Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.
Discussion
Problem is that a number (majority) of those little companies nobody has herd of are just brokers and use shared underwriters, guess what side sets the prices?
Also a number of them are also linked companies (admiral, elephant, Quinn, diamond etc) which are all admiral Plc under different trading names.
I like anybody else can see great waste in the sector but realistically it is being cut as much/quickly as possible as insurers try to improve margins - it's in their interests after all.
I don't work in insurance however so can't go into great depth, the waste here does however fall into insignificance versus others - try analysing the operations of NHS property services, now that's an eye opener!
Also a number of them are also linked companies (admiral, elephant, Quinn, diamond etc) which are all admiral Plc under different trading names.
I like anybody else can see great waste in the sector but realistically it is being cut as much/quickly as possible as insurers try to improve margins - it's in their interests after all.
I don't work in insurance however so can't go into great depth, the waste here does however fall into insignificance versus others - try analysing the operations of NHS property services, now that's an eye opener!
snorky782 said:
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.
As I thought it was, and certainly not the bed of roses popeyewhite was trying to make it out to be.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.
thecremeegg said:
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.
On a thread where there are a huge amount of people purporting to be knowledgeable, but actually falling well wide of the mark, this post takes the biscuit. 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.
1. Insurers don't allow body shops to rip them off. They all have agreed rates in place and won't pay more than this. However, the Court of Appeal has ruled in Coles vs Hetherton that an insurer does not have to pass their discounted rates onto an at fault insurer. As such they can artificially inflate the claim and make a further profit. Credit Repair via AMCs is winning the race to the bottom
2. Whiplash claims are not simply paid out. The purpose of the Competition and Markets Authority review was to look at this amongst other things. It is simply impossible for an at fault insurer to defend a whiplash claim, apart from blatant, or provable fraud. Feel free to explain how you could prevent paying out on a claim where the claimant (who is not your insured, but the innocent victim of your insured' negligent driving) has a medical report stating that they did suffer from whiplash. MOJ reforms had a small impact on this, but the new rules have now been more or less circumvented by claimant firms.
3a. The FOS has clear guidelines on how a written off car should be valued and all insurers use this methodology.
3b Factory fitted options do not cause the value of the claim to be reduced. Undeclared after market mods do.
4. Those statistics are the lifeblood of each company. They are their own data and no insurer shares them. Do Vodafone share how much they actually pay for mobile phones? What about supermarkets, or any shop declaring how much they buy stock in for? You seem to want insurers to give away the very thing that makes the market so competitive
5. Who are these "little insurers"? I reckon you're confusing brokers with underwriters. However, there are few niche underwriters who are making small profits. That doesn't make them especially clever, it means they have a niche and are fully pricing to that niche e.g. High risk drivers is the Zenith model, they don't want sensible middle aged Mondeo drivers. They suffer bad years though where they get hammered for more than two large losses. Their premiums rocket in the following years.
6. Hahahaha just as I thought, the majority of these "insurers" are brokers.
If this is the standard of argument then this thread is poor form.
snorky782 said:
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.
Population NZ - 4.5m.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.
So their system is roughly NZ$1,000 - £485 - in debt for EVERY SINGLE person in the country. Not even every driver. In one year, it lost slightly over that.
There's around 700 vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants - so just over 3m vehicles.
The Licence fee is $52/year, and the registration fee $200/yr plus a CO2-dependent element, roughly another $100... So $350/vehicle x 3m = let's round up a bit to $1.1bn
Blimey.
popeyewhite said:
Roo said:
As I thought it was, and certainly not the bed of roses popeyewhite was trying to make it out to be.
D'you mind? I didn't 'try to make out' anything of the sort. Maybe you're just being scatterbrained but the relevant quote is only on the previous page for heaven's sake.popeyewhite said:
Roo said:
Where you said the NZ system works fine?
I'll help you put it in contextpopeyewhite said:
Roo said:
I thought the NZ system was financially broken.
Was fine last year. Prices about 1/3 cheaper than the UK."Was fine last year"
If that didn't suggest it was something much closer to a bed of roses than the horrendous bankrupt mess that Snorky states, then I'm not sure what it was saying...
In one year alone - 7yrs ago - it lost more than four times the entire current annual registration and licenceing income, never mind just the insurance portion of that, even AFTER big rises...
TooMany2cvs said:
"I thought it was broken"
"Was fine last year"
If that didn't suggest it was something much closer to a bed of roses than the horrendous bankrupt mess that Snorky states, then I'm not sure what it was saying...
