Admiral Car Insurance Rant
Discussion
sidicks said:
What you mean is that the Ombudsman didn't side with you in your case? Thats entirely different. I also guess you don't understand the difference between the Regulator and the Ombudsman?
How about you show me you're right - you're the one making the accusations!
As a starter, what's the average underwriting profit made by the industry in the last 5 years?
You made the claim, not me.How about you show me you're right - you're the one making the accusations!
As a starter, what's the average underwriting profit made by the industry in the last 5 years?
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 10th July 20:59
Ok explain to me why car hire costs aren't included when assessing to write off a vehicle.
Lets say a £40k car needs £24k of repairs. Deemed worthy of fixing instead of write off.
Car hire costs another £3k lets say.
How is that any different to a £40k car needing a £27k repair and deemed a write off as uneconomical ?
The biggest complaint I have is that insurers are deceitful.
If you really want me to write the whole s
tty tale you'll have to wait a while because it went on for months and it'll take a hell of a long time to detail everything that happened.Crafty_ said:
You made the claim, not me.
No, you are wrong. Again.Crafty_ said:
Ok explain to me why car hire costs aren't included when assessing to write off a vehicle.
Lets say a £40k car needs £24k of repairs. Deemed worthy of fixing instead of write off.
Car hire costs another £3k lets say.
How is that any different to a £40k car needing a £27k repair and deemed a write off as uneconomical ?
The biggest complaint I have is that insurers are deceitful.
Another bold claim, no doubt you'll be able to support this one?Lets say a £40k car needs £24k of repairs. Deemed worthy of fixing instead of write off.
Car hire costs another £3k lets say.
How is that any different to a £40k car needing a £27k repair and deemed a write off as uneconomical ?
The biggest complaint I have is that insurers are deceitful.
Crafty_ said:
If you really want me to write the whole stty tale you'll have to wait a while because it went on for months and it'll take a hell of a long time to detail everything that happened.
So no evidence to review then?tty tale you'll have to wait a while because it went on for months and it'll take a hell of a long time to detail everything that happened.And again, you are deeming your single example as representative of a wider industry that insures over 20 million people...
sidicks said:
Crafty_ said:
You made the claim, not me.
No, you are wrong. Again.Crafty_ said:
Ok explain to me why car hire costs aren't included when assessing to write off a vehicle.
Lets say a £40k car needs £24k of repairs. Deemed worthy of fixing instead of write off.
Car hire costs another £3k lets say.
How is that any different to a £40k car needing a £27k repair and deemed a write off as uneconomical ?
The biggest complaint I have is that insurers are deceitful.
Another bold claim, no doubt you'll be able to support this one?Lets say a £40k car needs £24k of repairs. Deemed worthy of fixing instead of write off.
Car hire costs another £3k lets say.
How is that any different to a £40k car needing a £27k repair and deemed a write off as uneconomical ?
The biggest complaint I have is that insurers are deceitful.
Crafty_ said:
If you really want me to write the whole stty tale you'll have to wait a while because it went on for months and it'll take a hell of a long time to detail everything that happened.
So no evidence to review then?tty tale you'll have to wait a while because it went on for months and it'll take a hell of a long time to detail everything that happened.- sigh*
So show me it isn't.
As far as being deceitful, the insurer told me plain and simple lies like:
"Your car will be repaired in six weeks" - Wrong, 5 months and still not repaired properly.
"Your car will be in better condition than it was pre-accident because worn out bits will be replaced" - Wrong, it wasn't (see below). It was 17 days old when hit, it was barely used, let alone "worn out"
"Your car is an economical repair" - Wrong. The eventual cost of the claim easily exceeded £30k, the car cost less than that.
"Your car won't lose value as a result of the repair" - Wrong, I took legal action and proved otherwise.
If you don't like what I say or disagree thats fine but you have no grounds to tell me I'm wrong.
Crafty_ said:
- sigh*
So show me it isn't.
You're a bit slow aren't you - you're making the claim, you justify why your claim IS representative of the industry as a whole...
TwigtheWonderkid has already explained this to you. Twice!
Crafty_ said:
As far as being deceitful, the insurer told me plain and simple lies like:
"Your car will be repaired in six weeks" - Wrong, 5 months and still not repaired properly.
"Your car will be in better condition than it was pre-accident because worn out bits will be replaced" - Wrong, it wasn't (see below). It was 17 days old when hit, it was barely used, let alone "worn out"
"Your car is an economical repair" - Wrong. The eventual cost of the claim easily exceeded £30k, the car cost less than that.
"Your car won't lose value as a result of the repair" - Wrong, I took legal action and proved otherwise.
Difficult to comment on the above - it does appear you were treated badly, but it is a single case."Your car will be repaired in six weeks" - Wrong, 5 months and still not repaired properly.
"Your car will be in better condition than it was pre-accident because worn out bits will be replaced" - Wrong, it wasn't (see below). It was 17 days old when hit, it was barely used, let alone "worn out"
"Your car is an economical repair" - Wrong. The eventual cost of the claim easily exceeded £30k, the car cost less than that.
"Your car won't lose value as a result of the repair" - Wrong, I took legal action and proved otherwise.
Crafty_ said:
If you don't like what I say or disagree thats fine but you have no grounds to tell me I'm wrong.
I have plenty of grounds to tell you are wrong when you make ignorant generalisations (without evidence) of a massive industry, of which I have far more experience than you.HTH
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 10th July 21:34
Crafty, I don't think the single experiences of one person, be they good or bad, are proof of anything.
You are making extraordinary claims about a whole industry, and those that regulate it, based on what happened to you. It's just ridiculous.
Produce some decent evidence from across the industry of you claims, some hard data following a proper analysis, or give it up, because as it is, you're making yourself look a bit silly.
You are making extraordinary claims about a whole industry, and those that regulate it, based on what happened to you. It's just ridiculous.
Produce some decent evidence from across the industry of you claims, some hard data following a proper analysis, or give it up, because as it is, you're making yourself look a bit silly.
I have to say over the last few years buying car insurance has become shockingly bad, it is honestly harder than buying a new car.
You get a base price then you need to go through the options list to see what you actually need or want but then they try to convince you that what if a helicopter flies over you and the blade chops your tinkie winkie off then what are you going to do? YOU MUST Have this cover to protect you from such events, only 31.00 a year....
Complete and total utter nightmare. Personally I hate admiral, they are always the cheapest but the internet is full of stories of claims being very difficult and getting low ball offers in events of write offs. I ignored all these views until I had to go through it myself and every single one of them was correct.
You get a base price then you need to go through the options list to see what you actually need or want but then they try to convince you that what if a helicopter flies over you and the blade chops your tinkie winkie off then what are you going to do? YOU MUST Have this cover to protect you from such events, only 31.00 a year....
Complete and total utter nightmare. Personally I hate admiral, they are always the cheapest but the internet is full of stories of claims being very difficult and getting low ball offers in events of write offs. I ignored all these views until I had to go through it myself and every single one of them was correct.
Read all the augment and I agree with both parties hahaha the industry seems to allow for inconsistencies in standard from one company to another. Eg some insurers claim they don't cover non standard parts (imbedded in TCs) however they take a premium for them? Admiral are a bunch of muppets!! Yet some companies are very good.
So we can't slate the industry completely but it's wide scope makes it easy to feel victimised/screwed over as it can be down to language and its interpretation which in itself is open to debate rather than a clear right or wrong.
So we can't slate the industry completely but it's wide scope makes it easy to feel victimised/screwed over as it can be down to language and its interpretation which in itself is open to debate rather than a clear right or wrong.
XMT said:
I have to say over the last few years buying car insurance has become shockingly bad, it is honestly harder than buying a new car.
You get a base price then you need to go through the options list to see what you actually need or want but then they try to convince you that what if a helicopter flies over you and the blade chops your tinkie winkie off then what are you going to do? YOU MUST Have this cover to protect you from such events, only 31.00 a year....
Complete and total utter nightmare. Personally I hate admiral, they are always the cheapest but the internet is full of stories of claims being very difficult and getting low ball offers in events of write offs. I ignored all these views until I had to go through it myself and every single one of them was correct.
Insurance cover is tailored to what you need, rather than a one size fits all approach. If you don't need any of the add-ons then don't buy them!You get a base price then you need to go through the options list to see what you actually need or want but then they try to convince you that what if a helicopter flies over you and the blade chops your tinkie winkie off then what are you going to do? YOU MUST Have this cover to protect you from such events, only 31.00 a year....
Complete and total utter nightmare. Personally I hate admiral, they are always the cheapest but the internet is full of stories of claims being very difficult and getting low ball offers in events of write offs. I ignored all these views until I had to go through it myself and every single one of them was correct.
