Has your insurance gone up?

[e-honda]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That's one of many reasons it is more expensive. And the reason they've moved on to the SDH industry, because they don't want comp (which somehow you didn't seem to know, in fact believing they actually would want comp) and if they bought comp and then were reluctant to deal with insurers on an ongoing basis re their own damage claim, it would raise suspicions.

Honestly, the more you post, the more you demonstrate how ill informed you are. Give it up, for the sake of your own diminishing credibility.

Don't forget, according to you, tpo buyers are less likely to commit fraud....it's a fact.

You seem to completely ignore the fact my whole post was a tongue in cheek post about making unsubstantiated claims, I couldn't have made it much more clear and I clarified by stating it to you but you still want to argue about it but throwing in your own unsubstantiated claims and somehow think you are undermining my credibility by winning arguments against points that I have completely made up.

[Killboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Exactly. That's the reason I mentioned my lads, because it's a meaningless anecdote, like you wanting tpo even though you have no money worries. And my granny smoked 40 a day and lived to 99.

Does your gran want health insurance? We are talking about insurance here. If you cant come up with an explanation just say so?

[Killboy]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That's one of many reasons it is more expensive. And the reason they've moved on to the SDH industry, because they don't want comp (which somehow you didn't seem to know, in fact believing they actually would want comp) and if they bought comp and then were reluctant to deal with insurers on an ongoing basis re their own damage claim, it would raise suspicions.

Honestly, the more you post, the more you demonstrate how ill informed you are. Give it up, for the sake of your own diminishing credibility.

Don't forget, according to you, tpo buyers are less likely to commit fraud....it's a fact.

Its well known that you make up a load of nonsense.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Killboy said:

Its well known that you make up a load of nonsense.

As that's come from you, I'll take it as a compliment. If you think I'm talking nonsense, I must be doing something right.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

e-honda said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That's one of many reasons it is more expensive. And the reason they've moved on to the SDH industry, because they don't want comp (which somehow you didn't seem to know, in fact believing they actually would want comp) and if they bought comp and then were reluctant to deal with insurers on an ongoing basis re their own damage claim, it would raise suspicions.

Honestly, the more you post, the more you demonstrate how ill informed you are. Give it up, for the sake of your own diminishing credibility.

Don't forget, according to you, tpo buyers are less likely to commit fraud....it's a fact.

You seem to completely ignore the fact my whole post was a tongue in cheek post about making unsubstantiated claims, I couldn't have made it much more clear and I clarified by stating it to you but you still want to argue about it but throwing in your own unsubstantiated claims and somehow think you are undermining my credibility by winning arguments against points that I have completely made up.

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

e-honda said:

points that I have completely made up.

Mate, that's all of your posts on insurance.

[e-honda]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Me stop digging?

3rd party is higher because of fraud risk, they choose the cheapest

But it's not the cheapest any more

Well they don't know that

I think they do it's been that way for sometime.

Well they don't want to draw any attention

So they pick the type of insurance you say is well known to be used by scammers?

Well they don't use 3rd party only ant more they've moved to self drive hire.

Wait aren't you now arguing my point then?

Well no because some other reasons.


Where are we going next? Back to credit risk? Or the new one on credit hire charges, we have only been round the house on that one a couple of times.

[LF5335]

e-honda said:

Me stop digging?

3rd party is higher because of fraud risk, they choose the cheapest

But it's not the cheapest any more

Well they don't know that

I think they do it's been that way for sometime.

Well they don't want to draw any attention

So they pick the type of insurance you say is well known to be used by scammers?

Well they don't use 3rd party only ant more they've moved to self drive hire.

Wait aren't you now arguing my point then?

Well no because some other reasons.


Where are we going next? Back to credit risk? Or the new one on credit hire charges, we have only been round the house on that one a couple of times.

If you actually want answers then here are some facts about payouts, the splits, the reasons and the impacts. Or you could continue to complain it’s all a big conspiracy

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/9/r...

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/11/...

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/8/s...

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/11/...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

e-honda said:

Or the new one on credit hire charges, we have only been round the house on that one a couple of times.

Yup, that was something else you got totally wrong, saying insurers adjust their credit rate to match the risk. No they don't. The vast majority of insurers have pre prepared credit agreements with an APR rate that's on their website or wherever and is applicable to all customers. The way they adjust for the credit risk is in the premium quoted. If someone lives in a postcode which may indicate a bad credit risk, or an occupation, or the cover they request, the premium is hiked so that the credit risk is covered if they choose to opt for credit.

Trouble is, there's so much misinformation in your posts that it's hard to deal with it all.

[e-honda]

LF5335 said:

e-honda said:

Me stop digging?

3rd party is higher because of fraud risk, they choose the cheapest

But it's not the cheapest any more

Well they don't know that

I think they do it's been that way for sometime.

Well they don't want to draw any attention

So they pick the type of insurance you say is well known to be used by scammers?

Well they don't use 3rd party only ant more they've moved to self drive hire.

Wait aren't you now arguing my point then?

Well no because some other reasons.


Where are we going next? Back to credit risk? Or the new one on credit hire charges, we have only been round the house on that one a couple of times.

If you actually want answers then here are some facts about payouts, the splits, the reasons and the impacts. Or you could continue to complain it’s all a big conspiracy

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/9/r...

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/11/...

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/8/s...

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/11/...

How does any of this relate to 3rd party cover costing more than fully comp?
Or have you admitted defeat of that one or gone back to rehash your old arguments that insurers couldn't possibly be using the changes in the market to nudge up some customers premiums beyond how much their costs have gone up, because look look I can prove their costs have gone up.

[Killboy]

LF5335 said:

If you actually want answers then here are some facts about payouts, the splits, the reasons and the impacts. Or you could continue to complain it’s all a big conspiracy

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/9/r...

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/11/...

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/8/s...

https://www.abi.org.uk/news/news-articles/2023/11/...

Finally, some real numbers, not fictitious nonsense about morally reprehensible customers and pay monthly default driving up prices.

It does little to settle the debate as to why TP is so expensive, especially considering payouts for vehicle theft is one of the key drivers.

[Road2Ruin]

Have I accidentally wandered into NP&E...

[Speed 3]

Road2Ruin said:

Have I accidentally wandered into NP&E...

It is getting very tedious, it's like tag team wresting on ITV in the 1970's. Not sure what they're wearing tho'

[LF5335]

Killboy said:

Finally, some real numbers, not fictitious nonsense about morally reprehensible customers and pay monthly default driving up prices.

It does little to settle the debate as to why TP is so expensive, especially considering payouts for vehicle theft is one of the key drivers.

As an actuary, I would hope you would understand that pricing for a more or less known fixed cost is very easy compared to the risk and uncertainty of an unknown and virtually uncapped cost.

Own damage can be expensive but you know, if you’re insuring a £3m fixed asset against damage, what the highest catastrophic loss is. If you are insuring an intangible against a potential loss that is many, many multiples of the known cost then it’s going to be much more tricky to price.

Knowing that you may choose not to insure those who only want to insure against the intangible rather than both fixed and intangible. The easiest way to do that is to price the business you don’t want higher than the one you do want.

Again this isn’t difficult to understand if you want to understand it. All businesses do it to some extent.

Here is my example. I don’t want benefits claimants as tenants. I prove my houses at a level that makes them too expensive for them. I will though drop my price below those figures for a non benefit claimant.

Edited by LF5335 on Monday 25th March 13:24

[LF5335]

e-honda said:

How does any of this relate to 3rd party cover costing more than fully comp?
Or have you admitted defeat of that one or gone back to rehash your old arguments that insurers couldn't possibly be using the changes in the market to nudge up some customers premiums beyond how much their costs have gone up, because look look I can prove their costs have gone up.

You have deliberately taken the topic off track and focus exclusively on this one small part of the over all. The initial discussion was why insurance is going up so much and so quickly. You are the one dragging it off topic.

The question and reasons have been answered and given over and over and over again. You just refuse to accept them. Maybe you should go back to commanding the waves to retreat.

[Killboy]

LF5335 said:

As an actuary, I would hope you would understand that pricing for a more or less known fixed cost is very easy compared to the risk and uncertainty of an unknown and virtually uncapped cost.

Own damage can be expensive but you know, if you’re insuring a £3m fixed asset against damage, what the highest catastrophic loss is. If you are insuring an intangible against a potential loss that is many, many multiples of the known cost then it’s going to be much more tricky to price.

Knowing that you may choose not to insure those who only want to insure against the intangible rather than both fixed and intangible. The easiest way to do that is to price the business you don’t want higher than the one you do want.

Again this isn’t difficult to understand if you want to understand it. All businesses do it to some extent.

Here is my example. I don’t want benefits claimants as tenants. I prove my houses at a level that makes them too expensive for them. I will though drop my price below those figures for a non benefit claimant.

Edited by LF5335 on Monday 25th March 13:24

Maybe I need to be an actuary to understand your posts.

Can you tell me how you've priced out "unknown and virtually uncapped cost" - which I'm presuming you mean 3rd party claims? You can try use your dubious and frankly sad (and not to mention likely illegal) pricing model of your homes if you want, but it would be better if you could correlate it to the actual insurance industry.

[e-honda]

LF5335 said:

You have deliberately taken the topic off track and focus exclusively on this one small part of the over all. The initial discussion was why insurance is going up so much and so quickly. You are the one dragging it off topic.

The question and reasons have been answered and given over and over and over again. You just refuse to accept them. Maybe you should go back to commanding the waves to retreat.

I've not taken the topic of track
It's perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about why on earth 3rd party only cover is twice as expensive as fully comp in a discussion about car insurance prices.
You were perfectly happy to discuss it until I pointed out all of your claims are unsubstantiated and your reasoning is flawed, the you wanted to have a different conversation, but rather than moving on and talking about something else you decided to attack me about something else you claim I said but actually never said, why don't you leave the personal attacks out of it.

If you want to discuss how much costs have gone up for insurers, do that but don't do it by immediately starting an argument with me.

[Killboy]

LF5335 said:

Here is my example. I don’t want benefits claimants as tenants. I prove my houses at a level that makes them too expensive for them. I will though drop my price below those figures for a non benefit claimant.

Oh no, as I thought. Way to make yourself look like a fool trying to prove some silly point.

Discrimination and the Equality Act 2010 said:

Under the Equality Act, it is unlawful to indirectly discriminate based on things like gender, disability or race. ‘No DSS’, ‘no benefits’ or ‘no Universal Credit’ policies breach the act via indirect discrimination, as they disproportionately harm women and disabled people, who are more likely to receive housing benefit.  

Sajjad Ahmed director for the British Landlords Association said:

“Housing is a fundamental right. Private landlords play a more important role today in the provision of housing than ever before. Landlords should not discriminate against tenants just because they happen to rely on state benefits.”
This court ruling has confirmed what we have been arguing – that anyone who seeks to exclude renters receiving housing benefit is not just acting unjustly, but unlawfully too.

Outing yourself as a bit of a scumbag here. Perhaps its time to ask PH mod team to trim some posts here

[LF5335]

Killboy said:

Maybe I need to be an actuary to understand your posts.

Can you tell me how you've priced out "unknown and virtually uncapped cost" - which I'm presuming you mean 3rd party claims? You can try use your dubious and frankly sad (and not to mention likely illegal) pricing model of your homes if you want, but it would be better if you could correlate it to the actual insurance industry.

Let’s try this. I’m an insurance company, I don’t want to insure people other than Fully Comp. I’ll prove TPF&T and TPO higher than FC.

I never said they’d “price them out”. Thats you suggesting they won’t cover those risks at all. If so then that’s your deliberate misinterpretation. I said they would find it more difficult to price that element of an insurance policy than pricing a fixed cost. Unless you’re now going to tell me otherwise, in which case I’m all ears.

It’s neither sad nor illegal to avoid renting to certain segments of the housing markets. The only illegal aspects currently are refusing to rent to people based on protected characteristics, being on benefits is not one of them.

[Killboy]

LF5335 said:

Let’s try this. I’m an insurance company, I don’t want to insure people other than Fully Comp. I’ll prove TPF&T and TPO higher than FC.

I never said they’d “price them out”. Thats you suggesting they won’t cover those risks at all. If so then that’s your deliberate misinterpretation. I said they would find it more difficult to price that element of an insurance policy than pricing a fixed cost. Unless you’re now going to tell me otherwise, in which case I’m all ears.

It’s neither sad nor illegal to avoid renting to certain segments of the housing markets. The only illegal aspects currently are refusing to rent to people based on protected characteristics, being on benefits is not one of them.

You sound like you know the insurance market as well as you do the private rental market.

I'm asking you - very simply - what is this "unknown element of an insurance policy" thats harder to price for? What is "fixed cost"?