Why must we pay for Incompetent insurance companies?
Discussion
This has probably been discussed before but i thought it was about time for a good old airing of opinion.
Premiums have risen approximately 30% over last eight years purely due to crash for cash fraudsters & scammers. What gets my goat is that insurance companies/& the government seem to think that its OK to pass on the bill to us!. Well i have got news for you, its not friggin OK, its not even just. If owned a company that had no idea what it was doing & kept giving money away to fraudsters my company would go bust.
So whats the ****ing difference? Are insurance companies above the law? do they operate on some higher plane of existence? Who the *** do they think they are?. It's not on & it's not fair. I think its about time we stood up against these thieves & scam artists (thats the fraudsters & the insurance companies). I intend to write to my local MP about this BS, & if i can garner some support, organise a protest march.
Anyone feel the same?
Premiums have risen approximately 30% over last eight years purely due to crash for cash fraudsters & scammers. What gets my goat is that insurance companies/& the government seem to think that its OK to pass on the bill to us!. Well i have got news for you, its not friggin OK, its not even just. If owned a company that had no idea what it was doing & kept giving money away to fraudsters my company would go bust.
So whats the ****ing difference? Are insurance companies above the law? do they operate on some higher plane of existence? Who the *** do they think they are?. It's not on & it's not fair. I think its about time we stood up against these thieves & scam artists (thats the fraudsters & the insurance companies). I intend to write to my local MP about this BS, & if i can garner some support, organise a protest march.
Anyone feel the same?
Antracer said:
This has probably been discussed before but i thought it was about time for a good old airing of opinion.
Premiums have risen approximately 30% over last eight years purely due to crash for cash fraudsters & scammers. What gets my goat is that insurance companies/& the government seem to think that its OK to pass on the bill to us!. Well i have got news for you, its not friggin OK, its not even just. If owned a company that had no idea what it was doing & kept giving money away to fraudsters my company would go bust.
So whats the ****ing difference? Are insurance companies above the law? do they operate on some higher plane of existence? Who the *** do they think they are?. It's not on & it's not fair. I think its about time we stood up against these thieves & scam artists (thats the fraudsters & the insurance companies). I intend to write to my local MP about this BS, & if i can garner some support, organise a protest march.
Anyone feel the same?
Write a strongly worded email. That'll work.Premiums have risen approximately 30% over last eight years purely due to crash for cash fraudsters & scammers. What gets my goat is that insurance companies/& the government seem to think that its OK to pass on the bill to us!. Well i have got news for you, its not friggin OK, its not even just. If owned a company that had no idea what it was doing & kept giving money away to fraudsters my company would go bust.
So whats the ****ing difference? Are insurance companies above the law? do they operate on some higher plane of existence? Who the *** do they think they are?. It's not on & it's not fair. I think its about time we stood up against these thieves & scam artists (thats the fraudsters & the insurance companies). I intend to write to my local MP about this BS, & if i can garner some support, organise a protest march.
Anyone feel the same?
I get that they can't always catch the fraudsters. I do feel that they do themselves (and us) no favours, and as we pick up the bill wonder if they really care.
I know they say they make no money from car insurance. I have a hard time believing it, as surely they'd have dropped out if this was the case.
I know they say they make no money from car insurance. I have a hard time believing it, as surely they'd have dropped out if this was the case.
With you all the way, OP. The whole industry is lazy, complacent and poorly regulated. Trouble is, no one company is prepared to go it alone and tackle the problem. They'd rather just ignore it and pass the cost on to us. Instead, they offer us the crappy cynicism that is the "comparison website" which gives us the illusion of competitiveness but actually serves to reinforce their laziness and complacence.
Antracer said:
This has probably been discussed before but i thought it was about time for a good old airing of opinion.
Premiums have risen approximately 30% over last eight years purely due to crash for cash fraudsters & scammers. What gets my goat is that insurance companies/& the government seem to think that its OK to pass on the bill to us!. Well i have got news for you, its not friggin OK, its not even just. If owned a company that had no idea what it was doing & kept giving money away to fraudsters my company would go bust.
So whats the ****ing difference? Are insurance companies above the law? do they operate on some higher plane of existence? Who the *** do they think they are?. It's not on & it's not fair. I think its about time we stood up against these thieves & scam artists (thats the fraudsters & the insurance companies). I intend to write to my local MP about this BS, & if i can garner some support, organise a protest march.
Anyone feel the same?
No. I have no problem with insurance. I'm paying about half of what I was paying 8 yrs ago. I pay £230 for fully comp ona 3 y/o Tiguan in London. I think that's good value. Recently got a quote on a BMW M6 cabriolet, and I can insure that for £440. Premiums have risen approximately 30% over last eight years purely due to crash for cash fraudsters & scammers. What gets my goat is that insurance companies/& the government seem to think that its OK to pass on the bill to us!. Well i have got news for you, its not friggin OK, its not even just. If owned a company that had no idea what it was doing & kept giving money away to fraudsters my company would go bust.
So whats the ****ing difference? Are insurance companies above the law? do they operate on some higher plane of existence? Who the *** do they think they are?. It's not on & it's not fair. I think its about time we stood up against these thieves & scam artists (thats the fraudsters & the insurance companies). I intend to write to my local MP about this BS, & if i can garner some support, organise a protest march.
Anyone feel the same?
And your angry at the wrong people. Insurance companies pay out because they know if it went to court they'd have to pay out even more.
Legal racketeering suported by the government.
The government makes it law that all motorvehicles should have 3rd party insurence.
The government do not regulate any part of the insurance industry.
The ABI are the regulating body and are run by the insurence companies.
The ABI will not pressure the government to deal with insurence fraud because if they do, the government will be exposed for not tackling the issue and are likely to respond by returning some pressure to the insurance companies through enforced regulation.
How can it be that a fraudster can tell a bunch of lies to an insurance company in order to obtain insurence and the insurence company does not cross check the information given. They are complicit in allowing fraudster to give false info by not checking. Then they have the cheek to complain that uninsured drivers are costing them money and therefore, pass the cost on to customers. Customer who cannot vote with their feet because the law says you must have it and all of the insurance companies are in it together through the ABI.
The government makes it law that all motorvehicles should have 3rd party insurence.
The government do not regulate any part of the insurance industry.
The ABI are the regulating body and are run by the insurence companies.
The ABI will not pressure the government to deal with insurence fraud because if they do, the government will be exposed for not tackling the issue and are likely to respond by returning some pressure to the insurance companies through enforced regulation.
How can it be that a fraudster can tell a bunch of lies to an insurance company in order to obtain insurence and the insurence company does not cross check the information given. They are complicit in allowing fraudster to give false info by not checking. Then they have the cheek to complain that uninsured drivers are costing them money and therefore, pass the cost on to customers. Customer who cannot vote with their feet because the law says you must have it and all of the insurance companies are in it together through the ABI.
The insurance companies have to take the vast bulk of the blame for this "crash for cash" culture that is so rife in certain communities, and the general "ooh, got to get my whiplash claim in" attitude. There is no use blaming lawyers.
When all this business started to snowball the inscos decided that it was cheaper to simply pay out a couple of thousand quid on the basis of some dodgy doctors note than to actually contest the claim. Initially this might have been an economically sound idea. But of course this "just pay them" idea all goes to rats
t when every bugger claims for a bad neck. If they'd started out by contesting each claim tooth and nail then this wouldn't have happened.
Similarly - all these ridiculous "courtesy car" schemes; it's something that needs regulating and clamping down on very hard.
And while I'm on a roll - something should be done to stop perfectly good cars being lumbered with CAT D markers simply because they had (for example) a dented door but end up written off because of the ancillary or hire car costs. What a waste!
When all this business started to snowball the inscos decided that it was cheaper to simply pay out a couple of thousand quid on the basis of some dodgy doctors note than to actually contest the claim. Initially this might have been an economically sound idea. But of course this "just pay them" idea all goes to rats
t when every bugger claims for a bad neck. If they'd started out by contesting each claim tooth and nail then this wouldn't have happened.Similarly - all these ridiculous "courtesy car" schemes; it's something that needs regulating and clamping down on very hard.
And while I'm on a roll - something should be done to stop perfectly good cars being lumbered with CAT D markers simply because they had (for example) a dented door but end up written off because of the ancillary or hire car costs. What a waste!
