Dysfunctional insurance market strikes again (older used cars in the firing line)

JJJJNR

kuro2k wrote: »

You boycott the insurers in question by refusing to purchase any other insurance product from them such as home, travel and health, simply really

Exactly what I mean! There are sites that will give a lot of quotes from different sources for insurance, make sure you use them! My health insurance policy is up for renewal and I'll be moving.

zeffabelli

kuro2k wrote: »

You boycott the insurers in question by refusing to purchase any other insurance product from them such as home, travel and health, simply really

Or a collective boycott of the two most dominant insurers would force competition.

Old diesel

jamesbondings wrote: »

Herself has a 15 year old daihatsu coure.. (look it up, smaller than a corsa.) not even her own insurer would cover her. Those who quoted her were coming in at between 800 and 1300....for a 28 year old lady with 8 years no claims bonus. Nothing wrong with the car ever and the average premium over the last few years was 280. She ended up getting covered by 25plus (aig) for 380 ish......and now she is looking to change the car. The car she loves. It has ran constantly with no complaints bar your normal maintenance issues. It was her first car and it has taken her to the UK and back filled with her stuff. Really hope next year she gets quoted something reasonable so she can keep it. Otherwise it will have to go.

(personally) - id keep the car for the moment - couple of things to bear in mind.

1) Shes now insured for 380 - she can keep driving until NEARER the renewal date.

2) That 25 plus AIG crowd are clearly risk assessing different to everyone else on this example. Hopefully they MAY do the same next year - for a car that she really likes - its worth taking the risk (imo) of keeping it at least until renewal date.

3) Replacement cars - okay - thing to look at here - is what will she look to upgrade to. To me if you can get a quote for say 700 - then buying a 6 grand car to get quotes for 400 euro is rather pointless. Especially if it means giving up a car you actually like for a 6 k car you actually hate. Life is just too short.

Old diesel

kuro2k wrote: »

You boycott the insurers in question by refusing to purchase any other insurance product from them such as home, travel and health, simply really

And if you have a newer car under 15 - you don't insure THAT with them either

Old diesel

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

Been reading this thread with some interest.

Jeez. What'll they think of next?:mad: Looks like you can use your NCT disc to wipe your arse if you drive a '00 or older car!

I drive a '01 hatch. 1.4 & low milage, handy little yoke to tip around in. (We use the wife's car as the main family vehicle).

Insured it yesterday for 320E. I'd hoped to get another few years out of it...

Now it seems that next year I'll be faced with a huge bill for insurance & worse still, the car would be worth zip cos nobody else could insure it either.

I'd have no choice but to scrap a perfectly good car that's got a current NCT & deemed roadworthy by the authorities.

Words fail TBH.:mad::mad::mad:

But yet your exact case - provides a basis for discussion on this issue.

Your car is 320 euros this year - it will still be the exact same car next year - exact same driver - same history.

There is NO reason whatsoever for an insurer to turn you down next year and not give you a decent quote.

Problem is a strict "refusal" to cover due to a strict no 15 years or older cars allowed regardless of what the car is or whose covering - is not based on logic.

Risk assessment based on the MAKE/MODEL of car and the DRIVERS HISTORY seems to be gone out the window.

For example - what is the claims history like for (for example) Volvo V70s - im going to hazard a guess here and assume that the driver using a V70 of 2002 vintage WILL be a different profile then a 1999 3 door Corolla hatch.

The 3 door Corolla hatch is often used by younger drivers (nothing wrong with this BUT it would impact on the risk assessment of the model).

A V70 (usually) will be driven by more mature owners - which also impacts on the risk assessment.

But under this - when the Volvo gets to 15 in 2 years time (2002 car) it will be risk assessed exactly the same as the Corolla - even if its still with the same owner as now.

Of course if we did PROPER risk assessment - we should know information like the following

Audi A4s (a typical car that's going to have examples of the same Gen model on BOTH sides of the 15 year old dividing line)

Claims for Audi A4s

1) how many claims for Audi A4s were iffy/dodgy - is it an acceptable level - the level of bad claims for Fiestas is IRRELEVENT - if the car cover is been sought for is an Audi A4.

2) How does the claims record for Audi A4s change when Audi A4s go over 15 years old. If we take the original B5 model for example - how did the claims history change from 2010 when the original 95 models came to 15 - to now when the majority of B5s are over the 15 years of age - apart from some LATE 01 models (and late 2000 cars if we use the cars birthday).

3) if there is a change in claims history of B5 Audi A4s - why is this - did the driver profile change. And what happens those who had their B5 A4 before 2010 and were an acceptable driver risk back then - and continue to be now???

B5 = Mk 1 1995 to 2001 Audi A4

To Elland Back

kuro2k wrote: »

You boycott the insurers in question by refusing to purchase any other insurance product from them such as home, travel and health, simply really

Won't happen if those particular insurers are cheaper/better cover than elsewhere. Very few people take a moral stance when it comes to insurance

Chris_Heilong

Write to the minister for transport and educate him, based on his comments that we have loads of other insurance companies who will insure "older" cars as this appears to be false.
paschal.donohoe@oireachtas.ie

Write the the The Financial Services Ombudsman: enquiries@financialombudsman.ie

Write to your TD also, make it a political issue if that is what you want.
I am sure there are some European offices we can contact also but I dont know where to start there.

Eric Cartman

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

But how do you boycott insurers?
They have said quite clearly "kindly fcuk off if you're driving an older car".
So now what? Drive without insurance? Not an option. They hold all the cards, they decide the deal and we get fcuked up the arse.
Unless some new, miraculous insurance company comes to Ireland and decides to give out cheap insurance to older cars.
Not going to happen. This suits the insurance companies, they just want accountants driving corollas, the government gets more money from higher premiums and more tax take, car dealers will sell more cars at a higher price, everyone wins, except people driving cars and trying to make a living, but they get fcuked all the time anyway and nobody cares for them.
Can anyone name a party that has promised to take on and reform the fcuked up legal sector that likes to award tens of thousands of euros for scratches and owies? Maybe if this state wide theft, subsided by the legal sector was stamped out, we'd have a chance.
Because the insurance companies know that judges knowingly award stupid money to people who are very obviously scamming the system, they have given up, they just throw money at the problem.

no you don't, and you won't, reforming personal injury claims is like cutting the dole, its the same group of people your going to piss off.

if you moved over to a system where just your medical bills were paid and you got an amount of cash as a proportion of your income , PI claims would fall through the floor.

marklazarcovic

is there anywhere to see how much profit they have made in the last 5 years to see the declining revenue based on fradulent claims as claimed . ?

Liam McPoyle

marklazarcovic wrote: »

is there anywhere to see how much profit they have made in the last 5 years to see the declining revenue based on fradulent claims as claimed . ?

I'm sure with some digging you would be able to find information alright, most of the big insurers are publically listed companies so as far as I know their financial results have to be issued.

FBD for example posted 2 profit warnings in the last 12 months due to the increasing claims costs, their share price dropped from approx €19.50 in January 2014 to around €7.50 as at close of business on Friday last mainly on the back of this.

dr.fuzzenstein

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Write to the minister for transport and educate him, based on his comments that we have loads of other insurance companies who will insure "older" cars as this appears to be false.
paschal.donohoe@oireachtas.ie

Write the the The Financial Services Ombudsman: enquiries@financialombudsman.ie

Write to your TD also, make it a political issue if that is what you want.
I am sure there are some European offices we can contact also but I dont know where to start there.

Here is the letter I wrote to Pascal O'Donohoe:

Dear Mr Donohoe,

My name is (Dr.Fuzzenstein), I am a German national living in Ireland for the last 20 years and I do very much like this country and appreciate the opportunities it has afforded me. I take a strong interest in what keeps this country ticking and I think the recent decision by Alianz and Aviva not to insure cars 15 years or older is more than just the business decision of two insurance companies, but a symptom of a far bigger issue that modern Ireland is facing.
My significant other (she is Irish) is driving a 15 year old car (Mazda MX5) and her quotes have gone up dramatically (from the few companies that will even quote us) and if this continues the car will become uninsurable, despite being well serviced, stored in a garage, having it's NCT done every year (and passing, of course) and generally being in better shape than a lot of 5 year old cars you see on the roads.
It is not so much an issue that individual insurance companies want a different profile driver on their books, but more the practical blanket refusal not to insure anything that is not a 5 year old Toyota Corolla, at least for a reasonable price. And to say that this isn't happening, is ignoring the facts that it is becoming difficult and expensive to insure an older car.
And this is definitely an Irish issue. I got an insurance quote from a German website based on a 1995 323i BMW, 2.5 liter petrol, 170 bhp. Third party cover was available from €485 from the very first website I stumbled upon.
There are several issues at play here:
The biggest, most glaring and obvious is the rampant, runaway compo culture in Ireland. All other issues around insuring older cars or businesses and events in general stem from this single, central issue that no one is willing to address.
Listening to the news, reading the papers and online articles, it has become patently obvious that the Irish court system will throw unbelievable amounts of money at people who basically have no serious injuries.

Up to €14,400 – Minor whiplash neck injury – good recovery within 12 months
€11,500 to €17,400 – Moderate whiplash injury.Substantially recovered within 24 months
€15,900 to €64,500 – Significant ongoing whiplash injury
€59,400 to €78,400 – Severe neck whiplash injury (serious and permanent condition) - See more at: Claims for whiplash in Ireland | Injury Law Solicitors guide

compare that to Germany:

Leichtes Schleudertrauma (slight whiplash, no lasting damage) 0 – 500 €
Mittelschweres HWS (moderate whiplash, soft tissue injuries, out of work for up to 5 days) 500 – 2.000 €
Schweres Schleudertrauma (serious damage, ruptured or torn ligaments) over 2.000 €
Schmerzensgeld bei Schleudertrauma | Verkehrsrecht Karlsruhe - Rechtsanwälte Baier Depner

A lot of people see these amounts, they also know that the worst consequence for a fraudulent claim is to have it thrown out of court, so one would be foolish not to want free money for a stubbed toe or any other real or imagined injury.
Following on from this, the insurance companies have taken to just paying people who have decided their neck is a bit sore after a 5 km/h car park shunt. This means the risk is even less, since a large percentage of claims won't even see court, money will be handed over, nearly no questions asked.

What I wish for and what a lot of people in the business community and Joe Soaps would appreciate, is the complete overhaul of the way claims for damages are handled in this country.
We already have the personal injuries board, but what good are they if they just award the same money quicker?
And a lot of people are advised by their solicitors to circumvent them altogether and just go straight to court.
What is needed are regulations that force people on a per-determined path. First you go to the personal injuries board. This should be the mandatory first port of call for any injuries and compensation claim. Contesting the findings of the PIB should only be possible if gross mismanagement of the claim can be proven. Payouts should be set and the same applies, appeals against the set amounts should only be possible if the injury was wrongly assessed, but no appeal against the amount should be possible for the corresponding injury.
What we need is a set table of reasonable awards and by that I mean payouts need to be slashed by, at the VERY least, 50%. Right now compensation payouts are a free-for-all buffet and people are not shy about helping themselves.
The insurance companies are not fighting the system, because they know that when they lose a case, it will cost them much more than just paying out.
Also, any claims coming before the injuries board need to be examined far more rigorously. If in doubt, people should be examined by an independent assessor and their medical records and expert testimony scrutinized.
Once people know that a claim will not result in money raining automatically from the sky, but will entail some serious proof on their part and that this proof will not just be accepted as gospel immediately, they will think twice about claiming. Once people will cop on to the fact that claiming has become a lot more difficult, payouts are a lot less and it will take some serious time and effort, the spoofers will be discouraged, since they are only after easy money. And of course harsh penalties for trying to milk or defraud the system.
This system has been broken since at least the 90's. Can I ask when this will be taken on and corrected? This is damaging the country!
Over the years I have been involved in 2 accidents that where not my fault. I was perfectly OK. It would have been so easy for me to say "ouch my neck hurts" on both occasions and to rake in €20k each time. I didn't and sometimes I ask myself why. This would have paid off a large chunk of my mortgage. Everyone else is doing it, it's easy money with no drawbacks, except higher premiums, but who cares when you're being handed a large wad of cash? And the higher the premiums go, the more people will think "now it's MY turn!" when something happens to them and screw the insurance company for every penny they can get without guilt and without mercy. If anyone else crashes into me, I might give in to the lure of easy money. Because it's there and because everyone is doing it. If I knew that a payout was hard to come by and would require some serious proof from me, I would think twice about it. Especially if, like me, both people in the household have been made redundant at some stage and now (after I found a new job), the household is limping along on one salary. For us the recovery is not happening, but rising costs definitely are. And here is the whole point of this rather long letter:
If claiming was hard and premiums reasonable if you are driving a well maintained car, even if you can only afford something older, people wouldn't claim as much, it's as simple as that. And if there were consequences for false and exaggerated claims, it would put even the most hard-necked chancers off to begin with.
And another point would be: Why do we bother having the NCT if insurance companies won't insure older cars? Blue won't touch anything over 10 years. That is not just ridiculous, but barking mad.
The problem lies with the driver, not the car. Those who can afford it, will buy a new car. Will they be any safer? I doubt it.
It would be nice if there was some kind of state run initiative that could extend basic 3rd party cover to all vehicles regardless of age, as long as the vehicle is tested and certified roadworthy and the driver meets all criteria to pilot said vehicle. This cover could be so basic as to pose no competition to existing insurance companies. I know they probably want all of us to immediately go out and buy new, or no more than 5 year old, Focuses and Corollas, but this will never happen. Some of us like our older cars and we look after them.
Not only that, but not everyone can. A lot of people have next to no money and that 1996 Escort is the only thing they can afford to run. If their car is now uninsurable and less than 10 year old cars have skyrocketed in price, their only choice will be to drive uninsured. This will mean MIBI will have to pay out a lot more money and as well as that, all those uninsured drivers are not paying a premium, meaning insurance companies will still fork out the money, but this time they're not even getting revenue from these drivers, compounding the problem and costing even more. In the long run, this short sighted decision will only make the situation worse, premiums will still climb and what will happen next? All cars older than 10 year uninsurable?
It is only right that people who suffer permanent and serious injuries get compensation for inability to work, loss of earnings, pain and trauma and so on. Nobody in their right mind would say otherwise. But I do think that at the lower end of the scale we have completely lost the run of ourselves and rewards in the order of €15-20k are handed out like sweets for what are basically owies and scratches. To stress again, this is damaging the country and the economy. Whatever sector has a vested interest in keeping this particular gravy train running, their petty need for self-enrichment should not outweigh the needs of everyone else.
I thank you very much for taking the time to read this and I hope I could contribute some valid and constructive points.

Riverireland

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Here is the letter I wrote to Pascal O'Donohoe:

Dear Mr Donohoe,

My name is (Dr.Fuzzenstein), I am a German national living in Ireland for the last 20 years and I do very much like this country and appreciate the opportunities it has afforded me. I take a strong interest in what keeps this country ticking and I think the recent decision by Alianz and Aviva not to insure cars 15 years or older is more than just the business decision of two insurance companies, but a symptom of a far bigger issue that modern Ireland is facing.
My significant other (she is Irish) is driving a 15 year old car (Mazda MX5) and her quotes have gone up dramatically (from the few companies that will even quote us) and if this continues the car will become uninsurable, despite being well serviced, stored in a garage, having it's NCT done every year (and passing, of course) and generally being in better shape than a lot of 5 year old cars you see on the roads.
It is not so much an issue that individual insurance companies want a different profile driver on their books, but more the practical blanket refusal not to insure anything that is not a 5 year old Toyota Corolla, at least for a reasonable price. And to say that this isn't happening, is ignoring the facts that it is becoming difficult and expensive to insure an older car.
And this is definitely an Irish issue. I got an insurance quote from a German website based on a 1995 323i BMW, 2.5 liter petrol, 170 bhp. Third party cover was available from €485 from the very first website I stumbled upon.
There are several issues at play here:
The biggest, most glaring and obvious is the rampant, runaway compo culture in Ireland. All other issues around insuring older cars or businesses and events in general stem from this single, central issue that no one is willing to address.
Listening to the news, reading the papers and online articles, it has become patently obvious that the Irish court system will throw unbelievable amounts of money at people who basically have no serious injuries.

Up to €14,400 – Minor whiplash neck injury – good recovery within 12 months
€11,500 to €17,400 – Moderate whiplash injury.Substantially recovered within 24 months
€15,900 to €64,500 – Significant ongoing whiplash injury
€59,400 to €78,400 – Severe neck whiplash injury (serious and permanent condition) - See more at: Claims for whiplash in Ireland | Injury Law Solicitors guide

compare that to Germany:

Leichtes Schleudertrauma (slight whiplash, no lasting damage) 0 – 500 €
Mittelschweres HWS (moderate whiplash, soft tissue injuries, out of work for up to 5 days) 500 – 2.000 €
Schweres Schleudertrauma (serious damage, ruptured or torn ligaments) over 2.000 €
Schmerzensgeld bei Schleudertrauma | Verkehrsrecht Karlsruhe - Rechtsanwälte Baier Depner

A lot of people see these amounts, they also know that the worst consequence for a fraudulent claim is to have it thrown out of court, so one would be foolish not to want free money for a stubbed toe or any other real or imagined injury.
Following on from this, the insurance companies have taken to just paying people who have decided their neck is a bit sore after a 5 km/h car park shunt. This means the risk is even less, since a large percentage of claims won't even see court, money will be handed over, nearly no questions asked.

What I wish for and what a lot of people in the business community and Joe Soaps would appreciate, is the complete overhaul of the way claims for damages are handled in this country.
We already have the personal injuries board, but what good are they if they just award the same money quicker?
And a lot of people are advised by their solicitors to circumvent them altogether and just go straight to court.
What is needed are regulations that force people on a per-determined path. First you go to the personal injuries board. This should be the mandatory first port of call for any injuries and compensation claim. Contesting the findings of the PIB should only be possible if gross mismanagement of the claim can be proven. Payouts should be set and the same applies, appeals against the set amounts should only be possible if the injury was wrongly assessed, but no appeal against the amount should be possible for the corresponding injury.
What we need is a set table of reasonable awards and by that I mean payouts need to be slashed by, at the VERY least, 50%. Right now compensation payouts are a free-for-all buffet and people are not shy about helping themselves.
The insurance companies are not fighting the system, because they know that when they lose a case, it will cost them much more than just paying out.
Also, any claims coming before the injuries board need to be examined far more rigorously. If in doubt, people should be examined by an independent assessor and their medical records and expert testimony scrutinized.
Once people know that a claim will not result in money raining automatically from the sky, but will entail some serious proof on their part and that this proof will not just be accepted as gospel immediately, they will think twice about claiming. Once people will cop on to the fact that claiming has become a lot more difficult, payouts are a lot less and it will take some serious time and effort, the spoofers will be discouraged, since they are only after easy money. And of course harsh penalties for trying to milk or defraud the system.
This system has been broken since at least the 90's. Can I ask when this will be taken on and corrected? This is damaging the country!
Over the years I have been involved in 2 accidents that where not my fault. I was perfectly OK. It would have been so easy for me to say "ouch my neck hurts" on both occasions and to rake in €20k each time. I didn't and sometimes I ask myself why. This would have paid off a large chunk of my mortgage. Everyone else is doing it, it's easy money with no drawbacks, except higher premiums, but who cares when you're being handed a large wad of cash? And the higher the premiums go, the more people will think "now it's MY turn!" when something happens to them and screw the insurance company for every penny they can get without guilt and without mercy. If anyone else crashes into me, I might give in to the lure of easy money. Because it's there and because everyone is doing it. If I knew that a payout was hard to come by and would require some serious proof from me, I would think twice about it. Especially if, like me, both people in the household have been made redundant at some stage and now (after I found a new job), the household is limping along on one salary. For us the recovery is not happening, but rising costs definitely are. And here is the whole point of this rather long letter:
If claiming was hard and premiums reasonable if you are driving a well maintained car, even if you can only afford something older, people wouldn't claim as much, it's as simple as that. And if there were consequences for false and exaggerated claims, it would put even the most hard-necked chancers off to begin with.
And another point would be: Why do we bother having the NCT if insurance companies won't insure older cars? Blue won't touch anything over 10 years. That is not just ridiculous, but barking mad.
The problem lies with the driver, not the car. Those who can afford it, will buy a new car. Will they be any safer? I doubt it.
It would be nice if there was some kind of state run initiative that could extend basic 3rd party cover to all vehicles regardless of age, as long as the vehicle is tested and certified roadworthy and the driver meets all criteria to pilot said vehicle. This cover could be so basic as to pose no competition to existing insurance companies. I know they probably want all of us to immediately go out and buy new, or no more than 5 year old, Focuses and Corollas, but this will never happen. Some of us like our older cars and we look after them.
Not only that, but not everyone can. A lot of people have next to no money and that 1996 Escort is the only thing they can afford to run. If their car is now uninsurable and less than 10 year old cars have skyrocketed in price, their only choice will be to drive uninsured. This will mean MIBI will have to pay out a lot more money and as well as that, all those uninsured drivers are not paying a premium, meaning insurance companies will still fork out the money, but this time they're not even getting revenue from these drivers, compounding the problem and costing even more. In the long run, this short sighted decision will only make the situation worse, premiums will still climb and what will happen next? All cars older than 10 year uninsurable?
It is only right that people who suffer permanent and serious injuries get compensation for inability to work, loss of earnings, pain and trauma and so on. Nobody in their right mind would say otherwise. But I do think that at the lower end of the scale we have completely lost the run of ourselves and rewards in the order of €15-20k are handed out like sweets for what are basically owies and scratches. To stress again, this is damaging the country and the economy. Whatever sector has a vested interest in keeping this particular gravy train running, their petty need for self-enrichment should not outweigh the needs of everyone else.
I thank you very much for taking the time to read this and I hope I could contribute some valid and constructive points.

I hope they read it and you get the response you deserve for your effort. Let us know.

dr.fuzzenstein

Riverireland wrote: »

I hope they read it and you get the response you deserve for your effort. Let us know.

I think they're still mulling it over.

Voodoomelon

I'm still mulling over whether to read it meself. It has a enough thanks, i'll give it a go tomorrow.

Chris_Heilong

This thread is going on for a while, With not much left to say here are a few changes I would like to see for the hell of it.

If I have 5 years NCB and I buy a 2nd car then I want my NCB recognized for the new policy.

If I had an accident and did not claim then I should not have to tell the insurance company.

Imported cars are treated the same as domestically imported cars.

Cars of any age should be insurable for reasonable money or maybe when they reach 30 they automatically get put on a classic policy.

By staying with one insurer there should be loyalty discounts.

Modifications should not be frowned upon and insurance companies should have facilities for listing mods.

Any mod not affecting the performance of a car should not have any affect on Premium.

Track day insurance for an extra 30 euro.

Best thing that could happen would be we all get national 3rd party insurance and would only deal with insurance companies if we wanted comprehensive.

percy212

May I cut and paste to send to my local politicians?

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I think they're still mulling it over.

dr.fuzzenstein

percy212 wrote: »

May I cut and paste to send to my local politicians?

Sure, the more the merrier. I'm considering sending it as a letter to the papers.

dr.fuzzenstein

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

This thread is going on for a while, With not much left to say here are a few changes I would like to see for the hell of it.

If I have 5 years NCB and I buy a 2nd car then I want my NCB recognized for the new policy.

If I had an accident and did not claim then I should not have to tell the insurance company.

Imported cars are treated the same as domestically imported cars.

Cars of any age should be insurable for reasonable money or maybe when they reach 30 they automatically get put on a classic policy.

By staying with one insurer there should be loyalty discounts.

Modifications should not be frowned upon and insurance companies should have facilities for listing mods.

Any mod not affecting the performance of a car should not have any affect on Premium.

Track day insurance for an extra 30 euro.

Best thing that could happen would be we all get national 3rd party insurance and would only deal with insurance companies if we wanted comprehensive.

Careful now, that's a dangerous amount of sense you're talking there!

fatbhoy

Car: 1997 Nissan Primera
Value: €500
NCB: 6 years
Points: 0
Claims: 0
Licence: full 8 years
Age: 47

Previouse 3 years insurance: ~€300
This year's quote: €700+

Feelings: :eek: :pac: :eek: :mad: :mad: :mad:



What can be done about this?

Wibbs

Jesus H Christ Fatbhoy, that's utter insanity. :eek: They're really taking the piss with that quote and don't anyone have the gall to try to tell me that a 47 year old bloke driving a Primera is a bad risk, because that's just full on atomic powered bullshít. :mad:

Though I was chatting with a neighbour the other day and he's 50+ with a mid 90's Micra and his renewal quote beggared belief(and it wasn't the two companies who've announced these changes) and I'll not type it out as I want to see it in writing to confirm because at this stage I reckon I've fallen into some fúcked up parallel universe.

fatbhoy

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus H Christ Fatbhoy, that's utter insanity. :eek: They're really taking the piss with that quote and don't anyone have the gall to try to tell me that a 47 year old bloke driving a Primera is a bad risk, because that's just full on atomic powered bullshít. :mad:

Though I was chatting with a neighbour the other day and he's 50+ with a mid 90's Micra and his renewal quote beggared belief(and it wasn't the two companies who've announced these changes) and I'll not type it out as I want to see it in writing to confirm because at this stage I reckon I've fallen into some fúcked up parallel universe.

I wonder if these huge hikes have anything to do with the gangs going around staging crashes with innocent members of the public and claiming personal injuries. Wasn't there someting in the news about that recently, and mention that it would increase premiums this year as a result? Although, I can't see how that would cause premiums for 14+ year old cars specifically to increase.

I tried around a few places for quotes today and yesterday and they're all around €700.

dr.fuzzenstein

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Sure the Irish government likes taking instructions from the Germans :pac:

Sure if they ever managed to implement anything they might even get somewhere.
Deafening silence regards my letter so far.

CJhaughey

Insurance always uses events to screw more money out of people.
First it was 9/11 to raise premia, then the bad winters of 09/10, now its gangs staging crashes.
What next?
I read that AXA group made 3.1Bn in first half underlying profits for 2015.
I know that they haven't ruled out 15+ insurance but you can be sure that they will be sucking some more money out of the market on the back of the decision by others to do so.

kupus

fatbhoy wrote: »

I wonder if these huge hikes have anything to do with the gangs going around staging crashes with innocent members of the public and claiming personal injuries. Wasn't there someting in the news about that recently, and mention that it would increase premiums this year as a result? Although, I can't see how that would cause premiums for 14+ year old cars specifically to increase.

I tried around a few places for quotes today and yesterday and they're all around €700.

Ever wonder why you see this certain segment of society driving zafiras and other people carriers. More people can fit in so more people to claim.
Happy days for them, not so happy for the rest of a paying society.

carzony

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0909/726622-insurance-claims/

Claims still through the roof.

visual

carzony wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0909/726622-insurance-claims/

Claims still through the roof.

Last part of the article says it all

" it is difficult to understand how insurance costs have risen by 20% when figures from the injuries board do not correlate with such data"

To Elland Back

visual wrote: »

Last part of the article says it all

" it is difficult to understand how insurance costs have risen by 20% when figures from the injuries board do not correlate with such data"

It's a comment from someone who doesn't work in the insurance industry and who represents an organisation solely involved in deciding the outgoings that insurers have.

You chose to bypass his comment about increased average cost

Liam McPoyle

visual wrote: »

Last part of the article says it all

" it is difficult to understand how insurance costs have risen by 20% when figures from the injuries board do not correlate with such data"

Thats only injury claims, through the injuries board.



What about direct settlement for injuries?

What about direct settlement for property damage?

If the claims through the IB have increased by 7% one could reasonably assume that direct settlement payments have increased by similar figures.

There's your 20% increase right there.

visual

To Elland Back wrote: »

It's a comment from someone who doesn't work in the insurance industry and who represents an organisation solely involved in deciding the outgoings that insurers have.

You chose to bypass his comment about increased average cost

No didn't bypass it but as everything in insurance world selectively offering up statistics as facts and ignoring reality or independent facts doesn't endear anyone other than those in that industry to calls to hike prices.

FortySeven

If insurance companies are so great with their data sheets then how is it that quotes range to such extremities across the board.

We have all been insured by most of the firms in the country due to no firm wanting to insure any of us for a second year. (Any other reason we have to chase around every year for a better quote?) Surely they all have the same data?

To Elland Back

FortySeven wrote: »

If insurance companies are so great with their data sheets then how is it that quotes range to such extremities across the board.

We have all been insured by most of the firms in the country due to no firm wanting to insure any of us for a second year. (Any other reason we have to chase around every year for a better quote?) Surely they all have the same data?

Insurers are always tweaking prices to target certain sectors where the feel they can make profit. They try and undercut the competitor who has the bulk of their preferred market. If they suffer worse than expected claims or attract too many so as to upset the balance of their portfolio, they will raise their renewals to hope you bugger off. A lot of it is speculation

They all have the industry data but none of them will ever disclose the individual areas that are causing them claims within their overall losses

Special Circumstances

To Elland Back wrote: »

They all have the industry data but none of them will ever disclose the individual areas that are causing them claims within their overall losses

Ahem... it has been statistically proven* that 15+ year old cars are where all the serious losses are.


*terns and positions apply.

FortySeven

To Elland Back wrote: »

Insurers are always tweaking prices to target certain sectors where the feel they can make profit. They try and undercut the competitor who has the bulk of their preferred market. If they suffer worse than expected claims or attract too many so as to upset the balance of their portfolio, they will raise their renewals to hope you bugger off. A lot of it is speculation

They all have the industry data but none of them will ever disclose the individual areas that are causing them claims within their overall losses

People on this thread are highlighting quotes from thousands to hundreds for the same car with the same circumstances. This is pure gouging, there can be no logical explanation for a risk assessment using the same criteria throwing up such divergent results. They are literally pulling numbers out of their arses. No question, therefore any post referring to data sets can be immediately discredited as their own quotes to the public refute any such data or sensible implemention of deciphering said data.

Tis a con, pure and simple. The trend in Ireland is forced consumption, we must keep that growth rate up. Problem is, one mans growth is another mans inflation. Unfortunately, recent growth does seem to be going to less and less of the populous.

To Elland Back

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Ahem... it has been statistically proven* that 15+ year old cars are where all the serious losses are.


*terns and positions apply.

2 Insurers, who obviously suffered heavy losses, declared that they were no longer accepting older vehicles. The rest didn't want to pick up their competitors problem and followed suit. Where is the mystery that you still can't comprehend, no matter how many times it is explained to you?

FortySeven

To Elland Back wrote: »

2 Insurers, who obviously suffered heavy losses, declared that they were no longer accepting older vehicles. The rest didn't want to pick up their competitors problem and followed suit. Where is the mystery that you still can't comprehend, no matter how many times it is explained to you?

How they can be allowed to get away with this when insurance is not a choice?

Special Circumstances

To Elland Back wrote: »

2 Insurers, who obviously suffered heavy losses, declared that they were no longer accepting older vehicles. The rest didn't want to pick up their competitors problem and followed suit. Where is the mystery that you still can't comprehend, no matter how many times it is explained to you?

Lol

"Insurers won't reveal where they are making their losses"

"You still don't believe what they said about making where they are making losses, just pay up you ignorant pleb"

"We swear we're not making this up as we go along"

Pick 2.

To Elland Back

FortySeven wrote: »

People on this thread are highlighting quotes from thousands to hundreds for the same car with the same circumstances..

I've just explained it. Low quote from Insurer A to attract your business, high quote from Company B in the hope you'll plss off.

Company A may have had good experience with (for example) 40 yr old policyholders, while Company B may have been shafted too many times for their liking

To Elland Back

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Lol

"Insurers won't reveal where they are making their losses"

"You still don't believe what they said about making where they are making losses, just pay up you ignorant pleb"

"We swear we're not making this up as we go along"

Pick 2.

Just answer me this. If Insurance Companies are all robbing basterds making tons of money, why aren't more of them queuing up from abroad to have a slice of this lucrative pie. Why do so many withdraw from Ireland as soon as they realise the operating conditions here.

Bottom line is, as the thread suggests, we have a dysfunctional market here because of claim costs, claims culture, fraud, the medical profession, the legal profession, the small scale of our market AND the way insurers conduct themselves. We are reaping what we sow

Sh1tbag OToole

To Elland Back wrote: »

Just answer me this. If Insurance Companies are all robbing basterds making tons of money, why aren't more of them queuing up from abroad to have a slice of this lucrative pie. Why do so many withdraw from Ireland as soon as they realise the operating conditions here.

Bottom line is, as the thread suggests, we have a dysfunctional market here because of claim costs, claims culture, fraud, the medical profession, the legal profession, the small scale of our market AND the way insurers conduct themselves. We are reaping what we sow

It isn't exactly easy to become a car insurance company. Many millions are needed as a reserve pot. Then there's loads of regulation to comply with and even then it's probably up to some Minister whether or not he's going to allow you to start an insurance company. DOB could probably set one up in the morning if he wanted to though, probably get a handsome grant and all

Special Circumstances

To Elland Back wrote: »

Just answer me this. If Insurance Companies are all robbing basterds making tons of money, why aren't more of them queuing up from abroad to have a slice of this lucrative pie. Why do so many withdraw from Ireland as soon as they realise the operating conditions here.

Bottom line is, as the thread suggests, we have a dysfunctional market here because of claim costs, claims culture, fraud, the medical profession, the legal profession, the small scale of our market AND the way insurers conduct themselves. We are reaping what we sow

"Oh NOBODY understands insurance they just want to say bad things about us. In fact it is all the fault of these other industries that you the customer are also too thick to understand but us insurance professionals are oh so clever we are experts in every field. So we can say the bad things about these industries that other people say about ours, the difference is we are all knowing all powerful and our word is law mwuhahahah."


Just tell me this, if the legal industry, medical industry, scamming industry, everything except the insurance industry, is so lucrative .... why aren't they queueing up from abroad for a slice of the pie.

To Elland Back

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

It isn't exactly easy to become a car insurance company. Many millions are needed as a reserve pot. Then there's loads of regulation to comply with and even then it's probably up to some Minister whether or not he's going to allow you to start an insurance company. DOB could probably set one up in the morning if he wanted to though, probably get a handsome grant and all

Who said anything about setting up an insurance company? I was asking why other established profitable European and Worldwide Insurers are not interested in trading in Ireland

To Elland Back

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Just tell me this, if the legal industry, medical industry, scamming industry, everything except the insurance industry, is so lucrative .... why aren't they queueing up from abroad for a slice of the pie.

As always, you speak, but don't listen. I never said those other professions were lucrative, I said they are a part of where our insurance market is today






Why do I keep feeding the troll

FortySeven

To Elland Back wrote: »

I've just explained it. Low quote from Insurer A to attract your business, high quote from Company B in the hope you'll plss off.

Company A may have had good experience with (for example) 40 yr old policyholders, while Company B may have been shafted too many times for their liking

OK, so after 1 year of claim free driving company A send me a vastly increased premium so I spend a day shopping around and end up going with company B because suddenly the tables have turned.

We should prescribe these companies Largagtil.

Liam McPoyle

Special Circumstances wrote: »

"Oh NOBODY understands insurance they just want to say bad things about us. In fact it is all the fault of these other industries that you the customer are also too thick to understand but us insurance professionals are oh so clever we are experts in every field. So we can say the bad things about these industries that other people say about ours, the difference is we are all knowing all powerful and our word is law mwuhahahah."


Just tell me this, if the legal industry, medical industry, scamming industry, everything except the insurance industry, is so lucrative .... why aren't they queueing up from abroad for a slice of the pie.

Riddle me this, if insurance is so lucrative, at least according to you, then why aren't there many more entrants into the market?

Surely if its as easy as you think for insurers to gouge the Irish motorist then there would be companies tripping over themselves to open up shop here???

dr.fuzzenstein

To Elland Back wrote: »

2 Insurers, who obviously suffered heavy losses, declared that they were no longer accepting older vehicles. The rest didn't want to pick up their competitors problem and followed suit. Where is the mystery that you still can't comprehend, no matter how many times it is explained to you?

We simply question the decision, not the losses.
Insurers have a vast amount of data, from which a very detailed picture can be arrived at and it should point towards a very complex scenario with many variables on all different sides.
So to simply say "It's dem 15 year old cars, dat's wot it is, I knew it all along!" is bollocks. Anyone who says otherwise, bollocks.
I know exactly how insurance companies have arrived at this conclusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY

I have said it before, insurers have lost the will to fight. Fire everyone in the anti fraud department, pay out every braindead claim there is, just pay the money, don't ask questions, don't bother lobbying politicians, just pay out and fcuk the bastards with 2 dildos at once come renewal time.
Of course everyone knows what higher premiums mean: More claims, because "right, it's time I fcuk them back royally!", resulting in higher premiums, etc...
I remember what it was like in the 90's, we're heading there again.

TL/DR:
15 year old cars me fcuking hole.

FortySeven

Two-thirds (67%) of survey respondents believe that, as an international insurance centre, Ireland's regulatory regime is more demanding than other EU territories. The most competitive European regime relative to Ireland is Switzerland, followed by Luxembourg;

I just got a quote for €425.38 for a 2l 1999 BMW in Geneva.

Quote above is from the PWC survey of Irish insurers.

We can rule out Irelands operating environment then?


Share of cervical trauma in the total costs of personal injury claims (%)
Average costs per claim for cervical trauma
Switzerland

40.0

35,000

Germany

9.0

2,500

Finland

13.0

1,500

France

0.5

2,625

The Netherlands

40.0

16,500

Great Britain

50.0

2,878

Chart did not copy well, top figure is percentage of claims with personal injury, below is average payout.

By their own admission, Switzerland is the closest to Irelands operating and as you can see from the table above is actually the highest paying country in Europe for whiplash yet a quote for the same car with the same persoin driving it here is more than double the cost. (Can't be bothered going through all the forms, tried no nonsense but I fall outside their criteria) I was quoted €850ish a few years ago for the same car, same conditions.

OK, seems AXA will insure me @ €787. Not quite double but almost there.

Special Circumstances

FortySeven wrote: »

I just got a quote for €425.38 for a 2l 1999 BMW in Geneva.

Quote above is from the PWC survey of Irish insurers.

We can rule out Irelands operating environment then?


Share of cervical trauma in the total costs of personal injury claims (%)
Average costs per claim for cervical trauma
Switzerland

40.0

35,000

Germany

9.0

2,500

Finland

13.0

1,500

France

0.5

2,625

The Netherlands

40.0

16,500

Great Britain

50.0

2,878

Chart did not copy well, top figure is percentage of claims with personal injury, below is average payout.

By their own admission, Switzerland is the closest to Irelands operating and as you can see from the table above is actually the highest paying country in Europe for whiplash yet a quote for the same car with the same persoin driving it here is more than double the cost. (Can't be bothered going through all the forms, tried no nonsense but I fall outside their criteria) I was quoted €850ish a few years ago for the same car, same conditions.

OK, seems AXA will insure me @ €787. Not quite double but almost there.

But but but but ....

Medical/legal blah blah all their fault... (Switzerland being famed for their low costs LOL )

You don't understand. ...

You're not listening. ....

Just pay up....

By the way it will be more next year because because....

Special Circumstances

Business Cat wrote: »

Riddle me this, if insurance is so lucrative, at least according to you, then why aren't there many more entrants into the market?

Surely if its as easy as you think for insurers to gouge the Irish motorist then there would be companies tripping over themselves to open up shop here???

Haha nice try.
You can turn the argument around once, but to keep doing it just makes you look silly. This "why aren't there queues of insurers fighting to get in" seems to be one of the cornerstones of your position but let's just turn that argument around 180, not 360 like you are trying to do.
TEB asked it, blamed all and sundry for the insurance industry losing money hand over fist.
But if ye are just giving money away why are there not queues of medical/legal/scamming people from abroad waiting to get in on it? God knows our own love a bit of ponzi scheme bonanza, why are we not all sitting around scheming ways to get rich quick as if insurance claims were the new property ladder?

Honestly now goys, ye have the whiff of a cult off ye here again. Ye make an argument (insurers never reveal where they make they losses, everybody is making piles of cash but us) expect it to be taken as gospel and then ignore that argument or contradict yerselves (which part of them revealing their losses don't you believe you thick, we never said they were making lots of money) in a stunning show of doublethink within 5 posts.

Sooner or later surely you have to wonder is it really down to all these other people you are blaming* or is the insurance industry just doing it wrong in ireland.
TEB is practically admitting it above "oh I never said everybody else was making lots of money". So... everybody else is making a modest amount of money but insurers are losing money like it was evaporating. Seriously, what is the money being invested in, chocolate fireguard companies etc???? Have ye checked yer pockets for really big holes?
*because you are qualified to blame all these other industries but NOBODY but insurance people are qualified to point the finger at insurance people.

To Elland Back

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So to simply say "It's dem 15 year old cars, dat's wot it is, I knew it all along!" is bollocks. Anyone who says otherwise, bollocks.
I know exactly how insurance companies have arrived at this conclusion:

[Y.

I'll give my opinion on that because it is a very reasonable point. It is likely that insurers took a few heavy claims, which were flagged by claim handlers and analysed the circumstances. Perhaps a common factor may have been the fact that cars USED in these claims were over 15 yrs old. Nobody has said these cars are more dangerous, just that they were USED in claims that insurers were not happy with

Hypothetically, if you were to stage an accident where personal injuries are the goal, why would you good spend money on a newish car to be used in your scam? Insurers would only replace what you spent on it and the injury payout would be the same. It makes economic sense to use a (NCT'd) older car just in case the staged accident goes wrong and you miscalculate the accident. If you fail in your task, you've only lost a few bob

As always, insurers will act swiftly and without favour and turf out every risk with a similar profile and don't care if the good risks within those numbers get caught in the crossfire. They don't have the time or the inclination to try and assess each individual.

There are other problem areas where insurers would wish to take similar ruthless action but are prevented from doing so by the discrimination laws of the land. This is an easy one for them.

I don't always agree with these decisions but I understand why they do it. SC (seeing that we are now on abbreviation terms), I won't be responding to anything you have to say on my observations

Liam McPoyle

FortySeven wrote: »

I just got a quote for €425.38 for a 2l 1999 BMW in Geneva.

Quote above is from the PWC survey of Irish insurers.

We can rule out Irelands operating environment then?


Share of cervical trauma in the total costs of personal injury claims (%)
Average costs per claim for cervical trauma
Switzerland

40.0

35,000

Germany

9.0

2,500

Finland

13.0

1,500

France

0.5

2,625

The Netherlands

40.0

16,500

Great Britain

50.0

2,878

Chart did not copy well, top figure is percentage of claims with personal injury, below is average payout.

By their own admission, Switzerland is the closest to Irelands operating and as you can see from the table above is actually the highest paying country in Europe for whiplash yet a quote for the same car with the same persoin driving it here is more than double the cost. (Can't be bothered going through all the forms, tried no nonsense but I fall outside their criteria) I was quoted €850ish a few years ago for the same car, same conditions.

OK, seems AXA will insure me @ €787. Not quite double but almost there.

Interesting, where did you get this quote, link please.

You see just for shyts and giggles I went onto a motor insurance comparison site for Switzerland (just google cost of car insurance Switzerland, the site is something like comparison.en) and for a 1999 2l beemer, licence for 10 years, age 39, no a/c/c, fully comp, full bonus protection, one driver only, based in Bern, the best price was 810 francs, or about €740.

That's with a property damage excess of 300 francs and 500 francs for liability.