Another insurance whinge
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
sherbertdip said:
Absolute rubbish, insurance is to cover the eventuality of something happening, increased premiums are based upon the likelihood of it happening again!
If you had one or both of your cars in a garage they wouldn't have been damaged. I bet some of your neighbours avoided damage that way. So in the unlikely event of a re-occurrence, you are more likely to claim again! Plus insurers don't look at individual claim details. If they did that it would cost a fortune and mean higher premiums. You get lumped into a group of other people who have had claims with no tp to recover from.
Stop bleating. In all those years from 1987 when you were claim free, you never moaned about your premiums being kept down due to others who had made claims paying extra into the pot!!
but before i go i will leave you with these facts:
Damage to cars was appraised originally as approx' £10k for each car, but then it dropped considerably as the insurance companies got together to bring in gangs of specialist hail dent removers from the continent - I kid you not. And a fantastic job they did too, my neighbours all of them who had cars outside all had to go to the same place for the work to be done. The net result was each car cost 2 mandays of labour plus expenses I presume so about £600 per car. Premiums on both our policies went up 50-60% at renewal time.
Damage to my greenhouses and stock were covered by business insurance, total claim £25750, insurance DIDN'T go up at renewal.
Damage to house came to £15k, house insurance DIDN'T go up.
I believe motor insurance IS A RIP OFF, and i will bleat as much as I like.
sherbertdip said:
Ok wonderkid, you obviously realised you lost that arguement so your changing tack, but with some kind of ill thought logic - grow up!
but before i go i will leave you with these facts:
Damage to my greenhouses and stock were covered by business insurance, total claim £25750, insurance DIDN'T go up at renewal.
Damage to house came to £15k, house insurance DIDN'T go up.
I believe motor insurance IS A RIP OFF, and i will bleat as much as I like.
Probably because household and business insurance make a profit for insurers, but motor doesn't.but before i go i will leave you with these facts:
Damage to my greenhouses and stock were covered by business insurance, total claim £25750, insurance DIDN'T go up at renewal.
Damage to house came to £15k, house insurance DIDN'T go up.
I believe motor insurance IS A RIP OFF, and i will bleat as much as I like.
And you haven't answered my question. From 1987, when you were claim free and paying less for motor insurance, whilst others who had had claims were paying more, why weren't you on here complaining that it's unfair for others who have claims to pay more for insurance than you were???
Why weren't you asking for a slight increase in the amount you pay into the pot to reduce the rates of others who had a worse record than you did??
TwigtheWonderkid said:
sherbertdip said:
Ok wonderkid, you obviously realised you lost that arguement so your changing tack, but with some kind of ill thought logic - grow up!
but before i go i will leave you with these facts:
Damage to my greenhouses and stock were covered by business insurance, total claim £25750, insurance DIDN'T go up at renewal.
Damage to house came to £15k, house insurance DIDN'T go up.
I believe motor insurance IS A RIP OFF, and i will bleat as much as I like.
Probably because household and business insurance make a profit for insurers, but motor doesn't.but before i go i will leave you with these facts:
Damage to my greenhouses and stock were covered by business insurance, total claim £25750, insurance DIDN'T go up at renewal.
Damage to house came to £15k, house insurance DIDN'T go up.
I believe motor insurance IS A RIP OFF, and i will bleat as much as I like.
And you haven't answered my question. From 1987, when you were claim free and paying less for motor insurance, whilst others who had had claims were paying more, why weren't you on here complaining that it's unfair for others who have claims to pay more for insurance than you were???
Why weren't you asking for a slight increase in the amount you pay into the pot to reduce the rates of others who had a worse record than you did??
But, I'm game for a laugh so here goes!
I think you'll find all insurance companies are there to make a profit, even household and business.
Was Piston heads up and running in 1987?
I think you are getting all wound up about a problem you perceive I have. I don't have any problems with people paying more for insurance when through THEIR t
tishness of whatever description causes them to make a claim, THEY then become a liability and should pay more for THEIR insurance.I paid my insurance premium to cover me for an eventuality which unfortunately happened therefore the insurance should pay up which they did, which is fine, the process was slick, i was kept informed I paid my excess, all was well.
My gripe then is why should I pay more for insurance when the car was where it should have been, it was not being driven, something happened with an extremely low probability which based upon purely time alone is at least 1 in 5,500,000 and if the storm had been 250 yards away it would have been classed as so improbable as to be ignored.
As i've pointed out my other insurances worked as they should, pay a premium, made a claim, probability of it happening again assessed as near zero - policy price does not go up. Greedy b
d rip off motor insurance for a very small claim goes through the roof.You can argue and worry until you are blue in the face, but that is my stance and no matter what you say it won't change it!
Stay wonderful young twiglet chap
Redgate said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Me wound up?? I'm fine, my premium is low because I'm claim free.
And hopefully will remain so if the social/age group to which you belong continues to stay claim free. 
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well I'm early 50s, so I think it's a pretty safe bet that my contemporaries aren't suddenly all going to go bonkers.
Would it matter? You're now implying that they have some sort of control over their premium when you were arguing the opposite in previous posts. Even if they are not a fault but need to claim (Act of God for instance), their premium and yours will go up.
Redgate said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well I'm early 50s, so I think it's a pretty safe bet that my contemporaries aren't suddenly all going to go bonkers.
Would it matter? You're now implying that they have some sort of control over their premium when you were arguing the opposite in previous posts. Even if they are not a fault but need to claim (Act of God for instance), their premium and yours will go up.
Secondly, what I am saying is that people in their 50s always have had and always will have a better record than younger drivers, as a group. In the event of, say, a freak hailstorm, more people in their 50s will have their cars garaged than teenagers. So if 100 cars are damaged, fewer of them will belong to older drivers.
If I have a fault or non fault claim, my premium may be loaded. I'm fine with that. But it will be loaded on the base rates applying to my age group. In order for base rates to rise dramatically, a bigger proportion of people in their 50s would have to suddenly start claiming more than they have been, and that isn't going to happen.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Redgate said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well I'm early 50s, so I think it's a pretty safe bet that my contemporaries aren't suddenly all going to go bonkers.
Would it matter? You're now implying that they have some sort of control over their premium when you were arguing the opposite in previous posts. Even if they are not a fault but need to claim (Act of God for instance), their premium and yours will go up.
Secondly, what I am saying is that people in their 50s always have had and always will have a better record than younger drivers, as a group. In the event of, say, a freak hailstorm, more people in their 50s will have their cars garaged than teenagers. So if 100 cars are damaged, fewer of them will belong to older drivers.
If I have a fault or non fault claim, my premium may be loaded. I'm fine with that. But it will be loaded on the base rates applying to my age group. In order for base rates to rise dramatically, a bigger proportion of people in their 50s would have to suddenly start claiming more than they have been, and that isn't going to happen.
Redgate said:
By the way, and just to put this discussion to bed once and for all, do you have any idea of how much on average one could save if they would accept to have a black box fitted to their car?
I think that technology is aimed at young drivers. When I did some quotes for my 18 y/o son (we live West London), the saving was around a grand!!! But as I pay sub £200 for my own insurance, I doubt the saving would cover the fitting costs. In fact I doubt any firm would even offer an old codger like me a black box policy. What's in it for them? Lowering the risk of an already low risk driver. It's pointless. TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think that technology is aimed at young drivers. When I did some quotes for my 18 y/o son (we live West London), the saving was around a grand!!! But as I pay sub £200 for my own insurance, I doubt the saving would cover the fitting costs. In fact I doubt any firm would even offer an old codger like me a black box policy. What's in it for them? Lowering the risk of an already low risk driver. It's pointless.
I am in my early forties, and somehow I highly doubt that having the device fitted would benefit me in any way. On the contrary I am sure the data logged would be used against me to justify whatever premium hike my insurer would see fit to apply. How many times do we err to the wrong size of 70 on a motorway when traffic conditions allow it? To me it's tantamount to having your health insurance company install video cameras in your house. On Monday morning you came down in the kitchen whithout your slippers. You're more likely to catch a cold that could turn into pneumonia. Therefore your premium has to increase. On Tuesday afternoon you ran from one room to the other with cissors in hand, you are therefore more likely to have a finger severed and your premium has to increase.
Edited by Redgate on Tuesday 4th November 09:48
Redgate said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think that technology is aimed at young drivers. When I did some quotes for my 18 y/o son (we live West London), the saving was around a grand!!! But as I pay sub £200 for my own insurance, I doubt the saving would cover the fitting costs. In fact I doubt any firm would even offer an old codger like me a black box policy. What's in it for them? Lowering the risk of an already low risk driver. It's pointless.
I am in my early forties, and somehow I highly doubt that having the device fitted would benefit me in any way. On the contrary I am sure the data logged would be used against me to justify whatever premium hike my insurer would see fit to apply. How many times do we err to the wrong size of 70 on a motorway when traffic conditions allow it? To me it's tantamount to having your health insurance company install video cameras in your house. On Monday morning you came down in the kitchen whithout your slippers. You're more likely to catch a cold that could turn into pneumonia. Therefore your premium has to increase. On Tuesday afternoon you ran from one room to the other with cissors in hand, you are therefore more likely to have a finger severed and your premium has to increase.
Edited by Redgate on Tuesday 4th November 09:48
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff