Low insurance offer
Discussion
LoonR1 said:
daz3210 said:
But the premise remains, its only worth what someone is willing to pay.
How do these 'guides' reach their values? They must be based on some method of reaching a value, which must be based on perception of worth by someone.
That's true but a dealer may be willing to pay more under circumstances, even willing to take a loss if that one subsequent sale puts them into a higher commission band. How do these 'guides' reach their values? They must be based on some method of reaching a value, which must be based on perception of worth by someone.
The guides are based on normalised sales values not one offs. For example if you'd written your car off on the way home from the last dealer you wouldn't have got £13500 for it.
But I do know what you mean about taking a hit on one for the greater good.
daz3210 said:
I don't know why not, after I had done the deal the dealer showed me the trade price guide, which was bottom value £13700. I had pitched my opening price a little low!
But I do know what you mean about taking a hit on one for the greater good.
I assumed that your Lotus was valued at £11500 in the guides and the latter dealer had overstated it's value to help smooth a deal. In that case you may well have got that figure, or probably more depending on which bit of the book it was bottom price on i.e. retail or trade.But I do know what you mean about taking a hit on one for the greater good.
LoonR1 said:
I assumed that your Lotus was valued at £11500 in the guides and the latter dealer had overstated it's value to help smooth a deal. In that case you may well have got that figure, or probably more depending on which bit of the book it was bottom price on i.e. retail or trade.
Was trade.Was a BMW too (I said earlier), I was buying a Lotus. Normally I have found that like for like deals tend to getter a better trade offer, don't know why unless a BMW dealer has a better idea what they can retail them for.
I've heard that the IC's payout should be sufficient (less excess) to put you back in the same position as you were before the claim. This to me means being able to purchase a car of similar condition, age, mileage etc.. than the old one.
This does make sense. Why would it be acceptable to be in a worse position?
You'll be shafted for years after on renewals because you've had a (none-fault) claim so why get shafted on the value.
This does make sense. Why would it be acceptable to be in a worse position?
You'll be shafted for years after on renewals because you've had a (none-fault) claim so why get shafted on the value.
Jujuuk68 said:
Remember, if its non fault, the insurer is only moving the claim on, so costs them nothing to value correctly. an FOS complaint also costs £500 even if they're right, and so it just shouldn't happen. I expect a large part of it is expectation management. I rarely ever found a dispute where I couldn't find cars similar when after taking into allowance a negotiation on sales price (and factoring in say the warranty/dealer facilities/valet you get trade).
I wish I'd known about the FOS complaint. What is that exactly? I felt pretty 'screwed over' by a well known trad** insurance company when they offerred a paltry sum for my aero even though I showed the Autotrader adverts for cars like mine and suggested we agree a midway price. They dug their heels in so I said I'd accept the low offer as I had no choice. They've not paid out yet and I'm still out of pocket.LoonR1 said:
Ultimately you can believe who you want.
Those claiming they were undervalued will always have the best car of its type and for its age in the world. Much like the people who don't believe their house has dropped in value as its the nicest on the street.
Those claiming they were undervalued will always have the best car of its type and for its age in the world. Much like the people who don't believe their house has dropped in value as its the nicest on the street.
In my case I never thought any such thing and your insinuation that I did cuts no ice with me. Indeed some might consider your snide comment contemptible. I produced sufficient evidence to show why their intial offer way off base.
LoonR1 said:
Insurers operate in a heavily regulated industry. Where sharp practice is very much frowned upon. The cost of arguing the value of a car is also quite expensive so much so that each and every touch of a claim costs c£25 so dragging it out and having to pay more anyway means the claim has cost even more.
I would not describe what happened to me a sharp practice, more sheer bloody mindedness that I had dared to question their offer. The subsequent obfuscation and delaying tactics after I produced the evidence to support my case was inexcusable. The fact that the final settlement was 33.33% higher than the initial offer speaks for itself.All along I was totally realistic about the value of my car. Oddly enough in the end that was what I got. Go figure.
If it helps the argument, I wrote my bike off, and was very satisfied with the insurance company's process, until they got to the offer bit. I got a bit carried away with the valuation argument, and ended up getting slightly more than a new, unregistered model was in the same dealers I bought it from.
Was about 10 - 15 years ago now, but when my AX got totalled by a drunk driver, my ins co offered me about half the trade in value of my car.. After much arguing, they admitted to just using the value of the base model Ax not the variant I had - bigger engine, electric windows & mirrors etc.
They eventually offered 2/3 of the fair price which I had to accept as they were taking back the hire car whether I accepted or not! Still took them 3 weeks to send the cheque out - it was stuck in their post system for 2 weeks - and another 6 months to get my excess and various other costs back .
Needless to say , I don't use that nautical insurer any more.
They eventually offered 2/3 of the fair price which I had to accept as they were taking back the hire car whether I accepted or not! Still took them 3 weeks to send the cheque out - it was stuck in their post system for 2 weeks - and another 6 months to get my excess and various other costs back .
Needless to say , I don't use that nautical insurer any more.
Loon is always quick to jump to the defence of the industry he works in. I understand that, although there are many things that he has said that seem contradictory to my experience.
I would however chuck insurance companies in with this:
Motor insurance - there''s no money in it. (still seem to be in the market though!)
Banks - we don't make money on current accounts (still seem to be offering them!)
Car dealers - we don't make money selling cars (still seem to be keen!)
It's worth more because of the extra's (until you trade it in - then it will be worth no more...)
etc.
We don't make money on selling Petrol (yet you still seem to!)
I would however chuck insurance companies in with this:
Motor insurance - there''s no money in it. (still seem to be in the market though!)
Banks - we don't make money on current accounts (still seem to be offering them!)
Car dealers - we don't make money selling cars (still seem to be keen!)
It's worth more because of the extra's (until you trade it in - then it will be worth no more...)
etc.
We don't make money on selling Petrol (yet you still seem to!)
Edited by surveyor on Saturday 13th October 13:52
surveyor said:
Motor insurance - there''s no money in it. (still seem to be in the market though!)
Google results for "motor insurance losses 20nn". Obviously don't let the facts, as per the below, cloud your opinion.2012:
http://www.google.co.uk/#q=motor+insurance+losses+...
2011:
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&cr=countryUK|co...
2010:
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&cr=countryUK|co...
There was quite a fight with my insurance company when I had a non fault write off. The first offer was a joke 3 figures but eventually they paid me almost what it would've cost to buy another one, even after playing the autotrader ad game.
And at least 3 phone calls to get my excess back. Jokers.
And at least 3 phone calls to get my excess back. Jokers.
Links don't appear to be working.
If motor insurance is so unprofitable why are the companies (all private, so in it for profit rather than a social conscience) even in that market? It makes no economic sense. Why don't all the insurers say "enough is enough, we're jumping ship". The state would then have to step in.
Does this not happen because, like some supermarket lines, it's an acceptable loss leader in order to sell other, more profitable products?
Or, since legislation makes third party risk motor isurance compulsory, is government exerting some sort of leverage or incentive to keep them onside?
On any other field market forces would rule. Why is motor insurance any different?
If motor insurance is so unprofitable why are the companies (all private, so in it for profit rather than a social conscience) even in that market? It makes no economic sense. Why don't all the insurers say "enough is enough, we're jumping ship". The state would then have to step in.
Does this not happen because, like some supermarket lines, it's an acceptable loss leader in order to sell other, more profitable products?
Or, since legislation makes third party risk motor isurance compulsory, is government exerting some sort of leverage or incentive to keep them onside?
On any other field market forces would rule. Why is motor insurance any different?
LoonR1 said:
surveyor said:
Motor insurance - there''s no money in it. (still seem to be in the market though!)
Google results for "motor insurance losses 20nn". Obviously don't let the facts, as per the below, cloud your opinion.2012:
http://www.google.co.uk/#q=motor+insurance+losses+...
2011:
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&cr=countryUK|co...
2010:
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&cr=countryUK|co...
I'd have more respect for you if you pointed out that place, rather than pleading the industry line, which is blatantly unbelievable.
If the offer is low, Tell them so and say they are wrong, back it up with copies of adverts for cars like you had written off, Local adverts are good from you local papers. My father had a car written off a year ago it was only a polo and they offered a figure about £1000 on a £3000 car! Him being well over 80 (no it was not his fault some bloke just didnt stop at a junction and hit him) was going to accept the offer, I supplied a hand full of adverts and the insurance company revised there offer based on the higher local price of his model of car. well that was the reason they gave.
A year before that I had a car Written off (Serious Head on), and I wanted exactly the same make and model of car, (not common model) I again had to push the insurance company up using adverts from all over the country as no cars local to me, not only did they go up in price (Accident not my fault) Not only did they go up in what they were paying but when it came to sorting out all the claims which ended up in court, The judge also ruled that the other drivers insurance company pick up the tab for a trip from Norwich to Birmingham to look at the car and also a week later because the car had to be serviced and prepared a train trip for me to pick it up and milage claim back. What was even more strange was that my insurance company and my solicitors had rejected there first offers and asked for a higher figure which we would have been happy with, the other parties insurance company and solicitors rejected that and decided to take it to court and the Judge then awarded an even higher payout in total.
A year before that I had a car Written off (Serious Head on), and I wanted exactly the same make and model of car, (not common model) I again had to push the insurance company up using adverts from all over the country as no cars local to me, not only did they go up in price (Accident not my fault) Not only did they go up in what they were paying but when it came to sorting out all the claims which ended up in court, The judge also ruled that the other drivers insurance company pick up the tab for a trip from Norwich to Birmingham to look at the car and also a week later because the car had to be serviced and prepared a train trip for me to pick it up and milage claim back. What was even more strange was that my insurance company and my solicitors had rejected there first offers and asked for a higher figure which we would have been happy with, the other parties insurance company and solicitors rejected that and decided to take it to court and the Judge then awarded an even higher payout in total.
Red Devil said:
Links don't appear to be working.
If motor insurance is so unprofitable why are the companies (all private, so in it for profit rather than a social conscience) even in that market? It makes no economic sense. Why don't all the insurers say "enough is enough, we're jumping ship". The state would then have to step in.
Does this not happen because, like some supermarket lines, it's an acceptable loss leader in order to sell other, more profitable products?
Or, since legislation makes third party risk motor isurance compulsory, is government exerting some sort of leverage or incentive to keep them onside?
On any other field market forces would rule. Why is motor insurance any different?
Just google "motor insurance losses 20nn" and do it separately for each year.If motor insurance is so unprofitable why are the companies (all private, so in it for profit rather than a social conscience) even in that market? It makes no economic sense. Why don't all the insurers say "enough is enough, we're jumping ship". The state would then have to step in.
Does this not happen because, like some supermarket lines, it's an acceptable loss leader in order to sell other, more profitable products?
Or, since legislation makes third party risk motor isurance compulsory, is government exerting some sort of leverage or incentive to keep them onside?
On any other field market forces would rule. Why is motor insurance any different?
Motor insurance has been loss making for 15 years. Traditionally it's cyclical with 10 years of profit and ten of loss, with the ten good years offsetting the bad. However, this loss making cycle has continued unabated for a long time longer than normal. Insurers were effectively unwilling to pull out, as it meant if the market turned then they carry the losses but no profits to offset.
There is a gentlemen's agreement in the market that if you want to sell Personal Lines business in the UK, then Motor will be part of your portfolio.
There are plenty of other reasons, but recently most have started to move away from higher risk business, hence the price for kids spiralling.
surveyor said:
If they are not making money they would not do it - these people are not daft and not in it to provide a service. They are in the market to make money. They have investors/shareholders who demand that.
I'd have more respect for you if you pointed out that place, rather than pleading the industry line, which is blatantly unbelievable.
Given where I sit in the pecking order, then I'm one of "these people who isn't daft". It's a bit foolish to try to lecture me on what an insurer will or won't do. I refer to the industry as a whole, as I know what happens at industry level and I also won't peddle my company's line over another.I'd have more respect for you if you pointed out that place, rather than pleading the industry line, which is blatantly unbelievable.
One of the reasons Insurance companies are making a loss is because they won't get off their fat arses and investigate bogus claims. Just reading recent threads on here, 5mph nudges with a claim for £3k. Scratched bumper for a bogus £2k.
No win no fee people even tell you on the phone that Ins Co's wont investigate a claim for less than £2k. Why not???
Employing an investigator for say £30k salary a year only needs to check out 10 a year to break even
No win no fee people even tell you on the phone that Ins Co's wont investigate a claim for less than £2k. Why not???
Employing an investigator for say £30k salary a year only needs to check out 10 a year to break even
TOPTON said:
One of the reasons Insurance companies are making a loss is because they won't get off their fat arses and investigate bogus claims. Just reading recent threads on here, 5mph nudges with a claim for £3k. Scratched bumper for a bogus £2k.
No win no fee people even tell you on the phone that Ins Co's wont investigate a claim for less than £2k. Why not???
Employing an investigator for say £30k salary a year only needs to check out 10 a year to break even
From Loon and Noger's previous posts, it's mostly the £2k whiplash claims they won't look at, as they'll spend that much getting to court, and if the court is NorthWest based, they'll lose anyway.No win no fee people even tell you on the phone that Ins Co's wont investigate a claim for less than £2k. Why not???
Employing an investigator for say £30k salary a year only needs to check out 10 a year to break even
From other posts, combined with the cynicism borne of being here for a while, the only good result from a full time investigator would be the target of the investigation withdrawing their claim. Police won't be bothered, courts would give them a severe frowning anyway.
surveyor said:
If they are not making money they would not do it - these people are not daft and not in it to provide a service. They are in the market to make money. They have investors/shareholders who demand that.
I'd have more respect for you if you pointed out that place, rather than pleading the industry line, which is blatantly unbelievable.
I have explained this at length on numerous occasions. There are plenty of reasons why you would run an OPERATING loss on a particular line/year. Tesco sell beans at a loss. Insurers will deliberately under price a risk on an aggregator, and then try to make that back on upsells. Same same. I'd have more respect for you if you pointed out that place, rather than pleading the industry line, which is blatantly unbelievable.
At our "simple" operating level, £1 in premiums vs 99p out in claims (and expenses) = a Win
Once accountants, entire buildings full of them (and actuarial and risk types), get in on the act who knows what will happen. You could turn a profit on investment income, or release of reserves.
LoonR1 said:
Motor insurance has been loss making for 15 years. Traditionally it's cyclical with 10 years of profit and ten of loss, with the ten good years offsetting the bad. However, this loss making cycle has continued unabated for a long time longer than normal. Insurers were effectively unwilling to pull out, as it meant if the market turned then they carry the losses but no profits to offset.
Ah, the same argument that most gamblers use. Just one more bet and I'll win it all back. They all end up losing their shirts. It makes no business sense whatsoever to carry on making losses year after year.LoonR1 said:
There is a gentlemen's agreement in the market that if you want to sell Personal Lines business in the UK, then Motor will be part of your portfolio.
That suggests to me that my loss leader point has some substance. In effect the bet I referred to above is being laid off, so the industry could do us all a favour and stop bleating on about the unprofitability of motor insurance.The government saw fit many years ago to make it compulsory to insure against third party claims. The industry thus has a captive market of citizens who do not wish to deliberately flout the law.
An interesting article about how cultural differences between countries which may account for the prevalence or otherwise of whiplash claims - http://www.bcmj.org/article/whiplash-social-disord...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff