hire guys. A bit more work on the personal accident/whiplash side of things and we could be getting back to some kind of sensible cost base.
Helena Pavicic wrote in a research note that any reduction in lower premiums would hurt profitabilityI think anybody who's had to pay out 2 months wages to insure a car should get to deliver her profits by repeated kicks to the flange :)
Seems like the right direction to move in but surely 130 million isn't much in the grand scheme of things?
She's missed the point somewhat. The £130m is her estimate of what insurers are earning in referral fees and kickbacks from the screwed up claims system. It's what happens to the claim after they've referred it that makes a bigger difference in cost.
If insurers are getting £130m just to forward referrals then someone, somewhere, is making a **** load of money.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.