vickster
Squire
The hot tub at ours adds about £1 a day, and don't mention the lads gaming PC. Our gas is just £40 a month, but electric about £160.

I pay £60 a month for both (to be fair it’s just me, but I do Wah for 2-3 days a week)
The hot tub at ours adds about £1 a day, and don't mention the lads gaming PC. Our gas is just £40 a month, but electric about £160.
My electric has recently gone up to around that too.Our gas is just £40 a month, but electric about £160
You do Wah? Diddy!
I pay £60 a month for both (to be fair it’s just me, but I do Wah for 2-3 days a week)
There is an appeal system against the banding...Ours is an individual house.
...19 years ago...I appealed the Banding
The Valuation Office (who employed relatives of mine) did not have enough valuers to do that in time, so external inspections were also done by contracted estate agents and (in some areas) almost anyone else with any property market experience. So if tempted to appeal, also check what bands similar nearby properties are in and the relative improvements made to them since 1990. Some houses are lucky to be in lower bands based on the flimsiest of reasons, such as getting Band C because a more carefully-assessed-at-random similar Band D neighbour had a pre-1990 extension even if it was small, or that improvements to a slightly smaller house were not obvious from the kerb.[...] The Valuation Office probably did an external inspection of your property, a drive-by, if you will. :-)
Maybe you're right. But I spent about two hours analysing and preparing the appeal. In return I've saved thousands. It may be worthwhile people in similar circumstances doing the same.Congratulations, nickyboy, but very few appeals will succeed these days.
Those that do will most likely be 'individual' houses such as yours. In essence, you have to show that the assessment is out-of-kilter with others in the same band. The Valuation Office probably did an external inspection of your property, a drive-by, if you will. :-)
No wonder you feel like you’ve done 12 rounds.This seems to be a recurring annual theme for me. As well as the continual process of making sure I don't pay over the odds for day to day purchases and one-off tech treats etc I also have a rush at this time of year due to energy and SWMBO car insurance renewals then my car and the house insurance in the next month or two.
Today I have initiated an energy supplier switch and just renewed the good lady wife's car insurance and now I am tired, feel like I have done 12 rounds in a boxing ring but eventually won on points
Call me cynical but fixed energy contract was coming to an end and annual cost was gong to jump (nay, leap!) from £1300pa to £2150pa if I did nothing. They were offering me various alternatives to get new 'deals' for the next 12 months, the best of which worked out at around £1850pa. Have used a comparison site and managed to get this down to £1525pa fixed for two years with OVO (2yrs should be good, can't see costs going down really?). This is where the cynical side of me kicks in because within 1 hr of initiating the switch, my current provider sent me an email offering a 'special' rate for 'valued' customers and this brought them to within £100 of my new provider. They can stick their 'special' offer where the sun don't shine. I suspect they got the notification that I am leaving so only then decided not to try and milk me for £hundreds a year more than their best deals.
Similar with the car insurance. Tesco offered a renewal of nearly £1200 compared to last years approx. £650 premium. Admittedly we have swapped to a much more powerful and newer car, but as 44yr old married, home owning, employed, family people with clean histories that is taking the peepee! After doing the Martin Lewis MoneySavingExpert routine (4 comparison sites and 3 x direct insurance sites) I feel weak and barely have the will to live
On a plus note I now have a policy costing only £640 inc legal and protected NCD, but even that wasn't straightforward. When linking through from the comparison site my price jumped from £630 to....... nearly £1200. I had to ring the company directly to go through the quote again which now mysteriously came back down to £640 (I pushed them on that last £10 but they wouldn't budge).
Anyway, over £1k saved today but now I need to go and lie down for a bit. At least I shouldn't have to do the energy dance next year......
There must be a simpler way?
Socialism?Indeed. The algorithms they use are very clever. The insurance industries perception of "risk" is far from always a measure of that which genuinely presents a significant risk, but in large part includes a calculation as to how affluent they believe the customer to be, and thus how much they can make them pay.
I discovered this first hand. 7 years ago I moved almost exactly 1 mile, from an already nice street to a more affluent area. Unsurprisingly, my car insurance went up about 20%. Being a copper at the time I was able to check both the crime and RTC data for both areas, and lo and behold - the new area had lower recorded crime, and lower rates of reported RTC's. Indeed, the only thing that had gone up in my new area was the average salaries.
I rang my insurers and presented them with this information. After lots of "oh" and "ah"ing they returned my premium to its previous figure. The local radio even ran a brief piece about it, although ultimately the insurer kept publicly schtum.
So there you go, good evidence that a significant part of their calculations is the customers ability to support a particular price. Actual empirical demonstrable "risk" can be a very minor element in their calculations.
Capitalism actually!Socialism!
Maybe they just bottled because you were a pig!Is it? How do you account for my experience, moving to a provably lower risk area only to have premiums rise? If you have any insight into that i'd be genuinely interested to hear it.
The insurers are forever telling us their charges are based upon risk, when in my example that was demonstrably, absolutely that was not the case. So what did drive the rise in premium?
I had empirical data that the risk of loss, damage, or injury was lower than my previous address. I wasn't insured for any thing else, and all the criteria they regard as risk were reduced.
Where is the misunderstanding? Please, feel free to expand upon the misunderstanding. The consumer experts at the BBC couldn't identify the misunderstanding, and neither can I. Risk provably reduces, numbers to prove it, yet prices rise - no latitude for misunderstanding there.
Your final sentence is correct if all companies behave in a logical, market driven fashion. Unfortunately, insurers do not, as the rampant abuse of hire car charges to which they all are guilty will attest. They're driven my profit opportunity, no matter how illogical it may ultimately be, and how unsustainable or dangerous to the long-term health of the industry it may be. The idea of maintaining a stable and sustainable market using established business practice to tap into legitimate market forces and trends is alien to them. All they want is maximum nickel and dime now. Today. And to Hell with tomorrow.
Charging people who are perceived to have "loads of money " is Socialism!Capitalism actually!
I think that we can both agree that we both get royally stiffed by the ragged spivs in the insurance trade.Charging people with "loads of money " perceived obviously is Socialism!
I may disagree with you the day my house burns down...and they pay up!I think that we can both agree that we both get royally stiffed by the ragged spivs in the insurance trade.![]()