Legal Advice needed re: Hire car solicitors letter
Discussion
pork911 said:
not ranting (i promise) but....
nothing will ever change then (we can't do anything Vs we won't do anything)
and the key difference between referral fees for injury and anything else is right there - that lead to money leaking to private individuals, credit hire etc it all stays in the industry
You've just described corporate culture in a sentence. People are there for the short term and would rather have generated £x million in income on their CV and pretend the 3.5x million in cost doesn't exist. Too many people in it for themselves and not the good of the company they work for, no matter how senior they are. nothing will ever change then (we can't do anything Vs we won't do anything)
and the key difference between referral fees for injury and anything else is right there - that lead to money leaking to private individuals, credit hire etc it all stays in the industry
LoonR1 said:
pork911 said:
not ranting (i promise) but....
nothing will ever change then (we can't do anything Vs we won't do anything)
and the key difference between referral fees for injury and anything else is right there - that lead to money leaking to private individuals, credit hire etc it all stays in the industry
You've just described corporate culture in a sentence. People are there for the short term and would rather have generated £x million in income on their CV and pretend the 3.5x million in cost doesn't exist. Too many people in it for themselves and not the good of the company they work for, no matter how senior they are. nothing will ever change then (we can't do anything Vs we won't do anything)
and the key difference between referral fees for injury and anything else is right there - that lead to money leaking to private individuals, credit hire etc it all stays in the industry
LoonR1 said:
surveyor said:
But it's your customers who foot the 3.5x million cost so why would they care....
When insurance companies pay out £1.22 in claims costs for every £1 received in premium and have done so for the past 17 years then it's not the case is it. surveyor said:
So why are they still in the business? They would get a better return giving it a miss.
I'm bored having the same discussion. 1. At some point they're hoping it will return to profit and they want to be there then
2. It's a loss leading intro to other products
3. All Insurers offer many other lines of business, most of which are profitable
4. Other ancillary make money eg legal expenses
5. Some have withdrawn from the market completely (or price so high as to effective do so)
6. All have reduced capacity in the more risky parts of the market
7. There is a gentlemans agreement that if you want to sell general insurance in the UK then Private Motor will be part of your portfolio
8. It's an ego trip for a CEO. Nobody wants to be the o ego throw in the towel
Enough?
LoonR1 said:
surveyor said:
So why are they still in the business? They would get a better return giving it a miss.
I'm bored having the same discussion. 1. At some point they're hoping it will return to profit and they want to be there then
2. It's a loss leading intro to other products
3. All Insurers offer many other lines of business, most of which are profitable
4. Other ancillary make money eg legal expenses
5. Some have withdrawn from the market completely (or price so high as to effective do so)
6. All have reduced capacity in the more risky parts of the market
7. There is a gentlemans agreement that if you want to sell general insurance in the UK then Private Motor will be part of your portfolio
8. It's an ego trip for a CEO. Nobody wants to be the o ego throw in the towel
Enough?
It's refreshing that big business has a heart and a conscious in this day and age.
LoonR1 said:
pork911 said:
not ranting (i promise) but....
nothing will ever change then (we can't do anything Vs we won't do anything)
and the key difference between referral fees for injury and anything else is right there - that lead to money leaking to private individuals, credit hire etc it all stays in the industry
You've just described corporate culture in a sentence. People are there for the short term and would rather have generated £x million in income on their CV and pretend the 3.5x million in cost doesn't exist. Too many people in it for themselves and not the good of the company they work for, no matter how senior they are. nothing will ever change then (we can't do anything Vs we won't do anything)
and the key difference between referral fees for injury and anything else is right there - that lead to money leaking to private individuals, credit hire etc it all stays in the industry
and even then I valued my profession while making money.Idealistic as it may seem I just feel credit hire is absolutely scandalous.
Even the biggest cynic would accept there are some genuine injury claimants whereas credit hire is based on an absolute fraud that no one involved has any (or sufficient) interest in acknowledging.
How many credit hire claimants are liable for the bill they are claiming? (Unless they refuse to lie to the court, though I'd love to defend that one, maybe I should credit hire at some point!)
How many insurers of defendants believe it either?
Yet that crucial question in never raised.
And regardless of insurance being a loss making enterprise those companies have a choice whether to be involved, drivers don't and have to pay.
LoonR1 said:
When insurance companies pay out £1.22 in claims costs for every £1 received in premium and have done so for the past 17 years then it's not the case is it.
Hmmmm...it's a few years ago now but there was wailing from our fleet manager at work as the claim cost breached 80% of the premium one year.We all get sent on defensive driver training, there was a big push to make sure the excess was enforced on fault accidents and even talk of weighting the costs according to driver age/experience/claims etc although that never came to anything.
Sheepshanks said:
Hmmmm...it's a few years ago now but there was wailing from our fleet manager at work as the claim cost breached 80% of the premium one year.
We all get sent on defensive driver training, there was a big push to make sure the excess was enforced on fault accidents and even talk of weighting the costs according to driver age/experience/claims etc although that never came to anything.
That's a Commercial Lines pict not Personal Lines. They are priced differently. Your fleet manager knows what pain is coming, as next year's premium is claims cost related. Personal Lines policies are NCD rated. We all get sent on defensive driver training, there was a big push to make sure the excess was enforced on fault accidents and even talk of weighting the costs according to driver age/experience/claims etc although that never came to anything.
Just google"motor insurance profit loss 20xx" insert your own year.
LoonR1 said:
That's a Commercial Lines pict not Personal Lines. They are priced differently. Your fleet manager knows what pain is coming, as next year's premium is claims cost related. Personal Lines policies are NCD rated.
Just google"motor insurance profit loss 20xx" insert your own year.
Just did that and one of the first hits was.... (Judging by the fact that this is a regulated law firm it must be the truth, surely?)Just google"motor insurance profit loss 20xx" insert your own year.
Solictor's web site said:-
Thompsons Solicitors refuses to work for insurance companies
Thompsons Solicitors, which refuses to work for insurance companies, says the figures demonstrate the insurance industry has much to gain from Government reforms that undermine access to justice for genuine claimants.
The key findings of the Thompsons analysis are:
Market leader Direct Line, which owns the Churchill brand, saw profits from car insurance rise last year to £262m (2011: £255m). It will be paying £101m in dividends to shareholders on June 11 – equivalent to £25 per policy holder.
Admiral made a profit from the UK car insurance market of £372.8m in 2012 - a 19% increase on the previous year. Its UK car insurance profits were actually higher than Admiral’s overall profit, due to losses in overseas markets. Admiral increased its total dividend pay-out to shareholders by 20% to £245m – equivalent to £81 per customer.
AVIVA does not give a separate profit figure for car insurance, but its 2012 annual report says: “Personal motor premiums increased by 3% to £1,164 million (2011 £1,126m) and we have nearly 2.5 million personal motor customers, an increase of over 250,000 since the start of 2012. We continue to deliver good profitability in personal (motor insurance) lines.”
AXA UK & Ireland, part of global French-owned group, does not publish separate accounts, but it issued a statement on 21 February saying: “Motor profitability improved in 2012, thanks to pricing and risk selection actions.” It said it expects ‘improved results in 2013’. AXA has been particularly active in lobbying the Government for reforms to deter claims.
Liverpool Victoria, the fifth largest car insurer, saw its profits rise 11% in 2012 to £29.5 (2011: £26.5m).
“The Transport Select Committee will be hearing representatives of the car insurance industry today arguing for more measures that would undermine access to justice for genuine claimants.
"
Insurance company accounting is a bit of a dark art but there is no doubt that most decent insurers like it because it provides strong cashflow, with many claims being paid out months or years after the premium has been paid.
That's not to say there wasn't/isn't wide scale fraud and abuse of the system, because there is.
Heres a report from a data mining company. They aren't an insurer, broker, underwriter or PI firm (claimant or defendant) and therefore have no axe to grind one way or the other. It's a good read if you open your mind to it. I'm firmly on the fence here, as I know what the losses are like, but bored of banging my head against a brick wall, so let's see if this changes anything
http://www.towerswatson.com/DownloadMedia.aspx?med...
http://www.towerswatson.com/DownloadMedia.aspx?med...
Sheepshanks said:
Hmmmm...it's a few years ago now but there was wailing from our fleet manager at work as the claim cost breached 80% of the premium one year.
We all get sent on defensive driver training, there was a big push to make sure the excess was enforced on fault accidents and even talk of weighting the costs according to driver age/experience/claims etc although that never came to anything.
The Insurer would need to pay the broker between 10% and 12.5% in commission, the balance will need to pay their other over heads such as wages, rent, heat/light, rates etc etc. They will also have a levy to pay to the Ombudsman and the FCA.We all get sent on defensive driver training, there was a big push to make sure the excess was enforced on fault accidents and even talk of weighting the costs according to driver age/experience/claims etc although that never came to anything.
Those over heads would exceed the premium paid at an 80% claims ratio, hence why the Insurers put pressure on your fleet manager who in turn put pressure on you.
The fleet Insurer would be making a profit at circa 60% to 70% claims ratio
LoonR1 said:
pork911 said:
LoonR1, genuinely with the greatest of respect why work in an industry and how disillusioning is it to do so, where money can't be made from compulsory premiums?
I'm not. I quit ages ago. desolate said:
Just did that and one of the first hits was.... (Judging by the fact that this is a regulated law firm it must be the truth, surely?)
Solictor's web site said:-
Thompsons Solicitors refuses to work for insurance companies
Thompsons Solicitors, which refuses to work for insurance companies, says the figures demonstrate the insurance industry has much to gain from Government reforms that undermine access to justice for genuine claimants.
The key findings of the Thompsons analysis are:
Market leader Direct Line, which owns the Churchill brand, saw profits from car insurance rise last year to £262m (2011: £255m). It will be paying £101m in dividends to shareholders on June 11 – equivalent to £25 per policy holder.
Admiral made a profit from the UK car insurance market of £372.8m in 2012 - a 19% increase on the previous year. Its UK car insurance profits were actually higher than Admiral’s overall profit, due to losses in overseas markets. Admiral increased its total dividend pay-out to shareholders by 20% to £245m – equivalent to £81 per customer.
AVIVA does not give a separate profit figure for car insurance, but its 2012 annual report says: “Personal motor premiums increased by 3% to £1,164 million (2011 £1,126m) and we have nearly 2.5 million personal motor customers, an increase of over 250,000 since the start of 2012. We continue to deliver good profitability in personal (motor insurance) lines.”
AXA UK & Ireland, part of global French-owned group, does not publish separate accounts, but it issued a statement on 21 February saying: “Motor profitability improved in 2012, thanks to pricing and risk selection actions.” It said it expects ‘improved results in 2013’. AXA has been particularly active in lobbying the Government for reforms to deter claims.
Liverpool Victoria, the fifth largest car insurer, saw its profits rise 11% in 2012 to £29.5 (2011: £26.5m).
“The Transport Select Committee will be hearing representatives of the car insurance industry today arguing for more measures that would undermine access to justice for genuine claimants.
"
Insurance company accounting is a bit of a dark art but there is no doubt that most decent insurers like it because it provides strong cashflow, with many claims being paid out months or years after the premium has been paid.
That's not to say there wasn't/isn't wide scale fraud and abuse of the system, because there is.
They've been fairly selective in the data they've used.Solictor's web site said:-
Thompsons Solicitors refuses to work for insurance companies
Thompsons Solicitors, which refuses to work for insurance companies, says the figures demonstrate the insurance industry has much to gain from Government reforms that undermine access to justice for genuine claimants.
The key findings of the Thompsons analysis are:
Market leader Direct Line, which owns the Churchill brand, saw profits from car insurance rise last year to £262m (2011: £255m). It will be paying £101m in dividends to shareholders on June 11 – equivalent to £25 per policy holder.
Admiral made a profit from the UK car insurance market of £372.8m in 2012 - a 19% increase on the previous year. Its UK car insurance profits were actually higher than Admiral’s overall profit, due to losses in overseas markets. Admiral increased its total dividend pay-out to shareholders by 20% to £245m – equivalent to £81 per customer.
AVIVA does not give a separate profit figure for car insurance, but its 2012 annual report says: “Personal motor premiums increased by 3% to £1,164 million (2011 £1,126m) and we have nearly 2.5 million personal motor customers, an increase of over 250,000 since the start of 2012. We continue to deliver good profitability in personal (motor insurance) lines.”
AXA UK & Ireland, part of global French-owned group, does not publish separate accounts, but it issued a statement on 21 February saying: “Motor profitability improved in 2012, thanks to pricing and risk selection actions.” It said it expects ‘improved results in 2013’. AXA has been particularly active in lobbying the Government for reforms to deter claims.
Liverpool Victoria, the fifth largest car insurer, saw its profits rise 11% in 2012 to £29.5 (2011: £26.5m).
“The Transport Select Committee will be hearing representatives of the car insurance industry today arguing for more measures that would undermine access to justice for genuine claimants.
"
Insurance company accounting is a bit of a dark art but there is no doubt that most decent insurers like it because it provides strong cashflow, with many claims being paid out months or years after the premium has been paid.
That's not to say there wasn't/isn't wide scale fraud and abuse of the system, because there is.
Directline posted a loss of a similar amount the year before when they were operating at about £1.21 loss per £1.00 which is in line with Loonri previous post.
So when they posted a profit of £262m they made the grand total of £25 per customer which is give or take the profit they make from selling the add on's such as legal cover. So the year before when they made a loss, they would have been losing a similar amount for each and every customer.
pork911 said:
confused. i thought you said you'd gladly give up referral income to lose credit hire costs etc. nevermind.
I did, it's a phrase I've used many times over the years on here, but mainly it gets ignored. I'll be back fairly shortly and my stance remains. I'd give up the income of the cost goes tooLoonR1 said:
Well done on finding that. Thompsons are a claimant firm acting primarily for Unite members so will definitely put a nice little slant on things. Read it again, only the first two separate out motor insurance, the rest is the aggregated company profit and Axa even includes Ireland.
I was being flippant.I googled exactly what you said and they were near the top.
Nowhere can I find evidence of the market paying 120% of premium in claims. In some years total costs have been around that, but it's normally significantly lower.
desolate said:
I was being flippant.
I googled exactly what you said and they were near the top.
Nowhere can I find evidence of the market paying 120% of premium in claims. In some years total costs have been around that, but it's normally significantly lower.
Slap bang at the top of the 2012 results from ReutersI googled exactly what you said and they were near the top.
Nowhere can I find evidence of the market paying 120% of premium in claims. In some years total costs have been around that, but it's normally significantly lower.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/24/uk-insura...
Note "eye first profit since 1994" £120 paid out per £100 received. Pretty clear in there. Oh and 2012 didn't happen in 2012 sadly.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff