Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.
Discussion
popeyewhite said:
Quite finished?
The Office of Fair Trading released recommendations to increase competitiveness in the private insurance market in 2014. It found numerous problems and concluded a change in law was really needed to make it properly competitive. This has yet to happen.
Not yet!The Office of Fair Trading released recommendations to increase competitiveness in the private insurance market in 2014. It found numerous problems and concluded a change in law was really needed to make it properly competitive. This has yet to happen.
1. If it is so obviously a rip-off then you have found an amazing business opportunity, why don't you start a business offering car insurance that is slightly less of a rip-off and you will have 100% market share in no time!?
2. The CMA report found that a change in the law was necessary but not worth it. Market participants were trying to remedy the issue on their own anyway. Their complaints were with repair shops and like-for-like rentals inflating the prices, not with the people offering car insurance, in any case. ALTHOUGH in fairness, there was SOME anti-competitive behaviour going on the the PCW (price comparison websites) which was them abusing their market dominance to an extent. The CMA subsequently prevented this behaviour.
So did you really mean that repair shops overcharging and claims management companies inflating rental prices are a problem since they are a rip off and those costs are passed to the consumer through higher insurance prices?
(Which I would agree with!)
I am afraid I have no response to the NZ example.
Lower premiums could be caused by any number of things... PPP, cheaper cars, lower population density, better roads, no claims management leaches, no whiplash fraud etc...
In fact, economics 101 would suggest that compulsory insurance would actually make it cheaper since the demand is higher than when insurance isn't compulsory and with limited profitability those economies of scale are being passed along to the consumer.
walm said:
In fact, economics 101 would suggest that compulsory insurance would actually make it cheaper since the demand is higher than when insurance isn't compulsory and with limited profitability those economies of scale are being passed along to the consumer.
Another anomaly particular to the UK car insurance game.popeyewhite said:
walm said:
In fact, economics 101 would suggest that compulsory insurance would actually make it cheaper since the demand is higher than when insurance isn't compulsory and with limited profitability those economies of scale are being passed along to the consumer.
Another anomaly particular to the UK car insurance game.We can't tell unless insurance wasn't compulsory in the UK and we saw where premiums settled.
And indeed if they were lower, it would be an anomaly.
But I don't think you can compare across geographies with any rigour. The markets are just so heterogeneous.
Again, the only sure-fire way to tell if it is a rip-off is to look at the profits of the insurance companies but I am sure you have done that.
I had a non fault claim (fully covered by person at fault) and my insurer doubled my premium at renewal £300 to £600. I went elsewhere for £290, when I phoned to cancel they couldn't understand why. "Oh you have been with us for a while, we don't want to lose you. Let me see what I can do".....[lots of typing an shuffling of stuff]..."Oh yes, if you up your voluntary excess by £100 I can save you £35 on the renewal cost, how does that sound?" I said it still sounds like almost double what I have been offered elsewhere and now you want me to have a higher excess as well. "Yes, do you want to go for that?"
Re-arrange these two words in to a popular phrase "off" and "f
k".
Thieving bds the lot of 'em
Re-arrange these two words in to a popular phrase "off" and "f
k".Thieving b
ds the lot of 'em 944fan said:
Thieving bds the lot of 'em
I don't know why I am bothering but again, you should be APPLAUDING this behaviour not denigrating it.ds the lot of 'em It's a laziness tax.
Pure and simple.
There are millions of people out there who simply let their insurance auto-renew.
As you can see from your own experience auto-renewal premiums are indeed a rip-off.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE SUBSIDISING YOUR INSURANCE!!!
If the auto-renew price was the best deal available then all those sensible non-lazy people who shop around for 5 mins at renewal would have HIGHER premiums!!!
Soov535 said:
So, to summarise, young driver wants to drive flash car rather than a boggo one.
This costs a lot of money - he can afford it year 1 but has and accident and now can't.
Insurance company don't fancy the risk any more, and so our hero is feeling hard done by.
OP - sell the S3 and buy a 1.0 Clio like the rest of us had to. When you have EARNED your no claims bonus THEN you can drive what you want. Or get a second job.
Alternatively, sell the S3 and use Uber. You'll be able to drink and you're much more likely to get laid. Girls don't give a toss about cars. They do like limos and hotels.
Somebody drove into him. Your post reads "I couldn't afford a fast car when I was young so you shouldn't be able to either".This costs a lot of money - he can afford it year 1 but has and accident and now can't.
Insurance company don't fancy the risk any more, and so our hero is feeling hard done by.
OP - sell the S3 and buy a 1.0 Clio like the rest of us had to. When you have EARNED your no claims bonus THEN you can drive what you want. Or get a second job.
Alternatively, sell the S3 and use Uber. You'll be able to drink and you're much more likely to get laid. Girls don't give a toss about cars. They do like limos and hotels.
Your last paragragh, however, is sound advice.
Soov535 said:
EdEd said:
Thanks for all the input, and the gent above who tried it himself...
After trying every single (I can think off & what google says) comparison website, insurer and broker.... and also changing various inputs over and over again...and also going directly to insurers and trying their inputs etc.....and also phoning insurers etc....... the lowest I could get it down to was just over £2400....without the accident it would be, £1500. £900 increase due to a non fault accident. That's the best result I have got it down to today anyway.
Not bad at all for an S3 at 19, but £900 increase for a non fault accident and no claim made on my insurance, shocked.
You have done well there.After trying every single (I can think off & what google says) comparison website, insurer and broker.... and also changing various inputs over and over again...and also going directly to insurers and trying their inputs etc.....and also phoning insurers etc....... the lowest I could get it down to was just over £2400....without the accident it would be, £1500. £900 increase due to a non fault accident. That's the best result I have got it down to today anyway.
Not bad at all for an S3 at 19, but £900 increase for a non fault accident and no claim made on my insurance, shocked.
Statistically you are more likely to have another claim now that you've had one already.
Not fair, not right, but that's the way it is!
944fan said:
Thieving bds the lot of 'em
What, apart from the theiving bds the lot of 'em ds who decided they want to buy your business for £290?I really don't get it. It's a competitive industry where it pays and is very easy to swap around every year as the gubbernment wants us to do with energy suppliers.
Seems ok to me, can't find any theft.
Bert
walm said:
johnfm said:
Source?
<sigh> The higher premiums from insurance companies!!!!!!If, as asserted, a no fault incident results in a material increase in the probability of the non fault driver making subsequent claims, I would expect some evidence other than 'insurance companies charge more therefore it must be true' to back that assertion.
Maybe you just have a lower belief threshold and accept every assertion you read as fact.
Lastly, are you sure you've used enough exclamation marks?
johnfm said:
If, as asserted, a no fault incident results in a material increase in the probability of the non fault driver making subsequent claims, I would expect some evidence other than 'insurance companies charge more therefore it must be true' to back that assertion.
You are asking for the proprietary actuarial data gathered by the insurance companies on their own customer bases (and perhaps shared amongst themselves).I don't have access to that and I doubt anyone who does have access would be permitted to share it.
So can we use our intelligence to establish the likely answer from secondary evidence.
If you had read (and understood) my comments in the thread you would observe that the fact that the market as a whole DOES increase premiums for a non-fault claim is the sort of secondary evidence that tells us something.
What does it tell us?
Well it means one of two possible things are happening.
1. Insurance companies are running a cartel designed to rip off this particular segment of customers and make super-normal profits from them.
2. Non-fault claimants ARE higher risk (according to the actuarial data we can't get access to) and hence the higher premium is justified by their subsequent higher likelihood to claim and no super-normal profits occur.
Can we tell which of the two is happening? Well, yes.
Insurance companies don't make super-normal profits.
So it must be hypothesis 2.
(The fact that there are precisely ZERO new-entrants offering lower-than-market premiums to non-fault claimants is also evidence that 2 is right.)
So rather than accepting every assertion I read, I establish a rational argument using the available data to reach my conclusion on the likely situation we have in the marketplace today.
Do you have any evidence that non-fault claimants aren't more risky?
walm said:
1. If it is so obviously a rip-off then you have found an amazing business opportunity, why don't you start a business offering car insurance that is slightly less of a rip-off and you will have 100% market share in no time!?
This is the question I want answered. There are hundreds of very shrewd businessmen and women in this country. The Dragon's Den mob, Branson, and loads of others. Literally thousands of multi millionaires with money to invest.So why not start and insurance company and charge rip off prices less £50. You'd take all the business of the rip off firms who are £50 more, and still make squillions.