The alternative approach is that they are included in the base price and then you are saying for them whether you want them or not. Personally I'd prefer to have the option not to pay for things i don't need!
Tailored to what I need?
I call 'utter bullshat' on that one. I have had one company who provided no travel to a permanent place of work on their policy by default, which I only noticed in the what I shall call 'miniscule' print. I called them and said I would need that.. there was no charge. Just one more excuse not to pay out.
The first quote I got recently was comprehensive cover and was more than the cost of the vehicle. Now tell me why would I insure a vehicle for that??? TPFT would cover any third party so explain why I'd pay for insurance that would only ever pay out less than the premium for my vehicle!
...and you can shove Gap insurance right up your own monthly payments!
A bunch of con merchants justifying themselves through law and providing no service through loopholes.
Meagre profits is what happens when you buy a load of expensive offices in an expensive area for no reason just to hide your profits through depreciation, oh look now you have a massive amount of capital but 'poor us we have meagre profits'.
Off, is the direction in which they should f*ck!
Obviously now I have said all that I expect a rise in my premiums because, reasons.
I call 'utter bullshat' on that one. I have had one company who provided no travel to a permanent place of work on their policy by default, which I only noticed in the what I shall call 'miniscule' print. I called them and said I would need that.. there was no charge. Just one more excuse not to pay out.
The first quote I got recently was comprehensive cover and was more than the cost of the vehicle. Now tell me why would I insure a vehicle for that??? TPFT would cover any third party so explain why I'd pay for insurance that would only ever pay out less than the premium for my vehicle!
...and you can shove Gap insurance right up your own monthly payments!
A bunch of con merchants justifying themselves through law and providing no service through loopholes.
Meagre profits is what happens when you buy a load of expensive offices in an expensive area for no reason just to hide your profits through depreciation, oh look now you have a massive amount of capital but 'poor us we have meagre profits'.
Off, is the direction in which they should f*ck!
Obviously now I have said all that I expect a rise in my premiums because, reasons.
Gnits said:
The first quote I got recently was comprehensive cover and was more than the cost of the vehicle. Now tell me why would I insure a vehicle for that??? TPFT would cover any third party so explain why I'd pay for insurance that would only ever pay out less than the premium for my vehicle!
I think you miss the point - The main cost is clearly going to be the third party cover - the potential loss is entirely unrelated to the value of your vehicle and in that scenario, you'd get nothing back for your own car.Adjusting for selection effects, the difference between the third party cost and the fully comprehensive cost is what you are paying to protect your own vehicle - I doubt that was more than the value of your car, was it?!
Gnits said:
...and you can shove Gap insurance right up your own monthly payments!
You don't want GAP cover, don't pay for it - not sure what the problem is?Gnits said:
A bunch of con merchants justifying themselves through law and providing no service through loopholes.
Meagre profits is what happens when you buy a load of expensive offices in an expensive area for no reason just to hide your profits through depreciation, oh look now you have a massive amount of capital but 'poor us we have meagre profits'.
Meagre profits is what happens when you buy a load of expensive offices in an expensive area for no reason just to hide your profits through depreciation, oh look now you have a massive amount of capital but 'poor us we have meagre profits'.
Ignorance is pretty prevalent on this thread!
Gnits said:
Off, is the direction in which they should f*ck!
Obviously now I have said all that I expect a rise in my premiums because, reasons.
Because the expected cost of claims has gone up.Obviously now I have said all that I expect a rise in my premiums because, reasons.
HTH
Gnits said:
Tailored to what I need?
I call 'utter bullshat' on that one. I have had one company who provided no travel to a permanent place of work on their policy by default, which I only noticed in the what I shall call 'miniscule' print.
Well I'm calling bullsI call 'utter bullshat' on that one. I have had one company who provided no travel to a permanent place of work on their policy by default, which I only noticed in the what I shall call 'miniscule' print.
t on that on 2 fronts. I haven't seen a UK policy for years with any small print. When people complain about small print, what they actually mean is normal sized print they were too fking lazy to read.Secondly, the use of the vehicle is always one of the questions asked when obtaining the quote. So if you got a policy or a quote ex commuting, it was because you selected that at quotation stage.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well I'm calling bullst on that on 2 fronts. I haven't seen a UK policy for years with any small print. When people complain about small print, what they actually mean is normal sized print they were too fking lazy to read.
Secondly, the use of the vehicle is always one of the questions asked when obtaining the quote. So if you got a policy or a quote ex commuting, it was because you selected that at quotation stage.
You're wasting your time with this one - his ignorant rants are full of swearing and rhetoric but extremely short of substance.t on that on 2 fronts. I haven't seen a UK policy for years with any small print. When people complain about small print, what they actually mean is normal sized print they were too fking lazy to read.Secondly, the use of the vehicle is always one of the questions asked when obtaining the quote. So if you got a policy or a quote ex commuting, it was because you selected that at quotation stage.
First quote fully comp £740 TPFT £700
Next company fully comp £350.
You explain the difference between prices.. If your argument is TPFT is the majority of the cost then where did that evaporate to in the space of the 4 minutes it took to get a quote from a different company?
£50 admin for changing a single digit on my record...go...
The point about Gap insurance is that you should never need it if the company does their job. That's like going for surgery but they don't close and you have to pay extra for that last part of the service.
Insurance is an area of expertise and it is extremely simple to screw over the layman. Absolutley everyone with an area of expertise here would be able to run rings around those who know little about that area and make it sound perfectly sensible AND make it sound like you should have known all along.
Small print - I apologise for this, what I mean is the multiple pages of detail which include various loopholes and get outs if and when required IF you are in the know, some people call this 'small print'. If that was vague that was not my intent.
Use of vehicle in the quote, absolutely not when I got that quote! Hence my call to correct it.
I avoided swearing as you find it bothersome and I hope I have provided some substance. If I am the only one here with this kind of experience then I apologise in advance and will mind my own business on this. However seeing as this thread was started by someone else there is at least two of us although the company in question for me is not Admiral.
Rhetoric???? My responses are actual personal experience, how do you get to rhetoric from that????????
I still have not received the T&Cs from the current insurer so I have no idea what I am insured to do or not do yet, for all I know there is a clause about having an iPhone or not after all there is one about being married or not and owning a house or not.
I have to call them tomorrow to pay for the 4 days less driving I must have done nearly 30 years ago which they don't count anyway but it is important but they don't count but it still costs me money but they don't count, you get the idea.
Next company fully comp £350.
You explain the difference between prices.. If your argument is TPFT is the majority of the cost then where did that evaporate to in the space of the 4 minutes it took to get a quote from a different company?
£50 admin for changing a single digit on my record...go...
The point about Gap insurance is that you should never need it if the company does their job. That's like going for surgery but they don't close and you have to pay extra for that last part of the service.
Insurance is an area of expertise and it is extremely simple to screw over the layman. Absolutley everyone with an area of expertise here would be able to run rings around those who know little about that area and make it sound perfectly sensible AND make it sound like you should have known all along.
Small print - I apologise for this, what I mean is the multiple pages of detail which include various loopholes and get outs if and when required IF you are in the know, some people call this 'small print'. If that was vague that was not my intent.
Use of vehicle in the quote, absolutely not when I got that quote! Hence my call to correct it.
I avoided swearing as you find it bothersome and I hope I have provided some substance. If I am the only one here with this kind of experience then I apologise in advance and will mind my own business on this. However seeing as this thread was started by someone else there is at least two of us although the company in question for me is not Admiral.
Rhetoric???? My responses are actual personal experience, how do you get to rhetoric from that????????
I still have not received the T&Cs from the current insurer so I have no idea what I am insured to do or not do yet, for all I know there is a clause about having an iPhone or not after all there is one about being married or not and owning a house or not.
I have to call them tomorrow to pay for the 4 days less driving I must have done nearly 30 years ago which they don't count anyway but it is important but they don't count but it still costs me money but they don't count, you get the idea.
Gnits said:
The point about Gap insurance is that you should never need it if the company does their job. That's like going for surgery but they don't close and you have to pay extra for that last part of the service.
Not at all. If you are happy to take the risk of market value then you can get a cheaper premium. If you want guaranteed value then you pay a higher premium.Gap Insurance can be Crucial if you have any finance element, especially on heavy metal.
Gnits said:
First quote fully comp £740 TPFT £700
Next company fully comp £350.
You explain the difference between prices.. If your argument is TPFT is the majority of the cost then where did that evaporate to in the space of the 4 minutes it took to get a quote from a different company?
My argument about TPFT v Fully Comprehensive cover was in relation to an entirely different issue - see above.Next company fully comp £350.
You explain the difference between prices.. If your argument is TPFT is the majority of the cost then where did that evaporate to in the space of the 4 minutes it took to get a quote from a different company?
The fact is that insurers have to forecast the future to assess what your future claims experience will be - part of this is done based on your personal details, part of this is down to the company's own experience of your type of risk, part of this is based on generic industry data, part will be down to the company's risk profile and the types of risks they already have on their books (and the risks they want to attract) and there will also be competitive pressures.
Some companies will assess your risk differently and quote a lower premium, others will quote high because it's not a risk they want to take for a variety of reasons. Neither is doing anything wrong.
The fact that you have literally hundreds of insurers to choose from so you can shop around for the best quote demonstrates how efficient the market is.
Gnits said:
£50 admin for changing a single digit on my record...go...
What record? If it was a postcode or engine size then this could have a fundamental impact on risk factor.If it was to correct a phone number, I simply don't believe you!
Gnits said:
The point about Gap insurance is that you should never need it if the company does their job. That's like going for surgery but they don't close and you have to pay extra for that last part of the service.
You clearly don't understand what GAP cover is for.Gnits said:
Insurance is an area of expertise and it is extremely simple to screw over the layman. Absolutley everyone with an area of expertise here would be able to run rings around those who know little about that area and make it sound perfectly sensible AND make it sound like you should have known all along.
It certainly is an area of expertise, which is why it makes no sense for you to make generic comments about a whole industry based on your limited experience of something you demonstrably don't understand.If you stick to your actual experience then you may get more sympathy...
Gnits said:
Small print - I apologise for this, what I mean is the multiple pages of detail which include various loopholes and get outs if and when required IF you are in the know, some people call this 'small print'. If that was vague that was not my intent.
Use of vehicle in the quote, absolutely not when I got that quote! Hence my call to correct it.
In any car insurance quote, either online or over the phone, one of the first things they ask you is your usage of the vehicle. Not only that, but this is prominently displayed on the schedule that they send you. It is not hidden in pages of small print.Use of vehicle in the quote, absolutely not when I got that quote! Hence my call to correct it.
Gnits said:
I avoided swearing as you find it bothersome and I hope I have provided some substance. If I am the only one here with this kind of experience then I apologise in advance and will mind my own business on this.
I find that people with a genuine grievance who want help tend to get a more favourable response on here than people who seemingly just want to rant, make claims they can't substantiate and castigate a massive industry on the basis of very limited experience.Gnits said:
However seeing as this thread was started by someone else there is at least two of us although the company in question for me is not Admiral.
Rhetoric???? My responses are actual personal experience, how do you get to rhetoric from that????????
Some of your claims are pure nonsense, and your comments about the industry and the regulator / ombudsman are pure fantasy.Rhetoric???? My responses are actual personal experience, how do you get to rhetoric from that????????
Gnits said:
I still have not received the T&Cs from the current insurer so I have no idea what I am insured to do or not do yet, for all I know there is a clause about having an iPhone or not after all there is one about being married or not and owning a house or not.
This is poor customer service - are their T&C not available on line?Of course, the cheapest insurer has to save money somewhere and customer service is one of those areas - sometimes cheapest isn't best!
Gnits said:
I have to call them tomorrow to pay for the 4 days less driving I must have done nearly 30 years ago which they don't count anyway but it is important but they don't count but it still costs me money but they don't count, you get the idea.
I agree that this should not affect the risk or premium - most companies simply ask for how many years you have been driving and often there is simply a box for 15+ etc.I think Twig is one of the experts on here, there are others.
Genuine questions and reasonable requests for help are normally met with useful responses.
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 14th July 07:38
Gnits said:
First quote fully comp £740 TPFT £700
Next company fully comp £350.
You explain the difference between prices..
I asked FedEx how much to deliver a letter from London to Inverness next day, they quoted me £29. Then I asked in the post office, and they quoted me 49p. Next company fully comp £350.
You explain the difference between prices..
You explain the difference between prices..
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Thursday 14th July 13:44
Gnits said:
The point about Gap insurance is that you should never need it if the company does their job. That's like going for surgery but they don't close and you have to pay extra for that last part of the service.
It really isn't. It's like going in for surgery to have a mole removed from your cheek on the NHS, but wanting the surgeon, who also does private surgery, to give you a facelift whilst he's at it.The mole you get free, the facelift you pay for. Because it's over an above what is needed and more than you're entitled to.
This isn't tricky stuff. You're lack of basic knowledge about the stuff you are arguing about if quite staggering.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff