I'm mad as hell and I'm n ot going to take it anymore!

[Dark Dude]

When are we (as a collective) going to stand up and do something about the scandal that is car insurance?

Last year my premium was just shy of £900. (That was bad enough).

This year, I get quoted £2344 from the same insurance broker for renewing exactly the same policy with the only difference between the two policies being that I'm a year older.

I am perplexed. If I got turned over on the street by some two bit thug, that dude would be beaten black and blue (by me) before being arrested and charged.

Yet the dudes from the insurance company can gang rape me in broad daylight in the sure knowledge that they and their crony friends in the city will NEVER see the inside of a prison cell.

We have got no balls, no spine and less guts.

So here goes: My name is going to be the 1st on the list. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore? Who's going to join me????

1. John Christopher, Tottenham Hale, London.

 

[Chris Green90]

2. Christopher Blake, Hull, East Yorks

 

[Dark Dude]

When are we (as a collective) going to stand up and do something about the scandal that is car insurance?

Last year my premium was just shy of £900. (That was bad enough).

This year, I get quoted £2344 from the same insurance broker for renewing exactly the same policy with the only difference between the two policies being that I'm a year older.

I am perplexed. If I got turned over on the street by some two bit thug, that dude would be beaten black and blue (by me) before being arrested and charged.

Yet the dudes from the insurance company can gang rape me in broad daylight in the sure knowledge that they and their crony friends in the city will NEVER see the inside of a prison cell.

We have got no balls, no spine and less guts.

So here goes: My name is going to be the 1st on the list. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore? Who's going to join me????

1. John Christopher, Tottenham Hale, London.

 

[Zeusv8]

John start shopping around I just renewed for £366 down from £646! Check the insurance thread for info, lots of folk have gotten cheaper insurance than 900 quid!!

 

[Chas]

1. John Christopher, Tottenham Hale, London.
2. Chas Spencer Morden London.

But what, if anything can we do about it?

 

[Olazz]

This year, I get quoted £2344 from the same insurance broker for renewing exactly the same policy with the only difference between the two policies being that I'm a year older.

I would suspect that there are a number of factors that have influenced the increase in premiums over the last 12 months, not least the looting and damage in Tottenham. I guess having a post code/address anywhere near Tottenham will have the insurers running for cover!

 

[karl webster]

Last year when i change my trade insurence it came down again after shopping around. Think i paid 1200 last year for as many vehicles as i want sports/high performance cars and bikes.

These price compare sites are really good now.

I know a few young people who just carnt get insured on hardly anything. It is a joke as is alot of things in this country.

Karl

 

[Chris Green90]

This year, I get quoted £2344 from the same insurance broker for renewing exactly the same policy with the only difference between the two policies being that I'm a year older.

I would suspect that there are a number of factors that have influenced the increase in premiums over the last 12 months, not least the looting and damage in Tottenham. I guess having a post code/address anywhere near Tottenham will have the insurers running for cover!

Admitedly that may be a contributing factor. but something I have never understood is that up to a certain age what possible reason is there for car insurance to go up each year.

Asuming that last year you had no claims or convictions, you haven't moved or changed you vehicle or job.

Therefor you have gained a years driving experience and therefore should be safer on the roads, Your car is a year older therefore it is worth less.

That to me, as a layman, in any other circumstance should mean a reduction in premium.

I have made this point before

In theory the calculation should be:
Insurance renewel = Previous price - NCB*n - Value of vehicle*n - Age of driver*n - Convictions*n.

I know there is more to it than that and that this is very over simplified but for a renewel the calculation "should" not be much more complicated.
Assuming that the original price did not include any promotional offers, it was deemed as a fair price to cover the risk. Therefore a year on the risk from other drivers is the same but NCB, Value, Age etc "should" bring the cost down.

 

[Chas]

3. Chas Spencer, Morden London.

Last night when Dark Dude posted this I answered immediately putting myself as number two, it seems to have disappeared

 

[Gary Stockton]

Think that was in the 100 series section Chas?

 

[Olazz]

@ ChrisGreen90
As you said not quite so simple!

The insurance premium calculation is based on a number of factors in the UK. your age,(how responsible) claims history, (not just for you but for the vehicle being insured), location,(crime stats) security, (where is vehicle kept) value & desirability (how likely is it to be stolen), your occupation (is vehicle used for work), capital reserve requirements,(regulatory) Liquidity requirements,(all claims) etc etc. It rarely matters how good a boy/girl you've been over the last year, if the Insurer suffers losses, then you will pay more!

Despite what some may want you to believe, looting and crime last year has had a considerable effect on ALL premium calculation, not just for vehicles, and those areas affected will see considerable increases. Insurance companies have become easy targets for the corrupt few, Insurance companies having to pay out over "bogus claims". This ultimately hurts everyyone in the long run as they simply push premiums up.

Insurance companies not philanthropic organisations, they are multi billion pound businesses. Yes they also have to make a profit and they by their very nature, MUST collet MORE than they pay out.

We love them when we claim and they pay out, yet hate them when they say, please pay more for protection.

In the USA they calculate your premiums using an insurance score. This is a rating used to predict the likelihood that a you will make an insurance claim. This score is based on analysis of a your credit rating, and the method for calculating it varies from insurer to insurer. Many companies use proprietary formulae however, the factors used in the calculation include the your outstanding debt, length of credit history, payment history, amount of revolving credit versus amount of credit in the form of loans, available credit and monthly account balance.

However, and here's the killer, unlike a credit rating, which uses personal financial information to determine your ability to repay debts, insurance-score calculations do not factor in your income. This omission means that it is very possible for you to be penalized for taking out a large loan or running up a large amount on your credit cards each month even if your income is more than enough to cover the expenses.

Better hope that that system isn't introduced over here, or there will be even more people driving without insurance cover!

Oh and I have no affiliation with, or work for an insurer, its the Actuary in me!

 

[Dark Dude]

@ ChrisGreen90
As you said not quite so simple!

The insurance premium calculation is based on a number of factors in the UK. your age,(how responsible) claims history, (not just for you but for the vehicle being insured), location,(crime stats) security, (where is vehicle kept) value & desirability (how likely is it to be stolen), your occupation (is vehicle used for work), capital reserve requirements,(regulatory) Liquidity requirements,(all claims) etc etc. It rarely matters how good a boy/girl you've been over the last year, if the Insurer suffers losses, then you will pay more!

Despite what some may want you to believe, looting and crime last year has had a considerable effect on ALL premium calculation, not just for vehicles, and those areas affected will see considerable increases. Insurance companies have become easy targets for the corrupt few, Insurance companies having to pay out over "bogus claims". This ultimately hurts everyyone in the long run as they simply push premiums up.

Insurance companies not philanthropic organisations, they are multi billion pound businesses. Yes they also have to make a profit and they by their very nature, MUST collet MORE than they pay out.

We love them when we claim and they pay out, yet hate them when they say, please pay more for protection.

In the USA they calculate your premiums using an insurance score. This is a rating used to predict the likelihood that a you will make an insurance claim. This score is based on analysis of a your credit rating, and the method for calculating it varies from insurer to insurer. Many companies use proprietary formulae however, the factors used in the calculation include the your outstanding debt, length of credit history, payment history, amount of revolving credit versus amount of credit in the form of loans, available credit and monthly account balance.

However, and here's the killer, unlike a credit rating, which uses personal financial information to determine your ability to repay debts, insurance-score calculations do not factor in your income. This omission means that it is very possible for you to be penalized for taking out a large loan or running up a large amount on your credit cards each month even if your income is more than enough to cover the expenses.

Better hope that that system isn't introduced over here, or there will be even more people driving without insurance cover!

Oh and I have no affiliation with, or work for an insurer, its the Actuary in me!

I'm sorry mate but I've got to disagree with you. Lest we forget. There were riots all over this country and the chance for civil disorder (which should have been factored in anyway) was no more or less from one year to another. In fact the opposite is true. There is now VERY little chance of another riot happening in Tottenham, this year, so WHY am I paying more? I'm sick and tired of insurance companies winning both ways, while ripping off the general public at the same time. The value of my truck is no more than 10K, yet the premium I pay now bears absolutely no relationship to the value of the car that I drive. I fear that some of the formulae that insurance companies now use to justify their dodgy practices are now so complicated, fluid and opaque that nobody understands them, which smells like a con to me.....

John

 

[TonyP]

As long as we have to by law have insurance, insurance companies will continue to bend us over, simples. I hate it as much as everyone else but just cannot see what we can do about it. Doubt going back to paying a premium on out fuel to cover 3rd party will ever come back, or in fact be tollerated by the general public.

Sometimes I think those that drive uninsured have the right idea!

 

[Andrew Prince]

Lest we forget. There were riots all over this country and the chance for civil disorder (which should have been factored in anyway) was no more or less from one year to another.

Not true - or not completely true. Of course the insurance industry factors in normal risks levels for riots. You seriously think the chance of civil disorder this year is the same as the long-term average?
(Tongue in cheek now) You should watch the news - there've been revolutions throughout the Arab world, huge unrest in many European countries related to financial chaos (probably contributed to by the insurance industry ), The UK is fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are not very popular with the muslim community - a group of people who have been known to perpetrate the odd terror attack. And London has been on the receiving end of terror attacks in the past. Also London is hosting the Olympics this year - in fact the Olympic venue is not a million miles away from Tottenham And the Olympics have been the target of terror attacks in the past - and there were no quasi-religious wars to the extent of Iraq and Afghan going on then. Still think there are only average risks this year?

There is now VERY little chance of another riot happening in Tottenham, this year, so WHY am I paying more?

John, you're missing the point, which is the insurance company prices in actual events that IT believes cost it money - your views on the probability of a repeat matters not one jot to the insurance industry alas.
I think you need to be realistic too - using your logic, it would suggest that a person that has a car accident is less likely to have a repeat because the experience has taught them to drive differently etc. The insurance industry has figured out that in reality people that have one accident are more likely to have another than someone who's never had an accident. The same goes for risk areas, whether it's incidences of riots or vandalism or car theft.

Olazz is explaining how the insurance industry prices in all these risks and comes up with a higher premium - he's not passing judgement on whether this is justified or whether riots should raise premiums or not. I think you're playing the man, not the ball

I share your frustration BTW but my beef is more directed at the nonsensical laws which legally force us to have insurance for our cars and then allow the insurance companies to set whatever premiums they like - talk about about a rigged market!!

 

[Crushers]

being as old as i am, i have seen scams backed by the government and the insurance industry is one of them.

i drive RHD vehicles in a LHD country. My wife and i started driving them in 2001, we bounce almost daily from RHD to LHD vehicle. we have no accidents for the last 15 years. we have no tickets for the last 15 years.
and yet our insurance companies dropped our coverage with 1 weeks notice. we were scrambling to secure 2 LHD vehicles and then started searching for another company to insure our 5 RHD vehicles. we finally found 2 companies that would, the rest of them just said "we do not insure RHD"

insurance companies should insure the DRIVER of the vehicle.

if a punk gets into a Stang, a GTR or an old ford truck he is going to drive like an idiot. it is NOT the vehicle that is the problem, it is the driver. if i get into a Stang or a Celica i still drive the same as if i am in my old Land Cruiser.

the idea of rating premiums on a vehicle is nonsense. the idea of punishing a driver for an act of terrorism is nonsense. the idea of basing premiums on anything but age, record and sex is nonsense and just a reason to MAKE MONEY.

insurance is big business, it is not in place to protect us. it is not in place to keep us happy. it is a government backed institution that is lone overdue for an overhaul.

but

same as in the areas covered by the forum here, Canadians are spinless twits and allow corruption to carry on. there are VERY few that will ever want to be known as a crap disturber, most just hope and pray it will go away on its own.

 

[Chris Green90]

the wife and I hve been chtting about insurance recently. She drives a 2000 mx5 insurance is around £200pa. been on the comparison sites and the insurance for a brand spanker would be around £250pa. which got us thinking. We would quite gladly pay the extra £50 and if someone rusn her off the road or she parks it up a tree walk away with a brand new car.

How, if the same equation (whatever that equation may be) is used to work out both these figures, is it possible to arrive at such numbers. the cars are basicall the same. the MX5 hasnt changed that much in 12 years.

You say there is more to it than what I am saying but how can there be.

I would have thought that Car crime and accidents rarely fluctuate greatly from year to year (correct me if I am wrong).

In the first scenario I suggested the only change that had been made to the original "Fair Price" was that the car is a year older and the driver a year more experienced. So premium should go down (would even be happy if it stayed the same plus inflation, but the math just dont work)

With this second scenario the only change is the value of the car. Therefore there is a greater risk involved (more Desirable, more expensive id written off etc.etc.etc.) there is a difference of about £20k in payout if the car is written off so why cant we take out that policy and get a new car if this one has a bump.

(apart from the fact that people will abuse this and write their cars off every 3 years but if you do that your premiums will go up.)

Alternatively If you have a spare million quid (used to be 15K) lying around you could always put it in that government fund thingy and not have to pay for insurance and get it back when you quit driving (unless you claim of course) I think this is how the gov get around making insurance mandatory, they do give you the option to not deal with insurance companies.

And another thing. If i have 2 cars why can I not just insure the one with the higest risk and drive the other one whenever I want. I can not drive 2 cars at the same time (Cut and Shut not included) therefore the insurance on the higher risk car should cover 3rd party on any other car I own for me to drive. If I want any more cover than that then I would gladly pay for it (Fire Theft etc.)

 

[Dark Dude]

Last year when i change my trade insurence it came down again after shopping around. Think i paid 1200 last year for as many vehicles as i want sports/high performance cars and bikes.

These price compare sites are really good now.

I know a few young people who just carnt get insured on hardly anything. It is a joke as is alot of things in this country.

Karl

Karl

Been there and done that. I managed to get my quote down to £1200 but that was almost £300 more than my previous years premium. Alas I think you're missing the point. The bigger picture is that one way or the other, we are being screwed. This year I got screwed by £300. Next year, I'll get screwed again, no matter what I do.....And if I'm not wrong, you'll be screwed too, along with the rest of us.

John

 

[Dark Dude]

[quote="Dark Dude":1m4m06r9] Lest we forget. There were riots all over this country and the chance for civil disorder (which should have been factored in anyway) was no more or less from one year to another.

Not true - or not completely true. Of course the insurance industry factors in normal risks levels for riots. You seriously think the chance of civil disorder this year is the same as the long-term average?
(Tongue in cheek now) You should watch the news - there've been revolutions throughout the Arab world, huge unrest in many European countries related to financial chaos (probably contributed to by the insurance industry ), The UK is fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are not very popular with the muslim community - a group of people who have been known to perpetrate the odd terror attack. And London has been on the receiving end of terror attacks in the past. Also London is hosting the Olympics this year - in fact the Olympic venue is not a million miles away from Tottenham And the Olympics have been the target of terror attacks in the past - and there were no quasi-religious wars to the extent of Iraq and Afghan going on then. Still think there are only average risks this year?

There is now VERY little chance of another riot happening in Tottenham, this year, so WHY am I paying more?

John, you're missing the point, which is the insurance company prices in actual events that IT believes cost it money - your views on the probability of a repeat matters not one jot to the insurance industry alas.
I think you need to be realistic too - using your logic, it would suggest that a person that has a car accident is less likely to have a repeat because the experience has taught them to drive differently etc. The insurance industry has figured out that in reality people that have one accident are more likely to have another than someone who's never had an accident. The same goes for risk areas, whether it's incidences of riots or vandalism or car theft.

Olazz is explaining how the insurance industry prices in all these risks and comes up with a higher premium - he's not passing judgement on whether this is justified or whether riots should raise premiums or not. I think you're playing the man, not the ball

I share your frustration BTW but my beef is more directed at the nonsensical laws which legally force us to have insurance for our cars and then allow the insurance companies to set whatever premiums they like - talk about about a rigged market!![/quote:1m4m06r9]

Andrew and Olazz

It pains me to say this, but what a load of nonsensical rubbish! I'm 48 years old, with a clean driving license and 10 years (protected) no claims bonus. Yet according to YOU, this accounts for next to nothing with the insurance industry. That being the case, why should I bother being insured in the first place when it bears no relationship to me as a risk? I mean what exactly to I have to do to become a "good" risk? The insurance industry can and will find RISK everywhere and anywhere and adjust their premiums to suit, which will always be in their favour. I have various friends within the insurance industry and there is growing concern that the business model that is presently being employed within the industry is simply unsustainable. Worse there is a growing perception (again within the industry) that car insurance is no longer that but a protection racket. And lets not blame the law. The social purpose for having motor insurance is a proven and just one. This is about rampant free market greed got crazy. Nothing more and nothing less! Now we can either tolerate this or reform it! I'll leave taking over the world to some other muppet.

John

 

[Olazz]

The value of my truck is no more than 10K, yet the premium I pay now bears absolutely no relationship to the value of the car that I drive. I fear that some of the formulae that insurance companies now use to justify their dodgy practices are now so complicated, fluid and opaque that nobody understands them, which smells like a con to me.....
John

John, you're missing the point. Insurance premium rates have never been linked just to the intrinsic value of the underlying asset they insure; there is some correlation, but as my post refers to previously, there are a number of factors that determine premium rate.

Are the insurance companies solely to blame, well not wholly. Global economic factors and government intervention has a lot to contribute to this current state of affairs.

Insurance companies who could historically offset some of the cost/risk ratio by hedging, have been stopped from so doing by regulators. (after the near collapse of some big insurers). They have been forced to keep much higher capital reserves without recourse to structured investment vehicles to increase yield and return on premium, in order to meet future direct and contingent liabilities. The net result is the loss of this additional growth, which went some considerable way to meet their additional unexpected liabilities is no longer there and hence the premium rate increases to make up for it.

But all that aside, are you suggesting that Insurers must never increase pricing? That's basic economics. You practice that in your business and clients either agree and pay more, or go somewhere else for the service. There is no cartel in the UK and no conspiracy of Insurers to fleece the public. It is a commercial practicality that allows Insurers to charge you £1200, but then pay out £10,000 the next day if you make a claim.

And we have Solvency II regulation on the horizon, which when implemented will almost certainly have wide ranging consequences in the market.

Hold on to your seat chap!

 

[Gary Stockton]

Ha - Solvency II and Basle2 are both going to become major swear-words, and blamed for all sorts of ills. I'm looking forward to all those arguments. Roll on my Lotto win and my cosy little self-contained island in the sun hahaha - oops, here come the men in the white coats!