Insurance Companies

[MrGreen]

The government put pressure on the FCA to investigate the practice you have described. The insurance companies were caught giving low year 1 quotes and purposely hiking prices in year 2 hoping that customers wouldn’t question the renewal. Statistically most people just accepted the year 2 quote. It worked for a while until customers like me went on to the same insurer’s website and got the same year 1 price rather than accepting the year 2 renewal.
The FCA report I posted explains that the practice was unfair.
Yes risk profiling exists for good reason but using that term in this context is incorrect.

The FCA call it Price Walking.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps21-5.pdf

I got cheaper insurance because the new insurer wants the chance to hike the price next year. I’ll revisit this post when it happens.

I have had insurance for multiple vehicles right up to group 50 and heavily modified. I used to be able to stay with the same insurance company for 8-10 years. Some even gave loyalty discounts. Most years premiums would rise with inflation. My risk however lowered so some years I’d see good reductions. Then they got greedy and started to play the statistics game. Using software they started to investigate buying behaviour. Most people just renewed without question and this was used against them.

In 2018, 6 million people paid way too much for their insurance according to the FCA report. This was £1.2 billion too much. Estimates are that customers have been overcharged for probably 10years. That’s a serious money grab.

Companies only recognise 9 years NCD because they once again changed the goal posts. If you have evidence of more than 9 years you can ask for that number to still be recorded.

Price Walking has now become Price Gouging, but believe me it is on the radar of certain people who are monitoring it and gathering evidence from customers.

 

[Lubrown]

Then they got greedy and started to play the statistics game. Using software they started to investigate buying behaviour.

This is another thing I read about. If you tick some of the extras they assume you’re happy paying more and bump prices up in future just because you opted for optional extras.
Given that they share data about people it’s not beyond the imagination they share that you like optional extras and therefore are a target for fleecing.

It’s not a healthy industry. Not for customers who, remember, have no choice but to suck it up. And the fact the government stipulates we all need it they ought to regulate the industry so it’s fair and transparent - something that clearly isn’t happening.

 

[MrGreen]

This is another thing I read about. If you tick some of the extras they assume you’re happy paying more and bump prices up in future just because you opted for optional extras.
Given that they share data about people it’s not beyond the imagination they share that you like optional extras and therefore are a target for fleecing.

It’s not a healthy industry. Not for customers who, remember, have no choice but to suck it up. And the fact the government stipulates we all need it they ought to regulate the industry so it’s fair and transparent - something that clearly isn’t happening.

The use of algorithms and machine learning means that pricing can be easily manipulated.

AI will make it even worse.

 

[Ali-G]

AI will make it even worse.

seems like AI makes lots of things worse.
I read the other day that people who mark exams are finding it difficult to distinguish between genuine students papers and those that are AI generated, so no incentive for kids to actually learn anything.
Then the other night there was a documentary on the tv showing how AI can be used to influence the way people vote.

 

[Bav]

You two speak as if UK insurance isn't a regulated market, which is utter nonsense - whilst it might not work perfectly (name me a market that does), it's already highly regulated.

This really is a case of beware of unintended consequences. The margins within the UK for vehicle insurance are already wafer thin/non-existent (as attested to by the FCA - the body that you, @MrGreen, hold up as both a bastion of truth and an incestuous nest of vipers, depending on the what suits your argument best), so no amount of restrictive, top-down controls to enforce transparent/equitable premiums will result in a reduction in the annual, national cost of vehicle insurance. In fact, by stifling innovation and embedding onerous red-tape, such controls are likely to drive insurers out of the market altogether and the resulting reduction in choice will result in increased premiums for everyone.

 

[MrGreen]

You two speak as if UK insurance isn't a regulated market, which is utter nonsense - whilst it might not work perfectly (name me a market that does), it's already highly regulated.

This really is a case of beware of unintended consequences. The margins within the UK for vehicle insurance are already wafer thin/non-existent (as attested to by the FCA - the body that you, @MrGreen, hold up as both a bastion of truth and an incestuous nest of vipers, depending on the what suits your argument best), so no amount of restrictive, top-down controls to enforce transparent/equitable premiums will result in a reduction in the annual, national cost of vehicle insurance. In fact, by stifling innovation and embedding onerous red-tape, such controls are likely to drive insurers out of the market altogether and the resulting reduction in choice will result in increased premiums for everyone.

Bav, why are you constantly trying to twist what I’ve written and being hostile?

Is it because you work in the insurance industry or do you just like attacking people on the internet, or both?

 

[DXX]

Eventually there will be more people driving without insurance than with it, Mad Max all over again.
At least in the UK you can have a collision, maybe a bit of swearing and worst case a punch on the nose. In other parts of the world somebody gets shot.
Sun’s shining get out in your van, no point in paying £3 / day not to.
Hang on a minute, some people spend more than that on a coffee everyday!

 

[Lubrown]

You two speak as if UK insurance isn't a regulated market, which is utter nonsense - whilst it might not work perfectly (name me a market that does), it's already highly regulated.

This really is a case of beware of unintended consequences. The margins within the UK for vehicle insurance are already wafer thin/non-existent (as attested to by the FCA - the body that you, @MrGreen, hold up as both a bastion of truth and an incestuous nest of vipers, depending on the what suits your argument best), so no amount of restrictive, top-down controls to enforce transparent/equitable premiums will result in a reduction in the annual, national cost of vehicle insurance. In fact, by stifling innovation and embedding onerous red-tape, such controls are likely to drive insurers out of the market altogether and the resulting reduction in choice will result in increased premiums for everyone.

If the regulation isn’t up to scratch, it’s worthless.
Pretty simple really.
Trying to water that down by saying that’s the same everywhere is just whataboutism and solves/adds nothing.
If the margins were so thin a) companies would pull out b) they wouldn’t be posting such large profits and c) they’d be bumping prices even higher as we have no choice. They won’t do that now because a) there is still competition in the market, b) they’re posting large profits and the regulators might have to consider doing something and c) more people would be pushing the regulators to do more.

Not sure why you’re so content to be ripped off or to have to spend hours shopping around to prevent that?

 

[Lubrown]

Bav, why are you constantly trying to twist what I’ve written and being hostile?

Is it because you work in the insurance industry or do you just like attacking people on the internet, or both?

My point was to goad you into justifying your obvious disagreement

I've added the link to the full conversation, so others can judge the whole conversation rather than just your selective excerpt. Thanks, @Bav

ULEZ Surprise.

Are you sure it wasn’t the congestion charge zone fine? The CC is in force between midday and 6 pm on weekends. Euro 6 is definitely ulez compliant, but yes, TFL are robbers Yes, nowhere near the congestion zone.

www.t6forum.com

 

[Bav]

Bav, why are you constantly trying to twist what I’ve written and being hostile?

Is it because you work in the insurance industry or do you just like attacking people on the internet, or both?

That's 2 or 3 times now that you've accused me of twisting your words or otherwise misrepresenting what you've posted. From my viewpoint, I've done no such thing - I've consistently responded based on my genuine understanding of what you've posted. So, yeah, you can expect a prickly response when you make such accusations, but don't play the victim.

Others can re-read what's been posted and judge for themselves, but as far as I'm concerned, all I've done is challenge your opinions, assertions and misguided conclusions, based on my own extensive knowledge of the UK motor insurance industry. At no stage have you been "attacked".

 

[Bav]

If the regulation isn’t up to scratch, it’s worthless.
Pretty simple really.
Trying to water that down by saying that’s the same everywhere is just whataboutism and solves/adds nothing.
If the margins were so thin a) companies would pull out b) they wouldn’t be posting such large profits and c) they’d be bumping prices even higher as we have no choice. They won’t do that now because a) there is still competition in the market, b) they’re posting large profits and the regulators might have to consider doing something and c) more people would be pushing the regulators to do more.

Not sure why you’re so content to be ripped off or to have to spend hours shopping around to prevent that?

Regulation is all about balance. If something requires regulation, it stands to reason that that something is of value and has utility, so it makes no sense to regulate it to the point no-one is prepared to provide it or that the cost of it becomes [even more] prohibitive. As I say, beware of unintended consequences.
Pretty simple really.

Conceding something isn't perfect is not an attempt to "water down", it's an acknowledgement that it exists, but that it could be improved.

Whilst some insurers do post enormous profits, these tend to be the global organisations providing insurance and re-insurance services worldwide to businesses and individuals across property, casualty, life and pensions. UK PMC/LCV business represents a tiny fraction of their business and is often use as a loss-leader and a means to gain/maintain name recognition within the other, much more lucrative, LOBs that they operate.

 

[Lubrown]

I've added the link to the full conversation, so others can judge the whole conversation rather than just your selective excerpt. Thanks, @Bav

ULEZ Surprise.

Are you sure it wasn’t the congestion charge zone fine? The CC is in force between midday and 6 pm on weekends. Euro 6 is definitely ulez compliant, but yes, TFL are robbers Yes, nowhere near the congestion zone.

www.t6forum.com

Well that’s a funny thing - I go to reply to you but because you used your moderator powers to edit my comment (feels a bit like an abuse of power?) I’m apparently replying to myself! Have you edited anything else I have apparently said?

I have no problem with you sharing the link to the conversation. Doesn’t detract from the fact we have a moderator that admits goading people. And if people don’t respond you then accuse them of “running away” - link that post to if you choose?

I think you can do better.

 

[Bav]

Well that’s a funny thing - I go to reply to you but because you used your moderator powers to edit my comment (feels a bit like an abuse of power?) I’m apparently replying to myself! Have you edited anything else I have apparently said?

I have no problem with you sharing the link to the conversation. Doesn’t detract from the fact we have a moderator that admits goading people. And if people don’t respond you then accuse them of “running away” - link that post to if you choose?

I think you can do better.

Off you go then, run to teacher. If you're waiting for an apology, though, then I'm afraid you're out of luck.

 

[ginkster]

I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. Everyone seems to agree that if you shop around you can get it cheaper, pretty much like everything else. So the industry makes a profit from those that are too lazy (or stupid) to shop around, pretty much like everything else. Easily solved, move elsewhere and take the reduced (or less increased) premium.

My car insurance has stayed pretty constant (+\-20%ish depending on vehicle) for nearly 40 years. Any saving as I got older or earned more NCD in the earlier years was soaked up by having better cars. It’s crept up about 20% in the last couple of years (like pretty much everything, other than my pay!) which is due to multiple reasons that have been mentioned. Is the industry perfect? Absolutely not and things need to change, such as the scourge of uninsured drivers, rip off claim costs (legal, courtesy car etc as mentioned previously) and how rising costs (e.g EV and tech) are handled by the market. What I don’t want to see is my costs increase because people are simply too lazy/stupid to shop around. Ultimately, I think half the price of a cup of coffee per day is pretty decent value to cover the second most valuable thing I own (and probably the one at most risk of needing to claim for).

Anyhow, I enjoyed spending the savings I made on this years insurance on bits for the van.

 

[Lubrown]

Off you go then, run to teacher. If you're waiting for an apology, though, then I'm afraid you're out of luck.

Didn’t answer the question I notice.

 

[Lubrown]

I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. Everyone seems to agree that if you shop around you can get it cheaper, pretty much like everything else. So the industry makes a profit from those that are too lazy (or stupid) to shop around, pretty much like everything else. Easily solved, move elsewhere and take the reduced (or less increased) premium.

For me that bit isn’t the worst part although shopping around takes time (but when you can save thousands by doing so it’s a necessity).
It’s the fact these companies are paying well over the odds for repairs, hire cars etc. and simply passing that cost on rather than challenge it because we, the customer, have no choice and no say.
The cheap price one year and extortionate the next seems a result of the insurance companies wanting to maintain a profit while not challenging the extortion and so, in my eyes, they are complicit in that. Costs could and should come down but we cannot affect that. And as none involved seem to want to change their ways, despite the press exposing it, then regulation needs altering/beefing up in my mind.
I can’t see uninsured drivers reducing in number sadly. In fact the latest ‘craze’ is to drive around with one of these one day insurance sites open on your mobile, all your details filled in, and if the Police stop you you simply hit ‘buy’ before the officer reaches your door. Presumably if they hit someone else’s vehicle they don’t purchase it unless they can’t drive off sharpish.

 

[Bav]

Didn’t answer the question I notice.

You'll know if I ever edit a post of yours - I'll always put my name to it, as above.

 

[Bav]

I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. Everyone seems to agree that if you shop around you can get it cheaper, pretty much like everything else. So the industry makes a profit from those that are too lazy (or stupid) to shop around, pretty much like everything else. Easily solved, move elsewhere and take the reduced (or less increased) premium.

I tend to agree, though I suspect the elderly represent a large percentage of those that don't shop around - they may not be computer literate or have anyone to assist in using comparison sites or they may just be too proud/stubborn to ask for help. Having said that, my octogenarian parents are still able to use confused.com - they say it's the easiest comparison site to navigate & understand. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[MrGreen]

That's 2 or 3 times now that you've accused me of twisting your words or otherwise misrepresenting what you've posted. From my viewpoint, I've done no such thing - I've consistently responded based on my genuine understanding of what you've posted. So, yeah, you can expect a prickly response when you make such accusations, but don't play the victim.

Others can re-read what's been posted and judge for themselves, but as far as I'm concerned, all I've done is challenge your opinions, assertions and misguided conclusions, based on my own extensive knowledge of the UK motor insurance industry. At no stage have you been "attacked".

Notice how no one is engaging in this debate because you can’t accept someone has a different viewpoint and then get hostile towards them.

I’ve presented facts and evidence to back up my viewpoint.

Calling your response “prickly” is trying to rationalise the unacceptable tone of your responses.

I welcome everyone’s opinion and presentation of facts regarding the discussion. However, no member is going to take your opinion seriously because you’re clearly unhappy that someone has questioned the industry you work in and therefore can’t enter in to a rational debate. You’ve given your opinion but presented no evidence to back it up.

Telling someone to “run to teacher” is extremely rude and down right offensive. Especially from a moderator. Is this the culture this site is now promoting?

 

[Drive Wayne]

Notice how no one is engaging in this debate because you can’t accept someone has a different viewpoint and then get hostile towards them.

I’ve presented facts and evidence to back up my viewpoint.

Calling your response “prickly” is trying to rationalise the unacceptable tone of your responses.

I welcome everyone’s opinion and presentation of facts regarding the discussion. However, no member is going to take your opinion seriously because you’re clearly unhappy that someone has questioned the industry you work in and therefore can’t enter in to a rational debate. You’ve given your opinion but presented no evidence to back it up.

Telling someone to “run to teacher” is extremely rude and down right offensive. Especially from a moderator. Is this the culture this site is now promoting?

I so wanted to stay out of this, but honestly I'm not engaging because this, to me, isn't what the forum is about. It's too much like being at work. I just take insurance up the aris like most folk and shop around for a deal. Sorry, a bit bored by this thread.. end of chat from me.