any - Most pathetic defence - unthrottled

Full marks to the CEO of the British Credit Hire association, Martin Andrews, for attempting to defend the indefensible.

"If the CC concludes that the at-fault driver's insurer should have control over the not-at fault driver's claim, motoring consumers could find themselves in a lose-lose situation. We could see premiums soar as insurers try to make up losses as they are forced to pay out for replacement vehicles; (my bold)

Um, exactly how would premiums rise? The at-fault driver's insurer already bears the cost of replacement vehicles. The only difference would be that the company administering the claim would have a vested interest in keeping costs down, as opposed to having a vested interest in artificially inflating costs.

It is perfectly possible to draw up industry service agreements to protect non-fault parties.

The game's up Martin. It was a good wheeze while it lasted, but it is time for you and everyone in your opportunistic, parastic industry to take their place in the dole queue.

Edited by unthrottled on 29/09/2012 at 21:18

any - Most pathetic defence - nortones2

Not to mention the need for the CC to examine the books in detail. The car insurance segment of the financial industry claim they run at a loss. They are not obliged to provide motor insurance, so remaining in a loss-making (apparently) sector is either an example of muscular christianity, or reveals that accountants have been busily devising ways to display headline losses and diverting funds off-book. How many major players have exited the market? SFAIK the answer is zero. How very public spirited but truly incredible.

Edited by nortones2 on 29/09/2012 at 22:47

any - Most pathetic defence - unthrottled

Yes! And they advertise for yet more 'loss-making' business. How do they do it?

Hmm, could it have anything to with the fact that the average 'claim' is about four times the cost of the average cost of fixing accident damaged cars? Surely not!

any - Most pathetic defence - nick62

Despite no changes in my circumstances, my premiums have gone from £620 in 2010, to £950 in 2012. When I queried this with my broker, they said I had "got it cheap" in 2010.....incredible!

Edited by nick62 on 29/09/2012 at 23:08

any - Most pathetic defence - unthrottled

Why is it that your NCD on your insurance renewal notice expire after 2 years, but convictions/accidents remain relevant for 5 years? Genuine actuarial risk assessment or selective amnesia?

any - Most pathetic defence - Engineer Andy

There's no way that a large number of businesses would stay in a heavy loss-making marketplace as a "gesture of goodwill" to their "customers". IMHO the whole insurance industry (especially motor insurance) need looking over with a fine tooth-comb. They need to answer questions like:-

  1. Why should an insurance quote increase a lot after one claim in the previous year if the policy is a protected NCD and there are no other changing factors? The base quote (taking out other changing factors, such as changing age bands) should not vary by much year-on-year;
  2. Why should "tied" "approved repairers" be used, especially when this encourages repairs to be more substantial/expensive than is necessary. There is IMHO no proper market for such work at the moment. Surely all the insurers/repairers/Govt/consumer organisations can get together to produce a list of repairers that anyone can use (or specialists for certain more involved work that may require specialist knowledge of the make/parts);
  3. Insurance companies, screenscrapers etc should not use customers' personal (contact) data to pass on to third parties, especially hire companies. All customers should have a clear choice also get the best price, i.e. not just screenscraperswebsites who appear (to me at least) very reluctant to safeguard customers personal details;
  4. If your vehicle is a write-off, then all policies should be written to be able to (within reason) put you back in the position before the accident, and not just give you the "market value" (i.e. if you sold it privately). I must admit this would be tricky to do (dealers could inflate the "sticker" prices of second-hand cars, and customers would then not feel abliged to haggle - maybe rewards for getting a better price could be introduced), and would likely increase the premiums of rare vehicles substantially.
any - Most pathetic defence - Bobbin Threadbare

+ a gazillion

any - Most pathetic defence - madf

Most companies give valued and repeat customers a discount for renewing.

Insurance companies give it to new customers.

And then they complain of losing money.

"A useless businessmodel" is a euphemism for what their model is.

Edited by madf on 30/09/2012 at 16:16

any - Most pathetic defence - unthrottled

I think the crux of the problem lies with Accident Management Companies (ACM). The problem is that the not-at-fault insurer can simply pass the handling of the claim onto an AMC, thus saving themselves the cost of administering the claim and freeing up time to chase new business. The ACM can claim back all their costs from the at-fault insurer and have every incentive to exploit this situation.

The only party with a vested interest in controlling the cost of the claim is the at-fault insurer-and they are not in a position to do so.

This leads to a vicious circle. Insurance companies who use ACM reduce their costs, but increase the overall cost to the industry. Ergo, virtually every insurance company uses ACMs.

My suggestion would be as follows:

1.) Prohibit the use of ACMs. Any company wishing to offer motor insurance must be demonstrate that they are capable of administering claims in-house.

2.) Prohibit credit hire companies from supplying replacement vehicles. Since all insurance companies have to deal with claims, why can't insurance companies share a fleet of pool cars?

3.) Decouple personal injury claims from motor insurance claims. Any claimant wishing to sue for whiplash should do so separately in the small claims court. not just tack it onto a general claim for vehicular damage.

If all the middlemen could be cut out of this industry, then costs would fall without any loss of service to customers.

any - Most pathetic defence - gordonbennet

There's another way to cut out the sharks, thats for those motorists who are obviouly not at fault to contact the fault insurer at first opportuntity and speak candidly to them about trying to settle the claim honourably and as fairly as possible.

I would do that first of all and i'm sure others here would too, but we are few among the millions of grasping greedy opportunists who see anything like a minor shunt even in a car park as a means to a lucrative claim....following the shining examples of the country's leaders on that score..;) and with armies of dubious companies itching to urge them on.

As with many things we as people still have a say, if you don't wish to deal with dishnourable people then don't, mitigate your losses and try to deal with the other parties insurance company in a fair manner and i'm absolutely certain that 90% of times they will, or they should, be glad to sort things out quickly for mutual benefit, and denying the sharks their evening meal an excellent bonus for all concerned.

Insurance companies really need to sit down and hammer out a code of conduct, its in their own indeed all our interests to keep unscrupulous and unfair practices out, they should also take on the regular claims scammers in court, starting with prosecuting for every ha'penny they have the crash for cash gangs...with a few well publicised cases involving loss of homes and bankrupties after 6 figure legal costs you'd soon see a lessening of the practice, conversely whilst they simply pay extortioners they'll carry on.

any - Most pathetic defence - Oli rag
Well said unthrottled, I agree 100%.
any - Most pathetic defence - Bilboman

100% in agreement with Unthrottled. One further advantage of sending ALL personal "injury" - especially whiplash - claims to an acgual court is the very real threat of a prosecution for perjury (maximum 10 year jail senence!) for those who lie and cheat their way into four or five figure compensaiton claims. Bring 'em on!!

any - Most pathetic defence - concrete

Insurance companies really need to sit down and hammer out a code of conduct, its in their own indeed all our interests to keep unscrupulous and unfair practices out, they should also take on the regular claims scammers in court, starting with prosecuting for every ha'penny they have the crash for cash gangs...with a few well publicised cases involving loss of homes and bankrupties after 6 figure legal costs you'd soon see a lessening of the practice, conversely whilst they simply pay extortioners they'll carry on.

Spot on Gordon, if I ran an insurance company, I would divert the money from paying out extortionate credit hire bills and phoney whiplash claims into a fighting fund and have mean team of experts to battle these spurious claims. It has got to be in everyones interests to fight phoney claims and keep it honest and hopefully the costs will stabilise. Cheers Concrete

any - Most pathetic defence - TeeCee

And putting the at-fault driver's insurance company in charge of running the claim would do just that. Can't see them giving someone a Mondeo for 12 weeks at their expense when a Focus for two would do as well. I also can't see them repeatedly calling the other party to ask if he's sure he hasn't got whiplash as he could help himself to large quantities of their money if he had.....

As for the not at fault driver's insurers ending up out of pocket, well if they're stupid enough to shower him with largesse that they have no chance of reclaiming, tough.

any - Most pathetic defence - TeeCee

Full marks to the CEO of the British Credit Hire association, Martin Andrews, for attempting to defend the indefensible.

Makes you wonder just how large that backhander he gets from the claims farmers is.

any - Most pathetic defence - barney100

Any excuse for increasing premiums will do, what annoys me is the people who drive around without any insurance and have accidents which end up with the insured driver having all the bother. Just had a thought, if two uninsured drivers had a smash....what would happen?

any - Most pathetic defence - unthrottled

If two unisured drivers crash then two drivers are out of pocket!

The rise in premiums is partly the reason why there are so many unisured drivers on the road.

any - Most pathetic defence - madf

The fines for being uninsured are less than teh insurance cost.

The two should be linked.. and since driving uninsured is a voluntary activity - should be absolute for all .. and deducted monthly from wages or benefits.

If that means the offenders starve tough.

A few cases of starvation will reduce the incidence.

For those who argue the families will starve, compulsory work for offenders as they have spent their benefits on fines..

I suspect there will alwayts be a hard core... of offenders who will always do it unless in jail.

any - Most pathetic defence - unthrottled

The fines for the uninsured do need to increase-but that shouldn't be a distraction from the primary problem of unnecessarily high premiums all round.

Premiums are higher in the UK than in the US-probably the most litigious country in the world combined with a poor national driving record and more powerful cars! This can't be right.

any - Most pathetic defence - TeeCee

Premiums are higher in the UK than in the US-probably the most litigious country in the world combined with a poor national driving record and more powerful cars! This can't be right.

IIRC, the US has the base option of "State's Insurance" which provides the legal minimum required cover at a very basic price. This puts a floor under the market which the commercial offerings have to compete with. If premiums go up dramatically, more people opt for the basic, government, offering and they lose market share. It's therefore in their best interests to contest excessive claims (litigation works both ways) and keep costs down.

In the UK, there's no alternative and jacking claims costs to boost premiums and provide an additional revenue stream from "claims farming" is actually in the interests of the insurers.