Low insurance offer

[LoonR1]

OdramaSwimLaden said:

13:09
Suggest they buy you a like for like replacement.

13:10
Ask them to show you where you can replace your car for the money they're offering

13:11
Print out the adds for similar vehicles at the higher price, send them to insurers and ask them to explain the discrepancy.

1. Won't happen not a condition of the policy.

2. They don't have to. They use appropriate trade guides as prescribed by the FOS.

3. The FOS specifically states that they do not find adverts particularly convincing as they expect you to negotiate with the vendor.


All in some piss poor advice on here as usual.

You can try to negotiate an I crease and use adverts with a 10% reduction as some form of bargaining tool. Don't forget your excess too. For all we know the figure you've quoted is what they'll pay and have already deducted the excess which may be a high one that you chose.

[Noger]

catfood12 said:

There's an FSA document on how their onbudsman arrives at vehicle valuations based on Glass's Guide and similar rather than adverts. Threaten to serve proceedings on their insured for the full value. If they still don't budge, then serve proceedings and go for all your associated costs, etc.

You have no right of recovery, as you subrogated those rights to your insurer. You can't claim for the same thing twice.

Other than that, spot on !

[LoonR1]

Jujuuk68 said:

Remember, if its non fault, the insurer is only moving the claim on, so costs them nothing to value correctly.

Given you've previously been explicit on who you work for a comment like this is not very clever.

There should be no difference in valuation of a fault or non fault claim. Consider TCF and how your statement would fit with that.

[daz3210]

LoonR1 said:

OdramaSwimLaden said:

13:09
Suggest they buy you a like for like replacement.

13:10
Ask them to show you where you can replace your car for the money they're offering

13:11
Print out the adds for similar vehicles at the higher price, send them to insurers and ask them to explain the discrepancy.

1. Won't happen not a condition of the policy.

2. They don't have to. They use appropriate trade guides as prescribed by the FOS.

3. The FOS specifically states that they do not find adverts particularly convincing as they expect you to negotiate with the vendor.


All in some piss poor advice on here as usual.

You can try to negotiate an I crease and use adverts with a 10% reduction as some form of bargaining tool. Don't forget your excess too. For all we know the figure you've quoted is what they'll pay and have already deducted the excess which may be a high one that you chose.

So what happens in the case of either a rare car, or one of outstanding condition compared to what is expected by the guides? Most guides assume 10-12k miles a year. My mother has a ten year old car that has done 40k miles (4k per year). OK, they can in the guides say add x per 1k, but I would hazard a bet that they wouldn't add 60x to the value.

Adverts are to me a good indicator of whether the guides are wrong, which is always possible. An item is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. That may be more or less than some guide drawn up by so called experts.

[LoonR1]

daz3210 said:

So what happens in the case of either a rare car, or one of outstanding condition compared to what is expected by the guides? Most guides assume 10-12k miles a year. My mother has a ten year old car that has done 40k miles (4k per year). OK, they can in the guides say add x per 1k, but I would hazard a bet that they wouldn't add 60x to the value.

Adverts are to me a good indicator of whether the guides are wrong, which is always possible. An item is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. That may be more or less than some guide drawn up by so called experts.

Once again you default to the exception rather than the norm and expect a regimented process. Buy a mainstream policy and get a mainstream cover and process. Have something a bit different? Buy a more tailored policy.

Adverts may be a good indicator to you but the FOS has stated explicitly on their website that they don't find them particularly convincing.

[daz3210]

LoonR1 said:

Once again you default to the exception rather than the norm and expect a regimented process.

No, I give an example of one 'normal' person, driving one 'normal 3 series BMW'. I would think that is pretty much 'the norm' (By the way they also call her NORMa, oft shortened to Norm )

Are you telling me that she shouldn't have a standard policy just because she doesn't drive the generally accepted 10k plus per year?

[LoonR1]

daz3210 said:

No, I give an example of one 'normal' person, driving one 'normal 3 series BMW'. I would think that is pretty much 'the norm' (By the way they also call her NORMa, oft shortened to Norm )

Are you telling me that she shouldn't have a standard policy just because she doesn't drive the generally accepted 10k plus per year?

You work in vehicle management so must sell vehicles from your fleet occasionally.

The price guides are pretty capable now of pricing a vehicle based on mileage so that's what the insurer will do. We don't go "oh it's a 3 series and all of them are worth £10000 after 3 years". We factor in model, spec(if appropriate as not all options add any value), mileage, condition and sometimes service history although this tends to come under condition and a load of other stuff.

Despite the urban myths insurers don't routinely screw people on values. The last lot of mates I've spoken to we're all very pleased with their initial offer and took it. It costs is a lot to keep dealing with complaints and negotiation so we offer a fair and evidenced value. The FOS stats for ongoing complaints support this.

[daz3210]

LoonR1 said:

You work in vehicle management so must sell vehicles from your fleet occasionally.

I wouldn't have called it vehicle management, but yes I work for a small business and get involved with dealing with vehicles occasionally.

Most of them are traded in for a replacement (except on the unfortunate occasion where one is a total loss). Incidentally, the last write off I can remember was an eight year old transit with 65k miles. Again, pretty low miles for the age, and caused a bit of an argument with the insurer on value, since they usually expected (in their words) at least 100k on a vehicle of that age. Incidentally it was a no fault claim, so that supports the suggestion earlier that the fact someone else will ultimately pay out has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

[mikeveal]

I had the same trouble 20 years ago when my pristine Sierra Ghia burnt to the ground. There was no means of proving that
read
it was A1, so they would only offer average trade in price. Could not get them to move.
between
What that meant financially was that the car that I'd bought two months ago for £1500 was now, according to my insurers
the
only worth £900.

However after a very careful read of my policy document, it became clear that the contents of the car were also covered
lines.
by my insurers. Something I had originally omitted to claim for. Of course it was impossible to tell what was or was not in the car before it caught fire, the interior was barely recognisable.

By the time I had claimed for my leather jacket, snooker cue, camera, aftermarket radio etc. The claim came to £1475, which I felt was just in the circumstances.

[LoonR1]

mikeveal said:

I had the same trouble 20 years ago when my pristine Sierra Ghia burnt to the ground. There was no means of proving that
read
it was A1, so they would only offer average trade in price. Could not get them to move.
between
What that meant financially was that the car that I'd bought two months ago for £1500 was now, according to my insurers
the
only worth £900.

However after a very careful read of my policy document, it became clear that the contents of the car were also covered
lines.
by my insurers. Something I had originally omitted to claim for. Of course it was impossible to tell what was or was not in the car before it caught fire, the interior was barely recognisable.

By the time I had claimed for my leather jacket, snooker cue, camera, aftermarket radio etc. The claim came to £1475, which I felt was just in the circumstances.

Nice admission of fraud and a criminal offence too. Just the sort of thing most PHers seem to be opposed to.

[daz3210]

LoonR1 said:

mikeveal said:

I had the same trouble 20 years ago when my pristine Sierra Ghia burnt to the ground. There was no means of proving that
read
it was A1, so they would only offer average trade in price. Could not get them to move.
between
What that meant financially was that the car that I'd bought two months ago for £1500 was now, according to my insurers
the
only worth £900.

However after a very careful read of my policy document, it became clear that the contents of the car were also covered
lines.
by my insurers. Something I had originally omitted to claim for. Of course it was impossible to tell what was or was not in the car before it caught fire, the interior was barely recognisable.

By the time I had claimed for my leather jacket, snooker cue, camera, aftermarket radio etc. The claim came to £1475, which I felt was just in the circumstances.

Nice admission of fraud and a criminal offence too. Just the sort of thing most PHers seem to be opposed to.

Why shouldn't he claim for what was in the car once he discovered it was included? Personally I often have many hundreds of pounds of sport gear in there.

[LoonR1]

daz3210 said:

Why shouldn't he claim for what was in the car once he discovered it was included? Personally I often have many hundreds of pounds of sport gear in there.

The tone of the post was quite clear that these were fictitious items to bump up his payout. If they were real its then he still only got £900 for his car so nothing to crow about.

[daz3210]

LoonR1 said:

daz3210 said:

Why shouldn't he claim for what was in the car once he discovered it was included? Personally I often have many hundreds of pounds of sport gear in there.

The tone of the post was quite clear that these were fictitious items to bump up his payout. If they were real its then he still only got £900 for his car so nothing to crow about.

Of course they call me Billy not silly and I realise that.

But, it is quite likely that he did have some personal effects in there, which he would not have claimed for. Certainly if similar were to happen to my car I could not list each and every item I lost.

[mikeveal]

LoonR1 said:

daz3210 said:

Why shouldn't he claim for what was in the car once he discovered it was included? Personally I often have many hundreds of pounds of sport gear in there.

The tone of the post was quite clear that these were fictitious items to bump up his payout. If they were real its then he still only got £900 for his car so nothing to crow about.

Your inference, I have admitted nothing of the sort.
ETA You really need to get over yourself.

Edited by mikeveal on Wednesday 10th October 18:00

[LoonR1]

mikeveal said:

Your inference, I have admitted nothing of the sort.
ETA You really need to get over yourself.

Edited by mikeveal on Wednesday 10th October 18:00

So why were you so pleased with yourself when you wrote the below, after all you still only got £900 for your car and a smaller payout for the items you lost in the fire than you paid for them too.

Strange for someone to be so smug when they got a lower payout than they paid for not only their car, but also a load of personal items. Especially when you feel the value of £900 was unjust initially in the post, but after getting a ower payout for these "real" items, you suddenly find it just.

mikeveal said:

I had the same trouble 20 years ago when my pristine Sierra Ghia burnt to the ground. There was no means of proving that
read
it was A1, so they would only offer average trade in price. Could not get them to move.
between
What that meant financially was that the car that I'd bought two months ago for £1500 was now, according to my insurers
the
only worth £900.

However after a very careful read of my policy document, it became clear that the contents of the car were also covered
lines.
by my insurers. Something I had originally omitted to claim for. Of course it was impossible to tell what was or was not in the car before it caught fire, the interior was barely recognisable.

By the time I had claimed for my leather jacket, snooker cue, camera, aftermarket radio etc. The claim came to £1475, which I felt was just in the circumstances.

[simoid]

mikeveal said:

ETA You really need to get over yourself.

Clearly so do I, as I don't like fraud either. But, hey, that's what youwe all pay insurance for.

[Jujuuk68]

LoonR1 said:

Jujuuk68 said:

Remember, if its non fault, the insurer is only moving the claim on, so costs them nothing to value correctly.

Given you've previously been explicit on who you work for a comment like this is not very clever.

There should be no difference in valuation of a fault or non fault claim. Consider TCF and how your statement would fit with that.

you appear somehow to have misinterpreted what I said. Given your record of high quality posting and well thought arguments from a deep understanding of the industry, I am not clear how you arrived at the misunderstanding but would now appreciate your input in correcting what I perceive to be an incorrect and unfair impression you may have left within the thread.

Essentially, this thread is about a complaint that an insurer is undervaluing a customers vehicle. I simply posted a number of points of view, including this one, as to why it makes no financial sense to do so.

There should be no difference in valuations between TP and PH vehicles, and I didn't suggest that. If you have inserted a mistaken understanding that there was an implication that fault claims are undervalued because no recovery is possible, please explain how you extracted that from the initial statement. I cannot see that pointing out one fact stated infers another silently here.

You are essentially suggesting I have illustrated a fraudulent practice and I would have to ask a MOD to consider the statement you made with a view to removing it should they agree with me, which would spoil the thread. Simply by my making the obvious point that an insurer recovers in the event of non fault, and so there is no financial interest in giving a low value as it makes no difference to them, in no way implies a contrary practice that fault claims ARE undervalued as no recovery is possible. That isn't what I said, and whilst the net might be a "knockabout" place for discussion, inferring a negative statement from a positive implication is logically tenuous at best and could be taken as an allegation of wrongdoing. I simply stated a reason why insurers should not be undervaluing, and used the fact of recovery as one of several to reinforce the point. I felt I did so clearly.

If you can kindly correct the impression your reply gives, I would be grateful.

[LoonR1]

Jujuuk68 said:

you appear somehow to have misinterpreted what I said. Given your record of high quality posting and well thought arguments from a deep understanding of the industry, I am not clear how you arrived at the misunderstanding but would now appreciate your input in correcting what I perceive to be an incorrect and unfair impression you may have left within the thread.

Essentially, this thread is about a complaint that an insurer is undervaluing a customers vehicle. I simply posted a number of points of view, including this one, as to why it makes no financial sense to do so.

There should be no difference in valuations between TP and PH vehicles, and I didn't suggest that. If you have inserted a mistaken understanding that there was an implication that fault claims are undervalued because no recovery is possible, please explain how you extracted that from the initial statement. I cannot see that pointing out one fact stated infers another silently here.

You are essentially suggesting I have illustrated a fraudulent practice and I would have to ask a MOD to consider the statement you made with a view to removing it should they agree with me, which would spoil the thread. Simply by my making the obvious point that an insurer recovers in the event of non fault, and so there is no financial interest in giving a low value as it makes no difference to them, in no way implies a contrary practice that fault claims ARE undervalued as no recovery is possible. That isn't what I said, and whilst the net might be a "knockabout" place for discussion, inferring a negative statement from a positive implication is logically tenuous at best and could be taken as an allegation of wrongdoing. I simply stated a reason why insurers should not be undervaluing, and used the fact of recovery as one of several to reinforce the point. I felt I did so clearly.

If you can kindly correct the impression your reply gives, I would be grateful.

The inference in your suggestion that they would value a non-fault correctly, is that they would incorrectly value a fault claim. This would be done purely on the basis, that the non-fault outlay is recoverable, whereas the fault isn't.

Given that there are a significant number of intragroup claims then this practice would make little sense as you'd be churning costs internally, as would the impact of a RIPE audit flagging this and / or a TCF review.

You don't need to get all nervous around this, just that your comment perpetuates a myth that is just that - a myth. There is no differentiation in process irrespective of liability, nor is there any gain to doing this, as the consequences are far more serious than any potential benefit.

Edited by LoonR1 on Thursday 11th October 07:10

[TOPTON]

LoonR1 said:

Despite the urban myths insurers don't routinely screw people on values.

Interesting you say this when another thread arrives stating the exact oppisite

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[pherlopolus]

TOPTON said:

Interesting you say this when another thread arrives stating the exact oppisite

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

we need a 'has an insurance company tried to pull a fast one maintain profits and shareholder value for the owners' poll

I had an initial offer of £475 (less £250 excess of course, so £225 really), bit of research sent off and a response of 'ok £1800 then?' within 24 hours...

when the AMC organised my hire car (at 3rd party expense) I said I didnt really need a 7 seater, even though it was a sharan that got written off, and a fiesta/focus size would be fine. but oh no had to be 7 seater, oh we havnt got any so has to be an SUV (tiguan), the hire car cost over 4 figures in the end... just seemed wrong.