How can we trust insurers are being fair?
Discussion
Renewal time is almost here. But how the hell can we be sure insurance companies are playing with a straight bat?
I’ve been quoted £13 less for my renewal. But I did some searching on comparison sites to see what else I could pay. I ran my details through one confusing website and was quoted £457 as the lowest price. I then ran the same details (apart from email address) through a private browser and was quoted £403 for exactly the same cover by the same company via the same comparison site.
I’d love to know what the f
k is going on but I guess we’ll never really know or be able to understand how to hell it works or exactly how much we are being screwed. Anyone got any clues?
I’ve been quoted £13 less for my renewal. But I did some searching on comparison sites to see what else I could pay. I ran my details through one confusing website and was quoted £457 as the lowest price. I then ran the same details (apart from email address) through a private browser and was quoted £403 for exactly the same cover by the same company via the same comparison site.
I’d love to know what the f
k is going on but I guess we’ll never really know or be able to understand how to hell it works or exactly how much we are being screwed. Anyone got any clues? For many years, I fond the comparison websites were all similar but not so the last time I looked. Quotezone gave me different, and cheaper insurance (classic policies) in a 2003 CLK I recently bought. The usual suspects have recently been bringing up quotes for classic cover in amongst the usual. Obvious when you remove any NCD and the quote is the same.
More companies don't appear on them though. Direct Line have always almost bragged about not being on them, NFU aren't either. For classics cover, Footman James never appear on comparison sites, for me anyway. I've 2 cars with them now.
It's a step back in the the world of t'internet, since new customer discounts were made illegal. Car insurance has become a long chore again.
More companies don't appear on them though. Direct Line have always almost bragged about not being on them, NFU aren't either. For classics cover, Footman James never appear on comparison sites, for me anyway. I've 2 cars with them now.
It's a step back in the the world of t'internet, since new customer discounts were made illegal. Car insurance has become a long chore again.
after our insurance jumped from £630 to £1,180 last January with no policy or circumstance changes I ran the usual comparisons. Then I called the cheapest 3, price on phone was cheaper - got it for £850 in the end where all comparison quotes were over £1,000
I'm just going to call round a few next renewal.
I'm just going to call round a few next renewal.
We can be fairly sure that insurers, like any other company, are doing what they believe will make them the most profit within the limits of the legal framework in which they operate. I don't think being "fair" is really a concept that comes into business.
I think the only difference a "private browser window" will make is that there will be no historical cookies present. Why an insurance comparison site would be using historical cookies in a way which effects your quote, I don't know but presumably the presence or absence of those cookies must be prompting the comparison site to submit slightly different data to the insurer when requesting quotes.
I think the only difference a "private browser window" will make is that there will be no historical cookies present. Why an insurance comparison site would be using historical cookies in a way which effects your quote, I don't know but presumably the presence or absence of those cookies must be prompting the comparison site to submit slightly different data to the insurer when requesting quotes.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 22 August 08:51
https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/direct-line-...
This from the other side as well.
When my old mum wrote off her Micra a couple of years ago she got 3 payouts from DL due to this issue.
This from the other side as well.
When my old mum wrote off her Micra a couple of years ago she got 3 payouts from DL due to this issue.
sixor8 said:
For many years, I fond the comparison websites were all similar but not so the last time I looked. Quotezone gave me different, and cheaper insurance (classic policies) in a 2003 CLK I recently bought. The usual suspects have recently been bringing up quotes for classic cover in amongst the usual. Obvious when you remove any NCD and the quote is the same.
More companies don't appear on them though. Direct Line have always almost bragged about not being on them, NFU aren't either. For classics cover, Footman James never appear on comparison sites, for me anyway. I've 2 cars with them now.
It's a step back in the the world of t'internet, since new customer discounts were made illegal. Car insurance has become a long chore again.
I was trying to sort out my insurance yesterday on my 2004 BMW. Are you saying that it could be now a 'Classic'? More companies don't appear on them though. Direct Line have always almost bragged about not being on them, NFU aren't either. For classics cover, Footman James never appear on comparison sites, for me anyway. I've 2 cars with them now.
It's a step back in the the world of t'internet, since new customer discounts were made illegal. Car insurance has become a long chore again.
R6tty said:
I was trying to sort out my insurance yesterday on my 2004 BMW. Are you saying that it could be now a 'Classic'?
"Classic insurance" isn't really a well defined thing, different insurers define a classic car in different ways. Some companies which specialise in classics will certainly quote for anything over 20 years old, although they often have other criteria such as "must not be used for commuting". Glassman said:
(which might have been a 64 page PDF full of jargon).
Yet people whine "they should make it clear that..." so stuff gets documented, then people whine there's too much to read.Regardless, skim reading things and picking out the important parts to focus on is an important skill, albeit increasingly rare in today's barely-functioning humans.
DP14 said:
Glassman said:
(which might have been a 64 page PDF full of jargon).
Yet people whine "they should make it clear that..." so stuff gets documented, then people whine there's too much to read.Regardless, skim reading things and picking out the important parts to focus on is an important skill, albeit increasingly rare in today's barely-functioning humans.
T&C's are 64 pages plus not to make it clear at all but to obfuscate and deter people from reading and fully understanding them (and I'm one of those people who refuses to sign anything until I've fully read the T&C's I'm putting my name to - though I'll admit not always for android apps!). There should be a simple terms point that gets the summary of the terms across to consumers in simple to read english, backed up by detailed T&C's that legal folk can justle over if and when things go belly up.
DP14 said:
Glassman said:
(which might have been a 64 page PDF full of jargon).
Yet people whine "they should make it clear that..." so stuff gets documented, then people whine there's too much to read.Regardless, skim reading things and picking out the important parts to focus on is an important skill, albeit increasingly rare in today's barely-functioning humans.
TX.
Edited by Terminator X on Thursday 22 August 10:50
QuattroDave said:
Say that to the guy in the US whose wife died at Disney spings and Disney are trying to use the T&C's of a trial disney plus subscription he took out six years previous to prevent it going to court. Regardless of whether it's Disney's fault or not, using the T&C's of tv subscription trial to get out of going to court regarding someones death is abhorrent.
T&C's are 64 pages plus not to make it clear at all but to obfuscate and deter people from reading and fully understanding them (and I'm one of those people who refuses to sign anything until I've fully read the T&C's I'm putting my name to - though I'll admit not always for android apps!). There should be a simple terms point that gets the summary of the terms across to consumers in simple to read english, backed up by detailed T&C's that legal folk can justle over if and when things go belly up.
There is, it’s the key facts doc, every insurer provides one and they are in an identical format. T&C's are 64 pages plus not to make it clear at all but to obfuscate and deter people from reading and fully understanding them (and I'm one of those people who refuses to sign anything until I've fully read the T&C's I'm putting my name to - though I'll admit not always for android apps!). There should be a simple terms point that gets the summary of the terms across to consumers in simple to read english, backed up by detailed T&C's that legal folk can justle over if and when things go belly up.
Ultimately OP the biggest protection you have is competition, what else do we buy where there are the choice of 50+ providers all competing for business? I’m struggling to think of one.
That and the fact that on average the motor insurance industry has around £1.10 in costs and claims for every £1 taken. Making a loss on average doesn’t scream rinsing the customer.
That and the fact that on average the motor insurance industry has around £1.10 in costs and claims for every £1 taken. Making a loss on average doesn’t scream rinsing the customer.
Dingu said:
QuattroDave said:
Say that to the guy in the US whose wife died at Disney spings and Disney are trying to use the T&C's of a trial disney plus subscription he took out six years previous to prevent it going to court. Regardless of whether it's Disney's fault or not, using the T&C's of tv subscription trial to get out of going to court regarding someones death is abhorrent.
T&C's are 64 pages plus not to make it clear at all but to obfuscate and deter people from reading and fully understanding them (and I'm one of those people who refuses to sign anything until I've fully read the T&C's I'm putting my name to - though I'll admit not always for android apps!). There should be a simple terms point that gets the summary of the terms across to consumers in simple to read english, backed up by detailed T&C's that legal folk can justle over if and when things go belly up.
There is, it’s the key facts doc, every insurer provides one and they are in an identical format. T&C's are 64 pages plus not to make it clear at all but to obfuscate and deter people from reading and fully understanding them (and I'm one of those people who refuses to sign anything until I've fully read the T&C's I'm putting my name to - though I'll admit not always for android apps!). There should be a simple terms point that gets the summary of the terms across to consumers in simple to read english, backed up by detailed T&C's that legal folk can justle over if and when things go belly up.
QuattroDave said:
Dingu said:
QuattroDave said:
Say that to the guy in the US whose wife died at Disney spings and Disney are trying to use the T&C's of a trial disney plus subscription he took out six years previous to prevent it going to court. Regardless of whether it's Disney's fault or not, using the T&C's of tv subscription trial to get out of going to court regarding someones death is abhorrent.
T&C's are 64 pages plus not to make it clear at all but to obfuscate and deter people from reading and fully understanding them (and I'm one of those people who refuses to sign anything until I've fully read the T&C's I'm putting my name to - though I'll admit not always for android apps!). There should be a simple terms point that gets the summary of the terms across to consumers in simple to read english, backed up by detailed T&C's that legal folk can justle over if and when things go belly up.
There is, it’s the key facts doc, every insurer provides one and they are in an identical format. T&C's are 64 pages plus not to make it clear at all but to obfuscate and deter people from reading and fully understanding them (and I'm one of those people who refuses to sign anything until I've fully read the T&C's I'm putting my name to - though I'll admit not always for android apps!). There should be a simple terms point that gets the summary of the terms across to consumers in simple to read english, backed up by detailed T&C's that legal folk can justle over if and when things go belly up.
Happily I think in the UK/EU Disney would be laughed out of the room if they tried to use that clause to stop an unrelated legal case. We also seem to have better protection over unfair clauses being hidden than the US might.
Dingu said:
Ultimately OP the biggest protection you have is competition, what else do we buy where there are the choice of 50+ providers all competing for business? I’m struggling to think of one.
That and the fact that on average the motor insurance industry has around £1.10 in costs and claims for every £1 taken. Making a loss on average doesn’t scream rinsing the customer.
I worked for Ageas for a short while in their group finance team. The business model of underwriters is to break even (with a rainy day fund to dampen large annual swings in insurance costs), all 'profit' is made from investing cash on the markets in the time between receiving the cash and paying on claims which is why when you choose to pay monthly their APR is so high as that's roughly what they'd expect to have made on the markets.That and the fact that on average the motor insurance industry has around £1.10 in costs and claims for every £1 taken. Making a loss on average doesn’t scream rinsing the customer.
Where that business model gets frowned upon is separate agreements with repairers, hire companies etc where they effectively pay to be preferred and recoup it through inflated claims, or they enter a profit share agreement with that outfit. Net gains are minimal though as whilst you might win on a claim against another underwriter, you lose on underwriters claiming against you. Its this bit that we all could do without!
Dingu said:
QuattroDave said:
Dingu said:
QuattroDave said:
Say that to the guy in the US whose wife died at Disney spings and Disney are trying to use the T&C's of a trial disney plus subscription he took out six years previous to prevent it going to court. Regardless of whether it's Disney's fault or not, using the T&C's of tv subscription trial to get out of going to court regarding someones death is abhorrent.
T&C's are 64 pages plus not to make it clear at all but to obfuscate and deter people from reading and fully understanding them (and I'm one of those people who refuses to sign anything until I've fully read the T&C's I'm putting my name to - though I'll admit not always for android apps!). There should be a simple terms point that gets the summary of the terms across to consumers in simple to read english, backed up by detailed T&C's that legal folk can justle over if and when things go belly up.
There is, it’s the key facts doc, every insurer provides one and they are in an identical format. T&C's are 64 pages plus not to make it clear at all but to obfuscate and deter people from reading and fully understanding them (and I'm one of those people who refuses to sign anything until I've fully read the T&C's I'm putting my name to - though I'll admit not always for android apps!). There should be a simple terms point that gets the summary of the terms across to consumers in simple to read english, backed up by detailed T&C's that legal folk can justle over if and when things go belly up.
Happily I think in the UK/EU Disney would be laughed out of the room if they tried to use that clause to stop an unrelated legal case. We also seem to have better protection over unfair clauses being hidden than the US might.
It is a bit of a black box.
I was going to buy a new motorcycle and used a comparison site. It came out at about £850. Which was already high. I had a test ride and then checked out insurance again the next day. I thought I had given exactly the same details but price had jumped to £1450! I didn’t buy the bike.
I was going to buy a new motorcycle and used a comparison site. It came out at about £850. Which was already high. I had a test ride and then checked out insurance again the next day. I thought I had given exactly the same details but price had jumped to £1450! I didn’t buy the bike.
Forums | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff