Insurance - its a rip off!!

[liam1986]

Another update, just had a phone call back from the bell claims dept. they offered me £150 as a good will jester, i turned this down as £150 is peanuts when i consider how much its going to cost me over the nxt 5 years. Now a manager is surposed to be calling me back to discuss it fuurther.

[ARAF]

I would put the amount of this years additional premium, and advise them that they will receive a yearly claim for the difference until such time as there isn't one. That way, you are not gaining from the claim you are making, but will be covered if the amount increases.

[Magic919]

liam1986 said:

Another update, just had a phone call back from the bell claims dept. they offered me £150 as a good will jester,

Great Freudian slip.

I'd have taken the £150. If you can talk them up any more then good for you. You'd never get awarded a penny for that if it went to court. Seems wrong, I know. With Insurers increasingly penalising drivers for _any_ loss/accident you'd think it'd change.

Plenty of Insurers are still happy to overlook a single full-recovery incident. I'd shop around if you can.

[croyde]

liam1986 said:

Right, i've been on the phone to Bell(the at-fault insurance company from my non-fault claim) and at first they seemed to say "fk off, were not going to pay you for increased premiums". So i doing it the old fashoned way and am writing a letter claiming the increased premiums.

Draft Below:

Dear Sirs,

January this year a driver insured with Bell hit my car (VN07 MLV). Your driver was at-fault and Bell paid for the repairs to my car, at this point the damage to my car was the only loss I incurred.

Subsequently I have now incurred financial losses due to the accident in the form of increased insurance premiums. I am now insured with Admiral (current registration number: V800 DRB), this year alone the financial loss due to the claim is £419. This amount has been put on my premium due to the accident which I was a victim of. (As I now have to tick the box saying I have made a claim in the last 5 years, regardless of fault)

As the increase in premiums is going to take place for the next 5 years, I am not prepared to accept this loss and am making a claim against Bell Insurance, to recover my financial losses due to the accident.

As a best case scenario if the increase is kept the same for the next 5 years my total loss will be £2095.





Any thing else i should add?

(the final copy will be set out propally, with the claim ref, address etc on it)

Edited by liam1986 on Tuesday 2nd November 15:27

Good on yer but in the long run, if you win and set a precedent then the premiums will reflect this.

They will win everytime.

Because we have to have insurance by law, we will never win.

[croyde]

ARAF said:

croyde said:

Oh yes! how come any claims on my car affect my bike insurance but the bike insurers have ignored my previous 20 years of car driving with no accidents, claims or convictions.

Because if you brake and lock the front in a car, you skid. Do it on a bike, and you'll often come off.

How are you doing Croyde? Still got the train set?

Edited by ARAF on Tuesday 2nd November 15:11

Alright mate, cycling and biking but the train set has been in it's box for over a year now.

The shame

[ARAF]

liam1986 said:

Another update, just had a phone call back from the bell claims dept. they offered me £150 as a good will jester, i turned this down as £150 is peanuts when i consider how much its going to cost me over the nxt 5 years. Now a manager is surposed to be calling me back to discuss it fuurther.

If they are willing to offer, then they must know that it's a legitimate claim.

[liam1986]

ARAF said:

liam1986 said:

Another update, just had a phone call back from the bell claims dept. they offered me £150 as a good will jester, i turned this down as £150 is peanuts when i consider how much its going to cost me over the nxt 5 years. Now a manager is surposed to be calling me back to discuss it fuurther.

If they are willing to offer, then they must know that it's a legitimate claim.

as soon as the lady said that, that was my first thought. and she never said "without prejudice" so as they always say they calls are recorded i have noted the time of the call.

The manager never called me back so, i'll follow it up tommrow afternoon.

[2blackhats]

2blackhats said:

nicaf said:

On the basis that statistically you are likely at some time to have some sort of accident then surely if I have had one (albiet not my fault) the odds of me having another are REDUCED, not increased, and it is somebody elses turn, given that accidents largely happen on a random basis from a time and geographical basis!

Edited by nicaf on Tuesday 2nd November 13:11

Ah, yes, but the randomness of accident occurrence is exactly why you are just as likely to have another accident - it is not necessairly someone else's turn- and unfortunately, in pure statistical terms you are actually slightly more likely to have another prang, hence the insurers stance on this matter.
However, I know exactly how outraged you feel, as I had a similar non fault bike accident 4 years ago and the bloody thing is still haunting my insurance premiums.

No, it's just statistically, if you have been involved in an accident, you are simply more likely to have another one. This is what the number show. Of course this overarching truth takes no account of individual circumstances and hence our feelings of hard-done-byness and outrage etc.

[croyde]

The problem of getting insurance in this age is the call centre/internet yes and no to all questions and no accounting for the individual.

I remember getting insurance from an office in town where over the years everyone knew you and some of the premium was based on what they thought of you as a person not as a statistic.

Rambling due to hitting a rather good red far too early.

[liam1986]

croyde said:

The problem of getting insurance in this age is the call centre/internet yes and no to all questions and no accounting for the individual.

I remember getting insurance from an office in town where over the years everyone knew you and some of the premium was based on what they thought of you as a person not as a statistic.

Rambling due to hitting a rather good red far too early.

some of my "older" friends have said the same time about getting mortgages & dealing with your bank

[ARAF]

liam1986 said:

ARAF said:

liam1986 said:

Another update, just had a phone call back from the bell claims dept. they offered me £150 as a good will jester, i turned this down as £150 is peanuts when i consider how much its going to cost me over the nxt 5 years. Now a manager is surposed to be calling me back to discuss it fuurther.

If they are willing to offer, then they must know that it's a legitimate claim.

as soon as the lady said that, that was my first thought. and she never said "without prejudice" so as they always say they calls are recorded i have noted the time of the call.

The manager never called me back so, i'll follow it up tommrow afternoon.

You've got a wise head on those young shoulders.

[S WO2TEC]

i tell you whats a load of old s@#t , got a quote for a escort van today for me and 1 of my men and they wanted £1200 squid



i did say that i only pay £500 squid for the R8

whats that all about "i know its a ford " but hay ..........

[liam1986]

i'm getting somewhere with this. 2 more agruments with bell (the at-fault insurance company from the claim), its seems like their line "increases in insurance premiums is not an insured loss" is just some bollox they say to try and get you to leave them alone. I managed to get the 'department manager' that called me today, to agree that i have a vaild point that the increase in premiums IS a loss i have suffered as a direct result of the accident.

There senior claims manager is surposed to be calling me in the morning now.

I have alos spoken to admiral(my current insurer, thats has charged to extra for the non-fault claim) again and they are now surposed to be contacting bell about the extra charges aswell.

[Deva Link]

liam1986 said:

i'm getting somewhere with this. 2 more agruments with bell (the at-fault insurance company from the claim), its seems like their line "increases in insurance premiums is not an insured loss" is just some bks they say to try and get you to leave them alone. I managed to get the 'department manager' that called me today, to agree that i have a vaild point that the increase in premiums IS a loss i have suffered as a direct result of the accident.

There senior claims manager is surposed to be calling me in the morning now.

I have alos spoken to admiral(my current insurer, thats has charged to extra for the non-fault claim) again and they are now surposed to be contacting bell about the extra charges aswell.

errr...you surely must realise that Admiral and Bell are actually the same company?

[liam1986]

Deva Link said:

liam1986 said:

i'm getting somewhere with this. 2 more agruments with bell (the at-fault insurance company from the claim), its seems like their line "increases in insurance premiums is not an insured loss" is just some bollox they say to try and get you to leave them alone. I managed to get the 'department manager' that called me today, to agree that i have a vaild point that the increase in premiums IS a loss i have suffered as a direct result of the accident.

There senior claims manager is surposed to be calling me in the morning now.

I have alos spoken to admiral(my current insurer, thats has charged to extra for the non-fault claim) again and they are now surposed to be contacting bell about the extra charges aswell.

errr...you surely must realise that Admiral and Bell are actually the same company?

err, yes this is what makes the increase in premium even more of a piss take

[ARAF]

Deva Link said:

liam1986 said:

i'm getting somewhere with this. 2 more agruments with bell (the at-fault insurance company from the claim), its seems like their line "increases in insurance premiums is not an insured loss" is just some bks they say to try and get you to leave them alone. I managed to get the 'department manager' that called me today, to agree that i have a vaild point that the increase in premiums IS a loss i have suffered as a direct result of the accident.

There senior claims manager is surposed to be calling me in the morning now.

I have alos spoken to admiral(my current insurer, thats has charged to extra for the non-fault claim) again and they are now surposed to be contacting bell about the extra charges aswell.

errr...you surely must realise that Admiral and Bell are actually the same company?

Hopefully, they will come to some agreement over it then. All that Liam is after, is that his premium is as it should be without the accident - and for a young driver, the difference in premium can be quite large.

[Deva Link]

liam1986 said:

err, yes this is what makes the increase in premium even more of a piss take

No it doesn't, it makes perfect (business) sense. The Admiral Group is trying to make as much money as possible. Their cunning plan fails if one part of the group charges you more which is then paid for by the other part of the group so their net gain is zero.

[liam1986]

Deva Link said:

liam1986 said:

err, yes this is what makes the increase in premium even more of a piss take

No it doesn't, it makes perfect (business) sense. The Admiral Group is trying to make as much money as possible. Their cunning plan fails if one part of the group charges you more which is then paid for by the other part of the group so their net gain is zero.

Completly agree it makes very good business sence for them to charge their costs onto new customers through other parts of the company.

my point is. i want to claim the increases in my insurance premuims, which are a direct result of an accident which they have admited they are liable for any third party losses

[eztiger]

Regardless of if the companies are linked if insurance companies start upping your premium, only for it to be charged to another company directly..it just turns into funny money and a never ending roundabout between all the underwriters at that point.

At which time it makes sense for them to either :

a) not increase your premium for non fault claims

b) increase premiums across the board to cover themselves without any link to claims.

I know which one I'd like to happen, but sadly I'm pretty sure which one will happen.

Regardless, in the meantime there will be a period of adjustment where we can make hay whilst they all run around in circles and we enjoy a 'lower' premium.

Very interesting thread so far, keep up the good work!

[liam1986]

Result!

another agrument with a manager, they are sending me a cheque for £370 for this years increase!
He also accepted that i could claim again nxt year if the premium takes a signifiant increase (quite what that means i will find out nxt year)

So it pays to be a pain in the arse!

If you have been charged extra premiums due to a non fault claim get on the phone to the at-fault company and calmly (it was very hard not to swear) ask for your losses to be covered.

Edited by liam1986 on Thursday 4th November 14:44