# Renewal up again!!!



## macca666 (Mar 30, 2010)

Probably just a bit of a rant this but I've been driving now for over 25 year, never claimed against my insurance, no convictions / points etc yet I'm still hit with a 20% increase in my policy. What's that about 

Looked around and checked the comparison sites and in fairness my existing company is still around the cheapest give or take about a tenner.

I know it's the "what if" scenario but what a complete and utter waste of money I dread to think what I've paid over the past 25 or so year to my insurance for what I see as absolutely nothing back in return


----------



## Philb1965 (Jun 29, 2010)

I've been with admiral for the last 7 years and every year they wallop up the premium until you challenge it and then they drop it. Had enough this year and went with direct line. Admiral £585 for 2 cars, direct line £389. Admiral offered £430 when I called to tell them I wouldn't be renewing. These companies shoot themselves in the foot with how they treat existing customers.

Direct line aren't on the comparison sites but well worth a try.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

There was extra tax added to insurance policies not so long ago, but it does appear the rise is higher than that. 

I'm a bit like you. I hate when my premium goes up as I've never claimed either. Then when I read about guys with multiple claims and convictions still getting good quotes I feel disheartened. 

It'd be good to see the insurance companies targeting incident prone drivers more.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Philb1965 said:


> I've been with admiral for the last 7 years and every year they wallop up the premium until you challenge it and then they drop it. Had enough this year and went with direct line. Admiral £585 for 2 cars, direct line £389. Admiral offered £430 when I called to tell them I wouldn't be renewing. These companies shoot themselves in the foot with how they treat existing customers.
> 
> Direct line aren't on the comparison sites but well worth a try.


All insurance companies do that I've used. It's the same every year without fail.

I hate the way that my account will automatically be debited for the full amount unless I give good notice. It means basically they are going to try and overcharge you unless you take the time to get competitive quotes.


----------



## macca666 (Mar 30, 2010)

Never had any joy with direct line and still the same this year. Did try them but they've quoted almost twice my renewal :wall:


----------



## insanejim69 (Nov 13, 2011)

I must be one of the few whose Insurance went down this year by £8 a month !! 

James.


----------



## MDC250 (Jan 4, 2014)

Kerr said:


> There was extra tax added to insurance policies not so long ago, but to does appear the rise is higher than that.


It increased from 10% to 12% as of 1 June 17.

It's usually far more palatable for Insurers to blame increasing PI claims (really? It's quite boring now) or the Discount Rate change.

Genuinely surprised the Association of British Insurers has not had that changed yet, but it will happen. Meantime they are pricing based on higher damages. I say higher, I should say fairer damages to those catastrophically injured.

Astonishing views expressed by a Supreme Court Judge. This guy allegedly received the highest single Brief fee in British legal history (£8 mil). Talk about pulling the ladder up behind you! He would have you not even recover your loss of earnings and instead a nebulous notion of 'reasonable' be introduced.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/fa...ased-to-pi-claimants-sumption/5063778.article

A few years out of date and from a party who has a vested interest contrary to Motor Insurers...but you get the gist.

https://www.thompsons.law/media/1832/uk-car-insurance-profits-costs-dividends-premiums.pdf

Can't readily lay my hands on more recent figures but last time I checked Motor Insurers are not charities so I'd wager House wins and they are still quids in or certainly not as hard done to as they would have you believe.

Fairly interesting article from the Indie...

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.in...surers-try-to-deflect-blame-a7525266.html?amp

Basically sleep easy, premiums are only ever going up 

Insurers are doing OK and even the Govt is taking the pee out of motorists...over and above all the other revenue streams they have out of us.


----------



## Andyg_TSi (Sep 6, 2013)

Well.....I had the biggest shock of my life this month.....in a good way.

My insurance is due for remewal on 12th December & I got my renewal notice from my current insurers last week (Swinton).
Admitedly, I've been with Swinton for a number of years & have not shopped around as I should have.

Despite being 44 & driving since 1991, having no convictions and maximum NCB (protected) my premium at renewal was extortionate.....a whopping £1008.

I was involved in a no fault accident in 2014 when someone went into the back of me in my previous car.

Anyway, went online, via go compare & got the same level of cover with Hastings Direct premium for....... £380

I did ring Swinton up with this info & they point blank refused to price match. The best they could do was reduce my level of cover & this made my premuim with them £820......eff off you robbing bar-stewards!

Needless to say, I went with Hastings at £380 & that wasnt even the cheapest quote I got.....but it was the most reasonable for the level of cover I wanted.

This experience just makes me think that insurance companies make it up even more than I did before.

Come this time next year & I bet Swinton will be quoting me mega cheap as a 'New' customer.

My current car is a Volvo C30 2.0L R-Design Lux


----------



## Andyblue (Jun 20, 2017)

I tend to shop round when renewal comes through, even if I'm happy with the renewal quote, just to make sure, if I do find it cheaper, I tend to phone and they tend to match / come close...


----------



## Caledoniandream (Oct 9, 2009)

For the last 4 years I haven’t shopped around, as the quote was fair and none of the extreme increases.
This is how it should be.

Regarding the PI claims there should be a ceiling to the amount to be claimed, it’s still getting out of hand.
The payout should reflect the loss, but should not be a positive benefit, if your prognoses are the you are going to make 1 million in a life time of work, and due to your accident you can only make half of that, than the claimshould reflect that.
I agree with cost for adaptation of cars and house etc, but let be real, no money in the world is going to give your health back.
You shouldn’t lose out, but neither should you gain from your misfortune.


----------



## MDC250 (Jan 4, 2014)

Caledoniandream said:


> For the last 4 years I haven't shopped around, as the quote was fair and none of the extreme increases.
> 
> This is how it should be.
> 
> ...


That is how compensation is based now! You are to be put back in the position you would have been but for the accident, injury and resultant losses that flow. In reality for any number of reasons this never happens.

Taking your loss of earnings example you look at what the claimant would have earned during a lifetime, factoring in things like promotion, pension etc. The multiplier or often different multipliers for different periods are applied which reflect investment return over time. So if you earned £20k net and were 40 at the time of loss you do not get £20k x 27 years as it is assumed you can get a rate of return on your lump sum. The figures even include standard mortality rates but if there's anything to you as an individual that would cause that to be departed from bet your bottom dollar the insurer does. Reduced life expectancy means less damages.

The reason insurers are so peed off at the minute is that the discount rate is set at -0.75%. In other words it's assumed you need more than the lump sum in today's money as you will not achieve a rate of return and will 'lose' money year on year.

It's important to put that into context. Firstly, where this really kicks in is for out and out catastrophically injured people. I'm talking tetraplegic, paraplegic, brain injury, spinal cord injury, amputee type claims. Yes in theory this could apply to any injury claim but this is where headline figure type figures are generated. Would you see that type of claimant go short? Secondly the discount rate was previously set for around 16 years at a figure which meant claimants were massively out of pocket and essentially having to 'borrow' from other aspects of their claim to make up shortfall. It's funny how Insurers weren't bleating half as much when they've had it so good for 16 years!!!

Adaptations are recoverable where it's shown they improve the position. Say for example an amputee won't get use out of a £75k hand then it's not recoverable. But if they do why shouldn't they get the best tech they can? It's still not as good as the original but that doesn't mean they should have to put up with the cheapest just to keep an Insurers balance sheet looking healthy.

Again to try and put into context figures for a catastrophic claims often the damages for the pain, suffering and loss of amenity component is often one of the smaller heads of loss. We are talking maybe £300-£320k max. I don't know anybody who would take that money in exchange for the injuries you have to have to get that sort of award. The range of damages are set by senior judges and applied by the Courts so this is not either side of the fence 'getting their way'. Where this become dangerous is politicians interfering in an independent process and it's often under very heavy influence and lobbying from the Association of British Insurers. Let's be clear, the ABI wants its members to pay out less but where does that leave a claimant? Yup reliant on the State that can't actually provide in the first place!

The general public just see the odd rotten apple and the ABI are very good at getting that into the press, who incidentally have a vested interest. Reduction of Legal Aid created an unintended monster in the form of Conditional Fee Agreements (no win, no fee). Reason the press don't like that is they are royally out of pocket when they are sued for libel claims so they have a common interest. So it's a perfect storm...ABI are powerful and rich, politicians are too happy to lend an ear to the powerful and rich who bankroll them and the ABI along with compliant politicians have an ally in the press.

Then we roll out the poor National Health service who are haemorrhaging money in negligence claims. It's wrong that money is going to those injured due to negligent treatment isn't it? Except it isn't as it shouldn't happen to start with in all but extreme cases and more often than not the reason it is, is because the NHS is under resourced and stretched. This feeds into the PI accident claim point above. If you under-compensate that claimant they end up on the doorstep of the NHS!

In summary, don't be fooled by the headlines there's a lot more going on here than the ABI, politicians and press would have you believe. Premiums are high ultimately because it suits and greed drives profit, just ask the shareholders.


----------