But they haven't done it. Well Quinn did, and look at the mess that turned into.
walm said:
johnfm said:
If, as asserted, a no fault incident results in a material increase in the probability of the non fault driver making subsequent claims, I would expect some evidence other than 'insurance companies charge more therefore it must be true' to back that assertion.
You are asking for the proprietary actuarial data gathered by the insurance companies on their own customer bases (and perhaps shared amongst themselves).I don't have access to that and I doubt anyone who does have access would be permitted to share it.
So can we use our intelligence to establish the likely answer from secondary evidence.
If you had read (and understood) my comments in the thread you would observe that the fact that the market as a whole DOES increase premiums for a non-fault claim is the sort of secondary evidence that tells us something.
What does it tell us?
Well it means one of two possible things are happening.
1. Insurance companies are running a cartel designed to rip off this particular segment of customers and make super-normal profits from them.
2. Non-fault claimants ARE higher risk (according to the actuarial data we can't get access to) and hence the higher premium is justified by their subsequent higher likelihood to claim and no super-normal profits occur.
Can we tell which of the two is happening? Well, yes.
Insurance companies don't make super-normal profits.
So it must be hypothesis 2.
(The fact that there are precisely ZERO new-entrants offering lower-than-market premiums to non-fault claimants is also evidence that 2 is right.)
So rather than accepting every assertion I read, I establish a rational argument using the available data to reach my conclusion on the likely situation we have in the marketplace today.
Do you have any evidence that non-fault claimants aren't more risky?
There may, for all I know, be a number of papers setting out this statistical/actuarial 'fact'. There may not be. Hence my request.
In addition, you make a lot of assumptions in your 'reasoning'.
For clarity, it would not surprise me if there was some link between being involved in non-fault incidents and being a higher risk for fault claims.
It's all a big pile of bullst!
The non fault increase would be acceptable if you lived on a thin road where cars keep getting clipped by passing traffic. This, I could understand!
Hiking a premium because some blind fkwit rearends you, reverses into you (like my case), or even pulls out without looking, is a s trick!
Unfortunately, car insurance isn't fair at all! They'll usually only payout a book price which in some cases is ridiculously low, leaving the now car less owner out of pocket...
t!The non fault increase would be acceptable if you lived on a thin road where cars keep getting clipped by passing traffic. This, I could understand!
Hiking a premium because some blind f
kwit rearends you, reverses into you (like my case), or even pulls out without looking, is a s trick!Unfortunately, car insurance isn't fair at all! They'll usually only payout a book price which in some cases is ridiculously low, leaving the now car less owner out of pocket...
Just to cover off the New Zealand piece. It lost $4.8billion in 2009 alone and despite a huge increase in levies is currently €4.5billion in debt. This is in a country that is slightly larger than Britain but with a population that is 1/16th that of Britain.
It is singlehandedly responsible for the biggest corproate loss in NZ history and is a target for huge frauds, staff death threats and several other shocking aspects. To post this as a success is to seriously understate the pain that this system is causing.
It is singlehandedly responsible for the biggest corproate loss in NZ history and is a target for huge frauds, staff death threats and several other shocking aspects. To post this as a success is to seriously understate the pain that this system is causing.
Why do insurance companies allow bodyshops to rip them off, why do they pay out for dubious whiplash claims constantly? If profits are so tight, why not actually spend some of the money you make elsewhere and put a stop to it?
Cars get written off and people get paid "book price" which realistically doesn't buy you a car anything like the one you have, you have a crash and your car happens to have a "modification" (factory fitted extras in reality) and they use that to take money off the payout or even not pay at all.
The industry is a sham let's be honest, not helped that it's all run off "statistics" that nobody outside their own industry has ever seen.
Funny that there are so many little insurers about if there's no profit as they don't have other products to try and cross sell?
Go onto somewhere like Confused and do a quote - 100s of insurers, all of them not making any money apparently.
Cars get written off and people get paid "book price" which realistically doesn't buy you a car anything like the one you have, you have a crash and your car happens to have a "modification" (factory fitted extras in reality) and they use that to take money off the payout or even not pay at all.
The industry is a sham let's be honest, not helped that it's all run off "statistics" that nobody outside their own industry has ever seen.
Funny that there are so many little insurers about if there's no profit as they don't have other products to try and cross sell?
Go onto somewhere like Confused and do a quote - 100s of insurers, all of them not making any money apparently.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff