Re: Car insurance premiums : Wed Dec 14, 2011 9:39 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Usually 25 but if he's not got a time machine he'll not see the really good prices.

Edited for accuracy.

Re: Car insurance premiums : Wed Dec 14, 2011 10:37 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

No need for the fat cat salaries as ever but don't blame that for your increased premiums. Blame the compensation culture everyone has bought into and the people who claim on car insurance because of minor injuries.

also the 1/4 of people who just renew their policy without even searching for a better deal, now wonder so many insurers send such ridiculous quotes out at renewal time.

Re: Car insurance premiums : Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:19 am  

Cronus wrote:

Big Graeme wrote:

Usually 25 but if he's not got a time machine he'll not see the really good prices.

Edited for accuracy.

My last quote was £450 fully comp with business use of over 20k miles and a £100 excess, I didn't think that was too bad.

Re: Car insurance premiums : Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:39 am  

Saddened! wrote:

No need for the fat cat salaries as ever but don't blame that for your increased premiums. Blame the compensation culture everyone has bought into and the people who claim on car insurance because of minor injuries.

Utter rubbish. First, there is no compensation culture, (as the government's Better regulation task Force officially confirmed) but even disregarding that, if there was, it would have NOTHING to do with this issue. You're confused, unwittingly or deliberately.

Why nothing? Because if a person is injured through no fault of their own, they are entitled to compensation. Compo in this country for injuries is, frankly outrageously low, but however low it is, if a person is legally entitled to redress for a civil wrong, then what is your objection?

One thing which undeoubtedly HAS happened is that peoples' awareness that if they are injured through no fault of their own, they are entitled to compensation if it is someone else's fault. But the law has not changed, it is just that in recent years more people know about it.

Surely you are not saying that a person who is by law entitled to compensation for injuries inflicted on them should not bother claiming it, just to (ha ha) keep premiums lower?? What sort of a nutty standpoint is that?

If an area gets flooded, presumably you'd suggest the thousands of householders insured against the event should not claim, because the payouts will be reflected in increased house insurance premiums?

Re: Car insurance premiums : Thu Dec 15, 2011 9:42 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Saddened! wrote:

No need for the fat cat salaries as ever but don't blame that for your increased premiums. Blame the compensation culture everyone has bought into and the people who claim on car insurance because of minor injuries.

You forgot the bit about motor insurance not making profits for fifteen years

Aye, makes you wonder why they bother doing it. Certainly no fat on the bone, as evidenced by the Swinton paupers. And they aren't even the insurers, just a commission-gobbling middleman.

Re: Car insurance premiums : Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:17 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Saddened! wrote:

No need for the fat cat salaries as ever but don't blame that for your increased premiums. Blame the compensation culture everyone has bought into and the people who claim on car insurance because of minor injuries.

Utter rubbish. First, there is no compensation culture, (as the government's Better regulation task Force officially confirmed) but even disregarding that, if there was, it would have NOTHING to do with this issue. You're confused, unwittingly or deliberately.

Why nothing? Because if a person is injured through no fault of their own, they are entitled to compensation. Compo in this country for injuries is, frankly outrageously low, but however low it is, if a person is legally entitled to redress for a civil wrong, then what is your objection?

One thing which undeoubtedly HAS happened is that peoples' awareness that if they are injured through no fault of their own, they are entitled to compensation if it is someone else's fault. But the law has not changed, it is just that in recent years more people know about it.

Surely you are not saying that a person who is by law entitled to compensation for injuries inflicted on them should not bother claiming it, just to (ha ha) keep premiums lower?? What sort of a nutty standpoint is that?

If an area gets flooded, presumably you'd suggest the thousands of householders insured against the event should not claim, because the payouts will be reflected in increased house insurance premiums?

I think he is referring to things like this....

Whiplash is difficult to diagnose and easy to fake and claims are costing the insurance industry £2 billion a year.

Of which many will be fraudulent.

Although he worded it poorly, I think he is referring to fraudulent claims.

Re: Car insurance premiums : Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:20 pm  

Stand-Offish wrote:

Although he worded it poorly, I think he is referring to fraudulent claims.

I reckon a far greater factor in increased pemiums is the bloat that the insurance comapnies themselves have introduced, such as:

"Free" courtesy car
"Free" legal expenses cover
"Protected" NCD
"Free" breakdown cover

And the myriad of referral fees collected by passing on details of collisions to ambulance-chasers

Re: Car insurance premiums : Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:32 pm  

Stand-Offish wrote:

...

Although he worded it poorly, I think he is referring to fraudulent claims.

Oh, I know exactly what he's doing. He is suggesting that "really" nobody is actually injured, but they lie, they hoodwink some guy who's done a decade medical training and however many years in medical practice, they hoodwink lawyers who have done thousands of claims and know what to look for, and they force insurance companies to pay them money even though the insurance companies know they were not injured.

This is utter bollox.

Insurance companies have a formidable and very expensive array of resources to detect, test and if necessary fight fraudulent claims. They do it all the time. If you try to fake a claim it's a bit like a park footballer trying to play against Barcelona.

Nobody is saying there are NO fraudulent claims, course there are, just as there is criminality in every field of human activity where money is involved. The answer is simple. If you think someone is a fraud -don't pay them. Make them prove it in court. Which happens a lot. (And rightly so.)

Re: Car insurance premiums : Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:43 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Stand-Offish wrote:

Although he worded it poorly, I think he is referring to fraudulent claims.

I reckon a far greater factor in increased pemiums is the bloat that the insurance comapnies themselves have introduced, such as:

"Free" courtesy car
"Free" legal expenses cover
...

And the myriad of referral fees collected by passing on details of collisions to ambulance-chasers

And scams such as setting up fake "repair" companies whose sole raison d'etre is NOt to repair a car, but to fake an "invoice" at a higher price than the price paid, to claim a falsely inflated amount from another insurer.

Courtesy cars are another major scam, some insurers actually subcontract this to credit hire companies who then claim thousands off the other insurer for a car which you thought you were getting as a "courtesy" by dint of having chosen that policy. The insurers of course getting an obscene kickback from the "hire" company.

Often you are conned into paying "legal expenses cover" simply as an unashamed claims capture device, when in fact you have no legal expenses, your claim is simply sold to a lawyer who will offer the insurer £600 or whatever for the claim, and your "legal expenses insurance company" does nothing , except trouser the money.

As for referral fees, insurers blatantly dissemble about "losing money" on motor policies, and a willing government full of liars, cheats and halfwits parrots it all back at us. Losing money? That would be why for example Admiral, as a company, made around 5.6 per cent of its entire £265m profits from referral fees. Now that's the sort of money-losing insurance business I'd like to be. In fact, they are now looking into taking up the claims game themselves, to replace that nice little earner. A tad hypocritical one may be forgiven for thinking.

Re: Car insurance premiums : Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:41 am  

McLaren_Field wrote:

Pah! I can do better than all of those.

In September I was insuring a Peugeot 107, paying £44 a month for myself, the wife and the eldest (23 yrs old, 5 yrs driving) to drive it.

Then I bought a Peugeot 307 to go with it, asked for a two car discount from Direct Line and got them down to £22 plus £21 a month to cover both cars.

Yes, I got two cars insured for less than the price of one.

You don't even get two guesses as to which person I removed from the policies to make it work financially ?

Good company they are.

I had a couple of minutes to spare so I went on their website, inputted the basic details and they managed to more than double my current premium. By the time I added the little extras, like breakdown cover & EU cover, they trebled it.