# Admiral now penalize drivers on speeding awareness courses.



## Headgardener (18 Nov 2012)

I see that Admiral now penalize drivers who attend speeding awareness courses by increasing their insurance premimums, according to the BBC. Do you think this is a good idea?

P.S. Mods if this thread is in the wrong forum could you please move it. Many thanks. HG.


----------



## snorri (18 Nov 2012)

It's a novel way of Admiral raising their profile by getting their name mentioned in the media free of charge.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Nov 2012)

A police spokesperson on the news today said that research has shown that drivers who have attended these course are _less_ likely to have accidents than people who have not so their premiums should _not_ be increased. 

If drivers are going to be penalised anyway, many will not bother doing the courses since the fines imposed are probably less than the cost of taking time off work to attend a course.


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2012)

Given that gender cannot be used to rate premiums in a couple of weeks, insurance companies need to be a bit smarter to price more accurately.

If they've got or suspect the stats back up a different risk for people who have been on a speed awareness course, then a sensible move.

I haven't looked at the article, but would be interested to see whether the perceived risk reduced (lower premium) or increases (higher premium) as a result of attending the course...


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> *A police spokesperson on the news today said that research has shown that drivers who have attended these course are less likely to have accidents than people who have not so their premiums should not be increased.*
> 
> If drivers are going to be penalised anyway, many will not bother doing the courses since the fines imposed are probably less than the cost of taking time off work to attend a course.


 
Police branching out into statistical analysis now...interesting...


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Nov 2012)

I can only say what my experience has been.

A serial speeder for decades, I took a course (as an option to avoid the points) a year or two back, I arrived full of cynicism.

I did not leave a cynic. It wasn't some sort of Damascene conversion, but I learned a lot there and certainly drive more slowly and considerately now than I did before attending.

I wouldn't much mind if my insurer upped my premium for attending, but on the basis of my own slightly altered views, I'd say it's more about generating revenue and publicity than charging the risk against those more likely to make claims.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Police branching out into statistical analysis now...interesting...


I have to say that I reckon that a lot of people doing those courses won't listen to what is being said and will be fiddling with their smartphones all the way through, but *if* there are some real figures to show that the courses work then let's try and get more people to take them!


----------



## potsy (18 Nov 2012)

I always thought the point of the course was instead of *points* on your license, thus your insurance doesn't go up, rather than not getting fined?


----------



## oldfatfool (18 Nov 2012)

I was under the impression that if you have attended a speeding awareness course you have not been convicted of a speeding offence so have no duty to inform your insurers. Part of the appeal of paying to attend the course rather than a smaller fine and points is the fact you have to declare points to the insurer and get raped for the next 5 years.


----------



## Drago (18 Nov 2012)

Don't speed, problem solved.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Nov 2012)

Drago said:


> Don't speed, problem solved.


That does seem a simple solution. I like it. Will it catch on do you think? I've been solving the problem that way for years. but many drivers seem to think speed limits are unfair. "I was only doing 34 in a 30 zone" etc..


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Nov 2012)

Drago said:


> Don't speed, problem solved.


Will you please stop posting things I agree with?

I'll be on here ages pressing 'like' at this rate.....


----------



## Nebulous (18 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> I was under the impression that if you have attended a speeding awareness course you have not been convicted of a speeding offence so have no duty to inform your insurers. Part of the appeal of paying to attend the course rather than a smaller fine and points is the fact you have to declare points to the insurer and get raped for the next 5 years.


 
Insurers have a phrase "uberrima fides" which means "utmost good faith." What they mean by that is you need to disclose anything that might be relevant and they will decide whether to charge you extra or not. If you dont disclose then that is where they will weasel out of paying. 

I once bought a Kia Sedona on ebay. I arranged my insurance, collected and paid for it and it had stainless steel bullbars fitted. I drove it for a few weeks, but it was niggling me, so I phoned my insurer. They promptly said it would cost another £400 in premiums. I advised they were fitted already, but I wasn't prepared to pay the extra, so they gave me 24 hours to remove them. If I hadn't told them, and then had an accident they would have been entitled to walk away. It ended okay and I got about £100 on Ebay for them, but I wonder if the new owner told his/her insurer?


----------



## Drago (18 Nov 2012)

ComedyPilot said:


> Will you please stop posting things I agree with?
> 
> I'll be on here ages pressing 'like' at this rate.....


I know. Dammit man, you seem to have had an outbreak of common sense yourself!


----------



## gavintc (18 Nov 2012)

Similarily, I was in the market for a Vespa scooter and during the early stages of dealing with a seller, I was informed it had an after-market silencer fitted. I told him, I was no longer interested as it would affect the insurance. He was not impressed that I was cancelling my interest based on the exhaust, but my research proved to be subsequently correct. Even fitting a towbar demands you inform the insurance company (and presumably pay a higher premium).


----------



## compo (18 Nov 2012)

I have an unspent conviction from 1972. They still load my car insurance even though I have been clean ever since.
Thankfully next year the Rehabilitation of Offenders is changing the criteria and after 40 years my sentence will become "spent" and I will no longer have to declare it for most purposes. It will be interesting to see if my insurance premiums reduce. I doubt it!


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2012)

Nebulous said:


> Insurers have a phrase "uberrima fides" which means "utmost good faith." What they mean by that is you need to disclose anything that might be relevant and they will decide whether to charge you extra or not. If you dont disclose then that is where they will weasel out of paying.
> 
> I once bought a Kia Sedona on ebay. I arranged my insurance, collected and paid for it and it had stainless steel bullbars fitted. I drove it for a few weeks, but it was niggling me, so I phoned my insurer. They promptly said it would cost another £400 in premiums. I advised they were fitted already, but I wasn't prepared to pay the extra, so they gave me 24 hours to remove them. If I hadn't told them, and then had an accident they would have been entitled to walk away. It ended okay and I got about £100 on Ebay for them, but I wonder if the new owner told his/her insurer?


 
You're broadly right, but whether they can walk away from paying out isn't black and white. It would depend on the insurance terms and the nature of the accident. For example, I would agrue that if someone drove into your side then the bullhorns have no effect on the claim. Yes, there is an effect on the premium you should have paid and they could argue to use averaging.

You can always go to the Insurance Ombudsman if you are unhappy wiith an insurer too and I suspect this option isn't used


----------



## oldfatfool (18 Nov 2012)

Nebulous said:


> Insurers have a phrase "uberrima fides" which means "utmost good faith." What they mean by that is you need to disclose anything that might be relevant and they will decide whether to charge you extra or not. If you dont disclose then that is where they will weasel out of paying.


 
No doubt, but I maintain there isn't a driver on here or anywhere else that never exceeds the speed limit.


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> No doubt, but I maintain there isn't a driver on here or anywhere else that never exceeds the speed limit.


 
Your point being what exactly?


----------



## oldfatfool (18 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Your point being what exactly?


Well are you going to disclose that fact in good faith to your insurers? What differance does it make to your liability if you have been caught by a hidden camera or not?


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Nov 2012)

compo said:


> I have an unspent conviction from 1972. They still load my car insurance even though I have been clean ever since.
> Thankfully next year the Rehabilitation of Offenders is changing the criteria and after 40 years my sentence will become "spent" and I will no longer have to declare it for most purposes. It will be interesting to see if my insurance premiums reduce. I doubt it!


 
Wow! 

I was banned and given two of the old-fashioned 'endorsements (on a license I didn't yet qualify for) at 16 for driving under-age and without insurance.

My insurers have shown no interest in that for over 25 years... I do tell them, but they don't care.

Without wanting to pry, I do wonder what offence they're still asking you to cough up for after 40 years.


----------



## Matthew_T (18 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I was banned and given two of the old-fashioned 'endorsements* (on a license I didn't yet qualify for)* at 16 for driving under-age and without insurance.


Thats something which has always bewildered me.

They say "You will get 3 points on your license when you get it". What if you never get a license?

Also, I heard a while ago that if you commited a crime whilst cycling (RLJ or ride on pavement) that you could receive points on your driving license for it. A considerable amount of cyclists dont have licenses so how would that work?


----------



## compo (18 Nov 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Thats something which has always bewildered me.
> 
> They say "You will get 3 points on your license when you get it". What if you never get a license?
> 
> Also, I heard a while ago that if you commited a crime whilst cycling (RLJ or ride on pavement) that you could receive points on your driving license for it. A considerable amount of cyclists dont have licenses so how would that work?


 
If you never get a license it doesn't matter.

You cannot receive penalty points for cycling offences.


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Well are you going to disclose that fact in good faith to your insurers? What differance does it make to your liability if you have been caught by a hidden camera or not?


 
Those who have been caught by a camera are statistically more likely to have an accident than those that don't. We can speculate why that is but the most obvious reasons are because they are perpetual speeders and because they are less attentive drivers.


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2012)

Oh, and yes I will disclose it if asked.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (18 Nov 2012)

Nebulous said:


> Insurers have a phrase "uberrima fides" which means "utmost good faith." What they mean by that is you need to disclose anything that might be relevant and they will decide whether to charge you extra or not. If you dont disclose then that is where they will weasel out of paying.
> 
> I once bought a Kia Sedona on ebay. I arranged my insurance, collected and paid for it and it had *stainless steel bullbars *fitted. I drove it for a few weeks, but it was niggling me, so I phoned my insurer. They promptly said it would cost another £400 in premiums. I advised they were fitted already, but I wasn't prepared to pay the extra, so they gave me 24 hours to remove them. If I hadn't told them, and then had an accident they would have been entitled to walk away. It ended okay and I got about £100 on Ebay for them, but I wonder if the new owner told his/her insurer?


 
With the odd exception, these should be illegal to have on a public road in the first place...


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (18 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Those who have been caught by a camera are statistically more likely to have an accident than those that don't. We can speculate why that is but the most obvious reasons are because they are perpetual speeders and because they are less attentive drivers.


As I understand it, the basic speed awareness courses are only offered to drivers that are caught exceeding the limit by no more than 10% + 3mph. (ie no more than 36 in a 30, or 80 on a motorway etc) and if you have no unspent convictions/haven't been on one for 3 years. Not sticking up for speeding motorists, but these are the ones caught at the lower end of the speeding scale, and not serial offenders. Combine that with the argument that such courses possibly have an effect, and you could argue that drivers that have attended the course could pose less of a threat than the average...


----------



## Phaeton (18 Nov 2012)

Nebulous said:


> Insurers have a phrase "uberrima fides" which means "utmost good faith."


Are you sure it doesn't mean "Shaft our customers at every opportunity" Insurance companies are SCUM only surmounted by the misspelt bankers.

Alan...


----------



## roadrash (18 Nov 2012)

i got a speeding ticket six weeks ago ..i cane home ant told mrs roadrash that i had been given a speeding ticket for having bad eyes,,,,,bad eyes she said "how does that work ...they cant give you a speeding ticket for having bad eyes" i said they can ,,,,i never saw tha bstsrd behind the trees...the response from her was painfull ....ah well you can pay the fine with the money you were saving for your new lights........ OWCH


----------



## simon.r (18 Nov 2012)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> As I understand it, the basic speed awareness courses are only offered to drivers that are caught exceeding the limit by no more than 10% + 3mph. (ie no more than 36 in a 30, or 80 on a motorway etc) and if you have no unspent convictions/haven't been on one for 3 years.


 
That was my experience in Leicestershire, but I think it may vary between counties. I was told that the camera doesn't go off at less than limit + 10% + 2mph, so 35mph = not caught, 36mph = option of course, 37mph = fine and points.

I was given the option of a £60 fine and 3 points or a £60 charge to attend a course. IMO the course was worthwhile and a punishment of sorts. This is obviously not going to convince those who think I should have been banned from driving for life and publicly humilated in some heinous manner, but the time off work, the travel costs of attending the course and the £60 certainly felt like a mild punishment. The course was aimed at stopping me speeding in the future, which presumabably is what most people want the outcome to be?

The only reason I took the course option was so that I didn't have to declare it to my insurer. I think the move to make people declare these (and therefore see their premiums increase) will mean that virtually no-one will attend them. This may, depending on your opinion, be a good thing in that it will punish drivers more, but if you really want to stop people speeding you need more than a big stick - a bit of education and reasoning certainly doesn't do any harm.


----------



## subaqua (18 Nov 2012)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> With the odd exception, these should be illegal to have on a public road in the first place...


 
unless you are called linf, then they are a must have accesory for wankpanzers that tow horses across muddy concrete


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Nov 2012)

Matthew_T said:


> Thats something which has always bewildered me.
> 
> They say "You will get 3 points on your license when you get it". What if you never get a license?
> 
> Also, I heard a while ago that if you commited a crime whilst cycling (RLJ or ride on pavement) that you could receive points on your driving license for it. A considerable amount of cyclists dont have licenses so how would that work?


 
Compo answered your query. It doesn't matter if you don't want a license.

I did, so my ban was served (whle I was still too young to drive) and then I applied for a provisional when I turned 17.

For the next five years, I paid (quite rightly) a staggering amount more for my car and motorcycle insurance than my peers.

It made me giggle in court that I was asked for my license and I said I didn't have one and that 's why I was there. Nobody else giggled, particularly my patient father who did not relish the experience....


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2012)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> As I understand it, the basic speed awareness courses are only offered to drivers that are caught exceeding the limit by no more than 10% + 3mph. (ie no more than 36 in a 30, or 80 on a motorway etc) and if you have no unspent convictions/haven't been on one for 3 years. Not sticking up for speeding motorists, but these are the ones caught at the lower end of the speeding scale, and not serial offenders. Combine that with the argument that such courses possibly have an effect, and you could argue that drivers that have attended the course could pose less of a threat than the average...


 
You could argue that yes, but the chaps at Admiral and possible others think not.

They know more about it than anyone on here.


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2012)

where's @srw?


----------



## 400bhp (18 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> Are you sure it doesn't mean "Shaft our customers at every opportunity" Insurance companies are SCUM only surmounted by the misspelt bankers.
> 
> Alan...


----------



## jdtate101 (18 Nov 2012)

Wow....bear's shoot in the woods shocker.

Insurance companies are there to make money, not be nice to you. They are beholden to their shareholders, so will make money ANY way they can. If this includes finding new dubious means of income...it's all fair game to them. With the rules becoming tighter on "profiling" expect them to go to new unheard of lengths to weasel out of paying up on claims.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (18 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> You could argue that yes, but the chaps at Admiral and possible others think not.
> 
> They know more about it than anyone on here.


Fair point... but they are also the only insurer to float the idea after many years of such courses being offered in lieu of points (and just before equal opps legislation and the Jack Straw parliamentry storm over motor insurance costs loom: two big potential losses to motor insurance companies income.) If people who attend a speed awareness course are statistically as likely to be involved in a claim as perpetual speeders, why has it taken so long for one insurer to discover it?


----------



## growingvegetables (19 Nov 2012)

Hmmm - kinda like Admiral's stance.

Were I ever to get another car, I would resent paying higher premiums just because some numpties think speed limits are only for other drivers.


----------



## Phaeton (19 Nov 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> Were I ever to get another car, I would resent paying higher premiums just because some numpties think speed limits are only for other drivers.


You see I could go along with that if the Auto insurance industry in the UK wasn't a complete & utter scam, this is nothing to do with risk, this is another method of screwing money out of customers in this rip-off industry.

Two personal examples for you, sister is hit from behind whilst waiting at a junction, she'd driving a Astra estate worth £2k, all it does is put a 2" (50mm in new money) crack in the bumper, takes it to a local workshop, £400 (another rip-off) for the bumper, £200 to remove old, paint new, fit new, £600 total. But insurance company would not accept this, had to go through their 'Approved' bodyshop, so she takes the car there, assessor walks out to car, looks round it for 30 seconds, says "That's going to cost over £1.5K we'll write the car off" WTF write a car off for a 2" crack in the bumper. They argued & eventually they paid out & kept the car, 4 years later it still has the 2" crack & going strong.

I'm in a car park in a Berlingo van, starts to slowly reverse into a parking stop, next thing I know there is a car behind me, I get out & the guy to screaming & shouting at me, the nearside wing, front passenger door & rear passenger door of his car are all caved in. His nearside front wheel is turn hard to the left & is just touching my bumper, so I have not actually got as far as his car. But because I was reversing my insurance company wouldn't argue it, although the guy had been involved in the same accident 2 days earlier, he got paid out £5.5K the car was worth less that £500.

Auto insurance companies are SCUM, pure & simple, it's legalised shafting of the motoring public.

Alan...


----------



## 400bhp (19 Nov 2012)

Such anger..


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

For Admiral this is purely a business decision.

Insurance companies make their money by understanding risk. What they have done is their assessment of the risk. If they get it wrong and over price their premiums in a cut-throat market their customers will move. If their assessment of of the risk is correct and they don't adjust their premiums, their claims will exceed their premiums.

For an insurance company, that's all that matters. They aren't in the business of correcting driver behaviour, they just underwrite the prevailing risk.


----------



## Drago (19 Nov 2012)

They use risk as an excuse, not as a real gauge.

I moved house, 1.5 miles, from one village to the next. My policy went up. I questioned how it can beca higher risk area when the crime system at work shows it actually has a lower rate for autocrime? My premium wax suddenly put back down again.

The big difference is that its a more affluent area, it has little do doc with genuine risk and everything to do with a) making money, and b) assessing your wealth level.

Sone years ago the Government in the guise of the TRL tried to prove the old saying that more powerful cars are more dangerous. The analysed a decade of accident statistics and discovered this us not true at all - there is in fact a small decreased likelyhood of you having a smack in a more powerful car, but you change from a 1.2 Corsa to an otherwise identical 1.4 Corsa and the Insurers will anally invade you.

The whole house of cards has gone on so long that its starting to crumble. Making profits by inflating hire car charges. Making a few quid in the short term by selling details of those involved in accidents to ambulance chasers. Before long it is foreseeable that premiums will be such that the average person won't be cable to afford them and the whole house of cards will collapse. From the ashes we'll see a new breed of insurers who vase premiums on genuine risk, not on a business formula.


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

I worked for many years in the IT department of a large reinsurer* so I don't have a direct handle on direct insurance underwriting, or the shenanigans they get up to. What I can say is a that it is a cut throat market. Reinsurers are struggling to get business, not because the business isn't there, but because the margins are too low for them to want to take a share and commit capital. This is always a symptom that claims and premiums in that risk area are the same or nearly the same.

* In simple terms a reinsurer is an insurance company that doesn't directly underwrite risk, they take a share in risk already underwritten by a direct insurer. This allows direct insurers to spread their risk more evenly for their available capital. Any insurance you have is probably partly underwritten by a reinsurer.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Nov 2012)

Drago said:


> They use risk as an excuse, not as a real gauge.
> 
> I moved house, 1.5 miles, from one village to the next. My policy went up. I questioned how it can beca higher risk area when the crime system at work shows it actually has a lower rate for autocrime? My premium wax suddenly put back down again.
> 
> ...


 
It is to do with risk and has nothing to do with wealth level (for the reason you have given).

Car crime is one risk factor, but there are other risk factors at play with postcodes (called geodemographics). Roads likely to be driven on more frequently for example. Also, insurers have to look at concentration of risk by area. It might be that the insurer had a relatively large number of insured vehicles in the new postcode than the old one.

No method of assessing rick is perfect, but the insurer has to use rating factors that are closely correlated to risk factors.

House of cards it is not.


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Car crime is one risk factor, but there are other risk factors at play with postcodes (called geodemographics). Roads likely to be driven on more frequently for example. Also, insurers have to look at concentration of risk by area. It might be that the insurer had a relatively large number of insured vehicles in the new postcode than the old one.


Yes that's true and this is an area in which I had direct experience as an IT geek. One of the advantages that a reinsurer has is that it can act as central repository for claims and policy data from different insurers who would not usually share data. A reinsurer can use this for geodemographic risk assessment and advise direct insurers on premiums in return for a share of the business.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Nov 2012)

If you want cheap insurance drive a group A car on a clean license and put it in a garage at night instead of the freezer.


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

One of the emerging technologies in car insurance is the use of telematics. That is the willingness of the insured to allow the installation of a black box equipped accelerometers and GPS. These allow the insurer to asses the quality, location and length of time you spend on the road. Some may consider this a threat to their civil liberties but if you have nothing to hide...

My problem with telematics is that if your premium jumps you may not know why. To me it would double its usefulness if I had access to the same data that the insurance company has, and also with the knowledge of the criteria used to evaluate my driving. That way I could at least take action to correct premium spikes or more importantly, crap driving.

I think that telematics could play a major role in bringing down the premium of under 25's.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> One of the emerging technologies in car insurance is the use of telematics. That is the willingness of the insured to allow the installation of a black box equipped accelerometers and GPS. These allow the insurer to asses the quality, location and length of time you spend on the road. Some may consider this a threat to their civil liberties but if you have nothing to hide...
> 
> My problem with telematics is that if your premium jumps you may not know why. To me it would double its usefulness if I had access to the same data that the insurance company has, and also with the knowledge of the criteria used to evaluate my driving. That way I could at least take action to correct premium spikes or more importantly, crap driving.
> 
> I think that telematics could play a major role in bringing down the premium of under 25's.


Telematics are the future, and the imminent future on mainland Europe iirc, which more or less guarantees the British public will fight them on the beaches. At least one of the systems to be used in Europe has a web portal interface allowing the driver to inspect their own data and adapt their driving accordingly.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> I worked for many years in the IT department of a large reinsurer*


Out of interest which one(s)? I did stints at Sphere Drake/OdysseyRe, Lloyds, Aspen Re, amongst others. Happy days at the LUC.


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

Munich Re


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (19 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Telematics are the future, and the imminent future on mainland Europe iirc, which more or less guarantees the British public will fight them on the beaches. At least one of the systems to be used in Europe has a web portal interface allowing the driver to inspect their own data and adapt their driving accordingly.


 
At some point the original aims of the Galileo GPS system will resurface and the real fun may begin.
"2 miles on the A630 sir? That'll be £1.35 peak rate.
Went down the A633 at 32mph? That'll be £1.50 peak rate, £200 fine, and 3 points. Your insurance provider has been informed."


----------



## Drago (19 Nov 2012)

And then the anti-establishment lot will all revert to bicycles, untraceable by ANPR or GPS.


----------



## cd365 (19 Nov 2012)

If you do a speed awareness course is there any way of the insurance company finding out without you informing them?


----------



## Paul99 (19 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> Are you sure it doesn't mean "Shaft our customers at every opportunity" Insurance companies are SCUM only surmounted by the misspelt bankers.
> 
> Alan...


So what do you do for a living then? I work in insurance by the way.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> Munich Re


One floor down iirc!


----------



## subaqua (19 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> So what do you do for a living then? I work in insurance by the way.


 me, construction. si i understand risk. and likelhoods. if something happens to opne person, the liklehood of that happening again changes as it is less likley to happen again.

so imagine my surprise when my premiums went up after a tree fell on my car , whilst i wasn't even in the same town as the car. apparently in insurance eyes once something happens to you its likely to happen again and again. this is the same insurance company being talked anout in this thread. who don't really seem to be doing much to claim back the loss from the Council who own the tree. much easier to get any money back from your customers than do any work. am so glad that i got rid of my car now.


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> One floor down iirc!


Plantation place?


----------



## Phaeton (19 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> So what do you do for a living then? I work in insurance by the way.


I work for a Telecoms company where my customer can choose to use us or not & not compelled by law to have our products

Alan...


----------



## Paul99 (19 Nov 2012)

The main problem with insurance these days is that everybody wants something for nothing.

If, like most of the insurance buying population, you use a price comparison site like Go Compare, MoneySupermarket etc then there will be a level of assumption built into any price that you see. So if you then go and pick the cheapest one and don't read the t&c's properly then you will more than likely find out when it comes time to make a claim that you are not covered adequately for your loss.

This isn't the insurance company trying to get out of paying your claim. It's you trying to claim for something you are not covered for.

Things that are assumed can be your annual mileage, clean driving licence, where the car will be parked overnight etc. Next time you get a quote from the price comparison site, click through to the cheapest premium and see what they are assuming/excluding despite what you may have answered on the quote form.

The insurance industry is very heavily regulated, especially where the insurance is compulsory, and the payout rates for VALID claims is near 100%

As for Phaeton's examples of being ripped off:

_Two personal examples for you, sister is hit from behind whilst waiting at a junction, she'd driving a Astra estate worth £2k, all it does is put a 2" (50mm in new money) crack in the bumper, takes it to a local workshop, £400 (another rip-off) for the bumper, £200 to remove old, paint new, fit new, £600 total. But insurance company would not accept this, had to go through their 'Approved' bodyshop, so she takes the car there, assessor walks out to car, looks round it for 30 seconds, says "That's going to cost over £1.5K we'll write the car off" WTF write a car off for a 2" crack in the bumper. They argued & eventually they paid out & kept the car, 4 years later it still has the 2" crack & going strong._

It doesn't matter how much your claim was for it'll have no bearing on how much your premium will be next year. If you claim £1.00 or £1,000,000 the premium will still rise by the same amount. e.g. what do you think would happen if you hit a Ferrari instead of a Micra?

_I'm in a car park in a Berlingo van, starts to slowly reverse into a parking stop, next thing I know there is a car behind me, I get out & the guy to screaming & shouting at me, the nearside wing, front passenger door & rear passenger door of his car are all caved in. His nearside front wheel is turn hard to the left & is just touching my bumper, so I have not actually got as far as his car. But because I was reversing my insurance company wouldn't argue it, although the guy had been involved in the same accident 2 days earlier, he got paid out £5.5K the car was worth less that £500._

Next thing you know there is a car behind you? You were obviously reversing without looking where you were going. That aside, you were a victim of an insurance fraud and once again the value of the car/claim means little. This doesn't mean that the insurance company are scum. You would have had to pay them 5.5k if you didn't have any insurance, I think you should be grateful.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Nov 2012)

Ahh, telecomms, that well known upstanding industry.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> If you want cheap insurance drive a group A car on a clean license and put it in a garage at night instead of the freezer.


 
Blimey, who the hell has a drive-in freezer?!


GC


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Blimey, who the hell has a drive-in freezer?!
> 
> 
> GC


Anyone with a driveway in winter.


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> At some point the original aims of the Galileo GPS system will resurface and the real fun may begin.
> "2 miles on the A630 sir? That'll be £1.35 peak rate.
> Went down the A633 at 32mph? That'll be £1.50 peak rate, £200 fine, and 3 points. Your insurance provider has been informed."


Telematics is unlikely to work that way. Insurance companies don't have the resources to deal with risk in that sort of detail. It's all to do with statistics. Everyone makes mistakes and as long as your error rate falls within the range of a normal driving pattern you are unlikely to be nailed. You could however benefit or be penalised if you falling outside the norm depending on which side of the scale you are.


----------



## Paul99 (19 Nov 2012)

subaqua said:


> me, construction. si i understand risk. and likelhoods. if something happens to opne person, the liklehood of that happening again changes as it is less likley to happen again.
> 
> so imagine my surprise when my premiums went up after a tree fell on my car , whilst i wasn't even in the same town as the car. apparently in insurance eyes once something happens to you its likely to happen again and again. this is the same insurance company being talked anout in this thread. who don't really seem to be doing much to claim back the loss from the Council who own the tree. much easier to get any money back from your customers than do any work. am so glad that i got rid of my car now.


 
The likelihood of it happening again remains exactly the same if you keep parking near trees.

If you win the lottery you have defied odds of 13,983,815/1. If you buy a ticket the following week the odds are exactly the same.


----------



## GrasB (19 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> The main problem with insurance these days is that everybody wants something for nothing.
> 
> If, like most of the insurance buying population, you use a price comparison site like Go Compare, MoneySupermarket etc then there will be a level of assumption built into any price that you see. So if you then go and pick the cheapest one and don't read the t&c's properly then you will more than likely find out when it comes time to make a claim that you are not covered adequately for your loss.


The problem I find is the T&C are often very complicated to follow & sometimes are unclear on what they mean. Even when you call & ask questions the answers don't match the T&C.


----------



## addictfreak (19 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> A police spokesperson on the news today said that research has shown that drivers who have attended these course are _less_ likely to have accidents than people who have not so their premiums should _not_ be increased.
> 
> If drivers are going to be penalised anyway, many will not bother doing the courses since the fines imposed are probably less than the cost of taking time off work to attend a course.



My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Paul99 (19 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> The problem I find is the T&C are often very complicated to follow & sometimes are unclear on what they mean. Even when you call & ask questions the answers don't match the T&C.


 
Yes, I agree that T&C can be difficult to follow for a lot of people. But do you just sign the contract or press the button anyway? It isn't the insurance company's fault.

You have a choice, and though it will cost you more, you can use an insurance broker who will explain what they mean and are also liable if they purchase insurance for you that is unsuitable. This is what used to happen before 'tinternet.

p.s. I'll always explain them for you if you ask...


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> The problem I find is the T&C are often very complicated to follow & sometimes are unclear on what they mean. Even when you call & ask questions the answers don't match the T&C.


This is what I don't like about bicycle insurance. It is generally much cheaper to insure your bike on your household insurance than as an individual bike policy. The bike policy T&C conditions will generally be easier to follow that householder because it is specialist insurance and its easier to be specific about the condition. e.g., must have been secured with a specific grade bike lock etc.
I haven't seen the T&C for bike insurance on householder policies but the difference in the cost of insuring a bike is sometimes so big that I wonder where the catch is, and there must be one.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> The likelihood of it happening again remains exactly the same if you keep parking near trees.


 
If the likelihood remains the same as it was before the event, why doesn't the premium?


GC


----------



## Paul99 (19 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> This is what I don't like about bicycle insurance. It is generally much cheaper to insure your bike on your household insurance than as an individual bike policy. The bike policy T&C conditions will generally be easier to follow that householder because it is specialist insurance and its easier to be specific about the condition. e.g., must have been secured with a specific grade bike lock etc.
> I haven't seen the T&C for bike insurance on householder policies but the difference in the cost of insuring a bike is sometimes so big that I wonder where the catch is, and there must be one.


 
It's all to do with the insurance pool.

For example most sensible people have contents insurance so the insurance premium "pool" or "pot" is huge. This means that the premium tends to be lower as there is not much liklihood of all the policies being claimed on in the same year.

For specific bike insurance, the pool is much, much smaller so the premium will be higher as a greater percentage of the premiums collected will be paid out.

Obviously with the t&c on a household contents, if they went into great detail about every single possible insured article it would make war & peace look like a pamphlet, whereas on a bike specific policy. it's just about the bike so is more comprehensive.


----------



## Paul99 (19 Nov 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> If the likelihood remains the same as it was before the event, why doesn't the premium?
> 
> 
> GC


 
Probably because prior to the "event" your premium was calculated on the basis that you were claim free, and now you are not. The no claims discount is used to retain customers, not because the risk is less.


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> Obviously with the t&c on a household contents, if they went into great detail about every single possible insured article it would make war & peace look like a pamphlet, whereas on a bike specific policy. it's just about the bike so is more comprehensive.


Yes that's true but I get uncomfortable with the vagueness. I don't want to find out that I don't meet the T&C when I make a claim.

I haven't insured my bikes (other than with CTC 3rd party), but I have spent a lot of money on bike locks, pinhead bolts etc. It's also just a personal assessment of the risk. My avatar will show that my bikes are less susceptible to opportunistic theft. If the thief doesn't know how to ride them he's likely to make a spectacle of himself. 

This has wandered completely OT. Sorry...


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> Probably because prior to the "event" your premium was calculated on the basis that you were claim free, and now you are not. The no claims discount is used to retain customers, not because the risk is less.


 
I can see that it might result in a loss or diminution of the no claims discount; I wonder if that's what happened to sub aqua rather than a premium increase.

If it had happened in the first year of a person's cover (and therefore no no-claim discount accrued) is it the case that the premium would rise even though the event was no more likely than before?


GC


----------



## Drago (19 Nov 2012)

addictfreak said:


> My sentiments exactly.


Of course, not speeding in the first place is even cheaper still.


----------



## Paul99 (19 Nov 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I can see that it might result in a loss or diminution of the no claims discount; I wonder if that's what happened to sub aqua rather than a premium increase.
> 
> If it had happened in the first year of a person's cover (and therefore no no-claim discount accrued) is it the case that the premium would rise even though the event was no more likely than before?
> 
> ...


Yes, if it happened in the first year the premium would probably rise, as the company would view the claimant as a bad risk. Otherwise you could just have a claim every year since the first and the premium would never rise. The insurance company could also decide not to offer renewal terms.


----------



## Paul99 (19 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> This has wandered completely OT. Sorry...


 
Agreed. Sorry OP.


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> A police spokesperson on the news today said that research has shown that drivers who have attended these course are _less_ likely to have accidents than people who have not so their premiums should _not_ be increased.


I have no reason to disbelieve the police spokesman's statement but there could be political motives for saying that. I would want to see the supporting research data before I made a judgement.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> It's all to do with the insurance pool.
> 
> For example most sensible people have contents insurance so the insurance premium "pool" or "pot" is huge. This means that the premium tends to be lower as there is not much liklihood of all the policies being claimed on in the same year.
> 
> ...


 
I would have thought it's as much to do with moral hazard & selection than with the size of the market?

If it's bolted on to your household policy there's less chance of fraudulent claims (insure solely to receive a payout for example) and less chance of claiming too (affects the whole of the house insurance cover).

I guess you do what I do, just in a different field.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> I have no reason to disbelieve the police spokesman's statement but there could be political motives for saying that. I would want to see the supporting research data before I made a judgement.


Yup


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> Yes, if it happened in the first year the premium would probably rise, as the company would view the claimant as a bad risk. Otherwise you could just have a claim every year since the first and the premium would never rise. The insurance company could also decide not to offer renewal terms.


 
If premiums are calculated on risk and the risk doesn't change, the premium shouldn't either.
It's no wonder people feel frustrated by insurers.


GC


----------



## Leaway2 (19 Nov 2012)

If only Churchill apply this, people will vote with their feet. I wouldn't dream of renewing without going through a comparison site.


----------



## addictfreak (19 Nov 2012)

Drago said:


> Of course, not speeding in the first place is even cheaper still.



True, but I doubt there are many motorists who stick to speed limits 100% of the time. I got 3 points early this year, second time in 32 years of driving. Not a bad average, only being caught twice!


----------



## srw (19 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> Munich Re


Which would really rather like to escape from the maelstrom that is the UK motor market.


----------



## srw (19 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> where's @srw?


In Naples - where the driving is ...special.

I suppose if you live your life in the knowledge that a volcano may well take you out tomorrow you care less about the fact that your roads are like dodgem tracks.

I know little about the detail of the substance of the thread. But what I do know is that insurance premiums are based on the best possible view of the risk that insurers can form within the constraints of the law (sex as a rating factor disappears imminently) - and that motor insurance hasn't made money for about 10 years.


----------



## srw (19 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> Yes that's true and this is an area in which I had direct experience as an IT geek. One of the advantages that a reinsurer has is that it can act as central repository for claims and policy data from different insurers who would not usually share data. A reinsurer can use this for geodemographic risk assessment and advise direct insurers on premiums in return for a share of the business.


Ah. Of course - Munich Re has 25% of Admiral's risk, doesn't it? But outside special deals like that, most reinsurers only see a tiny proportion of the biggest claims.


----------



## srw (19 Nov 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> If premiums are calculated on risk and the risk doesn't change, the premium shouldn't either.


Ho ho ho.

Court awards go up each year - one estimate I've seen is 8% for small awards and 12% for big awards. Court awards make up about 50% of the cost of motor claims.

Garages charge more each year. Cars are more expensive to repair each year. Fraudsters get more ingenious each year.

A standard estimate of motor insurance inflation is 6% per year. At the moment rates are going down on average by 10% a year. You do the sums.


----------



## srw (19 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Telematics are the future, and the imminent future on mainland Europe iirc, which more or less guarantees the British public will fight them on the beaches. At least one of the systems to be used in Europe has a web portal interface allowing the driver to inspect their own data and adapt their driving accordingly.


At least one of the systems already live* in the UK has a mobile interface which sends you and your parent a text message when you go round a corner too quickly and which enables you to look at where you went wrong on a map, to avoid a hefty charge.

*It's only available to young drivers, and currently isn't selling very much. All of this is public information.


----------



## Buddfox (19 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> Ho ho ho.
> 
> Court awards go up each year - one estimate I've seen is 8% for small awards and 12% for big awards. Court awards make up about 50% of the cost of motor claims.
> 
> ...


 
But the statement you quote was made in response to an earlier post (all originated in the laughable post #60 that seems to paint insurance companies as some kind of community service) that claimed the premium went up because the person had claimed (and was therefore more likely to claim in the future), not because the risk of an incident had changed.

This is patently nonsense - as GC points out, if the risk is unchanged, why should the premium change (inflation notwithstanding)? The fact that someone makes a claim for a third party accident tells you nothing about the likelihood of a future claim. Which tells us all what we already know - and which I think you are implying - which is that insurance companies are firstly in the business of making money (or at least to be fair, not losing money), and secondly in actually providing some kind of service.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> Ho ho ho.
> 
> Court awards go up each year - one estimate I've seen is 8% for small awards and 12% for big awards. Court awards make up about 50% of the cost of motor claims.
> 
> ...




My remarks in this matter have all related to a specific event and the unchanged risk thereof.
If you've any light to shed on my post in that context, please go ahead.

You do the reading.


GC


----------



## 400bhp (19 Nov 2012)

glasgowcyclist said:


> If premiums are calculated on risk and the risk doesn't change, the premium shouldn't either.
> It's no wonder people feel frustrated by insurers.
> 
> 
> GC


 
Sorry GC, I'm struggling to see the particular point that you were discussing (lost somewhere in the thread I guess). Can you show me the post/point?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Sorry GC, I'm struggling to see the particular point that you were discussing (lost somewhere in the thread I guess). Can you show me the post/point?




Sure, it started with subaqua's post #57 on page 3 and subsequent replies from Paul99.

GC


----------



## 400bhp (19 Nov 2012)

This?


> so imagine my surprise when my premiums went up after a tree fell on my car , whilst i wasn't even in the same town as the car. apparently in insurance eyes once something happens to you its likely to happen again and again. this is the same insurance company being talked anout in this thread. who don't really seem to be doing much to claim back the loss from the Council who own the tree. much easier to get any money back from your customers than do any work. am so glad that i got rid of my car now.


 
In isolation, it would be hard to accept yes.

However, it isn't clear whether the premium went up directly as a result of this or whether something else was at play (increased insurance premiums across the board for example)?


----------



## Recycle (19 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> Ah. Of course - Munich Re has 25% of Admiral's risk, doesn't it? But outside special deals like that, most reinsurers only see a tiny proportion of the biggest claims.


Don't know, I no longer work for them & wouldn't have a breakdown of their book of business anyway. I'm an IT geek who happens to have worked for a insurance company, not an insurance man.

In terms of claims, a reinsurer would see whatever share of claims it has agreed to re-insure. If you know anything about reinsurance you will know that there are many ways of slicing and dicing risk.


----------



## subaqua (19 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> The likelihood of it happening again remains exactly the same if you keep parking near trees.
> 
> If you win the lottery you have defied odds of 13,983,815/1. If you buy a ticket the following week the odds are exactly the same.


 
if the tree that fell on it is no longer there , how can that tree fall on it? and once you have a tree fall on you , you generally don't park under trees again. because you get bent over by insurance companies. as i said so glad i sold my car


----------



## subaqua (19 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> This?
> 
> 
> In isolation, it would be hard to accept yes.
> ...


 
the tree fall was around 8 hours before new policy kicked in. this was a friday, i had a letter on the Monday saying premium would be increasing from my renewal quote as i had made a claim. it was "only £78" but thats still a pi55take. I have had no communication from them in chasing the council for the excess i had to pay.

i do love the way insurance companies determine risk.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Nov 2012)

subaqua said:


> the tree fall was around 8 hours before new policy kicked in. this was a friday, i had a letter on the Monday saying premium would be increasing from my renewal quote as i had made a claim. it was "only £78" but thats still a pi55take. I have had no communication from them in chasing the council for the excess i had to pay.
> 
> i do love the way insurance companies determine risk.


 
Then they hadn't had a chance to ascertain the claim then? They increased it as you had lost some of a NCD? Without knowing the whole facts it's difficult to know the precise reasons why.

And why do you "love the way insurance companies determine risk"? You know a better way then.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Nov 2012)

subaqua said:


> if the tree that fell on it is no longer there , how can that tree fall on it? and once you have a tree fall on you , you generally don't park under trees again. because you get bent over by insurance companies. as i said so glad i sold my car


 
He said parking near trees, not that particular tree. If you don't generally park under trees then there is no risk of a tree falling on you, however if you do, the risk is as it was before the other tree fell on you.


----------



## Mr Celine (19 Nov 2012)

subaqua said:


> the tree fall was around 8 hours before new policy kicked in. this was a friday, i had a letter on the Monday saying premium would be increasing from my renewal quote as i had made a claim. it was "only £78" but thats still a pi55take. I have had no communication from them in chasing the council for the excess i had to pay.
> 
> i do love the way insurance companies determine risk.


 
Are you perhaps interpreting a no claim discount as a no blame discount? 

And out of interest, why is a tree falling on your car the council's fault?


----------



## subaqua (19 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Then they hadn't had a chance to ascertain the claim then? They increased it as you had lost some of a NCD? Without knowing the whole facts it's difficult to know the precise reasons why.
> 
> And why do you "love the way insurance companies determine risk"? You know a better way then.


 
protected NCD.

nope but you can't get a straight answer from them if you do ask how they calculate the risk.

Admiral are a bunch of http://www.amazon.co.uk/Forever-Odd...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353359468&sr=1-1


----------



## subaqua (19 Nov 2012)

Mr Celine said:


> Are you perhaps interpreting a no claim discount as a no blame discount?
> 
> And out of interest, why is a tree falling on your car the council's fault?


 

and i know the difference between no blame and no claim. Protected NCD here. although now i am out of the car use merry go round if i start again it will be back to zero like when i came out of the company car scheme to have my own vehicle- the insurance companies decided that despite me never claiming , not having any incidents that i was to start from scratch with NCD.
Shystrers is too nice a term for insurance companies.
because it was rotten to the core, in excess of 3 years counting remaining growth rings and councils have a duty of care to carry out tree inspections regularly. want to see some pictures?


----------



## subaqua (19 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> He said parking near trees, not that particular tree. If you don't generally park under trees then there is no risk of a tree falling on you, however if you do, the risk is as it was before the other tree fell on you.


 
so why should the policy cost go up if the risk is the same ?


----------



## Paul99 (19 Nov 2012)

Tha was crappy timing and unfortunately meant that you were not claim free so you have to accept that the quote you received originally was on the basis that you were claim free.

Nobody likes having to buy insurance. Myself included, especially car insurance as it is so expensive. Compared to the amount you pay for say buildings insurance it is almost a rip off. But you are most likely to make a claim on car insurance more than anything else in life as there are so many factors that have to be taken in to account, including other road users.

Peoples perceptions of insurers is bad because when you don't make a claim it seems like money down the drain, and when you do have to make a claim it's because something bad has happened to you or your property and you are usually not looking at the world with a normal level head.

I don't make out insurance to be some kind of public service as was mentioned earlier. If you have to make a large claim it's often the best money you have ever spent, and compared to having to fork out to replace a car or rebuild a house it's a bargain.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Nov 2012)

subaqua said:


> protected NCD.
> 
> nope but you can't get a straight answer from them if you do ask how they calculate the risk.


 
Yes that can be annoying. 

Putting banking to one side, the finance industry doesn't help itself sometimes, particularly explaining things clearly. I'm one of them [finance industry workers] and it bloody frustrates me. One of the issues is because it has a lot of people in the industry that like detail and whose job it is to examine detail, whereas the general populace don't [like or crave detail].


----------



## 400bhp (19 Nov 2012)

subaqua said:


> so why should the policy cost go up if the risk is the same ?


 
They might be assuming that you are more likely to claim for a number of reasons. For example you exhibit " moral hazard " characteristics, i.e. you are a person whose characteristics mean you would claim where others wouldn't for example, or for example you are more careless where you park etc etc. Please don't think I am personally castigating you as exhibiting those characterists, it's just that an insurer will group you with other people.

Or it might be that all premiums have increased, or it could be that your particular geodemographic profile has seen an increas or change of risk. etc etc etc.


----------



## subaqua (19 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Yes that can be annoying.
> 
> Putting banking to one side, the finance industry doesn't help itself sometimes, particularly explaining things clearly. I'm one of them [finance industry workers] and it bloody frustrates me. One of the issues is because it has a lot of people in the industry that like detail and whose job it is to examine detail, whereas the general populace don't [like or crave detail].


 
I love detail, people say the devil is in the detail but DI Sam Tyler in Life on Mars had it right- the god is in the detail.
I used small print detail against Admiral to ensure they chased the replacemenmt parts properly. they were going to instruct the repairers to cancel the order if it was delayed more than 8 weeks. luckily i had already had an offer in writing in the value of the vehicle, so i took it in its incomplete repaired state to the same dealer and got a new quote . it was rightly significantly less. i asked admiral how much i would receive in leiu of repair and the figure was a lot less than the difference in quotes. i provided them the info and asked if the ombusdsman would deem it a fair contract that i was left out of pocket. they changed minds very quickly on how long to wait for parts.


----------



## Mr Celine (19 Nov 2012)

subaqua said:


> because it was rotten to the core, in excess of 3 years counting remaining growth rings and councils have a duty of care to carry out tree inspections regularly. want to see some pictures?


 
If it was so obviously rotten why did you park under it?


----------



## growingvegetables (20 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> You see I could go along with that if the Auto insurance industry in the UK wasn't a complete & utter scam ...





Phaeton said:


> Auto insurance companies are SCUM, pure & simple, it's legalised shafting of the motoring public.


Hmm - just wondering if the shafting is quite so one way as you suggest?

"one out of every 140 people claiming for a whiplash injury each year."
"The number of personal injury claims on Britain's roads last year went up ... 18%, despite a fall in accidents and car damage claims."


----------



## cd365 (20 Nov 2012)

I think personally that people are making up these injuries to get recompense for how much their insurance will go up even though the accident wasn't their fault!


----------



## growingvegetables (20 Nov 2012)

cd365 said:


> ... to get recompense ...


By making everybody else's premiums go up?

Hmm - think I prefer the word "shafting"


----------



## GrasB (20 Nov 2012)

What I don't understand is this -
Driver A is stopped at red traffic lights waiting for them to go green
Driver B isn't paying attention to the road & drives into the back of driver A's car.
Driver B's insurance company takes 100% liability & pays for all costs for both parties.
When driver A news the insurance they find they've been levied with an extra 20% hike in premium due to their accident.

Why is this?


----------



## 400bhp (20 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> What I don't understand is this -
> Driver A is stopped at red traffic lights waiting for them to go green
> Driver B isn't paying attention to the road & drives into the back of driver A's car.
> Driver B's insurance company takes 100% liability & pays for all costs for both parties.
> ...


 
20% hike seems a lot. Are you sure it is directly as a result of the accident and also whether the increase in premium was after the settlement?


----------



## GrasB (20 Nov 2012)

Certainly on the on-line quotes it was about +20% for a no-fault claim yes this was post settlement.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Nov 2012)

same company before and after?


----------



## GrasB (20 Nov 2012)

We first went through & put all the details in forgetting about the collision. When reviewing we realised the incident wasn't included so went through the process again. Almost all insurance quotes were around +20% for a no fault collision.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Nov 2012)

I'm not sure the 20% is correct, (other things can be at play such as accumulation risk that insurance companies don't like) but let's assume there is a (marginal) increase in premium.

It is for the answer I alluded to up thread. They see you as a (marginally) greater risk of having an accident. They may classify you with drivers that are (strange as it might seem) perhaps overly cautious. Or it could be for the less obvious, such that you drive on roads with a higher accident risk.

I'm sure you want to say something along the lines of "yes but I...". The key is that the insurance company generally don't look at the "i" but pool you with other drivers they see as exhibiting similar characteristics.

By the way, I checked the above a few years ago with a colleague that comes up with the derivation of insurance premiums.


----------



## Phaeton (20 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> _I'm in a car park in a Berlingo van, starts to slowly reverse into a parking stop, next thing I know there is a car behind me, I get out & the guy to screaming & shouting at me, the nearside wing, front passenger door & rear passenger door of his car are all caved in. His nearside front wheel is turn hard to the left & is just touching my bumper, so I have not actually got as far as his car. But because I was reversing my insurance company wouldn't argue it, although the guy had been involved in the same accident 2 days earlier, he got paid out £5.5K the car was worth less that £500._
> 
> Next thing you know there is a car behind you? You were obviously reversing without looking where you were going. That aside, you were a victim of an insurance fraud and once again the value of the car/claim means little. This doesn't mean that the insurance company are scum. You would have had to pay them 5.5k if you didn't have any insurance, I think you should be grateful.


 
Completely incorrect, I was reversing off my mirrors, I knew there were children to my offside, I took my eyes from the NS mirror to check both the OS mirror & where the children were by which time he had deliberately driven around the back of me, did I mention the humpty loud reversing alarm on the van? I agree I was a VICTIM of a fraud, which the Insurance company knew about, as I told them & their solicitors & yes it does mean they are SCUM as they perpetuated the fraud.

I certainly wouldn't have had to pay the £5.5K as it would have been thrown out of court, £3K for whiplash, I was doing less than 1 mile an hour. £1.5K for car hire, he had 2 cars on hire at the time, one for each accident, amazingly his 'mate' owned the hire car firm. £700 for the POS Honda Civic of which I caused no damage whatsoever as the only thing I touched was an out turned tyre, he got paid out on that twice as well. Can't remember what the extra £200 was for, as to what it has cost me, so far in excess of £1500 in increased premiums & I had to sell a car as I wasn't insurable for reasonable costs on it.

Previous to this I have driven for over 30 years without EVER having an accident or making a claim, a FULL clean license for any vehicle that moves apart from a tracked vehicle, a member of the Advance Motorcyclists, so please don't tell me I don't know how to drive. This was over 3 years ago & I bet you can tell I am still angry about it, I was the VICTIM yet got screwed royally but the scum insurance company.

Sorry OP but I think my views on why Admiral are trying to screw over their customers is clearly evident, they don't give a toss about customers, all that matters is the bottom line,

And BREATHE...............Rant over.........

Alan...


----------



## Nortones2 (20 Nov 2012)

Amazing that the Ins Co rolled over on that. But maybe not: http://www.roadhawk.co.uk/blog/crash-for-cash-terrorism-links/

Headline: "Crash for cash suspects killed in Drone Strike"

There is a small industry involved in this fraud, some of which might well be linked to other circles! And sometimes there is a happy ending as above. But only if the police investigate. Something they aren't all alert to, whether terrorists are involved or not. Just yer ordinary criminal families.


----------



## cloggsy (20 Nov 2012)

My question is, how will insurance companies know if you have been on a 'speed awareness course' if you don't declare it? The Police won't issue this information to insurers would they? I thought the whole point for paying to go on a speed awareness course was to negate the points going onto your license?


----------



## Phaeton (20 Nov 2012)

cloggsy said:


> My question is, how will insurance companies know if you have been on a 'speed awareness course' if you don't declare it? The Police won't issue this information to insurers would they? I thought the whole point for paying to go on a speed awareness course was to negate the points going onto your license?


Possibly a subtle rewording of the application form, which if you say 'no' to invalidates your insurance.

Alan...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> Can't remember what the extra £200 was for, as to what it has cost me, so far in excess of £1500 in increased premiums & I had to sell a car as I wasn't insurable for reasonable costs on it.


 
An accident three years ago has cost you an avg of £500 pa in increased premiums. Have I understood that correctly?

I take it you weren't, and aren't, driving a group A car then?


----------



## Paul99 (20 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> Completely incorrect, I was reversing off my mirrors, I knew there were children to my offside, I took my eyes from the NS mirror to check both the OS mirror & where the children were by which time he had deliberately driven around the back of me, did I mention the humpty loud reversing alarm on the van? I agree I was a VICTIM of a fraud, which the Insurance company knew about, as I told them & their solicitors & yes it does mean they are SCUM as they perpetuated the fraud.quote]
> 
> *What did the police say about this? I assume you called the police. He must have been some driver to deliberately drive around the back of you and stop so that his nearside wheel was just touching your bumper, in what? the two seconds you were checking on the kids? The reversing alarm is irrelevant. When you are reversing you do not automatically have right of way.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Archie_tect (20 Nov 2012)

Being caught speeding is the key to the insurance query from the OP. Seems fair to me.


----------



## Phaeton (20 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I take it you weren't, and aren't, driving a group A car then?


No they are/were gas guzzling Japanese 'performance' cars MR2 Turbo, Nissan Skyline, Subaru Impreza, 1st 2 have now gone, we are actually down to 3 cars between the 2 of us (forget the motorbikes), assuming I don't fetch another one this weekend I fancy.



Paul99 said:


> *What did the police say about this? I assume you called the police. He must have been some driver to deliberately drive around the back of you and stop so that his nearside wheel was just touching your bumper, in what? the two seconds you were checking on the kids? The reversing alarm is irrelevant. When you are reversing you do not automatically have right of way.*


I don't think he intended to actually get the tyre to touch the car, I think the intention was that I was supposed to hit the car properly, as for the Police they refused to come out, as it was in a car park on private property & supposedly there was no injuries. 



Paul99 said:


> *So you know for sure that you would have been able to beat them in court then? It would have still have cost you a damn sight more than your insurance premium to hire legal counsel for a court appearance. .*


You are correct I do't know I would have won, but I believe once an impartial judge had seen the evidence 1 man involved in the same accident 2 days apart, with no damage to my vehicle whatsoever I believe he would have judged in my favour



Paul99 said:


> *I've no doubt you were the victim of a fraud here, but the insurance company didn't screw you over, the fraudster did.*


We clearly have different views on this Paul, this was fraud, the insurance company knew it was fraud yet they still paid out, it's just wrong, so sorry but until they clean up their act on both the premiums & the cosy relationships they have with bodyshops then in my mind they are scum.

Alan..


----------



## davefb (20 Nov 2012)

Theres no incentive for them(insurance) to investigate...

thats how come the 'run into the back' lads got away with it for so long. there was no reason for the insurers to investigate.. in fact it will cost them money whereas just charging people inflated costs and not doing any checking will mean more money for them..


----------



## Paul99 (20 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> We clearly have different views on this Paul, this was fraud, the insurance company knew it was fraud yet they still paid out, it's just wrong, so sorry but until they clean up their act on both the premiums & the cosy relationships they have with bodyshops then in my mind they are scum.
> 
> Alan..


 
Our views are actually the same. It was fraud, the insurance company knew it was fraud.

But it would still have cost them substantially more to investigate and litigate than it would to pay the claim and the effect on your insurance premium would be exactly the same for the reasons 400BHP has stated a couple of times, being a victim of fraud or an innocent party in an accident changes your demographic and the insurers risk perception of you so you get higher premiums.


----------



## Archie_tect (20 Nov 2012)

Aviva paid out £1700 for repairs, plus a further undisclosed sum for whiplash and lost earnings, to a taxi driver with whom my son had an 'accident' when changing lanes while crossing the Tyne Bridge.

The taxi driver had positioned his taxi in my son's blind spot, I'm quite convinced it was deliberate, but there was no excuse for my son's negligence in not checking properly. However the taxi driver made no attempt to warn of his presence, slow down or brake or avoid the coming together of his front bumper and our rear door, and allowed my son to pull over into his lane- the accident causing a small scuff in the paint off a plastic strip on the rear door our car.

The taxi driver claimed for a complete new bumper, respray, headlight assembly and then for whiplash, lost earnings, and hire of a replacement vehicle. My son and the four occupants in our car felt no impact at all.

I repeatedly told Aviva that the taxi-driver was making a fraudulent claim but they weren't interested. However though it was logged as my son's fault, when it had all been sorted out they didn't log it as a claim against our insurance, despite me emailing them to double-check and we had paid for our own repair, ie touched up the plastic protector strip on the door!

I'm totally convinced taxi-drivers are on the make as I've since heard of 3 similar accidents. Whiplash in one case being caused by a reverse from a parking space causing a dint in the rear door side of a taxi that was parked opposite the parking space at the time.


----------



## davefb (20 Nov 2012)

mind you...
my sister in law hit a parked car... (fantastic piece of driving....).. she was investigated for 'without due care', and had a 2 inch dint in the passenger door from the incident..
she "got away with it" because when the claim came in from the other party, they'd had 3 wings damaged and extra damage.... and it *was* thrown out..
this was a few years back though, so maybe we're back to "it not being in the companies interest" attitude which seems to be the case nowadays..




gah, need to have a bike ride to chill-ax


----------



## subaqua (20 Nov 2012)

Mr Celine said:


> If it was so obviously rotten why did you park under it?


 
i didn't. the vehicle was put there when it was moved by the council to access a gulley as part of "emergency" works


----------



## srw (21 Nov 2012)

Buddfox said:


> The fact that someone makes a claim for a third party accident tells you nothing about the likelihood of a future claim.


 The statistics prove you wrong.


----------



## srw (21 Nov 2012)

Recycle said:


> If you know anything about reinsurance


 I know something...

Most insurance companies simply use reinsurers to cap their liabilities.


----------



## srw (21 Nov 2012)

davefb said:


> Theres no incentive for them(insurance) to investigate...


 
No, of course not.
http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/insurance-fraud-hits-1bn-year
And that's just what the insurance companies managed to uncover.


----------



## Recycle (21 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> I know something...
> 
> Most insurance companies simply use reinsurers to cap their liabilities.


Indeed. That's the game of risk. The reinsurer places a bet that it can profit from the desire of the direct insurer to to do that.


----------



## GrasB (21 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> I'm not sure the 20% is correct, (other things can be at play such as accumulation risk that insurance companies don't like) but let's assume there is a (marginal) increase in premium.


It was about 20% (previous year was ~£380, compared to the renewal of ~£480, I write off a ~5%/year increase as insurance inflation), would the fact that the car was heavily modified have any impact on it?


----------



## 400bhp (21 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> It was about 20% (previous year was ~£380, compared to the renewal of ~£480, I write off a ~5%/year increase as insurance inflation), would the fact that the car was heavily modified have any impact on it?


 
It's very difficult to comment without knowing the full information, but generally I would say yes it would. @SRW will know more about this than me but I would guess modified cars will see greater variability in premium prices year on year than non modded cars (e.g. smaller market, more factors for the insurer to consider, more bespoke/underwriting needed)


----------



## Buddfox (21 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> The statistics prove you wrong.


 
Sorry, I should have said "accident" not "claim". Due to the pricing power of the no claims discount there is limited link between the two.


----------



## Drago (21 Nov 2012)

My eldest daughter used to hoon about. One day some laddo pulled out in front of her from a sideroad so sharply that she sailed up his arriss.

Fortunately, it turned out he had no driving licence so by default it got written up as his fault as his very presence was unlawful, but it hammered home the lesson of slowing down a bit and anticipating twots, and touch wood she's been much better lately.

All the insurers have to contribute to the Motor Insurers Bureau to cover uninsured losses like this, another reason prices are so high.


----------



## srw (21 Nov 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Sorry, I should have said "accident" not "claim". Due to the pricing power of the no claims discount there is limited link between the two.


Again.... the statistics prove you wrong.

Motor insurance is so competitive that if an insurer could really get away without loading premiums for non-fault claims someone would have done so - and everyone else would have to follow suit. The fact that premiums are loaded is in itself evidence that people who have made non-fault claims are more expensive as a class.

Look up anti-selection if you don't believe me.


----------



## Buddfox (21 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> Again.... the statistics prove you wrong.
> 
> Motor insurance is so competitive that if an insurer could really get away without loading premiums for non-fault claims someone would have done so - and everyone else would have to follow suit. The fact that premiums are loaded is in itself evidence that people who have made non-fault claims are more expensive as a class.
> 
> Look up anti-selection if you don't believe me.


 
Apologies to all if this is drifting off topic, it's a subject I find academically interesting and enjoy the debate. I can see your point regarding anti-selection, but I'm not sure that's how the customer perceives it, leading to the bad feelings described above.

I can see no intuitive reason why the following analysis is incorrect (illustrative example and figures used):

- I am in my car and rear-ended via a four vehicle shunt. The car behind me broke late, thus causing the bus two vehicles back to commence the shunt
- I assess the damage to both my vehicle and myself
- I conclude that the cost of repairs would be £300
- the excess on my insurance policy is £250, therefore all else being equal I would have some interest in making a claim
- I determine that by making a claim I would possibly lose my no-claims bonus of 8 years (if not protected), and I would have increased premia in any event, which would have a total net present value cost to me of at least £500
- I therefore choose not to claim and my cost of insurance remains unchanged

Why am I at any higher risk of the same scenario occurring a week later? I am not - hence I the risk associated with insuring me is no different. When I initially said "claim", I think you are correct. If someone has a propensity to claim, then indeed they should be charged higher premia. But in this limited example, it has no link to their actual risk as a driver. But when an insurance company increases someone's premium, the customer assumes they are being described as higher risk. They are not, they are being assessed as a more expensive customer. Which comes back to the earlier point made that insurance companies do not do a good job of explaining their pricing, which in turn generates anti-insurance company feeling (particularly as it is a legal requirement, which forces people to be subject to the impact of anti-selection).

Having a no-fault accident tells us nothing about someone's likelihood of being involved in a further no-fault accident. But an insurance company's pricing indicates otherwise.


----------



## 400bhp (21 Nov 2012)

Buddfox - read my earlier posts.


----------



## srw (21 Nov 2012)

Buddfox said:


> I


That's where your scenario falls over. Insurance is always about "we".

I agree, incidentally, that the industry doesn't always do the best job about explaining itself to the customer.


----------



## GrasB (21 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> It's very difficult to comment without knowing the full information, but generally I would say yes it would. @SRW will know more about this than me but I would guess modified cars will see greater variability in premium prices year on year than non modded cars (e.g. smaller market, more factors for the insurer to consider, more bespoke/underwriting needed)


Actually I've found insurance premiums on my cars to go up very smoothly over the years. Changing modifications obviously can have some rather dramatic effects on premiums, but once modifications are stable the insurance prices tend to be stable as well.


----------



## Paul99 (21 Nov 2012)

Buddfox said:


> *But in this limited example*, it has no link to their actual risk as a driver. But when an insurance company increases someone's premium, the customer assumes they are being described as higher risk. They are not, they are being assessed as a more expensive customer.
> Having a no-fault accident tells us nothing about someone's likelihood of being involved in a further no-fault accident. But an insurance company's pricing indicates otherwise.


 
*This is the problem*. You can all sit here forever giving one off examples, but there are millions of customers, thousands of claims. If you want to be treated like an individual to the extent that should you be involved in a no fault accident then they will assess your liklihood of being involved in further accidents, past driving history etc, then the premium you initially pay will be far, far greater than it is. This kind of personal consideration would be prohibitive in cost, and the cost would be passed onto you the customer.

As it is computer models are used, they are generally fair. Some people benefit, others lose out a bit. Because car insurance is required by law, the industry is regulated. Very heavily. This means that you will not be ripped off, they can't just charge what they like. They don't have to justify it to the customer but they do have to justify it to the regulators. Why do you think the insurance companies are complaining about the forthcoming change to the equality laws which will force them to increase the price for female drivers. They don't want to, they know women are less like to be involved in an accident and it won't reflect the risk that they bring to the pool.

There has to be some line. If you are involved in an accident, fault or no fault, it will affect your premium negatively.

I've yet to see a 100% blameless example be posted here yet anyway, and just a heads up to those people that think by not making a claim they don't have to declare that they have been in an accident. Read your T&C's, you'll find that you probably do.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> Actually I've found insurance premiums on my cars to go up very smoothly over the years. Changing modifications obviously can have some rather dramatic effects on premiums, but once modifications are stable the insurance prices tend to be stable as well.


I've never gone down the mods route on four wheels. I've owned a few breathed on European motorbikes in my time. Every time I declared the modifications; head porting and skim jobs, racier cams, bigger carbs, free-er breathing exhausts, dyno tests showing improved HP at the wheel and every time they've gone "It's a classic bike policy, sir you're over forty, sir, thanks for letting us know sir, no change in premium sir, carry on sir." much to my delight.


----------



## Buddfox (21 Nov 2012)

Criticism of the scenario and the I vs we position absolutely accepted. There is no other pragmatic way to do it other than computer modelling. But as I think we're all agreeing, the consequence of this is people developing negative perceptions of insurance companies and how they determine what they charge.

Which brings us back to where the thread originally started - i.e. an insurance company increasing their premia when some believe they shouldn't.

Precisely because car insurance is legally required, it almost becomes like a tax on driving, and one which can become very expensive for reasons which are not immediately apparent (posts passim). Recent moves to regulate the industry differently to bring down premia are a welcome initiative (if indeed they work) but cynics will rightly assume that insurance companies won't bring down their premia as much as they could - hopefully the assertion that the market is so competitive, this is what will actually happen. Some would argue that we have a broken system if the price of insurance actually prevents people from buying a car (which I believe it does). Where I am able and I don't agree with how insurers price risk (e.g. home contents) I don't have insurance and am willing to take the risk myself. Problem is you can't do that with a car - but it's interesting that more and more people do by driving without insurance.


----------



## Nortones2 (21 Nov 2012)

*


Paul99 said:



regulated. Very heavily. This means that you will not be ripped off, they can't just charge what they like. They don't have to justify it to the customer but they do have to justify it to the regulators. ]

Click to expand...

*


Paul99 said:


> I'm very surprised by that assertion. When has the "regulator" top-limited premiums? They seem to be able to charge quite high premiums, or decline to quote, for inexperienced drivers. Not that it necessarily unjust, but I don't recall any curb on the underwriters activities in setting whatever the market will bear, or indeed not offering cover.


----------



## campbellab (21 Nov 2012)

Car insurance market will collapse when car safety market revolutionises safety on the roads over the coming 10, 20, 30 years?


----------



## srw (21 Nov 2012)

campbellab said:


> Car insurance market will collapse when car safety market revolutionises safety on the roads over the coming 10, 20, 30 years?


The car insurance market won't collapse until the last car is off the roads. No amount of high-tech safety equipment can make a car so safe that it can't possibly injure someone else.


----------



## 400bhp (21 Nov 2012)

Or can't be stolen.

Or can't set on fire.


----------



## campbellab (21 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> The car insurance market won't collapse until the last car is off the roads. No amount of high-tech safety equipment can make a car so safe that it can't possibly injure someone else.


 
In my opinion when we have fully automated cars there'll be a huge drop in road casualties. There may be some accidents, but they'll be much fewer.

But to get to a state where cars are fully automated governments cant leave liability with drivers for accidents. They either have to put blame on the manufacturer, or no blame and tight regulation.

Blame on the manufacturer will stop manufacturers selling automatic cars (unless they take out huge insurance to cover any accidents automatic vehicles cause - but this wont be the same as the current car insurance industry).

Theres a lot of traction in this area at the moment: http://www.techradar.com/news/car-tech/are-self-driving-cars-really-the-future-1093368


----------



## campbellab (21 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Or can't be stolen.
> 
> Or can't set on fire.


 
You only need third party insurance no legal requirement for fire and theft. I speculate these probably only make up a small % of current claims compared to injury claims etc.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Nov 2012)

I think it's around 20% property damage/80% liability, but srw will know.

If (and it's a big if) the telematrics stuff took off then car insurance may become a little more like catastrophe insurance. Much smaller chance of an accident but a much greater average payout (cost of fixing cars much much more expensive).

We digress...


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

Nortones2 said:


> *I'm very surprised by that assertion. When has the "regulator" top-limited premiums?* They seem to be able to charge quite high premiums, or decline to quote, for inexperienced drivers. Not that it necessarily unjust, but I don't recall any curb on the underwriters activities in setting whatever the market will bear, or indeed not offering cover.​




They haven't, and I didn't assert that they had. They would though if suddenly the insurance market started charging ridiculous and unfair premium to all drivers for motor third party insurance which is the legal minimum.

The fact that they haven't yet, and likely will never need to, rather proves my point that the premiums charged and they way they are calculated are generally fair.​


----------



## Phaeton (22 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> ​​They haven't, and I didn't assert that they had. They would though if suddenly the insurance market started charging ridiculous and unfair premium to all drivers for motor third party insurance which is the legal minimum.​​The fact that they haven't yet, and likely will never need to, rather proves my point that the premiums charged and they way they are calculated are generally fair.​


But they have, at one point 3rd party could/would be approximately 50-60% of 'Fully Comprehensive' now there is little difference in fact my son was quoted more for 3rd party than FC which even the chicken on the phone couldn't work out.

Alan...


----------



## doug (22 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> But they have, at one point 3rd party could/would be approximately 50-60% of 'Fully Comprehensive' now there is little difference in fact my son was quoted more for 3rd party than FC which even the chicken on the phone couldn't work out.
> 
> Alan...


 

I think their statistical models may show that drivers who take out 3rd party are generally higher risk drivers than those that take out FC, so although they are insuring for less contingencies the risk is higher and so the premium may not be reduced as much as you may think - or in your son's case increased instead of reduced!


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> But they have, at one point 3rd party could/would be approximately 50-60% of 'Fully Comprehensive' now there is little difference in fact my son was quoted more for 3rd party than FC which even the chicken on the phone couldn't work out.
> 
> Alan...


They haven't intervened. At one point 3rd party _was_ about half the cost of FC. Then the personal injury claims went through the roof and as such there was no real difference between the amount being paid in claims for 3rd party and comp so the premiums have achieved near parity.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Nov 2012)

Paul,

I understand your point, but if that were the case, then it should not make any difference in the premium no matter what car I drive, the premium should be the same for a Toyota Yaris/BMW Mini Cooper/Ford Mundeo, if you are hedging against injury claims then as the Insurance company is not going to repair my vehicle what does it matter to them.

Alan...


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

Alan,

Cost wise it really doesn't matter what car you are driving for the cost of repair or replacement (obviously there are extremes Bentley, Ferrari etc) but the statistics will probably show that drivers of say a Nissan Skyline (did you see what I did there) are far more likely to be involved in an accident e.g 1 in 10 than a Nissan Micra e.g. 1 in 100 so the liklihood is increased, so is the premium. That can be purely down to the number on the road but there has to be a standard way of working it out. Like I said earlier it's unfair on some, fairer on others but generally fair.

Younger drivers, especially younger male drivers are smashed to bits on their insurance premium because of the 3rd party element. They are far more likely to be involved in an accident and an accident that will involve injury to 3rd parties e.g the friends in the car.

A claim where there are a couple of people receiving life changing injuries can potentially run into the millions.

Just in case anyone was wondering I don't work in motor insurance, I don't want anyone thinking i'm one of _them_.


----------



## campbellab (22 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> Alan,
> 
> Cost wise it really doesn't matter what car you are driving for the cost of repair or replacement (obviously there are extremes Bentley, Ferrari etc) but the statistics will probably show that drivers of say a Nissan Skyline (did you see what I did there) are far more likely to be involved in an accident e.g 1 in 10 than a Nissan Micra e.g. 1 in 100 so the liklihood is increased, so is the premium. That can be purely down to the number on the road but there has to be a standard way of working it out. Like I said earlier it's unfair on some, fairer on others but generally fair.
> 
> ...


 
Smaller engine, less likely to be driven fast, less likely to cause injuries, probably some statistical anomalies around Boy Racer type Corsas etc


----------



## 400bhp (22 Nov 2012)

campbellab said:


> Smaller engine, less likely to be driven fast, less likely to cause injuries, *probably some statistical anomalies around Boy Racer type Corsas etc*


 
You heard of the accident hump?


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

campbellab said:


> Smaller engine, less likely to be driven fast, less likely to cause injuries, probably some statistical anomalies around Boy Racer type Corsas etc


 
Which is why the premium pricing is *not* *purely based on the car*. Boy Racer types tend to be young males. Do keep up.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> Just in case anyone was wondering I don't work in motor insurance, I don't want anyone thinking i'm one of _them_.


 
What do you work in?


----------



## campbellab (22 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> You heard of the accident hump?


 
I have now


----------



## campbellab (22 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> Which is why the premium pricing is *not* *purely based on the car*. Boy Racer types tend to be young males. Do keep up.


 
I know that ( I was agreeing with your post), but Corsas in the same engine range as Micras are probably going to be higher risk because they are considered 'cooler*/sportier' across all demographics and driven faster.

*not my opinion!


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> What do you work in?


I work for a Lloyds Underwriter and have worked for both brokers and underwriters in the London Market for the last 24 years.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Nov 2012)

campbellab said:


> Smaller engine, less likely to be driven fast, less likely to cause injuries, probably some statistical anomalies around Boy Racer type Corsas etc


I'm afraid I disagree with that also, for the past 10 years my wife's cars have always had over 250BHP (pub numbers) I don't drive them any differently on the road to my diesel Megane that I go to work in, I still obey the speed limits, drive with due care & attention, I may occasionally do an overtake that I wouldn't in the Megane but that is because they are able to .

But this brings me onto another one of my pet hates about Auto Insurers (see what I did there Paul  ) it is me they are insuring really not the car. I should be able to decide what level of vehicle I want to be able to drive, pay the premium for that level & then be able to drive any car no matter who it belongs to. If I want to own 5 cars, each one should not have to be insured, I should be able to choose which car I want to drive & be covered by MY insurance, if I'm the risk what's the problem.

Alan...


----------



## 400bhp (22 Nov 2012)

I
I
I
I

NO

WE
WE
WE
WE


----------



## campbellab (22 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> I'm afraid I disagree with that also, for the past 10 years my wife's cars have always had over 250BHP (pub numbers) I don't drive them any differently on the road to my diesel Megane that I go to work in, I still obey the speed limits, drive with due care & attention, I may occasionally do an overtake that I wouldn't in the Megane but that is because they are able to .


 
You're thinking of yourself, but thats not statistically significant unfortunatly.



> But this brings me onto another one of my pet hates about Auto Insurers (see what I did there Paul  ) it is me they are insuring really not the car. I should be able to decide what level of vehicle I want to be able to drive, pay the premium for that level & then be able to drive any car no matter who it belongs to. If I want to own 5 cars, each one should not have to be insured, I should be able to choose which car I want to drive & be covered by MY insurance, if I'm the risk what's the problem.
> 
> Alan...


 
You normally get third party insurance (on fully comp insurance) on other vehicles so you can drive them legally and be covered by your own insurance - check the paperwork (although I guess this doesn't allow you to get a tax renewal).


----------



## Phaeton (22 Nov 2012)

campbellab said:


> You normally get third party insurance (on fully comp insurance) on other vehicles so you can drive them legally and be covered by your own insurance - check the paperwork (although I guess this doesn't allow you to get a tax renewal).


But the vehicle also has to be insured in it's own right as well

VED is irrelevant as that should also be scrapped & the duty added to the fuel duty (I can dream of my own utopian world)

Alan...


----------



## campbellab (22 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> But the vehicle also has to be insured in it's own right as well
> 
> VED is irrelevant as that should also be scrapped & the duty added to the fuel duty (I can dream of my own utopian world)
> 
> Alan...


 
But thats government restriction not the auto insurers


----------



## Phaeton (22 Nov 2012)

campbellab said:


> You're thinking of yourself, but thats not statistically significant unfortunatly.


Sorry meant to add that's the whole point, I am not a statistic I am a person

Alan..


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> But this brings me onto another one of my pet hates about Auto Insurers (see what I did there Paul  ) it is me they are insuring really not the car. I should be able to decide what level of vehicle I want to be able to drive, pay the premium for that level & then be able to drive any car no matter who it belongs to. If I want to own 5 cars, each one should not have to be insured, I should be able to choose which car I want to drive & be covered by MY insurance, if I'm the risk what's the problem.
> 
> Alan...


 
It's a bit of you and a bit of the car and a bit of where you live and a bit of what you use the car for and a bit of where you park it and a bit of how much you use it.......can you see where I am going here?

If it was as simple as Nissan Micra? £100. Nissan Skyline? £1000 or 17yo Lad? £3000 42 yo Female Librarian? £200 then it would all be very simple but it's not.

If you want to own 5 cars and they all get destroyed when your garage catches fire, or they all get stolen because they are desirable to thieves high performance sports cars then the total replacement is going to be a six figure sum as opposed to you owning just the one which cost 10k.. risk higher, premium higher...


----------



## Phaeton (22 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> It's a bit of you and a bit of the car and a bit of where you live and a bit of what you use the car for and a bit of where you park it and a bit of how much you use it.......can you see where I am going here?
> 
> If it was as simple as Nissan Micra? £100. Nissan Skyline? £1000 or 17yo Lad? £3000 42 yo Female Librarian? £200 then it would all be very simple but it's not.
> 
> If you want to own 5 cars and they all get destroyed when your garage catches fire, or they all get stolen because they are desirable to thieves high performance sports cars then the total replacement is going to be a six figure sum as opposed to you owning just the one which cost 10k.. risk higher, premium higher...


Not if they are all just 3rd party, logically it would make no difference at all, as I am taking the risk

EDIT:- Sorry I didn't mean if they were 3rd party as they are not insured, but when I was driving them they would be 3rd party

Alan..


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> Not if they are all just 3rd party, logically it would make no difference at all, as I am taking the risk
> 
> EDIT:- Sorry I didn't mean if they were 3rd party as they are not insured, but when I was driving them they would be 3rd party
> 
> Alan..


 
But somebody must own them and have them insured that is the law not insurers policy.

Uninsured vehicles
*Rules in England, Wales and Scotland*

The rules for insuring vehicles are called ‘continuous insurance enforcement’. They mean that if you’re the registered keeper of a vehicle it must be insured or declared as off the road (SORN).
If not, you could:

get a fixed penalty of £100
have your vehicle wheel-clamped, impounded or destroyed
face a court prosecution, with a possible maximum fine of £1,000
It doesn’t matter who is driving the car - if you’re the registered keeper, you could get penalised.

You are quite right that if you are fully comp on another car then on most policies it will allow you to drive any other vehicle with 3rd party cover. You shouldn't notice much if any difference in your premium for this benefit, but you would have to be fully comp on another car and somebody must have insured the other vehicle.


----------



## Nortones2 (22 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> ​They haven't, and I didn't assert that they had. They would though if suddenly the insurance market started charging ridiculous and unfair premium to all drivers for motor third party insurance which is the legal minimum.​​The fact that they haven't yet, and likely will never need to, rather proves my point that the premiums charged and they way they are calculated are generally fair.​


 This is what you said. "Because car insurance is required by law, the industry is regulated. Very heavily. This means that you will not be ripped off, they can't just charge what they like. They don't have to justify it to the customer but they do have to justify it to the regulators." That to me sounds like a statement that the regulator intervenes and keeps premia level-ish. Clearly they do not. I don't think it's the regulators job in any event. Its a marketing decision about price - not for Government! I've had significant differences between quotations (clean license, nothing too rare/hairy, no mods) when I have shopped around. I believe that youngsters have more marked differences. Perhaps you'd like to amend the paragraph quoted?


----------



## GrasB (22 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I've never gone down the mods route on four wheels. I've owned a few breathed on European motorbikes in my time. Every time I declared the modifications; head porting and skim jobs, racier cams, bigger carbs, free-er breathing exhausts, dyno tests showing improved HP at the wheel and every time they've gone "It's a classic bike policy, sir you're over forty, sir, thanks for letting us know sir, no change in premium sir, carry on sir." much to my delight.


 
Me: The modifications are 14" alloy wheels worth £375 , uprated brakes from a Punto GT, limited slip diff...
Broker: So how much extra horse power is that?
Me: 113bhp
Broker: Okay. 113 total so tha.... 
Me: No, that's 113 extra, not total
Broker: 113 EXTRA?!
Me: Yes, 113 extra for a total of 167
Broker:  Okaayyy. I don't know how to deal with this quote! *pause* Can I call you back in 2 hours?
...
Actually came back with quite a reasonable quote.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> Me: The modifications are 14" alloy wheels worth £375 , uprated brakes from a Punto GT, limited slip diff...
> Broker: So how much extra horse power is that?
> Me: 113bhp
> Broker: Okay. 113 total so tha....
> ...


out of interest what was the recipient car?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> Sorry meant to add that's the whole point, I am not a statistic I am a person
> 
> Alan..


Drive old 'classic' powerful cars and for the most part your multi-vehicle insurance nirvana is already here.


----------



## GrasB (22 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> out of interest what was the recipient car?


Fiat Cinquecento Sporting. It started life as a 54bhp town car with a bit of zip but ended up a fair bit quicker & lighter.


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

Nortones2 said:


> This is what you said. "Because car insurance is required by law, the industry is regulated. Very heavily. This means that you will not be ripped off, they can't just charge what they like. They don't have to justify it to the customer but they do have to justify it to the regulators." That to me sounds like a statement that the regulator intervenes and keeps premia level-ish. Clearly they do not. I don't think it's the regulators job in any event. Its a marketing decision about price - not for Government! I've had significant differences between quotations (clean license, nothing too rare/hairy, no mods) when I have shopped around. I believe that youngsters have more marked differences. Perhaps you'd like to amend the paragraph quoted?


 
No I don't think I will amend it, but I will explain what I meant better for you I hope. If the insurers all said that we will charge a minimum of £5000 for the lowest level of cover for people with an exemplary driving record escalating rapidly for anyone else. Do you not think that the regulator will step in and say "oh no you won't"?

The regulators are constantly reviewing insurers making sure that they are pricing risks sensibly and making sure that their assets cover their liabilities etc

Of course you get significant differences between quotes, if the insurer has enough of your demographic in their portfolio then they will take you on for an increased premium because in doing so it increases their chances of claims in that demographic. They have to spread their bets, so to speak. So where you get a cheaper quote it is because they have enough younger drivers paying a high premium and they want some nice sensible drivers for a lower premium to spread the risk. Does that make sense?


----------



## Phaeton (22 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> But somebody must own them and have them insured that is the law not insurers policy..


But insurance companies have the power to lobby Government I do not

Alan...


----------



## srw (22 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> Sorry meant to add that's the whole point, I am not a statistic I am a person
> 
> Alan..


 Once upon a time it was possible to get away without buying car insurance if you put up a large enough bond (of the order of several hundred thousand). I don't think it is any more, I'm afraid.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> *Fiat Cinquecento Sporting*. It started life as a 54bhp town car with a bit of zip but ended up a fair bit quicker & lighter.


I was hoping you'd say that. What lump went in?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> Once upon a time it was possible to get away without buying car insurance if you put up a large enough bond (of the order of several hundred thousand). I don't think it is any more, I'm afraid.


Don't a good few self insure or is it all done through captives these days?


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> Once upon a time it was possible to get away without buying car insurance if you put up a large enough bond (of the order of several hundred thousand). I don't think it is any more, I'm afraid.


It is still possible for a mere £500,000 bond.


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> But insurance companies have the power to lobby Government I do not
> 
> Alan...


Alan, the law is there to protect you believe it or not.


----------



## davefb (22 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> No, of course not.
> http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/insurance-fraud-hits-1bn-year
> And that's just what the insurance companies managed to uncover.


no, that shows fraud is serious...
there is no incentive because the insurers take this cost from the customers .
compare the 1bn a YEAR with what they'd uncovered.
even the insane , went on for YEARS scam they uncovered, was only 3.2million.

and I recently found out one of the guys is in my postcode. which might explain some mad quotes!

mind you, lets hope their new 'actually bothering to check' system might help matters


----------



## GrasB (22 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I was hoping you'd say that. What lump went in?


The good ole 1242cc 8v conversion. You know the one, bolt for bolt drop in from a Mk 1 Punto.


----------



## Nortones2 (22 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> No I don't think I will amend it, but I will explain what I meant better for you I hope. If the insurers all said that we will charge a minimum of £5000 for the lowest level of cover for people with an exemplary driving record escalating rapidly for anyone else. Do you not think that the regulator will step in and say "oh no you won't"?
> 
> The regulators are constantly reviewing insurers making sure that they are pricing risks sensibly and making sure that their assets cover their liabilities etc
> 
> Of course you get significant differences between quotes, if the insurer has enough of your demographic in their portfolio then they will take you on for an increased premium because in doing so it increases their chances of claims in that demographic. They have to spread their bets, so to speak. So where you get a cheaper quote it is because they have enough younger drivers paying a high premium and they want some nice sensible drivers for a lower premium to spread the risk. Does that make sense?


 
For all insurers to act together, in your example, would be collusion and illegal. So within the real world, insurers can charge what they think the market will bear. This is nonsense "if the insurer has enough of your demographic in their portfolio then they will take you on for an increased premium because in doing so it increases their chances of claims in that demographic." Price out a low risk in a low risk area because they have enough low risk clients and would prefer a few boy-racers or other sub-standard risks? Absurd. As for assets and liabilities, the MIB and the Financial Services Compensation scheme fund rescue packages for those policy holders whose insurers have gone bust, and for those who will do so in future. The FSA will let the failures fail. Even Names go bankrupt!


----------



## srw (22 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Don't a good few self insure or is it all done through captives these days?


It's mainly done through captives, I think - it's been a while since I was involved operationally. Alternatively you can get a ground-up policy and some sort of indemnity or pre-funding. You still need an insurer to take the top slice - no sane company would want unlimited liability.


----------



## srw (22 Nov 2012)

davefb said:


> no, that shows fraud is serious...
> there is no incentive because the insurers take this cost from the customers .
> compare the 1bn a YEAR with what they'd uncovered.
> even the insane , went on for YEARS scam they uncovered, was only 3.2million.
> ...


 If I've understood you right, you need to read the link. The £1bn fraud is what the insurers have uncovered. And stopped. And saved you in premiums.


----------



## davefb (22 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> If I've understood you right, you need to read the link. The £1bn fraud is what the insurers have uncovered. And stopped. And saved you in premiums.


 
maybe i just don't believe them! (though see what you mean now  ). 

it was the response to the a34 rear end scam. the insurers did *nothing* , until an independent had taken video footage.. the police claimed they couldn't get involved because the insurers weren't reporting fraud, the insurers it *seemed* just shrugged and took the monies..
the poor saps who tapped the rear ends of the cars, just ended up paying out..

*and* if thats uncovered, then whats the size of the uncovered? Actually I don't get that, if they HAVE uncovered the fraud, then it DOESNT cost people!


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

Nortones2 said:


> For all insurers to act together, in your example, would be collusion and illegal.
> *I didn't say they were acting together, I said " If the insurers all said"*
> 
> So within the real world, insurers can charge what they think the market will bear. This is nonsense "if the insurer has enough of your demographic in their portfolio then they will take you on for an increased premium because in doing so it increases their chances of claims in that demographic." Price out a low risk in a low risk area because they have enough low risk clients and would prefer a few boy-racers or other sub-standard risks? Absurd.
> ...


----------



## Phaeton (22 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> *That's all right then. We have a bottomless pit of money so we'll let them do what they like and if it all goes tit's up we'll just pay for it. Brilliant.*


You mean just like they were a bank, oh I forgot, banks & insurance companies go hand in hand, 

Alan...


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

Phaeton said:


> You mean just like they were a bank, oh I forgot, banks & insurance companies go hand in hand,
> 
> Alan...


 How very dare you!! Don't equate us with that shower!


----------



## Phaeton (22 Nov 2012)

Paul99 said:


> How very dare you!! Don't equate us with that shower!


But aren't most of you now owned by them, now that cash cow has been slaughtered?

Alan...


----------



## Paul99 (22 Nov 2012)

To be honest Alan, I don't know. A lot of the customer facing names in motor are really just brokers and not the actual insurer. I know my place isn't and most of our peers aren't either. Thankfully.


----------



## srw (22 Nov 2012)

RBS owns the Direct Line Group (Direct Line, Churchill), but is in the process of selling it. That's the only really big bank-insurance operation.
HBOS/Lloyds owns a relatively modest household insurer and a couple of medium-sized life insurers.
Barclays and HSBC each have very small insurance operations, unless I've forgotten something.

None of them own major brokers. None of the major overseas banks have big UK insurance interests.

Of the big names in the non-life insurance market, Aviva and RSA are independent listed companies, Axa is owned by a French insurance group, Zurich by a Swiss insurance group and Allianz by a German insurance group. I don't think there's any bank money in Lloyds.

I'm less familiar with the life insurance world, but both the Pru and L&G are independent listed companies. A lot of the old companies have been merged into Resolution, a UK partnership. There are also companies owned by Aegon, a Dutch insurance group and ING, a Dutch bank.


----------

