# Insurance what the hell are they playing at



## Flair

My Nan has just got here renewal through from direct line. She is 60 odd with max NCB and always had a clean license. So she was paying 300 and odd, and they want to renew it to £900 :doublesho She rings then them to find out why, they say everyones premium in the country is raising by 40%. Thats just pathetic, so she tried to get it cheaper with them, not a chance so she said she isnt renewing they just said ok.


----------



## ivor

i would of said "do your maths brain cell as going from £300 to £900 is not bloody 40%" I read somewhere insurance company's are getting inspected due to this massive rise in premiums


----------



## butcher

What car's she driving? At that age with full no-claims, £150 wouldn't be far off the mark of what I'd expect to pay on most cars.


----------



## Flair

ivor said:


> i would of said "do your maths brain cell as going from £300 to £900 is not bloody 40%" I read somewhere insurance company's are getting inspected due to this massive rise in premiums


Thats what i thought, but im no good with maths lol They done her a favour now anyway, she wont listen to me about shopping at renewel time, she thinks loyalty pays. I have just got a quote with AXA for her at £283 thats far cheaper than she had before.


----------



## Flair

butcher said:


> What car's she driving? At that age with full no-claims, £150 wouldn't be far off the mark of what I'd expect to pay on most cars.


Vauxhall astra 99 4 door 1.8 petrol. But the aera is pretty high risk aera though, so no chance of that price. If she had the car insured where I live, its almost £100 cheaper.


----------



## deans arctic

got my renewal through on friday

knocked £500 off


----------



## PugIain

Im expecting a marginal increase with my new car.Probably about £60-£70 but thats all Im going to entertain.


----------



## ovolo

I got my renewal from Churchill last week, for some reason for the last few years they have ALWAYS been the cheapest for me, as I shop around every year and i have other policies & full ncb too.

this year an increase of around £250 to £687.00 for a diesel volvo s60, group 36 I believe :doublesho::doublesho::doublesho:

Tried the usual comparison places and then Liverpool Victoria who gave me a reduced excess and better policy options for over £220 cheaper. 

Why do they vary by such a large amount, cause they are still making Millions of us all .


----------



## Shiny

That's just the thing though, Insurers are actually "losing" millions on car insurance. They aren't getting any returns in investments and with fraud, personal injury costs etc etc they can not keep running at a (on average) 120% loss ratio just keep a slice of the market.

It's been a soft market for over 10 years, as a result unfortunately the increases being seen are hitting hard.


----------



## Red_Cloverleaf

Shiny said:


> That's just the thing though, Insurers are actually "losing" millions on car insurance. They aren't getting any returns in investments and with fraud, personal injury costs etc etc they can not keep running at a (on average) 120% loss ratio just keep a slice of the market.
> 
> It's been a soft market for over 10 years, as a result unfortunately the increases being seen are hitting hard.


My heart isn't bleading.

I have held motor insurance for nearly 30 years 9often a bike and a separate car policy) and only ever maid one claim against a tw*t that drove into me. :wall:

I have probably paid 30k for insurance over the years through various motorcycles and cars and got what back in return? 

My last premium was £162, the renewal cam back at £459 - that's nearly 300% (*NOT 40%*) for those bad at maths, so I think the insurance business will get absolutely no sympathy whatsoever from the vast majority of motorists.

You wont even get a grain of sympathy from me.


----------



## butcher

Red_Cloverleaf said:


> My heart isn't bleading.
> 
> I have had motor insurance for nearly 30 years and only ever maid one claim against a tw*t that drove into me. :wall:
> 
> I have probably paid 30k for insurance over the years through various motorcycles and cars and got what back in return?
> 
> Rant over.


Whilst I agree. Most of us don't see the benefits from what we pay out, and the insurance companies are mostly a bunch of &@*$%*|^ when the time comes we should be seeing the benefits. But a lot of what's being blamed for it is the personal injury claims.

Whereas sometimes you may be paying more than what the actual car is worth, they're paying out much bigger figures when it comes to court cases and compensation. Something that has increased dramatically through no win, no fee solicitors sucking the soul from our planet.

It's not just the insurance companies we're being fleeced by.


----------



## Andpopse

Just add the missus on your policy (if you have one). It reduced my renewal by the 40% it had increased by. Actually it was slightly less now than last years.


----------



## Flair

Andpopse said:


> Just add the missus on your policy (if you have one). It reduced my renewal by the 40% it had increased by. Actually it was slightly less now than last years.


It's my Nans insurance :lol: , she has my grandad on it it was a little lower but more expensive with out him on it. But I think she has it sorted now, she said she is going to Lloyds it was £260 somthing with them.


----------



## The_Bouncer

Shiny said:


> That's just the thing though, Insurers are actually "losing" millions on car insurance. They aren't getting any returns in investments and with fraud, personal injury costs etc etc they can not keep running at a (on average) 120% loss ratio just keep a slice of the market.
> 
> It's been a soft market for over 10 years, as a result unfortunately the increases being seen are hitting hard.


The only soft market here is the uk law system that allows fraud of insurance 
+ insurance companies won't employ the correct amount of people to do damage limitation - i,e the big companies have assesors working with an average of 800 - 1200 open claims at any one time. - Now that the reduced action times per claim have been introduced, many companies are just ticking the ' payout' sheet in order to meet deadlines and avoid the Court letters rather than investigate them fully + the fact that solicitors rub their grubby little mitts together everytime a case comes in > ( hence reduced apparent working guidelines > a 'cost saving guidance... uh huh ) > thats the real deal 

I'd be a loss adjuster - with a big **** off bat that I could swing at these fraudster's - give them whiplash to complain about.

Overall - yes a country, goverment - legal system - we are far too soft and Insurance co's need to wisen up in the 'lost millions' market instead of appeasing their shareholders in terms of claim volume plus turnaround times - when all they have to do is get the customer to stump up for their inadequate service and assist in the 120% loss ratio deficit. - > Actually if an insurance company is that bad that it is a 120+ % deficit then maybe they should get out the game ? ? -

pees me off really.


----------



## Magic Detail

Its the Paul Rooney solicitors of this world that are helping push the cost of insurance up. I swear those bllod suckers could get you £2k for stubbing your toe in Tesco's!!!!


----------



## andy-d

Shiny said:


> That's just the thing though, Insurers are actually "losing" millions on car insurance. They aren't getting any returns in investments and with fraud, personal injury costs etc etc they can not keep running at a (on average) 120% loss ratio just keep a slice of the market.
> 
> It's been a soft market for over 10 years, as a result unfortunately the increases being seen are hitting hard.


bull
there is Zero justification for the stupid prices, never mind the 40% increase some are charging Other than Pure profit gouging.

If youd said "they are not happy with Only making 4-5million PURE profit , they want 30,, " youd be closer to the mark.

At least Dick turpin had the decency to wear a mask....


----------



## Shiny

lol, what do I know....


----------



## andy-d

Shiny said:


> lol, what do I know....


friendy advice, cut the smart alec answers mate..
you Dont know what i do for a living,,and belive me i Know the figs i roughly quoted,and there FAR closer to the truth than any lie you end up telling to justify a 40% increase , that is in most cases nearer to a 300-400% increase.

i Can not and wil not use "real" figures, breaches certain clauses of my profession. so just be a good little smart alec and realise your bluff ,lies and bull have been called by one who has Seen the true figures....


----------



## Shiny

Just to clarify my point, as an example, a quick google reveals RBS's published Interim Management Statement - http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...IMS_Announcement.pdf?DCMP=ILC-Results2010Q3PR

Page 46 on is the RBS Insurance part.

I'm no accountant, but the COR from Jan to Sept 2010 was 116.9%. From what i can tell, that is for all classes of insurance business for the group (Direct Line, Churchill, NIG etc). So taking into account that Household, Pet, Travel are still very profitable for the RBS, this means that Motor is running at much greater COR than 116.9%.

From the industry news and reports i have read, this is indicative of much of the motor insurance market.

And to be honest, I have no need to "bluff or lie", in fact i have very little involvement in motor insurance, i can happily leave that to the bucket brokers and comparison sites.


----------



## t1mmy

andy-d said:


> bull
> there is Zero justification for the stupid prices, never mind the 40% increase some are charging Other than Pure profit gouging.
> 
> If youd said "they are not happy with Only making 4-5million PURE profit , they want 30,, " youd be closer to the mark.
> 
> At least Dick turpin had the decency to wear a mask....


Get with the real world. The insurance industry has been losing billions on private motor and even with the hiked rates the market was expected to lose over £1 billion in 2010 alone.

Unfortunately rates are not yet high enough for break even point, let alone profit for the market as a whole.

There are a few insurers (not many at all), for example Admiral, who did make a profit in 2010.


----------



## t1mmy

Shiny said:


> Just to clarify my point, as an example, a quick google reveals RBS's published Interim Management Statement - http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...IMS_Announcement.pdf?DCMP=ILC-Results2010Q3PR
> 
> Page 46 on is the RBS Insurance part.
> 
> I'm no accountant, but the COR from Jan to Sept 2010 was 116.9%. From what i can tell, that is for all classes of insurance business for the group (Direct Line, Churchill, NIG etc). So taking into account that Household, Pet, Travel are still very profitable for the RBS, this means that Motor is running at much greater COR than 116.9%.
> 
> From the industry news and reports i have read, this is indicative of much of the motor insurance market.
> 
> And to be honest, I have no need to "bluff or lie", in fact i have very little involvement in motor insurance, i can happily leave that to the bucket brokers and comparison sites.


I remember the report for the first 2 quarters of 2010 showed the RBS group (Direct Line/Churchill/NIG etc) ran at approximately £250M operational loss


----------



## t1mmy

Backing up what I said with some fact...

http://www.broking.co.uk/insurance-...-set-gbp1bn-underwriting-loss-claims-deloitte


----------



## t1mmy

This is an older article which states the motor insurance market hadn't shown profit for 14 years running up to 2009...

http://www.money.co.uk/article/1000336-motor-insurance-industry-soon-to-be-in-profit.htm

Clearly 2009 went more pear shaped than their predictions.


----------



## Shiny

A few years ago i questioned a senior person within Norwich Union as to why their Direct rates we much cheaper than the Broker rates, way more cheaper than the difference of the commission, bearing in mind they still have pay their own staff to do what a Broker does and also cover the high TV advertising costs.

I was told quite frankly that they were prepared to make a loss on motor to build up a client base to market other profitable products (household etc) and that it was a cheaper method and gave better conversion results than buying a marketing book.


----------



## The Cueball

What is everyone moaning about... if you want to live in a culture and country that sues people for the slightest thing, then this is what happens...

You don't think for a second that the insurance company's are going to take a hit?!?!?

Plus with all the claims for bad weather damage etc etc... I don't see insurance getting cheaper for anyone!

Stop all the petty "i'm going to sue you" nonsense, then we can fight to lower the premiums...

We are a victim of our own (collective) greed...

:thumb:


----------



## CliveP

Unfortneately those in the 'sue someone for everything' mindset, are rarely the people who are paying normal premiums, working hard. Let's face it, if you've ever had the misfortune of not being able to get to your business during the day, weekday daytime TV is full of adverts pushing 'let's sue some poor handworking b*gg*r whilst you sit on the sofa and do sweet FA'. 

I simply change insurer ever year, so far so good premium wise, I'm happy.

Regards,
Clive.


----------



## Flair

What I dont get now, Is why the hell it's cheaper to get Full comp than its is TP and TPTF.
When I passed my test 4 years ago, I could insure my 1.4 golf for just under £500 TPFT. Nowa days there is no chance even with 3 NCB. But it pees me off, the fact i do not want FC insurance, all i want is to be covered is if i hit someone. I simply couldnt care a less, if i damage my cars because I would never claim anyway, ill fix it myself. So TP is the best but they charge nerly £100-200 more for TPFT and almost double a fc premium for TP. If they are so bothered about losing 120% or whatever, this makes not sense what so ever, why not encourage it.


----------



## tmitch45

Two things to say really on this.

1) Insurance companies have us all over a barrel as we have to have insurance to be legal so they feel they can charge what they like.

2) I dont understand the trend in insurance companies being more bothered about attracting new customers than keeping existing ones! I left my previous company after a studid increase, when i asked if they could match another quote (not beat it) as I wanted to stay with them they said no and seemed not bothered that they were loosing a customer!

The only solution is shopping around, use the internet and play them off against each other if you can.


----------



## adam1942

andy-d said:


> friendy advice, cut the smart alec answers mate..
> you Dont know what i do for a living,,and belive me i Know the figs i roughly quoted,and there FAR closer to the truth than any lie you end up telling to justify a 40% increase , that is in most cases nearer to a 300-400% increase.
> 
> i Can not and wil not use "real" figures, breaches certain clauses of my profession. so just be a good little smart alec and realise your bluff ,lies and bull have been called by one who has Seen the true figures....


Wow 12 posts and you already look like a ******. Well done!

Last year my insurance was quite pricey. I've been asking around and it seems it'll go down this year but renewal isn't for 3 months so cant get proper quotes at most places!


----------



## skyinsurance

Flair said:


> What I dont get now, Is why the hell it's cheaper to get Full comp than its is TP and TPTF.


higher value and volume of claims from TPFT and TPO over fully comprehensive. Insurance is all about statistics.


----------



## Flair

skyinsurance said:


> higher value and volume of claims from TPFT and TPO over fully comprehensive. Insurance is all about statistics.


:tumbleweed: S much as they say It's true, It's hard to believe, how the volume of claims on TP is higher than fully comp. It just sounds stupid, Considering that you can make claim on almost anything on FC, I dont buy or one second. From working in claims and repair mangement, the majority of the claims I dealt with was stupid idiots claiming for damage they caused them selfs. The majority of the claims I ever dealt with seemed to be a combination of that and wild animals.

When I first started Is was doing Fnol for Zenith and Premier including TP notification. Then I moved onto doing Claims and repair mangement for CIS, Zurich and insure the box. Tbh, I dont recall ever taking a claim for someone on TP, and only did very few on TPFT.

And from what I noticed to, those companies didnt give too hoot about what they approved, then all of sudden end of the month or so they would start refusing claims. They obviously got to the end of the month an thought crap we aint hitting targets.
I come accross lots of claims paid out on when alot of the time it was owners own stupidity and ignorance, cars stolen left running etc when the owner even admitted it. I also seem alot of claims paid out to customers who openly admitted they was drink/drug driving, yet they still paid out. It just seems half these insurers are just stupid, ether that or the high end guys dont care, why would they when they get paid ether way and can blame it on stats.

Its unbeliveable what people will claim for, hardly bank breaking accidents some times. And most of the time it was only ever a little amount bit over there excess


----------



## The_Bouncer

^^ Just not really a 2p add :O) - I would hate to work FNOL - I think it's cos I'm too grumpy and to see what people were trying to claim for would do my head in - Rather be customer service at EasyJet Luton A/P

....... 2nd thoughts.... :O)


----------



## Flair

The_Bouncer said:


> ^^ Just not really a 2p add :O) - I would hate to work FNOL - I think it's cos I'm too grumpy and to see what people were trying to claim for would do my head in - Rather be customer service at EasyJet Luton A/P
> 
> ....... 2nd thoughts.... :O)


I hated it, what wound me up was it was always seemed the genuine people got a real hard time of it. And the fact I was made to convince people to claim on there own insurance, and then recover It back later from the TP, Because we got commision from the arc, we had to basicly sell our approved. I used to get into trouble all the time, for advising owners under warranty to go to there manufacters approved as there warrenty my be void etc if they didn't. And most of the time there quotes where cheaper than the approved labour rates for our centres.


----------



## Shiny

Flair, you probably find that the Insurers you were working for were predominantly in the Comprehensive market, hence there were not many claims coming in on TPF&T/TPO policyholders.

In the good old days of knock for knock (not to be confused with 50/50 or split liability), Insurers used to pay their own claims regardless of fault. This was on the understanding that if insurer A and insurer B has 1000 accidents between their policyholders, using average 500 will be fault of insurer A's policyholder and 500 will be the fault of insurer B's policyholder. So rather than argue away over who's at fault on each accident, each would pay their own policyholder's cost. So if the policyholder was Comprehensive cover, even in the event of a non fault accident, the Insurer would pay for their client's damage and then, if it was a fault claim, if the third party was only covered TPFT/TPO, they would also have to pay the third party claim. Now if the policyholder was TPFT/TPO cover, the Insurers wouldn't have to pay a penny as the policyholder would not be covered for their own damage. If it was a fault accident and the third party was covered by a comprehensive policy, they wouldn't have to pay the third party costs either as this would be paid by the third party's own insurers under the knock for knock agreement.

As a result, the cost of TPFT/TPO insurance was heavily subsidised by the premiums paid by Comprehensive policyholders, which meant there used to a big difference in the cost of Comprehensive and TPFT/TPO.

Knock for Knock pretty disappeared what must have been 10 years ago and as a result TPFT/TPO premiums were no longer being subsidised. As a result, the gap between TPFT premiums and Comprehensive lessened.

Some TPO/TPF&T premiums now work out more than comprehensive cover. One of the reasons for this is that there discount built within quote engines that apply to the own damage section of a policy, for example excess, age of vehicle etc. Age of vehicle discounts are why it is a cheaper to insure a 10 year old car than a new car, because they will pay out less in the event of a total loss due to depreciation. As own damage isn't covered by TPFT(other than fire/theft obviously)/TPO, the discounts don't apply.

Another reason is the "moral" hazard. It is possible that someone with only TPFT/TPO cover does not want their own car covered as they don't care about it. Potentially this could affect the way they drive. As mentioned by Sky, this often reflects in the cost of third party claims and, as such, TPFT/TPO risks have often proved to be very unprofitable for some Insurers.


----------



## Flair

That was a bit confusing :lol:. I think got it I think. 

What always shocked me the most doing claims, was the involvement of the underwriters approval. Most the the ones we dealt with, didn't even have to approve, inspect the claim. All the Inspections/engineering/approval to bodyshops were done by us the TP company. Things like modifications, things being wrong etc didnt matter alot of the time, the our company aint going to shoot them selves in the foot when they make there money from the job being done.
I think alot of insurance companies need to open there eyes a little more, as lots of them never even seen anything but a few pictures the qoute and invoice.

As I was saying before many of times people have openly admitted to the reason they wrote there car off due to drink, speeding, dangerous driving etc, why should they get a credit hire car and a payout, if it was up to me i would of just said dont be **** next time gtfo.

One claim alway comes to mind, young lad in his 20s, admitted to the police he was wrecked and had been drinking tested failed a breathaliser, on his way home from work. Comes around bend onto a duel carriage way, he swears he was doing 20MPH no more shot over the other side of the carriage way and wrote his car off.

What happend to him with the police I dont know, his insurance company footed the cost of the recovery by the police, a weeks worth of storage. We sent a company out that did the inspections for write offs, and he was paid out for his car by his insruance.


----------



## apmaman

Probably not the best time to say this but I hate insurance. 

It's cheaper for me to afford an Evo 8 than a Mini Cooper S. Thats when you know things aren't right. Seriously, a Mini is more expensive than an Evo....


----------



## kikaz

i just call chris knott and let them sort it out cheapest quotes 8 years running and counting just had the leon quote yesterday £30 cheaper then last year honda quote should be dropping anyday i'm expecting that to be about the same as last year maybe and extra £30-£40 which is to be expected given the times we live in.Insurance can't live with it get your car impounded without it.

good deals are out there you just have to look REALLY hard for them stay away from the comparison websites they are so far off the mark for me it's not even funny.

from what i have read noone has mentioned uninsured drivers who last year if am not mistaken ( and i prob am) cost insurance companies £250 mil pounds


----------

