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

jimgoose

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

...In Germany you have a "Schmerzensgeldtabelle", a table of injuries and how much money you get for each. It is set and no amount of whinging will change that...

I seem to recall reading somewhere that that system goes way, way back to the Leges Barbarorum, that is the ancient Germanic Law as codified by the Romans. I kid you not!

And by the way, I reject the idea that insurance companies aren't making pure money for jam out of some people. I trundle around in a vast three-litre canal-barge that's sixteen years old and tends to repel inattentive arseholes out on the road.

Wibbs

TheDoc wrote: »

Will see what happens in December when I renew, but seriously question if this is going to be a thing, why I should be paying for a NCT test, to certify my car as safe by their standards(and a standard the government has set) to only then be told by an insurer that they don't accept it as safe.

Exactly. The NCT is largely a sham anyway.

Nody

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I agree with most of your post, but I have to ask you and a few others - do you really believe the "no more old cars" strategy will directly resolve the problem of losses/not enough profit?

No but it will help limit their liability of what's perceived as a high risk range of vehicles.

If no - are they incompetent, or just trying to generate a sh1tstorm for politicians so that the problem is indirectly resolved through revised laws and compensation?

It is not their problem though; that's the key thing most people seem to miss. Their job is to make as much profit as possible for their shareholders (holds true for every company) and they are taking actions which will limit their current liability to a high risk group (i.e. chancers intentionally faking accidents with cheap old cars); once they go up in car they will repeat the process until they hit a point where they simply pull out of the market and go somewhere else instead.

They have no intrinsic interest in the Irish market nor will they waste tons of money to lobby a government that's consistently shown no interest in fixing the problem because it's a waste of their time and money. Instead they'll keep the small part that's profitable for as long as possible and then pull out; exactly as so many foreign banks have already done as well. Once the Irish government gets around to fixing the situation they may decide it's worth their while to come back again and until that point the Irish insurance market will be as dysfunctional as the bank market is with no real competition going on. That will in turn lead to higher insurance rates (does not matter if they are state funded or not because the basic economy of insurance still applies) and the occasional crack down by Gardai on it. Welcome to Ireland; the country that consistently shows it can't govern itself.

Special Circumstances

Nody wrote: »

No but it will help limit their liability of what's perceived as a high risk range of vehicles.

... and they are taking actions which will limit their current liability to a high risk group (i.e. chancers intentionally faking accidents with cheap old cars); once they go up in car they will repeat the process until they hit a point where they simply pull out of the market and go somewhere else instead.

OK, I can see that you do understand that it doesn't really fix anything.

As far as I can see there is no mathematical point where this tactic can stop fraud. One "accident" with 5 people in one car generates enough profit to buy 5 BRAND NEW Dacias with change to spare. These 5 new Dacias can be used to generate enough profit to purchase 25 more dacias...

Dammit, it's all a cunning plan by Dacia! :eek:

dr.fuzzenstein

Special Circumstances wrote: »

OK, I can see that you do understand that it doesn't really fix anything.

As far as I can see there is no mathematical point where this tactic can stop fraud. One "accident" with 5 people in one car generates enough profit to buy 5 BRAND NEW Dacias with change to spare. These 5 new Dacias can be used to generate enough profit to purchase 25 more dacias...

Dammit, it's all a cunning plan by Dacia! :eek:

And I disagree with the reasoning "Ah sure, there's no point leaning on the politicians".
It works out handsomely for a lot of interest groups, it only takes one pub lunch meeting over a few pints and for some insurance "spokesperson" to say "Listen here, your compo culture is making it impossible to run a business here, if you could adjust a few laws to prevent silly payouts, it would be much appreciated"
How is that too much for the insurance companies? Why wouldn't they do it? They can't be this lazy and stupid. (insurances and politicians)

edit:
How else do you think the government is introducing minimum pricing for alcohol that will affect supermarkets, but will leave their dear friends and relatives in the pub trade untouched? If you have the right guy in your pocket, they can bend the market to your needs and desires.

cruizer101

What really needs to happen is simply for the government to take over 3rd party insurance. Have a simple open system, base it on age, years driving experience, previous convictions and any accident history.

I would even say take the car out of the equation, the person is insured not the person and a specific car. Or if including cars keep it simple 20 insurance groups, each one with a multiplier on the base person insurance.

While I hate what the insurance companies are doing, I've a 99 car myself. There is no point in complaining about them, at the end of the day they exist to make profits. The government should step in and take over. But at the end of the day they are happy for people to have to buy newer cars.

jimgoose

Nody wrote: »

...chancers intentionally faking accidents with cheap old cars....

It seems to me that at this rate of knots anything bang-on fifteen years old might get pretty cheap quick enough. What then? Do they end up declining cover to everything ten years old and more? Five years? Only offer cover to respectable ratepayers who have the wherewithal to either purchase a new vehicle outright or have access to finance? This whole thing is a classic wallpaper-over-the-actual-problem approach, and the consumer bedamned. In other words, it is exactly the sort of thing I've come to expect in Ireland. :pac:

TheDoc

Starting to see more and more reports of insurers refusing to quote 15 year old cars. Twitter and Facebook filled with them.

Guy I know on Facebook said he has being refused a renewal quote from his current insurer, and can't get insurance anywhere else, all the ring arounds denied him. 30 days to get insurance sorted or he is going to hit a nightmare in regards his job.

This is mental stuff, for there to be no warning or heads up is outragous.

UnknownSpecies

TheDoc wrote: »

Starting to see more and more reports of insurers refusing to quote 15 year old cars. Twitter and Facebook filled with them.

Guy I know on Facebook said he has being refused a renewal quote from his current insurer, and can't get insurance anywhere else, all the ring arounds denied him. 30 days to get insurance sorted or he is going to hit a nightmare in regards his job.

This is mental stuff, for there to be no warning or heads up is outragous.

The insurance companies involved have explicitly stated this won't happen. If you have a policy with them, they'll renew it.

Two Sheds

From Citizens' Information -

Individual insurers have the right to refuse you cover, but they must provide you with a reason for the refusal should you ask for one.

I was refused online by a well-known provider on the basis that "you don't fulfill our criteria for insurance.... however, under the law we must provide you with a reason for a refusal, if you request one"

I requested.
Their reply - "you don't fulfill our criteria for insurance".

Fuel prices down - insurance prices up. The insurance companies are laughing at us.

TheDoc

dorgasm wrote: »

The insurance companies involved have explicitly stated this won't happen. If you have a policy with them, they'll renew it.

Well not according to what he said, and I'd have no reason to not believe him.

Won't be surprised to see big hikes on premiums for those existing policies in some insurers, as there is nowhere else to go.

I havn't had the same policy with an insurance company for more then a year, I change everytime moving to the best price. Fearful I'll be locked into Allianz, as the only one who will insure my car, and make me pay through the bollox for it.

beauf

If older cars were costing more the premiums should have been creeping up over the years. Our old car has always been very cheap to insure. They can't suddenly have got expensive.

Special Circumstances

beauf wrote: »

If older cars were costing more the premiums should have been creeping up over the years. Our old car has always been very cheap to insure. They can't suddenly have got expensive.

I think the implication is that as car technology improved over the last 30 years, 15 year old cars have gotten more dangerous as time went on - or they would have implemented this ban year ago surely?

I mean, I'm sure they have data to prove that it is definitely the cars are the problem, and that a 00reg car in 2015 is significantly more dangerous than a 1985reg car was in 2000? They have data to back up all these things, even high performance Citroen C5s...

pcardin

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Here driving will be pretty much extreme luxury soon.

I agree completely on your post. It is very depressing to be a car owner, never mind enthusiast, here in Ireland. People are forced to say good bye to owning cars in country that in general has a very sh1tty public transport infrastructure outside main cities.

Back to horses!

beauf

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I think the implication is that as car technology improved over the last 30 years, 15 year old cars have gotten more dangerous as time went on - or they would have implemented this ban year ago surely?

I mean, I'm sure they have data to prove that it is definitely the cars are the problem, and that a 00reg car in 2015 is significantly more dangerous than a 1985reg car was in 2000? They have data to back up all these things, even high performance Citroen C5s...

You reckon a 2000 is going to be that much more dangerous than a 2002 that's it's uninsurable? I seriously doubt it.

Its more likely that new drivers are over represented in old cheap cars. Or they only want the business of cars with higher margins

Special Circumstances

beauf wrote: »

You reckon a 2000 is going to be that much more dangerous than a 2002 that's it's uninsurable? I seriously doubt it.

Its more likely that new drivers are over represented in old cheap cars. Or they only want the business of cars with higher margins

Ah now, several posters here are 100% sure that there is valid data to back up these claims.

(I didn't think my last post needed any rolleyes or winks, I though it was obvious that it was a pistake of the usual insurance industry "explanation" for decisions )

Bongalongherb

Galadriel wrote: »

Yep, I tried about 8 companies and only two would quote me, I actually called FBD to ask why they would not quote me and they said my car did not meet the criteria, they said last week in the news they would not be refusing people on the cars age, well guess that was a big fat lie.

FBD quoted me €723 yesterday and my car is over 15 years old. But Absolute Nonsense No Nonsense wouldn't quote me at all.

beauf

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Ah now, several posters here are 100% sure that there is valid data to back up these claims.

(I didn't think my last post needed any rolleyes or winks, I though it was obvious that it was a pistake of the usual insurance industry "explanation" for decisions )

Lolz my bad.

Galadriel

Bongalongherb wrote: »

FBD quoted me €723 yesterday and my car is over 15 years old. But Absolute Nonsense No Nonsense wouldn't quote me at all.

Strange, cause when I called up today they said my car did not meet the criteria and I said so it's too old and they said yes, my car is 16 years old.

Bongalongherb

Galadriel wrote: »

Strange, cause when I called up today they said my car did not meet the criteria and I said so it's too old and they said yes, my car is 16 years old.

I see. Now the quote I got was online, I didn't ring them, so maybe it would be a different story if I phone them instead. I wouldn't pay that money anyway as it's too dear.

There's not much news at all regarding this important issue out there, it's all very quiet for some strange reason, as this is affecting 250,000 people.

Galadriel

Bongalongherb wrote: »

I see. Now the quote I got was online, I didn't ring them, so maybe it would be a different story if I phone them instead. I wouldn't pay that money anyway as it's too dear.

There's not much news at all regarding this important issue out there, it's all very quiet for some strange reason, as this is affecting 250,000 people.

I did an online quote first and got a 'sorry we cannot quote you', I've full no claims bonus, no claims, no penalty points etc. so I guessed it was in relation to my cars age so I called them to ask why and that's what I was told, strange, what year is your car? mines a 99 Peugeot 306 1.4L

Bongalongherb

Galadriel wrote: »

I did an online quote first and got a 'sorry we cannot quote you', I've full no claims bonus, no claims, no penalty points etc. so I guessed it was in relation to my cars age so I called them to ask why and that's what I was told, strange, what year is your car? mines a 99 Peugeot 306 1.4L

Mine is a 99 Mitsubishi Colt GL 1.3L

ilovesmybrick

Well this is ridiculous. I had to replace an 04 Megane a few months back so got something reliable, a 99 fiesta in great nick, far more reliable and in better condition than the old car. Four months ago TPFT cost me 380, thought I'd see what it would be like now to get quoted, over 1200 now from the same company!

Daaryl

So i done some quotes in a different country to see what difference is there on high powered cars compared to here

* All quotes are third party fire and theft and the age is 20 *

98 Subaru Impreza WRX STi - $675




Nissan Skyline R33 GTST Turbo - $700





Mazda RX7 Twin Turbo - $651

Galadriel

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Mine is a 99 Mitsubishi Colt GL 1.3L

I don;t know what they are playing at so, let me know if you get a reasonable quote anywhere, the two I got where mental and I won't be paying it.

Bongalongherb

Galadriel wrote: »

I don;t know what they are playing at so, let me know if you get a reasonable quote anywhere, the two I got where mental and I won't be paying it.

Will do. Even the 7 years no claims bonus I have is worthless, as every year that I gain an extra no claims bonus it goes up dramatically again.

cruizer101

The thing is this isn't just a new thing, over a year ago when I was looking for renewal a number of companies said the same thing. What was really crazy was that one that I rang said he couldn't quote me as the car was over 15 years, however he did a quote on screen for if I was an existing customer. And while I can't remember the exact figure it was in the region of 700-800. Which wouldn't be a bad quote. It doesn't make sense why it would be an potenetially an alright quote but actully no we won't take you on where as were I a young driver on newer car they would insure but for lots

visual

Guarantee that this latest rip off will result in more cars uninsurance on the roads.

Claims even if higher than other countries is off set by higher premium prices.

But you have to ask where is all the profit going
years ago you got a puncture you changed the wheel. Now it seems most just call out breakdown service. I buy insurance and must get 3 or 4 separate letters all containing similar information when I only need 1 envelop containing the policy and my benefits.

Insurance companies have gotten into the habit every time they need to show higher profits that they return to the well with a bigger bucket problem is the bucket is getting too big to go down the well.

Need to have 3rd party cover provided in the interest of the motorist for compulsory part and let the greedy insurance companies compete for the additional cover. Knowing if they price themselves out of market it hurts their profit.

Two Sheds

I heard Conor Faughnan of the AA interviewed by way of presenting a neutral voice on the facts of car insurance. What a joke! The AA is a major player in the car insurance industry.

It was sickening to hear Faughnan shilling for the insurance companies while the interviewer switched off his brain.

When are the media going to wake up to the fact that the AA does not represent motorists?

dr.fuzzenstein

visual wrote: »

...Knowing if they price themselves out of market it hurts their profit.

That's not how they operate. Jack up prices, doesn't work? Jack up prices. Still doesn't work? Jack up prices. If that doesn't work, proclaim that it's impossible to do business in Ireland, give up and move out. Loudly wonder why your genius strategy hasn't worked.
Rinse and repeat. If you look carefully, you will see many, many examples of exactly that kind of behaviour over the years in Ireland. It's like every single thing any company knows about doing business successfully immediately goes out the window and they just follow "Irish" business rules, outlined above.

Alex Meier

Is this standard practice in other countries (not offering insurance to cars of 15+ years)?

Special Circumstances

Alex Meier wrote: »

Is this standard practice in other countries (not offering insurance to cars of 15+ years)?

Not unless half of Spain Portugal Greece and Italy are going around uninsured. There's still people with Renault 4 as daily drivers in Portugal, and fiat 126 in Italy.

dr.fuzzenstein

Alex Meier wrote: »

Is this standard practice in other countries (not offering insurance to cars of 15+ years)?

Not in Germany, I see lots of websites giving advise about driving 15-20 year old cars. I see no mention of difficulty in insuring older cars.

Daaryl

Alex Meier wrote: »

Is this standard practice in other countries (not offering insurance to cars of 15+ years)?

No because most other countries know that some people don't care for newer cars and would rather drive older cars

Alex Meier

If a decision to not insure 15+ year old cars occurs then who does that benefit?

dr.fuzzenstein

If I wanted to insure this BMW:

http://angebote.autoscout24.de/BMW-323-Benzin-Schwarz-266806089



BMW 323i, 170 PS, 1995, 2.5 liter petrol. That is 20 years old! I got third party online with zero problems with the very first insurance I tried, so the below is my first go.

Special Circumstances

Alex Meier wrote: »

If a decision to not insure 15+ year old cars occurs then who does that benefit?

Dacia, blame Dacia!
with all their beady little eyes
and flapping heads so full of lies
blame Dacia, blame Dacia!

dr.fuzzenstein

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Dacia, blame Dacia!
with all their beady little eyes
and flapping heads so full of lies
blame Dacia, blame Dacia!

They are very successful in Germany and yet look at the quote I got for a 20 year old 2.5 petrol Beemer!
When I see quotes like that I know Irish insurance companies are greedy gombeen arseholes who want everyone to drive a Corolla, Golf or Focus. 1 liter petrol or 1.5 diesel. No older than 10 years.

Nody

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

They are very successful in Germany and yet look at the quote I got for a 20 year old 2.5 petrol Beemer!
When I see quotes like that I know Irish insurance companies are greedy gombeen arseholes who want everyone to drive a Corolla, Golf or Focus. 1 liter petrol or 1.5 diesel. No older than 10 years.

Yes because there is no difference in how much a injury claim costs in Germany compared to Ireland for example or how the legislation is written; no sir it's all down to greedy insurance companies (yet the last company to try to break in on the Irish market ended up going bankrupt somehow, imagine that...)!

dr.fuzzenstein

Nody wrote: »

Yes because there is no difference in how much a injury claim costs in Germany compared to Ireland for example or how the legislation is written; no sir it's all down to greedy insurance companies (yet the last company to try to break in on the Irish market ended up going bankrupt somehow, imagine that...)!

Yes, of course. Whiplash in Germany will net you €2k if it's really bad. "Ouch my neck" will get you €500 if you're lucky.
And I've made that point many times if you read back over the thread.
Still, have to have a rant about Irish insurance companies every now and then. Have you read my 4 wheel theory? It expalins why removing 15 year old cars from the market won't make a blind bit of difference.
But the entire insurance market is fcuked in the head anyway, it's between a lazy, incompetent government, greedy insurers and even greedier chancers who will only jump at the chance to make an easy €20k. All facilitated by a feudal and protected law system.

Special Circumstances

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes, of course. Whiplash in Germany will net you €2k if it's really bad. "Ouch my neck" will get you €500 if you're lucky.
And I've made that point many times if you read back over the thread.
Still, have to have a rant about Irish insurance companies every now and then. Have you read my 4 wheel theory? It expalins why removing 15 year old cars from the market won't make a blind bit of difference.
But the entire insurance market is fcuked in the head anyway, it's between a lazy, incompetent government, greedy insurers and even greedier chancers who will only jump at the chance to make an easy €20k. All facilitated by a feudal and protected law system.

Once again we have the insurance industry and their logical fallacies at work again. "We are correct in saying that the compo setup in ireland is ridiculous, we must also be correct in saying that corollas and Citroen c5 are high performance, and that removing 15yr old cars will resolve a problem"

Nate--IRL--

I can't wait for my premium to come down after all the 15 year old murder machines are off the road.

I mean, driving will be so much safer for everybody right?

Nate

Cookie_Monster

Nody wrote: »

It is not their problem though; that's the key thing most people seem to miss. Their job is to make as much profit as possible for their shareholders (holds true for every company)

can we please dismiss this myth once and for all. The job of a company is to maximise the long term return to shareholders, not generate as much profit as possible. Return does not equal profits alone.

By sacrificing revenue now on perceived potential loses and alienating a big chunk of the public in the process they are endangering future revenue levels and future customers and doing the exact opposite of what they should be trying to achieve.

cruizer101

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

can we please dismiss this myth once and for all. The job of a company is to maximise the long term return to shareholders, not generate as much profit as possible. Return does not equal profits alone.

By sacrificing revenue now on perceived potential loses and alienating a big chunk of the public in the process they are endangering future revenue levels and future customers and doing the exact opposite of what they should be trying to achieve.

That may be what the job of a company is supposed to be but it doesn't mean it is how it is operating. If the CEO can return nice big profits now at the expense of a few years down the line he might not care as he may well be gone.

Regarding endangering future potential profits, the public are a forgetful and fickle lot and just because you couldn't get a quote or got a high one from a company one year doesn't mean a few years down the line if they give a good quote you won't take it.

Chris_Heilong

Alex Meier wrote: »

If a decision to not insure 15+ year old cars occurs then who does that benefit?

well, lets see:
Insurance companies(apparently)
SIMI
New Car Dealerships
The Government

Who will not benefit:
us
the poor
people who dont like public transport
People who like interesting cars and were waiting for them to come down in price

CiniO

Alex Meier wrote: »

Is this standard practice in other countries (not offering insurance to cars of 15+ years)?

In Poland, while there is absolutely no problem obtaining third party cover for any type of car, but most insurers don't issue comprehensive additions (own car damage, theft, fire) for new policies on cars over 10 years old.

dr.fuzzenstein

CiniO wrote: »

In Poland, while there is absolutely no problem obtaining third party cover for any type of car, but most insurers don't issue comprehensive additions (own car damage, theft, fire) for new policies on cars over 10 years old.

Germany seems to operate along similar lines. If you look back a few posts you can see that I was able to obtain 3rd party for a 20 year old beemer on the first website in clicked on. The same car would be near uninsurable here.
It did warn me about having to check with them about fully comp, but at least basic insurance was no problem.

Rosser

Basic fact whether it's popular or not, the insurance industry has not made an underwriting profit since 2008 / 9 which is in the industry blue book. Investment income is non existent so the only game in town is to produce the u/w profit.

RSA under reserved and nearly went bang, Quinn under reserved and went bang, Setanta went bang etc. They under reserved to price at an uneconomic rate to grow market share, their frequency increased proportionate to the new bigger share are they couldn't pay the claims.

We're now paying a bigger levy for Quinn and we'll pay even more when another one goes bang.

Special Circumstances

Rosser wrote: »

Basic fact whether it's popular or not, the insurance industry has not made an underwriting profit since 2008 / 9 which is in the industry blue book. Investment income is non existent so the only game in town is to produce the u/w profit.

RSA under reserved and nearly went bang, Quinn under reserved and went bang, Setanta went bang etc. They under reserved to price at an uneconomic rate to grow market share, their frequency increased proportionate to the new bigger share are they couldn't pay the claims.

We're now paying a bigger levy for Quinn and we'll pay even more when another one goes bang.

But... 15 year old cars caused this how?

Valetta

Rosser wrote: »

Basic fact whether it's popular or not, the insurance industry has not made an underwriting profit since 2008 / 9 which is in the industry blue book. Investment income is non existent so the only game in town is to produce the u/w profit.

RSA under reserved and nearly went bang, Quinn under reserved and went bang, Setanta went bang etc. They under reserved to price at an uneconomic rate to grow market share, their frequency increased proportionate to the new bigger share are they couldn't pay the claims.

We're now paying a bigger levy for Quinn and we'll pay even more when another one goes bang.

This is spot on.

Unfortunately most people don't understand the way the insurance industry works..