Easily the most poorly thought through thread for some time, this one.
The reason that having insurance is the law, is so that when you have a crash (that might not be your fault) and are disabled for life, someone (the insurance company) will pay for your care, often for life.
If people were given the choice to have insurance, please explain how you think that would work, or benefit anyone?
Insurance companies are absolutely vital to companies and individuals. There is an industry-wide fraud database, but catching 'crash for cash' gangs isn't as easy as one might think. It's more expensive to fight claims than it is just to pay up.
If you want to get angry with someone, get angry with the tens of thousands of criminals who believe they can get away with fraudulent claims, and our appalling 'ambulance-chasing' legal system that encourages someone with mild whiplash to pursue a claim that will cost far more to process than it pays out. Also, get angry with the brainless dole-wallers who pick up the phone to 'ambulance-chasers for you' as soon as they trip over a paving stone. Who pays? Insurers, then us.
The reason that having insurance is the law, is so that when you have a crash (that might not be your fault) and are disabled for life, someone (the insurance company) will pay for your care, often for life.
If people were given the choice to have insurance, please explain how you think that would work, or benefit anyone?
Insurance companies are absolutely vital to companies and individuals. There is an industry-wide fraud database, but catching 'crash for cash' gangs isn't as easy as one might think. It's more expensive to fight claims than it is just to pay up.
If you want to get angry with someone, get angry with the tens of thousands of criminals who believe they can get away with fraudulent claims, and our appalling 'ambulance-chasing' legal system that encourages someone with mild whiplash to pursue a claim that will cost far more to process than it pays out. Also, get angry with the brainless dole-wallers who pick up the phone to 'ambulance-chasers for you' as soon as they trip over a paving stone. Who pays? Insurers, then us.
stevesingo said:
Legal racketeering suported by the government.
The government makes it law that all motorvehicles should have 3rd party insurence.
The government do not regulate any part of the insurance industry.
The ABI are the regulating body and are run by the insurence companies.
The ABI will not pressure the government to deal with insurence fraud because if they do, the government will be exposed for not tackling the issue and are likely to respond by returning some pressure to the insurance companies through enforced regulation.
How can it be that a fraudster can tell a bunch of lies to an insurance company in order to obtain insurence and the insurence company does not cross check the information given. They are complicit in allowing fraudster to give false info by not checking. Then they have the cheek to complain that uninsured drivers are costing them money and therefore, pass the cost on to customers. Customer who cannot vote with their feet because the law says you must have it and all of the insurance companies are in it together through the ABI.
The ABI aren't the regulator of the insurance industry, they are a trade association. The Financial Services Authority is (I think) the regulator.The government makes it law that all motorvehicles should have 3rd party insurence.
The government do not regulate any part of the insurance industry.
The ABI are the regulating body and are run by the insurence companies.
The ABI will not pressure the government to deal with insurence fraud because if they do, the government will be exposed for not tackling the issue and are likely to respond by returning some pressure to the insurance companies through enforced regulation.
How can it be that a fraudster can tell a bunch of lies to an insurance company in order to obtain insurence and the insurence company does not cross check the information given. They are complicit in allowing fraudster to give false info by not checking. Then they have the cheek to complain that uninsured drivers are costing them money and therefore, pass the cost on to customers. Customer who cannot vote with their feet because the law says you must have it and all of the insurance companies are in it together through the ABI.
bqf said:
It's more expensive to fight claims than it is just to pay up.
This is true, but as I pointed out, if they'd actually stood up and fought claims in the first place (with the attendant expense) then it would have made people think twice and prevented the rise of these hordes of ambulance chasers. Despicable parasites.And another thing - it's common knowledge that if you go to a bodyshop and want (eg) a new wing, a new bonnet and the paint then the first question is "is it an insurance job" and pooooof! the price goes through the roof accordingly. Same things for windscreens; go and get one fitted at your own expense and the cost is a fraction of what an insco is billed. It's disgraceful.
Dog Star said:
This is true, but as I pointed out, if they'd actually stood up and fought claims in the first place (with the attendant expense) then it would have made people think twice and prevented the rise of these hordes of ambulance chasers. Despicable parasites.
And another thing - it's common knowledge that if you go to a bodyshop and want (eg) a new wing, a new bonnet and the paint then the first question is "is it an insurance job" and pooooof! the price goes through the roof accordingly. Same things for windscreens; go and get one fitted at your own expense and the cost is a fraction of what an insco is billed. It's disgraceful.
Yep all true. I don't think the insurers saw the danger of the rise of the 'claim culture' along with aggressive lawyers advertising between episodes of Jeremy Kyle :-)And another thing - it's common knowledge that if you go to a bodyshop and want (eg) a new wing, a new bonnet and the paint then the first question is "is it an insurance job" and pooooof! the price goes through the roof accordingly. Same things for windscreens; go and get one fitted at your own expense and the cost is a fraction of what an insco is billed. It's disgraceful.
Easily the most poorly thought through response to a thread for some time.
I don't believe the OP or anyone else suggests we don't have insurance. The suggestion is that it should be better regulated.
I don't believe the OP or anyone else suggests we don't have insurance. The suggestion is that it should be better regulated.
bqf said:
Easily the most poorly thought through thread for some time, this one.
The reason that having insurance is the law, is so that when you have a crash (that might not be your fault) and are disabled for life, someone (the insurance company) will pay for your care, often for life.
If people were given the choice to have insurance, please explain how you think that would work, or benefit anyone?
Insurance companies are absolutely vital to companies and individuals. There is an industry-wide fraud database, but catching 'crash for cash' gangs isn't as easy as one might think. It's more expensive to fight claims than it is just to pay up.
If you want to get angry with someone, get angry with the tens of thousands of criminals who believe they can get away with fraudulent claims, and our appalling 'ambulance-chasing' legal system that encourages someone with mild whiplash to pursue a claim that will cost far more to process than it pays out. Also, get angry with the brainless dole-wallers who pick up the phone to 'ambulance-chasers for you' as soon as they trip over a paving stone. Who pays? Insurers, then us.
The reason that having insurance is the law, is so that when you have a crash (that might not be your fault) and are disabled for life, someone (the insurance company) will pay for your care, often for life.
If people were given the choice to have insurance, please explain how you think that would work, or benefit anyone?
Insurance companies are absolutely vital to companies and individuals. There is an industry-wide fraud database, but catching 'crash for cash' gangs isn't as easy as one might think. It's more expensive to fight claims than it is just to pay up.
If you want to get angry with someone, get angry with the tens of thousands of criminals who believe they can get away with fraudulent claims, and our appalling 'ambulance-chasing' legal system that encourages someone with mild whiplash to pursue a claim that will cost far more to process than it pays out. Also, get angry with the brainless dole-wallers who pick up the phone to 'ambulance-chasers for you' as soon as they trip over a paving stone. Who pays? Insurers, then us.
Lotus 50 said:
The ABI aren't the regulator of the insurance industry, they are a trade association. The Financial Services Authority is (I think) the regulator.
Quite correct. But, the FSA does not have the power to regulate all aspects of the business, i.e they cannot force underwriters to conduct their own background check on policy applicants. They cannot force the industry to drop the hire car rackets ect.The ABI is the God Father of the whole racket. The insurance companys are not making any money, "quick leys all get together and agree to put motorists prices up by 10% to cover out ineptitude".
My insurance is very reasonable, so no i'm not angry. My insurer paid out 25k on a claim for two written off cars, whiplash and legal fees about 3 years ago. Following the crash my insurance went from £400 on a BMW 330i to £550 on a Diesel Focus. Now it's £230 for the same Diesel Focus.
If the OP and the other whingers what to blame someone for rising premiums then look to the person demanding that while his M3 is repaired he gets an M3 hire car or the person who puts in a whiplash claim even though he doesn't have whiplash because "everyone does it". Or even perhaps the increased repair costs because of increasingly tech laden cars.
If the OP and the other whingers what to blame someone for rising premiums then look to the person demanding that while his M3 is repaired he gets an M3 hire car or the person who puts in a whiplash claim even though he doesn't have whiplash because "everyone does it". Or even perhaps the increased repair costs because of increasingly tech laden cars.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff