|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: You dispicable bunch of fucking crooks.
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Ok, so I had an accident some time back. Fortunately, I had two very good witnesses in the car with me, I took some photographs, there should have been no real problems.
Of course, the insurance company took a slightly different perspective. Because the two witnesses were in my car, they were unreliable (they were both advanced driving observers, so actually really good at explaining what happened. One is a lawyer working for the magistrates court).
So having explained to them that they are a bunch of feckless, useless, butt seepage marks, I asked an independent expert for an opinion, based on the pictures and information. His response was that it was plainly not my fault, and that there was enough evidence to warrant taking it to court, with a high likelihood of winning.
So I sent this back to my insurers. However, his opinion is dismissed, because "he was not there, and didn't see what happened".
Because we know the courts are only ever interested in independent eye-witnesses. Nothing else carries any weight at all.
So I am having to take them to the fucking ombudsman, because they refuse to make any fucking effort on my behalf. Despite the fact that I do have a reasonable case (and, need I say it, it wasn't my fault. I would admit if it was).
I am not going to name them, to protect the ship. But clearly they are spending all their money on stupid telephones on wheels.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
{Pours bucket of cold, green slime (a la "You Can't Do That On Television") on the nasty insurers. Throws clue-pillows at them, for good measure.}
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Whereas, about 15 years ago someone claimed I had reversed into their parked motorbike causing several hundred pounds of damage, reporting it several weeks after the supposed incident (when she first noticed the damage) with the support of two of her friends who saw me reversing into the bike but didn't come forward until she noticed the damage. My insurance company at the time decided that two witnesses who only remembered the incident weeks later meant she had a very strong case and decided to pay up.
I lost my no claims bonus. The insurance company lost my business when renewal came round.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Earlier this year my husband was driving along a road which had been affected by the January floods; its edges were crumbling. Everyone local knew the road was a bit narrower and was driving accordingly, but my husband and an oncoming car managed to clip wingmirrors. They both sighed over the state of the road, and swapped details. The other driver said he was driving a company car and it would have to go through insurance. There was no damage other than to the wing mirrors and no hard feelings between the drivers.
I don't know whether it was because there had been a whole spate of minor bumps on the newly-narrowed road or what, but our insurance decided this claim (our first in a decade) had to be fully investigated, and we couldn't get our wing mirror replaced until they had investigated. Meanwhile, they provided us with a hire car to drive whilst our wing mirrorless car was off the road.
21 days it took! 21 days of driving a Twingo! For a wing mirror!
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
My house was damaged by a hail storm on 25 January.
The repairs are not complete.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
The thing is, I can understand that they want to avoid fraud. Not suggesting that anyone here was fraudulent, of course, but it is a big issue.
But so often, they seem to put their needs above the needs of their client. Yes, I had a hire car (that I had to go and pick up!), but my car is not just a tool for getting around - it is a part of me. It was not the same.
And their current refusal to go to court - where they know they will lose, I will win - seems totally contrary to an anti-fraud approach.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
SC--
But, perhaps, it all makes sense if they just don't want to pay *any* money, to *anyone*?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Years ago I was shunted from behind on a roundabout causing a £500 cost repair to the rear of my car.
The insurance company said I should pay their approved garage and wait to be reimbursed. I said no, you'll pay for my car to go to the brand's approved bodyshop.
The car itself wasn't seriously damaged and I don't drive much so just continued with a minor-looking dent to the rear bumper.
In the event the other driver claimed that the damage wasn't as I'd described and that it had been there prior to the accident. I said no, there was cosmetic damage to the bumper (it wasn't a new car) but the £500 damage had been caused by her driving into me.
And, more to the point, as she had written off her car driving into me, it would be a bit of a surprise if there had been no damage to my car.
Eventually they paid for the repairs at my choice of bodyshop and it had no effect on my no claims.
I think what is happening is that people are being told not to admit liability and so are trying to make it sound like any claim cannot possibly be their responsibility. But, of course, that's a hard thing to justify when you've written your car off driving into someone at a roundabout.
And the other consequence is that there are a lot of people trying it on, sadly.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The thing is, I can understand that they want to avoid fraud.
But, as I noted they're very inconsistent. In my example I can understand that someone didn't use their bike for a few weeks, and only notice damage when the go to take it out - and hence delay making a claim. But, when they do so a couple of friends come forward with "remember that bloke who was here for so-and-so's wedding ... we saw him reverse into your bike. But, didn't bother to check there was no damage at the time". I'm not doubting the damage, but ultimately they picked on a readily identifiable non-resident to blame. Since I saw the bike and know I was not close to hitting it as I backed out of a restricted street parking spot (it would have been a lot easier getting out if I'd allowed myself to get closer to said bike), I am a bit miffed that the insurance company decided not to contest the claim leaving me significantly out of pocket (I didn't add up the lost no claims, plus the subsequent payments now I've built up a significant no claims to protect it based on my experience).
My experience contrasts strongly with yours. In my case there were two witnesses, friends of the bike owner, making a statement weeks after the event. Two witnesses considered to be too strong if it went further, so the insurance company simply paid up. In yours, two much more reliable witnesses, giving their account almost immediately after the incident, and not considered good enough. It just doesn't make any sense.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The thing is, I can understand that they want to avoid fraud. Not suggesting that anyone here was fraudulent, of course, but it is a big issue.
But so often, they seem to put their needs above the needs of their client. Yes, I had a hire car (that I had to go and pick up!), but my car is not just a tool for getting around - it is a part of me. It was not the same.
And their current refusal to go to court - where they know they will lose, I will win - seems totally contrary to an anti-fraud approach.
I'm confused. This is your insurer? Assuming you're fully comp, then they'd be repairing the car anyway. If you're not, then they wouldn't be repairing it at all.
What's the actual dispute?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Good question Karl. As Alan says above, the worst that should have happened is that you lose your no claims.
I don't understand why the talk of the ombudsman and court either.
Personal injury maybe? Still not sure what you're talking about though.
[ 22. September 2016, 09:15: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Well, a claim against you will probably increase future premiums in addition to the no claims. If SCs insurance company pursued the claim it would be paid by the insurance company of the other driver (with all the extra costs in future carried by them).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, a claim against you will probably increase future premiums in addition to the no claims. If SCs insurance company pursued the claim it would be paid by the insurance company of the other driver (with all the extra costs in future carried by them).
I've never heard of an accident being decided by two insurance companies in court. Usually they settle and neither driver has to pay the upfront costs - that's kinda the point of insurance.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
If there's a dispute over who is responsible for an accident (ie: which insurance company pays out, and which driver has an insurance claim on their record) there would need to be some form of arbitration. I agree, in the majority of cases insurance companies will consider a court case an expense and go for the cheaper option. In my case the options were a) authorise my insurance company to make the payment or b) go to court to get a ruling that I was not responsible for the damage to the bike - the advice I was given was that it was essentially my word against theirs, with no evidence either way, and it would be a big gamble that could save a few hundred quid, but could equally cost thousands. Insurance companies don't like that sort of gamble, I don't either so I chose to take the known financial hit rather than risk a big bill I couldn't pay.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The thing is, I can understand that they want to avoid fraud. Not suggesting that anyone here was fraudulent, of course, but it is a big issue.
But so often, they seem to put their needs above the needs of their client. Yes, I had a hire car (that I had to go and pick up!), but my car is not just a tool for getting around - it is a part of me. It was not the same.
And their current refusal to go to court - where they know they will lose, I will win - seems totally contrary to an anti-fraud approach.
I'm confused. This is your insurer? Assuming you're fully comp, then they'd be repairing the car anyway. If you're not, then they wouldn't be repairing it at all.
What's the actual dispute?
Straight forward motor claims are only disputed if there are differences between both insureds about what happened. And, as it's often impossible to tell who's telling the truth, liability is often split between both insureds.
As is currently being pointed out in Purg, court cases aren't cheap so the insurer has to decide if one makes economic sense.
The Ombudsman only gets involved when all the insurer's appeals procedures are exhausted. And if your dispute is over whose fault it was, this makes interesting, although possibly disappointing, reading.
Karl's right. We need more context. (And I know way too many claims people!)
Tubbs
[ 22. September 2016, 11:40: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, a claim against you will probably increase future premiums in addition to the no claims. If SCs insurance company pursued the claim it would be paid by the insurance company of the other driver (with all the extra costs in future carried by them).
Not quite. What happens is your insurer repairs your car and then seeks to recover their costs from the third party. This is complicated by the existence of Knock for Knock agreements, but in the event of not recovering costs solely because of the existence of the agreement, the NCD is unaffected, as if all costs had been recovered.
Which is why I'm confused what's happening in the Cat's case. Normally an insurer would repair your car first then worry about liability afterwards. It doesn't benefit them to admit liability, as they'd then be liable for the third party's uninsured losses (e.g. any injury claims, hire cars if not covered under their policy) etc.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
The point is, if it isn't my fault then they should reimburse my excess (£600), and not have this down as a fault on my part (which will impact my premiums). And they should pay the costs I have had to get an independent report.
They do go to court sometimes, but normally the insurance companies work out a way of satisfying everyone without this. Often by refusing to budge on a position, and insisting the punters take whatever they are prepared to offer.
In this case, I am not accepting that, because they have been such a bunch of lazy assholes and done precisely nothing to actually help me. I am hopeful that they decide to pay up to avoid getting slapped by the ombudsman, or taken to court.
Somewhere in their systems, they should get a trigger that if they carry on, it will be more expensive than if they pay out. That might do the trick.
I am just looking forward to the call from them when I don't renew. I doubt they will understand why I am changing.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The point is, if it isn't my fault then they should reimburse my excess (£600), and not have this down as a fault on my part (which will impact my premiums). And they should pay the costs I have had to get an independent report.
They do go to court sometimes, but normally the insurance companies work out a way of satisfying everyone without this. Often by refusing to budge on a position, and insisting the punters take whatever they are prepared to offer.
In this case, I am not accepting that, because they have been such a bunch of lazy assholes and done precisely nothing to actually help me. I am hopeful that they decide to pay up to avoid getting slapped by the ombudsman, or taken to court.
Somewhere in their systems, they should get a trigger that if they carry on, it will be more expensive than if they pay out. That might do the trick.
I am just looking forward to the call from them when I don't renew. I doubt they will understand why I am changing.
Does your policy include uninsured loss recovery (the excess) and legal cover?
If not, then recovering the uninsured losses from the third party is something you have to do yourself. Similarly, the independent report forms part of this and should be paid by the third party's insurers.
Successful recovery of your uninsured losses would go a long way to demonstrating to your insurance company that you were not at fault and your NCD should be unaffected and the accident should not go down as you being at fault. But if you don't have the legal expenses/uninsured loss recovery cover with your insurer, you have to do that yourself.
[ 22. September 2016, 16:06: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I am glad just now to living in the socialist (albeit in decline) province of Saskatchewan, where both house insurance and auto insurance is all SGI (Saskatchewan Government Insurance). Two drivers will always be dealing with the same insurance company, no courts possible except for a traffic ticket or criminal violation, and the lowest insurance premiums in the country (they are mandatory and paid at the time of yearly renewal of registration).
It is possible to have house insurance through other companies but no-one seems to. When we had a claim for roof and internal water damage after a very severe storm, I forwarded pictures via cell phone to email, and the claim was approved in 3 days, with insurance paying the contractor directly, and the contractor had to do the work within the 90 days they required.
[ 22. September 2016, 16:07: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
butt seepage marks [snigger].
I'm tying to get insurance for that, but the bastards want to see my washing. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I was hit when turning right on a fast road by a car trying to overtake the car behind me, and my truck in one swift move. He admitted liability on the spot, I counted it lucky no one was hurt, everything pointed at a straight forward claim off his insurance. This is actually what happened. Both insurance companies appeared to get together and say that I was 25% to blame for not clocking him in my wing mirror in a split second.
So after all the rigmarole, including various dodgy phone calls form personal injury firms encouraging me to claim on non-existent injuries, my premium was loaded for 3 years.
My faith in the integrity of motor insurance was damaged. It seems to have boarded the gravy-train express. Fortunately my faith in human nature was restored when, a few months later I shunted a woman's car at a junction and she got out, quickly surveyed her car and said 'forget it '
[ 22. September 2016, 20:00: Message edited by: rolyn ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The point is, if it isn't my fault then they should reimburse my excess (£600), and not have this down as a fault on my part (which will impact my premiums). And they should pay the costs I have had to get an independent report.
They do go to court sometimes, but normally the insurance companies work out a way of satisfying everyone without this. Often by refusing to budge on a position, and insisting the punters take whatever they are prepared to offer.
In this case, I am not accepting that, because they have been such a bunch of lazy assholes and done precisely nothing to actually help me. I am hopeful that they decide to pay up to avoid getting slapped by the ombudsman, or taken to court.
Somewhere in their systems, they should get a trigger that if they carry on, it will be more expensive than if they pay out. That might do the trick.
I am just looking forward to the call from them when I don't renew. I doubt they will understand why I am changing.
Does your policy include uninsured loss recovery (the excess) and legal cover?
If not, then recovering the uninsured losses from the third party is something you have to do yourself. Similarly, the independent report forms part of this and should be paid by the third party's insurers.
Successful recovery of your uninsured losses would go a long way to demonstrating to your insurance company that you were not at fault and your NCD should be unaffected and the accident should not go down as you being at fault. But if you don't have the legal expenses/uninsured loss recovery cover with your insurer, you have to do that yourself.
If your dispute with your insurer is about whose “fault” the accident was and you’re miffed because the insurer decided it was yours because arguing the toss with the other insurer was too expensive, then the insurer hasn’t done anything wrong. From the Ombudsman page I linked to before:
quote:
“… when an insurer accepts liability, it doesn’t necessarily mean they think their customer is to blame. It usually means they’ve looked at the evidence about the accident – decided they wouldn’t be able to defend the claim in court – and chosen to pay out rather than spend money fighting it.
This is standard practice in the industry and stated in your policy wording. The Ombudsman will rule on whether or not the insurer’s decision was reasonable. If the Ombudsman decides it wasn’t then your records will be changed to state the accident wasn’t your fault and your premiums adjusted.
You’re not going to get your day in court.
It’s unlikely you’d get the costs of the accident report you commissioned either. But who knows?! It's worth asking, but I wouldn't get your hopes up.
You’ll need to read your policy wording to see what will happen about the Excess if your Ombudsman claim is successful. If the policy wording states that the Excess is to be paid in the event of a claim (any claim) then you won’t. If the policy wording says that you don’t have to pay the Excess if the claim is the result of something that’s not your fault then you will.
One of the unfortunate things about insurance is the disconnect between what people think they're covered for verses what they actually are. That’s nothing to do with the guys with the red telephone. It’s down to the fact that most people don’t bother to read their policy documents, make assumptions and then get really angry when they find they’re not true.
Tubbs
[ 23. September 2016, 09:21: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Presumably even if you have insured legal cover that's not actually going to cover you if you decide to go to court with the third party when your insurance company has decided to settle?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Presumably even if you have insured legal cover that's not actually going to cover you if you decide to go to court with the third party when your insurance company has decided to settle?
Unlikely. But I'm not sure exactly who'd get sued for what if the claims been settled but SC is unhappy about how they did it. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Years ago I was shunted from behind on a roundabout causing a £500 cost repair to the rear of my car.
The insurance company said I should pay their approved garage and wait to be reimbursed. I said no, you'll pay for my car to go to the brand's approved bodyshop.
The car itself wasn't seriously damaged and I don't drive much so just continued with a minor-looking dent to the rear bumper.
In the event the other driver claimed that the damage wasn't as I'd described and that it had been there prior to the accident. I said no, there was cosmetic damage to the bumper (it wasn't a new car) but the £500 damage had been caused by her driving into me.
And, more to the point, as she had written off her car driving into me, it would be a bit of a surprise if there had been no damage to my car.
Eventually they paid for the repairs at my choice of bodyshop and it had no effect on my no claims.
I think what is happening is that people are being told not to admit liability and so are trying to make it sound like any claim cannot possibly be their responsibility. But, of course, that's a hard thing to justify when you've written your car off driving into someone at a roundabout.
And the other consequence is that there are a lot of people trying it on, sadly.
Most insurers will drop you like a stone if you admit liability withiut their say so. I have heard from an industry insider that simply saying "sorry" is an admission of guiolt, revokes your insurance and leaves you to sort it out on your own.
Like with any encounter with the Police, I'd always have my mobile on record if talking to someone who has run into me. You never know when you might need to "hear" the trust as well as have it "reported." The latter can, even in court, be a long way from what really took place.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Presumably even if you have insured legal cover that's not actually going to cover you if you decide to go to court with the third party when your insurance company has decided to settle?
Unlikely. But I'm not sure exactly who'd get sued for what if the claims been settled but SC is unhappy about how they did it.
Tubbs
Check other insurances you have. Unions are especially helpful with free helplines.
No reason why you can't sue the guilty party in the small claims court - especially for an loss in no claims and/or costs of excess/hire cars and anything else not covered by your insurers.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Insurance disputes are often some of the more interesting ones on small claims court TV (says L*R, revealing a guilty pleasure. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) And the complainant usually wins.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
There are people in Christchurch whose claims for the various earthquakes in 2011 have yet to be settled. I am very grateful not to be one of them.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Watched a prog about the flooding on the Somerset Levels. Those without insurance who rebuilt with their own funds and generous help from others looked way better off than those waiting on insurance.
Less hassle, less waiting.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Shouldn't we just remember that the majority of insurance companies don't exist to provide benefits for policy holders but to provide juicy dividends for shareholders?
I'm sure that a reasonable, if depressing, starting point.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm sure that a reasonable, if depressing, starting point.
I'm not sure why it's any more depressing than the thought that supermarkets exist to produce profit for their owners rather than food for their customers.
The difference is that while it's easy for insurance companies to compete on price (everyone can get quotes for premiums and pick the smallest one), it's hard for them to compete on quality of service (because being serviced by an insurance company is rare, and once they've serviced you, it's too late.)
This means there's little incentive for an insurance company to behave in a decent, reasonable fashion.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm sure that a reasonable, if depressing, starting point.
I'm not sure why it's any more depressing than the thought that supermarkets exist to produce profit for their owners rather than food for their customers.
The difference is that while it's easy for insurance companies to compete on price (everyone can get quotes for premiums and pick the smallest one), it's hard for them to compete on quality of service (because being serviced by an insurance company is rare, and once they've serviced you, it's too late.)
This means there's little incentive for an insurance company to behave in a decent, reasonable fashion.
Most people purchase insurance on the basis of price rather than cover. The claim / service is the moment of truth for most people.
Some issues are caused by the fact the insurer is inefficient or trying to wiggle out of paying.
But other times it's because people have assumed they're covered for things, don't read the policy documents properly, then discover they're not.
It's not always the insurers fault.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
But other times it's because people have assumed they're covered for things, don't read the policy documents properly, then discover they're not.
It's not always the insurers fault.
This is true, although insurance companies don't have a great reputation when it comes to being forthcoming about their exclusions and the surprising contents of the small print when they're trying to get customers to sign up.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Shouldn't we just remember that the majority of insurance companies don't exist to provide benefits for policy holders but to provide juicy dividends for shareholders?
I'm sure that a reasonable, if depressing, starting point.
Are there no mutual or cooperative insurance companies available to you? (Assuming a government run insurance company isn't available) Mutual companies are owned by policy owners as shareholders, and cooperative are cooperatively managed by a board elected by coop members.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Are there no mutual or cooperative insurance companies available to you? (Assuming a government run insurance company isn't available) Mutual companies are owned by policy owners as shareholders, and cooperative are cooperatively managed by a board elected by coop members.
There are very few mutual insurance companies in the UK - the only one I can think of is NFU mutual, and I'm not sure they do motor insurance.
I'm not sure why.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
But other times it's because people have assumed they're covered for things, don't read the policy documents properly, then discover they're not.
It's not always the insurers fault.
This is true, although insurance companies don't have a great reputation when it comes to being forthcoming about their exclusions and the surprising contents of the small print when they're trying to get customers to sign up.
True. Price comparison sites haven't helped. Originally, they encouraged people to focus solely on price. They only added in the extra info about cover when they got push back. Cheaper policies don’t always have the same level of cover as the more expensive ones.
To answer no prophet’s question, there are a quite a few mutual insurers and friendly societies in the UK. A few of them do motor insurance. But the only difference between a mutual and shareholder owned insurer is who gets the benefits. The policy coverage is no different. SC's motor claim is likely to have been dealt with the same way whoever he'd been insured with.
Tubbs
[ 27. September 2016, 11:42: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whereas, about 15 years ago someone claimed I had reversed into their parked motorbike causing several hundred pounds of damage, reporting it several weeks after the supposed incident (when she first noticed the damage) with the support of two of her friends who saw me reversing into the bike but didn't come forward until she noticed the damage. My insurance company at the time decided that two witnesses who only remembered the incident weeks later meant she had a very strong case and decided to pay up.
I lost my no claims bonus. The insurance company lost my business when renewal came round.
I find this way of doing things very strange. Happily, it has been many years since I have had to claim on my insurance. However, if what you described had happened to me it would be entirely my choice whether or not I decided to ask my insurer to cover it. I might even refuse to provide my insurance details.
Now that I think about it, something similar did happen to Mrs Cod. The other driver believed us to be responsible, refused to pay up, so Mrs Cod took her to the small claims court. There were three witnesses, Mrs Cod, me (in the passenger seat) and the other driver. Mrs Cod won. No insurance company was involved. Just as well that we weren't all considered "unreliable" as if so I suppose she wouldn't have been able to prove her case.
I know that in the UK it is compulsory to have vehicle insurance, but why does it have to follow that insurance must be involved in every accident?
[ 01. October 2016, 20:17: Message edited by: Cod ]
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I know that in the UK it is compulsory to have vehicle insurance, but why does it have to follow that insurance must be involved in every accident?
It's the law here. All accidents have to reported to the insurance. So are all traffic tickets, which also affect rates.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I know that in the UK it is compulsory to have vehicle insurance, but why does it have to follow that insurance must be involved in every accident?
IIRC, you may choose not to make a claim, but the terms of your insurance require you to report any accidents to your insurer.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The minimum requirement is third party insurance - so any injury to another person and/or damage to their property is covered. There is no legal requirement for comprehensive insurance, which would also cover damage to your own vehicle. One of the other options you will be presented with is the level of the excesses - how much you will pay before the insurance company pays out anything, and for a policy with a large excess small claims may be paid from that without anything being paid by the insurance company. Naturally, if you chose a policy with large excesses you will pay less in premiums. And, especially for smaller claims, it may be better to pay up yourself and not bother the insurers (the amount paid by insurance may be less than you lose out from increased premiums in subsequent years).
Upon renewal the insurance companies will require you to provide details of any claims, accidents or convictions, and that will then affect the premiums quoted. [ETA: that includes claims made under different insurances - eg: if you damage a hire car]
[ 04. October 2016, 07:15: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Let's not forget, too, that there are many fraudulent or inflated claims made by customers, who regard insurance companies as "fair game" - I think that this leads to an atmosphere of mutual distrust between customer and company.
What really does annoy me is that one can have a minor accident, decide not to claim on one's policy - and still find one's premium whacked up a huge amount on renewal. That seems wrong.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
What really does annoy me is that one can have a minor accident, decide not to claim on one's policy - and still find one's premium whacked up a huge amount on renewal. That seems wrong.
Some British insurance companies allow you to put in the value of recent claims, so you can specify that it was a minor bump repair costing a few hundred pounds or not claimed on the policy.
They must be working from different metrics because it is possible to find a range of available premiums even when you honestly input this information.
It does feel rather like madness, I can only assume that they're all trying to spread their risk with a specific range of risks and customers.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The insurer is trying to judge risk, the potential for a claim to be made in the following year. Involvement in a minor accident could indicate a riskier driving style, and hence increase the chances of a more serious accident. The more information the insurer takes the better they can judge the risk - so if they know the accident you reported on the form was a low speed impact on ice (last year I was bumped from behind by a car that slid down a hill covered in sheet ice - with no damage - and the other driver had no chance on that road, I know because I'd only just avoided doing the same to the car in front of me by managing to steer into a kerb, an option the guy behind me didn't have. IMO that says nothing about how good a driver someone is) then that would have a much smaller impact on premiums than if you'd hit another car at low speed because you'd braked hard from driving at 70mph in thick fog and hadn't quite stopped in time - even though the damage in both cases could have been the same.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Of course, Alan. The point I was trying to make is that insurers offer a range of premiums with the same information.
Many years ago after a minor bump, my insurer raised the premium - so I got other quotes and got a cheaper policy elsewhere by specifying the value of the bump.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