No, it didn't suggest anything other than addressing the statement 'I thought it was broken', by suggesting it wasn't broken."Was fine last year"
If that didn't suggest it was something much closer to a bed of roses than the horrendous bankrupt mess that Snorky states, then I'm not sure what it was saying...
Roo:
a bed of roses:
a luxurious situation; an easy life. Who said life would be a bed of roses? If I had a million bucks, I would be in a bed of roses.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+bed+of+roses
popeyewhite said:
TooMany2cvs said:
"I thought it was broken"
"Was fine last year"
If that didn't suggest it was something much closer to a bed of roses than the horrendous bankrupt mess that Snorky states, then I'm not sure what it was saying...
No, it didn't suggest anything other than addressing the statement 'I thought it was broken', by suggesting it wasn't broken."Was fine last year"
If that didn't suggest it was something much closer to a bed of roses than the horrendous bankrupt mess that Snorky states, then I'm not sure what it was saying...
Jim1556 said:
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!
Actually this is a good point - I recall my parent's renewal going up the year after next door but one's kids got involved in not one but two write-offs in a year. I guess something on their database showed that the risk within their postcode had gone up.I wonder if something similar, and equally difficult to discover may have also happened to OP here?
i.e. The only things that HE knows have changed in the last year are that he has one year's more experience and has had a no fault accident within that year. But what do the insurers know that he doesn't?
- Perhaps there has been a spike of accidents in his area?
- Perhaps the S3 has just ticked over to an age where it's harder / more expensive to repair if damaged?
- Perhaps there has been a recent increase in car thefts - either in his area or of S3s?
- Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps?
Frankly, I still can't get my head round only paying £2,000 for the first year in an S3 at 18! At 19, albeit 12 years ago, cheapest I could manage was £1,750 for my first year in a Nissan Micra 1.3!
snorky782 said:
On a thread where there are a huge amount of people purporting to be knowledgeable, but actually falling well wide of the mark, this post takes the biscuit.
1. Insurers don't allow body shops to rip them off. They all have agreed rates in place and won't pay more than this. However, the Court of Appeal has ruled in Coles vs Hetherton that an insurer does not have to pass their discounted rates onto an at fault insurer. As such they can artificially inflate the claim and make a further profit. Credit Repair via AMCs is winning the race to the bottom
2. Whiplash claims are not simply paid out. The purpose of the Competition and Markets Authority review was to look at this amongst other things. It is simply impossible for an at fault insurer to defend a whiplash claim, apart from blatant, or provable fraud. Feel free to explain how you could prevent paying out on a claim where the claimant (who is not your insured, but the innocent victim of your insured' negligent driving) has a medical report stating that they did suffer from whiplash. MOJ reforms had a small impact on this, but the new rules have now been more or less circumvented by claimant firms.
3a. The FOS has clear guidelines on how a written off car should be valued and all insurers use this methodology.
3b Factory fitted options do not cause the value of the claim to be reduced. Undeclared after market mods do.
4. Those statistics are the lifeblood of each company. They are their own data and no insurer shares them. Do Vodafone share how much they actually pay for mobile phones? What about supermarkets, or any shop declaring how much they buy stock in for? You seem to want insurers to give away the very thing that makes the market so competitive
5. Who are these "little insurers"? I reckon you're confusing brokers with underwriters. However, there are few niche underwriters who are making small profits. That doesn't make them especially clever, it means they have a niche and are fully pricing to that niche e.g. High risk drivers is the Zenith model, they don't want sensible middle aged Mondeo drivers. They suffer bad years though where they get hammered for more than two large losses. Their premiums rocket in the following years.
If this is the standard of argument then this thread is poor form.
I don't think it is.1. Insurers don't allow body shops to rip them off. They all have agreed rates in place and won't pay more than this. However, the Court of Appeal has ruled in Coles vs Hetherton that an insurer does not have to pass their discounted rates onto an at fault insurer. As such they can artificially inflate the claim and make a further profit. Credit Repair via AMCs is winning the race to the bottom
2. Whiplash claims are not simply paid out. The purpose of the Competition and Markets Authority review was to look at this amongst other things. It is simply impossible for an at fault insurer to defend a whiplash claim, apart from blatant, or provable fraud. Feel free to explain how you could prevent paying out on a claim where the claimant (who is not your insured, but the innocent victim of your insured' negligent driving) has a medical report stating that they did suffer from whiplash. MOJ reforms had a small impact on this, but the new rules have now been more or less circumvented by claimant firms.
3a. The FOS has clear guidelines on how a written off car should be valued and all insurers use this methodology.
3b Factory fitted options do not cause the value of the claim to be reduced. Undeclared after market mods do.
4. Those statistics are the lifeblood of each company. They are their own data and no insurer shares them. Do Vodafone share how much they actually pay for mobile phones? What about supermarkets, or any shop declaring how much they buy stock in for? You seem to want insurers to give away the very thing that makes the market so competitive
5. Who are these "little insurers"? I reckon you're confusing brokers with underwriters. However, there are few niche underwriters who are making small profits. That doesn't make them especially clever, it means they have a niche and are fully pricing to that niche e.g. High risk drivers is the Zenith model, they don't want sensible middle aged Mondeo drivers. They suffer bad years though where they get hammered for more than two large losses. Their premiums rocket in the following years.
If this is the standard of argument then this thread is poor form.
1. I'm in the motor trade running a small garage business and I am constantly surprised by the insurance industry. I am amazed at how cars are written off by small shunts (where air bags have not triggered), cars that we can repair with new parts for hundreds of pounds. However the insurance companies don't send cars to us, they send them elsewhere and costs quoted are eye-watering.
2. The UK is said to be the whiplash capital of the world. Perhaps you'd care to tell us what the figures are of whiplash payments forming an element of claims in the uk compared to elsewhere in Europe? I understand in the uk it is markedly higher. I realise these arise from vexatious lawyers but insurance companies have lawyers too. I think the insurance cos are just passing costs on to honest customers.
3. People cannot buy cars at book price so book price should be irrelevant. There are guides such as Glass's that cover retail prices.
5. He still has a point. We're told there's no money in the game, but just look at how many companies want your business.
heebeegeetee said:
snorky782 said:
3a. The FOS has clear guidelines on how a written off car should be valued and all insurers use this methodology.
3b Factory fitted options do not cause the value of the claim to be reduced. Undeclared after market mods do.
3. People cannot buy cars at book price so book price should be irrelevant. There are guides such as Glass's that cover retail prices.3b Factory fitted options do not cause the value of the claim to be reduced. Undeclared after market mods do.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
Oh.
heebeegeetee said:
1. I'm in the motor trade running a small garage business and I am constantly surprised by the insurance industry. I am amazed at how cars are written off by small shunts (where air bags have not triggered), cars that we can repair with new parts for hundreds of pounds. However the insurance companies don't send cars to us, they send them elsewhere and costs quoted are eye-watering.
If you get hit by someone you have the right to send the car wherever you want for repairs.So off to the outrageously priced BMW Bodyshop it is!
Oh and while it takes them 4 weeks to source a part from Germany I will be swanning about in a brand new M4 at £200 a day.
Write off the car instead and cut me a cheque - yup, no kidding that is a financially better option!!
heebeegeetee said:
5. He still has a point. We're told there's no money in the game, but just look at how many companies want your business.
Scale is hugely important and barriers are low.(Oh and half the brands are just the same company under a different name.)
That's why there are loads of them and again it proves it is MORE competitive not less!
heebeegeetee said:
2. The UK is said to be the whiplash capital of the world. Perhaps you'd care to tell us what the figures are of whiplash payments forming an element of claims in the uk compared to elsewhere in Europe? I understand in the uk it is markedly higher. I realise these arise from vexatious lawyers but insurance companies have lawyers too. I think the insurance cos are just passing costs on to honest customers.
Here you go (2013) - one of the few cross border analyses was done by AXA:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
"Whiplash now accounts for 78pc of all personal injury claims in the UK, compared with just 3pc in France. One of the major differences is that in France, diagnosis requires "objective proof based on more rigorous medical testing", according to Axa. Claimants are also forced to pay for an initial report into the injury."
"In Germany, a high level of proof is required to get compensation, particularly for low-speed collisions. Injuries are also diagnosed using "clear objective criteria", Axa found. Italy also has new guidelines for accurate medical diagnosis, while Canada has a cap on payouts, varying between states, but typically less than £5,000. In Sweden, there is a time-limit of 72 hours for the onset of symptoms."
The submission to parliament:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/...
Vaud said:
Here you go (2013) - one of the few cross border analyses was done by AXA:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
"Whiplash now accounts for 78pc of all personal injury claims in the UK, compared with just 3pc in France. One of the major differences is that in France, diagnosis requires "objective proof based on more rigorous medical testing", according to Axa. Claimants are also forced to pay for an initial report into the injury."
"In Germany, a high level of proof is required to get compensation, particularly for low-speed collisions. Injuries are also diagnosed using "clear objective criteria", Axa found. Italy also has new guidelines for accurate medical diagnosis, while Canada has a cap on payouts, varying between states, but typically less than £5,000. In Sweden, there is a time-limit of 72 hours for the onset of symptoms."
The submission to parliament:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/...
Perhaps what's needed is some sort of Union between European countries that works towards standardising things like industries and the financial industry and...?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
"Whiplash now accounts for 78pc of all personal injury claims in the UK, compared with just 3pc in France. One of the major differences is that in France, diagnosis requires "objective proof based on more rigorous medical testing", according to Axa. Claimants are also forced to pay for an initial report into the injury."
"In Germany, a high level of proof is required to get compensation, particularly for low-speed collisions. Injuries are also diagnosed using "clear objective criteria", Axa found. Italy also has new guidelines for accurate medical diagnosis, while Canada has a cap on payouts, varying between states, but typically less than £5,000. In Sweden, there is a time-limit of 72 hours for the onset of symptoms."
The submission to parliament:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/...
No, it'll never happen.
walm said:
If you get hit by someone you have the right to send the car wherever you want for repairs.
So off to the outrageously priced BMW Bodyshop it is!
Oh and while it takes them 4 weeks to source a part from Germany I will be swanning about in a brand new M4 at £200 a day.
Write off the car instead and cut me a cheque - yup, no kidding that is a financially better option!!
And why not? If you're not at fault then you should be put back in the same position you were before the crash, and who in their right mind would send a BMW to a Ford or any other non-BMW bodyshop for repairs. So off to the outrageously priced BMW Bodyshop it is!
Oh and while it takes them 4 weeks to source a part from Germany I will be swanning about in a brand new M4 at £200 a day.
Write off the car instead and cut me a cheque - yup, no kidding that is a financially better option!!
As for the M4 bit, that's comes under "taking the p***" - I had a Saab 9-3 from Enterprise @ £25 a day for the 3 weeks mine was being repaired.
Monty Python said:
walm said:
If you get hit by someone you have the right to send the car wherever you want for repairs.
So off to the outrageously priced BMW Bodyshop it is!
Oh and while it takes them 4 weeks to source a part from Germany I will be swanning about in a brand new M4 at £200 a day.
Write off the car instead and cut me a cheque - yup, no kidding that is a financially better option!!
And why not? If you're not at fault then you should be put back in the same position you were before the crash, and who in their right mind would send a BMW to a Ford or any other non-BMW bodyshop for repairs. So off to the outrageously priced BMW Bodyshop it is!
Oh and while it takes them 4 weeks to source a part from Germany I will be swanning about in a brand new M4 at £200 a day.
Write off the car instead and cut me a cheque - yup, no kidding that is a financially better option!!
As for the M4 bit, that's comes under "taking the p***" - I had a Saab 9-3 from Enterprise @ £25 a day for the 3 weeks mine was being repaired.
The hire car is like-for-like so if you happen to get hit in your new M4 then that's what they give you (I wasn't saying everyone gets an M4!).
And while I do understand that "and why not" is a justified sentiment when you do nothing wrong and some muppet smacks into your backside BUT the simple point is that such choice and service pushes up premiums, because the bodyshops and rental agencies do very nicely out of it and obviously we the consumers are paying!
The government could enact a law saying that boggo insurance can guarantee a roadworthy repair done by Tony T-Cut and a £15 per day rental max and insurance premiums would drop fast. But the consumer watchdog lobbyists would be up in arms so we all end up paying.
TooMany2cvs said:
If only the ombudsman made it clearer to find out what methodology is used to resolve value disputes...
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
Oh.
Very interesting. However, from what I've been told from my customers, they've always been left out of pocket. One chap was very much of the opinion that his car was written off needlessly ( which I agreed with) and his car was taken away without (he felt) any opportunity for him to prevent.http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
Oh.
He got himself back in a similar car but was out of pocket by about a grand overall IIRC.
(Interestingly, a great many people think cyclists should have insurance to cover the potentially hundreds of pounds worth of damage they may cause, ignoring the fact that motorists are often responsible for larger losses despite having insurance. Indeed this thread is an example of just this.)
TooMany2cvs said:
Perhaps what's needed is some sort of Union between European countries that works towards standardising things like industries and the financial industry and...?
No, it'll never happen.
Why don't uk insurers just do the same as their European counterparts? Is there anything stopping them or are they required to pay out for unchecked/unproven medical claims?No, it'll never happen.
Indeed I thought the payments made by our insurers were not recompense for injury but just to get people to promise they'll never make a future claim?
Are insurers obliged to cover people who have accepted payments for unproven medical claims?
Edited by heebeegeetee on Wednesday 13th April 10:46
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff