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

jimgoose

Galadriel wrote: »

I'm still so upset that I have to get rid of my car next month, I could totally accept it if it gave up the ghost but it hasn't, it's running perfectly, I have just paid for a full service and the tax is due in a few days, I honestly don't know what to do, it's hard to make a decision.

Wait, wait, shtall the artic there. Have you tried AXA?

MugMugs

Galadriel wrote: »

I'm still so upset that I have to get rid of my car next month, I could totally accept it if it gave up the ghost but it hasn't, it's running perfectly, I have just paid for a full service and the tax is due in a few days, I honestly don't know what to do, it's hard to make a decision.

Why do you?

There are more than three Insurers in this country.

jimgoose

Special Circumstances wrote: »

"All 13 year old cars automatically become so dangerous as to be uninsurable at 14/15"

"It's the cars not the people and there is no better way to do this"

"Citroen C5 diesel is high performance"

"We have data to support this, honestly"

"Parroting the ridiculous stuff we present as fact is good, demanding evidence or trying to contradict us will have you labelled as misinformed"

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. VAT IS NOT INCLUDED. :pac:

Old diesel

As I understand it the two insurers that made the announcement last week - are saying they will still continue to cover "existing policyholders"

Is that the case or are they going to say one thing "publically" and something else in reality????

Galadriel

MugMugs wrote: »

Why do you?

There are more than three Insurers in this country.

I have tried to get quotes from 10 companies now, only two would quote my 16 year old car and the price for those quotes was 3 times my normal quote.

batskat

Galadriel wrote: »

I have tried to get quotes from 10 companies now, only two would quote my 16 year old car and the price for those quotes was 3 times my normal quote.

I TOLD YOU SO

you wait you ant seen nothing yet in five years from now forget to insure any car older than 10 years old or if they do it will be telephone numbers to insure the car

batskat

Old diesel

Galadriel wrote: »

I have tried to get quotes from 10 companies now, only two would quote my 16 year old car and the price for those quotes was 3 times my normal quote.

Whats your existing insurance companies position on this given that you are an existing policy holder.

And when you say 3 times - what was the "normal quote".

3 x 300 - 900 euros - would be a different proposition to say 3 x 700 which is 2100.

Try a broker perhaps???????

Galadriel

Old diesel wrote: »

Whats your existing insurance companies position on this given that you are an existing policy holder.

And when you say 3 times - what was the "normal quote".

3 x 300 - 900 euros - would be a different proposition to say 3 x 700 which is 2100.

Try a broker perhaps???????

Waiting for current insurers quote, insurance normally 350, the two quotes I got are over a 1000, I won't give up until I try them all though.

Chris_Heilong

As was said, its not the cars or how safe they are,

Mechanical failure causing accidents is one of the rarest forms of accident, most accidents are driver fault, and these drivers that are causing accidents will just get a credit union loan and buy newer 04/05 cars so the danger of a claim remains the same.

Old diesel

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

As was said, its not the cars or how safe they are,

Mechanical failure causing accidents is one of the rarest forms of accident, most accidents are driver fault, and these drivers that are causing accidents will just get a credit union loan and buy newer 04/05 cars so the danger of a claim remains the same.

Exactly - people aren't going to "just stop driving" - they will just buy anything insurable that they can afford.

Its all rather nuts really.

Could all be resolved if there was people in the industry you could have a rational sensible conversation.

But what we will be told is - its a commercial business decision - which to be fair in their eyes it is.

Not sure if theres a way around it - like seeing if theres anyway of promoting the fact that theres careful drivers out there with well minded cars who could be a good business case for a SENSIBLY minded insurance company if the risk can be shown to be low.

Sadly that requires knowledge the normal guy like you and I don't have - and those with that knowledge are either a) going with company policy - or worse - b) are actually driving this policy

Wibbs

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Would it qualify for a classic policy, as annoying as it would be to take a perfectly roadworthy car you enjoy and could use as a daily and relegate it to occasional use?

Sadly not. The insurance companies are changing the goalposts there too. Japanese stuff of that era is out. Even if they're 30 years old. An 80's Group B homologation special like a Ford RS200, or a gazillion litre Ford Mustang fine, 1.6 Honda Civic, no. Clearly a deathtrap. :rolleyes:

Beyond the very real issue of the Irish compo culture and daft awards handed out, the problem with insurance companies here is they paint with a broad and ignorant brush. The classic insurance examples above and others like EG:

Daaryl wrote: »

When i tried to insure my audi, Bear in mind it's only a 100bhp 1.9tdi and they told me it's a high performance car, Are they genuinely retarded

Retarded covers it D. Yours is not the first example of that kinda nonsense I've personally heard of.

Take alarms/immobilisers as another example. Far less an issue these days as cars come with them as standard, but not so long ago they didn't. In the UK, Germany and Spain(that I know of) one section to fill out was the presence of an alarm(still is in the UK) and if you had a TUV/Thatcham approved one fitted you got money off your bill. Naturally, less easy to steal, fewer claims. Here? Oh the section is there alright, but you got nada off regardless whether it was fitted or not, exceptions being very high end cars that require trackers(IIRC some companies insist on them alright).

It has been my impression through the years that outside of 1L econoboxes with forty year old female drivers they were pulling figures out of their arses when it came to quoting. And do not get me started on what was the utter farce of different quotes for men and women. Now of course that 1L econobox better be under 15 years old.

As to the stupid payouts which are a problem, why aren't the insurance companies lobbying hard for this major issue to be addressed? One would think it was majorly in their interest. Especially as the Irish driver is habituated into paying high car insurance, dropping these payouts would mean profits for the companies, certainly reduce their outgoings anyway.

dr.fuzzenstein

Wibbs wrote: »

(...a lot of sense being talked, dangerous stuff altogether...)
As to the stupid payouts which are a problem, why aren't the insurance companies lobbying hard for this major issue to be addressed? One would think it was majorly in their interest. Especially as the Irish driver is habituated into paying high car insurance, dropping these payouts would mean profits for the companies, certainly reduce their outgoings anyway.

I have mentioned this many, many times throughout this thread. One answer was along the lines that it's not the insurance companies job, it's too hard to do, ain't nobody got time for that, they'll just keep whamming up the price and when there's no more money to be made they'll leave this cursed island for untold riches elsewhere.

Now what kind of business model is that? Just accept a defunct market, make no attempt to change it, implement measures you know won't work and in the end just pack it in.
And then berate us that "we wouldn't understand".

jimgoose

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

...And then berate us that "we wouldn't understand".

On that note, where are all our Competent Insurance Professionals? Why, gone off with a howl of "I'm not playin' no more! I'm takin' me ball home wit' me, so I am!"

Could it be that they are but young Ultans and Aoifes with degrees in Arts'n'Gouging, dully doing the bidding of shadowy robbers in glass towers somewhere, all in the name of Havin' a Jerb?? :pac:

Old diesel

So if im interpreting Wibbs post above correctly

1984 Nissan Bluebird - NO classic insurance because its Japanese

Mk 2 Escort - grand insure away as a classic.....

Just to add another spanner in the works - who insures rally cars - and how do they risk assess.

Reason I ask is that under the logic we are dealing with here under the 15 year age thing - you simply wouldn't insure a rally car - too much to go wrong. But SOMEONE insures them....

But WHO and how are they risk assessed.

Bare in mind of course that rally cars range from anything from a 1.3 Nova - right up through Mk 2 Escorts that are HUGELY modified - up to WRC Ford Focus/Impreza/Evo etc.

Obviously the rally car is expensive to insure - but SOMEONE has risk assessed it - and id like to know how that's possible - but our 2001 MINI won't be able to be properly risk assessed at 15 years old.

I get rallying is safe generally - my point is that if you risk assess it - theres a lot of potential for things to go VERY pearshaped.

My apologies if rally cars aren't deemed relevant to the discussion

jimgoose

Old diesel wrote: »

...rally car...

Will you pipe down?? Mentioning those things will have the whole lot of them loading the whole show into gypsy-wagons and high-tailing it outta here on the next boat. :pac:

Wibbs

From what I recall rally cars are insured through specialised brokers and it ain't cheap and they've also got coverage from insurance that the event organiser has to have. And yea if something goes wrong they could change the maps with a crash, but overall their risk is pretty low. EG how many people have died in Ireland as a direct effect of rallying, how many drivers, navigators, employees or spectators. Thankfully it's a tiny number. Far more are killed driving to work or the shops, so that's a higher risk. Solution, drive a rally car on the road. Well you and your passenger will be safe, but the downside would be you'll plough through everything else on the road. Hmmm, yea back to the drawing board there…

UnknownSpecies

Still waiting on a response from one of insurance company apologists about the MINI scenario.

Wibbs

jimgoose wrote: »

On that note, where are all our Competent Insurance Professionals? Why, gone off with a howl of "I'm not playin' no more! I'm takin' me ball home wit' me, so I am!"

I wouldn't blame those folks at the coalface myself. They're just as much trapped within the system as those looking for insurance. Hell, they have to have insurance too. EG look at Business Cat and the rigamarole he had to go through to get his dad insured.

jimgoose

Wibbs wrote: »

I wouldn't blame those folks at the coalface myself. They're just as much trapped within the system as those looking for insurance. Hell, they have to have insurance too. EG look at Business Cat and the rigamarole he had to go through to get his dad insured.

I'm not blaming them. I'm having a little bark at the hypocrisy and ruddy cheek of coming on here trying to defend this sort of blatant blackguarding to the likes of us, and citing Mathematics and suchlike as if they were the only ones to hear of it. Talk about sending the fool farther, like.

Liam McPoyle

dorgasm wrote: »

Still waiting on a response from one of insurance company apologists about the MINI scenario.

Jaysus, you should have sent out a bat signal so one of us apologists could have come running.

:rolleyes:

I agree with the mini scenario in that it isn't fair, my missus drives a mini funnily enough and we always have an effort getting quotes as alot of insurers don't like then and consider them high risk. However, taking any car that goes from being 14 to 15 years old without any other change to risk profile.

I agree 100% that it's ridiculous that an otherwise "model" driver is suddenly deemed uninsurable purely because the car is now one year older.

In an ideal world every driver would be taken on THEIR merits however that is simply not doable for 2 main reasons.

1) There simply isn't enough time in the day to look at hundreds of thousands, hell, millions of policies on an individual basis, I mentioned in a previous post about the time taken to do only a quote, there literally isn't enough time to do it.

2) A bigger reason is that if insurers started looking at people on a one to one basis then before to long there would be discrimination law suits been thrown about left, right and centre.

The system is flawed, it absolutely is and not once have I said it's perfect so I dunno how I've been labelled an apologist, all I've tried to do is provide some understanding about how the industry works and the problems it currently faces.

Alot of these problems stem from the likes of Quinn direct going tits up and the EU "Solvency II" directive which explicitly states that an insurer must have a minimum of (iirc) twice it's current claims estimates in its coffers at all times so if an insurer has €50 million in outstanding claims it has to have at least €100m in cash at all times.

The Irish insurance market is tiny in comparison to some of the countries mentioned on this thread like the UK or Germany, that coupled with the obscene claims payouts and the compo culture that is endemic in Ireland means that sometimes hard decisions have to be taken.

Do people honestly think insurers are happy to see claims free business walk away or be turned down?

Of course they don't, but when a particular class of business is deemed to be loss making then why would they want to keep it on their books, from a business point of view it would make no sense whatsoever.

Sure, some of it isn't loss making and some of it won't be loss making but clearly based on what they have on their books, it's more loss making than not so corrective measures had to be taken to try and stem the flow.

I'd also like to add that I don't work for either of the companies involved in this just in case any of you were wondering.

Bongalongherb

Business Cat wrote: »

Jaysus, you should have sent out a bat signal so one of us apologists could have come running.

:rolleyes:

I agree with the mini scenario in that it isn't fair, my missus drives a mini funnily enough and we always have an effort getting quotes as alot of insurers don't like then and consider them high risk. However, taking any car that goes from being 14 to 15 years old without any other change to risk profile.

I agree 100% that it's ridiculous that an otherwise "model" driver is suddenly deemed uninsurable purely because the car is now one year older.

In an ideal world every driver would be taken on THEIR merits however that is simply not doable for 2 main reasons.

1) There simply isn't enough time in the day to look at hundreds of thousands, hell, millions of policies on an individual basis, I mentioned in a previous post about the time taken to do only a quote, there literally isn't enough time to do it.

2) A bigger reason is that if insurers started looking at people on a one to one basis then before to long there would be discrimination law suits been thrown about left, right and centre.

The system is flawed, it absolutely is and not once have I said it's perfect so I dunno how I've been labelled an apologist, all I've tried to do is provide some understanding about how the industry works and the problems it currently faces.

Alot of these problems stem from the likes of Quinn direct going tits up and the EU "Solvency II" directive which explicitly states that an insurer must have a minimum of (iirc) twice it's current claims estimates in its coffers at all times so if an insurer has €50 million in outstanding claims it has to have at least €100m in cash at all times.

The Irish insurance market is tiny in comparison to some of the countries mentioned on this thread like the UK or Germany, that coupled with the obscene claims payouts and the compo culture that is endemic in Ireland means that sometimes hard decisions have to be taken.

Do people honestly think insurers are happy to see claims free business walk away or be turned down?

Of course they don't, but when a particular class of business is deemed to be loss making then why would they want to keep it on their books, from a business point of view it would make no sense whatsoever.

Sure, some of it isn't loss making and some of it won't be loss making but clearly based on what they have on their books, it's more loss making than not so corrective measures had to be taken to try and stem the flow.

I'd also like to add that I don't work for either of the companies involved in this just in case any of you were wondering.

1) There simply isn't enough time in the day to look at hundreds of thousands, hell, millions of policies on an individual basis, I mentioned in a previous post about the time taken to do only a quote, there literally isn't enough time to do it.

2) A bigger reason is that if insurers started looking at people on a one to one basis then before to long there would be discrimination law suits been thrown about left, right and centre.

Is this the best you can come up with ?.

There simply isn't enough time in the day to look at hundreds of thousands, hell, millions of policies on an individual basis

I already got 3 quotes and they looked at my policy and details personally... 7 years no claims bonus, never had an accident or anything, no penalty points driving 8 years, not a blemish and they know this, but they are charging me €718 the lowest they will go, and I was on €456 thereabouts before, so they are looking at my insurance and have the details, so what is your point ?. Most will not even quote me. The ones that do quote me are just basically ripping me off.

Edit: I was on the phone today for ages with the ones that would quote me and they sure as hell asked me about all my policy details on an individual basis.

Liam McPoyle

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Is this the best you can come up with ?.



I already got 3 quotes and they looked at my policy and details personally... 7 years no claims bonus, never had an accident or anything, no penalty points driving 8 years, not a blemish and they know this, but they are charging me €718 the lowest they will go, and I was on €456 thereabouts before, so they are looking at my insurance and have the details, so what is your point ?. Most will not even quote me. The ones that do quote me are just basically ripping me off.

Edit: I was on the phone today for ages with the ones that would quote me and they sure as hell asked me about all my policy details on an individual basis.

You, as one person, were on the phone for ages, looking for one quote, how then can you not understand what I said/mean about companies not having enough time to quote every one individually considering the time it took you to get a couple of quotes??

Multiply the time spent by you today by the tens of thousands of people looking for quotes every week, there isn't enough time in the day, literally, to quote every single person individually so the two companies concerned have taken the decision to not quote what they deem to be distressed business, on a blanket basis. Part of the reason they have done this is to cut down on time wasting calls, for non target business.

I don't think it can be said much clearer tbh.

dr.fuzzenstein

Business Cat wrote: »

Jaysus, you should have sent out a bat signal so one of us apologists could have come running.

:rolleyes:

I agree with the mini scenario in that it isn't fair, my missus drives a mini funnily enough and we always have an effort getting quotes as alot of insurers don't like then and consider them high risk. However, taking any car that goes from being 14 to 15 years old without any other change to risk profile.

I agree 100% that it's ridiculous that an otherwise "model" driver is suddenly deemed uninsurable purely because the car is now one year older.

In an ideal world every driver would be taken on THEIR merits however that is simply not doable for 2 main reasons.

1) There simply isn't enough time in the day to look at hundreds of thousands, hell, millions of policies on an individual basis, I mentioned in a previous post about the time taken to do only a quote, there literally isn't enough time to do it.

2) A bigger reason is that if insurers started looking at people on a one to one basis then before to long there would be discrimination law suits been thrown about left, right and centre.

So when everyone else gets insured their age, type of car, profession, location is not looked at? Is there no time for that?
How is this suddenly impossible simply because the car went round the sun one more time?
You're saying insurance companies don't look at any details. Why am I being asked my age, sex, date of birth, where I live, what I do, how much I drive, what I drive, how much no claims I have? Is all that ignored? This argument makes no sense. It would take literally no time,

The system is flawed, it absolutely is and not once have I said it's perfect so I dunno how I've been labelled an apologist, all I've tried to do is provide some understanding about how the industry works and the problems it currently faces.

Alot of these problems stem from the likes of Quinn direct going tits up and the EU "Solvency II" directive which explicitly states that an insurer must have a minimum of (iirc) twice it's current claims estimates in its coffers at all times so if an insurer has €50 million in outstanding claims it has to have at least €100m in cash at all times.

You're fairly reasonable in your arguments I think. I may disagree with them, so here we are having a discussion.

The Irish insurance market is tiny in comparison to some of the countries mentioned on this thread like the UK or Germany, that coupled with the obscene claims payouts and the compo culture that is endemic in Ireland means that sometimes hard decisions have to be taken.

Do people honestly think insurers are happy to see claims free business walk away or be turned down?

Of course they don't, but when a particular class of business is deemed to be loss making then why would they want to keep it on their books, from a business point of view it would make no sense whatsoever.

Sure, some of it isn't loss making and some of it won't be loss making but clearly based on what they have on their books, it's more loss making than not so corrective measures had to be taken to try and stem the flow.

I'd also like to add that I don't work for either of the companies involved in this just in case any of you were wondering.

That's the whole point! The compo culture.
I remember that being a problem in the 90's! So the personal injuries board was set up and ads were run about Joe exaggerating his claim and stealing your money with his brass neck brace. Claims examined a bit more robustly, it was all moving in the right direction until a collective decision was taken of "Nah, we're not gonna be arsed about all this anymore" and money became confetti once again to be thrown at everyone with a stubbed toe.
So we need to find out why this compo culture exists. Who benefits, except for dole scroungers who "slip" and are now chasing a €20k payout.
It would have to be the legal profession and the legal system. They are raking it in and have somehow managed to tell the state and the insurance companies "back off here buddies, you're about to piss in our soup".
So we can only presume that the state actively protects the whole scam and have told the representatives of the insurance companies that sadly there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it.

Because:
I absolutely REFUSE to accept that no representative from the insurance companies has ever approached their politician of choice and had a few quiet words in his ear along the lines of "would you ever do something about the lottery for stupidity run by your legal system?"
One would have to guess that the buddies from legal have more of a stake in the government and maybe more photos of various closet bound skeletons, they hold more sway in government policy decisions.
Because there is no reason on God's green Earth that the government is happy to see the compo culture slowly destroy the country, because it's not just cars, but soon it will be impossible to have an amateur sports team, hold any public events, run any kind of business or venue with public access (including government buildings), employ anyone or have any kind of outdoor event, because the insurance bill will run into the tens of thousands. And as soon as one person claims, it will be impossible to get insurance or you can add a zero to the price.
No one can possibly deny that the problem has gotten so massive that it is damaging the country. Someone has the government in their pocket to the tune where they actively ignore the problem.
In years to come there will be tribunals about this that will make the banking inquiry look like a case of shoplifting penny sweets.

Bongalongherb

Business Cat wrote: »

You, as one person, were on the phone for ages, looking for one quote, how then can you not understand what I said/mean about companies not having enough time to quote every one individually considering the time it took you to get a couple of quotes??

Multiply the time spent by you today by the tens of thousands of people looking for quotes every week, there isn't enough time in the day, literally, to quote every single person individually so the two companies concerned have taken the decision to not quote what they deem to be distressed business, on a blanket basis. Part of the reason they have done this is to cut down on time wasting calls, for non target business.

I don't think it can be said much clearer tbh.

These insurers are not quoting the whole Island at the same time the way you seem to think all at once, that's ridiculous.

I don't care for that excuse. I only know how it affects me and many other folk on this thread that did personally talk to insurers on the phone on a one to one basis regarding their policy, and as such it is clear as day that they are all ripping us off. I don't give a crap how busy insurers might be. They need to work harder to up their profits instead of being lazy with the excuse as you said in having to quote every single customer at the exact same time.

More nonsensicals you are trying to eject. I just don't buy your argument.

Edit: I'm getting too frustrated at this stage, so I'll just give it a break for a few more days till I manage something reasonable. No disrespect to you at all, but I really just don't buy your arguments protecting these unjust insurance companies.

Liam McPoyle

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So when everyone else gets insured their age, type of car, profession, location is not looked at? Is there no time for that?
How is this suddenly impossible simply because the car went round the sun one more time?
You're saying insurance companies don't look at any details. Why am I being asked my age, sex, date of birth, where I live, what I do, how much I drive, what I drive, how much no claims I have? Is all that ignored? This argument makes no sense. It would take literally no time,



You're fairly reasonable in your arguments I think. I may disagree with them, so here we are having a discussion.



That's the whole point! The compo culture.
I remember that being a problem in the 90's! So the personal injuries board was set up and ads were run about Joe exaggerating his claim and stealing your money with his brass neck brace. Claims examined a bit more robustly, it was all moving in the right direction until a collective decision was taken of "Nah, we're not gonna be arsed about all this anymore" and money became confetti once again to be thrown at everyone with a stubbed toe.
So we need to find out why this compo culture exists. Who benefits, except for dole scroungers who "slip" and are now chasing a €20k payout.
It would have to be the legal profession and the legal system. They are raking it in and have somehow managed to tell the state and the insurance companies "back off here buddies, you're about to piss in our soup".
So we can only presume that the state actively protects the whole scam and have told the representatives of the insurance companies that sadly there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it.

Because:
I absolutely REFUSE to accept that no representative from the insurance companies has ever approached their politician of choice and had a few quiet words in his ear along the lines of "would you ever do something about the lottery for stupidity run by your legal system?"
One would have to guess that the buddies from legal have more of a stake in the government and maybe more photos of various closet bound skeletons, they hold more sway in government policy decisions.
Because there is no reason on God's green Earth that the government is happy to see the compo culture slowly destroy the country, because it's not just cars, but soon it will be impossible to have an amateur sports team, hold any public events, run any kind of business or venue with public access (including government buildings), employ anyone or have any kind of outdoor event, because the insurance bill will run into the tens of thousands. And as soon as one person claims, it will be impossible to get insurance or you can add a zero to the price.
No one can possibly deny that the problem has gotten so massive that it is damaging the country. Someone has the government in their pocket to the tune where they actively ignore the problem.
In years to come there will be tribunals about this that will make the banking inquiry look like a case of shoplifting penny sweets.

Every thing still has to be looked at of course for business they want but the 2 companies have decided that cars of 15 years or more are no longer target business. There isn't much point going through the process if they simply do not want cars of that age any longer. As i said above, I think the main reason for not quoting individually is to avoid discrimination cases but absolutely the time it would take to go through would also be a factor.

Insurers have and always will have target business, I'm sure any mechanics or motor traders on here could attest to the difficulty of getting quotes due to their occupation, the two companies here are just narrowing their acceptance criteria as is their right to do.

dr.fuzzenstein

Business Cat wrote: »

Every thing still has to be looked at of course for business they want but the 2 companies have decided that cars of 15 years or more are no longer target business. There isn't much point going through the process if they simply do not want cars of that age any longer. As i said above, I think the main reason for not quoting individually is to avoid discrimination cases but absolutely the time it would take to go through would also be a factor.

Insurers have and always will have target business, I'm sure any mechanics or motor traders on here could attest to the difficulty of getting quotes due to their occupation, the two companies here are just narrowing their acceptance criteria as is their right to do.

The problem is, because of the defunct claims system in Ireland, the entire business sector is suffering. Is that not a concern when trying to make a living?
One wonders how the entire business community can sit back, applaud the insurance companies with shouts of "hear! hear!" when they themselves are being damaged by same?
Ireland sometimes does seem like a leaky boat and the staff and passengers are busy re-arranging the deck furniture.
I get what you say and in fact some insurance companies had policies like that for years. NoNonsense would not insure my GF's MX5, because it is a high performance car (no-one there has obviously ever driven one), too old and a convertible.
BUT:
While it is logical that there are companies that cater to different customers (NoNonsense is perfect for me, I drive their dream car, a diesel Focus), it is becoming a worry that suddenly there is a shift to wholesale exclude hundreds of thousands of cars for really no good reason I can see.
There may be data, but the way the data is interpreted seems a little shoddy to say the least.
It's always the same argument:
The cars don't cause the accidents, the drivers are! So now all those dangerous drivers will upgrade to 10 year old cars, will 10 year old cars be found dangerous now?
The government should have a responsibility here, because I am willing to bet my hard-earned no claims bonus that at least 10% of those drivers who cannot get insurance and cannot switch cars will simply drive without insurance. Expect MIBI to be paying out a hell of a lot more.
I simply am baffled how the entire country stands by while this is happening and says "Anyway, did you see that match last night?"

FishOnABike

Business Cat wrote: »

You, as one person, were on the phone for ages, looking for one quote, how then can you not understand what I said/mean about companies not having enough time to quote every one individually considering the time it took you to get a couple of quotes??

Multiply the time spent by you today by the tens of thousands of people looking for quotes every week, there isn't enough time in the day, literally, to quote every single person individually..

If only someone could invent some whizzicaal elictrickle electronical computerimified thingamaboby that could automate most of the process and do it much faster and more efficiently.:rolleyes:

Pov06

FishOnABike wrote: »

If only someone could invent some whizzicaal elictrickle electronical computerimified thingamaboby that could automate most of the process and do it much faster and more efficiently.:rolleyes:

The problem is a computer cannot generate random numbers as well as an insurance company :pac:

mikedoherty99

No problem here, was expecting a huge shock after following this

99 1.3 with TPFT, windscreen cover and breakdown assist came in about 430


Jump of about 10euro

dr.fuzzenstein

mikedoherty99 wrote: »

No problem here, was expecting a huge shock after following this

99 1.3 with TPFT, windscreen cover and breakdown assist came in about 430


Jump of about 10euro

What car, what insurance?

FishOnABike

Pov06 wrote: »

The problem is a computer cannot generate random numbers as well as an insurance company :pac:

Indeed. Sometimes the insurance industry seems to have more than a passing resemblance to the dodgy trades person who sizes up your address, looks at the car in the driveway and takes a deep inward breath whistling through their teeth before sighing, "It's not going to be cheap guv" and picking as high a figure as they think they can get out of you as possible without any relationship to the actual cost of the service provided.

mikedoherty99

dr.fuzzenstein, tein wrote: »

What car, what insurance?

Mitsubishi COLT GL one direct , same as another poster here

Liam McPoyle

FishOnABike wrote: »

If only someone could invent some whizzicaal elictrickle electronical computerimified thingamaboby that could automate most of the process and do it much faster and more efficiently.:rolleyes:

Oh dear, someone didn't have their brain medicine today.

When someone rings a call centre all the details have to be MANUALLY ENTERED by the agent, unless you know a better way for the agent to get all the callers details and go through the underwriting process that is?

Have you perchance mastered mind reading?

Maybe practice that instead of making stupid attempts at being funny, mmmkay.

dr.fuzzenstein

Business Cat wrote: »

Oh dear, someone didn't have their brain medicine today.

When someone rings a call centre all the details have to be MANUALLY ENTERED by the agent, unless you know a better way for the agent to get all the callers details and go through the underwriting process that is?

Have you perchance mastered mind reading?

Maybe practice that instead of making stupid attempts at being funny, mmmkay.

So how much more has to be entered? Does the question "age of car" not get asked for cars <15 years old?
MANUALLY ENTERED is not a more valid argument just because it's in caps and also because no more information is entered.
What extra information do you speak of? What extra has to be entered? It's all there!
Age, sex, car, address, previous claims history, age and make of car, agent puts it into computer and whizz bang! There's a quote!
The is NO extra work involved, this whole argument of "But it would take HOURS to enter the age of the car into the computer!" is absolute nonsense. Where does the extra work come from? You already get asked what you had for breakfast 15 years ago.

I buy the argument that insurers (misguided and idiotic as they are) are looking for a quick fix to their profit margin, but THIS AIN'T IT!

edit:
It's like saying: a customer walks into a shop. He buys a carton of milk, a loaf or bread and a tin of sardines. He gets to the counter and also picks up a Snickers. He then gets thrown out of the shop "Because there is no time for all that"

Bongalongherb

Business Cat wrote: »

Oh dear, someone didn't have their brain medicine today.

When someone rings a call centre all the details have to be MANUALLY ENTERED by the agent, unless you know a better way for the agent to get all the callers details and go through the underwriting process that is?

Have you perchance mastered mind reading?

Maybe practice that instead of making stupid attempts at being funny, mmmkay.

I thought you said earlier that they are way too busy to answer everyone's calls for quotes.

all the details have to be MANUALLY ENTERED by the agent

It's like trying to put a Jigsaw together with your comments.

Liam McPoyle

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The problem is, because of the defunct claims system in Ireland, the entire business sector is suffering. Is that not a concern when trying to make a living?
One wonders how the entire business community can sit back, applaud the insurance companies with shouts of "hear! hear!" when they themselves are being damaged by same?
Ireland sometimes does seem like a leaky boat and the staff and passengers are busy re-arranging the deck furniture.
I get what you say and in fact some insurance companies had policies like that for years. NoNonsense would not insure my GF's MX5, because it is a high performance car (no-one there has obviously ever driven one), too old and a convertible.
BUT:
While it is logical that there are companies that cater to different customers (NoNonsense is perfect for me, I drive their dream car, a diesel Focus), it is becoming a worry that suddenly there is a shift to wholesale exclude hundreds of thousands of cars for really no good reason I can see.
There may be data, but the way the data is interpreted seems a little shoddy to say the least.
It's always the same argument:
The cars don't cause the accidents, the drivers are! So now all those dangerous drivers will upgrade to 10 year old cars, will 10 year old cars be found dangerous now?
The government should have a responsibility here, because I am willing to bet my hard-earned no claims bonus that at least 10% of those drivers who cannot get insurance and cannot switch cars will simply drive without insurance. Expect MIBI to be paying out a hell of a lot more.
I simply am baffled how the entire country stands by while this is happening and says "Anyway, did you see that match last night?"

Of course it is a massive concern and it is something that is being addressed. Insurance link (a system that insurers can check individuals claims history with other insurers) is good but the problem is that repeat offenders are incredibly devious in what they do. I remember dealing with an individual in my first job - non Irish licence holder with sketchy at best explanations for his driving history - I did not quote him. Over the course of a couple of months he called back approx 10 times trying to get a quote, each time changing the spelling of his name slightly. I saw another guy that had a claim with a company for €30 odd grand call back to the same company and get a new policy by giving his name in Irish as opposed to the English spelling used in his last policy. It was nothing but pure pot luck that the girl he was dealing with smelled a rat - he didn't argue over the premium and wanted cover straight away - so she did some searching using his date of birth and phone number and lo and behold the previous policy popped up with red flags aplenty on it.

Nate--IRL--

Business Cat wrote: »

Oh dear, someone didn't have their brain medicine today.

When someone rings a call centre all the details have to be MANUALLY ENTERED by the agent, unless you know a better way for the agent to get all the callers details and go through the underwriting process that is?

Have you perchance mastered mind reading?

Maybe practice that instead of making stupid attempts at being funny, mmmkay.

I believe there these things called websites that allow prospective clients enter in their details, all without taxing the poor over worked Insurance agent.

Nate

Liam McPoyle

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So how much more has to be entered? Does the question "age of car" not get asked for cars <15 years old?
MANUALLY ENTERED is not a more valid argument just because it's in caps and also because no more information is entered.
What extra information do you speak of? What extra has to be entered? It's all there!
Age, sex, car, address, previous claims history, age and make of car, agent puts it into computer and whizz bang! There's a quote!
The is NO extra work involved, this whole argument of "But it would take HOURS to enter the age of the car into the computer!" is absolute nonsense. Where does the extra work come from? You already get asked what you had for breakfast 15 years ago.

I buy the argument that insurers (misguided and idiotic as they are) are looking for a quick fix to their profit margin, but THIS AIN'T IT!

It's in caps because the previous poster said that computers should be able to speed up the process, the process cannot happen without the details been entered, you get me? People are saying that every one should be treated individually, I'm saying that it's not feasible to do that given the volume there would be so the companies stop the process at a given point based on the information given e.g. claims experience, licence type etc.

One of the first questions asked would be age of vehicle, I'm presuming that when the caller gives the reg and it's more than 15 years then the call can't be proceeded with.

I'm on mobile at the moment so it's difficult to answer fully but I might try in the next few days to give better answers.

dr.fuzzenstein

Business Cat wrote: »

Of course it is a massive concern and it is something that is being addressed. Insurance link (a system that insurers can check individuals claims history with other insurers) is good but the problem is that repeat offenders are incredibly devious in what they do. I remember dealing with an individual in my first job - non Irish licence holder with sketchy at best explanations for his driving history - I did not quote him. Over the course of a couple of months he called back approx 10 times trying to get a quote, each time changing the spelling of his name slightly. I saw another guy that had a claim with a company for €30 odd grand call back to the same company and get a new policy by giving his name in Irish as opposed to the English spelling used in his last policy. It was nothing but pure pot luck that the girl he was dealing with smelled a rat - he didn't argue over the premium and wanted cover straight away - so she did some searching using his date of birth and phone number and lo and behold the previous policy popped up with red flags aplenty on it.

Hopefully so, but it seems the quick settlement is the preferred way, whatever is the quickest ,easiest way of just getting rid of the claimant with the least amount of fuss.
There was a program on Uk telly about bogus insurance claims. An elderly woman had very gently tipped into a parked car. There was no damage to either car.
The guy in the parked car claimed for severe whiplash, inability to work, his car being written off and medical expenses.
His claim came to (wait for it!) not even £6k!
Insurance went to court and contested the claim using CCTV footage obtained from shops in the area that happened to capture the accident.
My feeling is, in Ireland this wouldn't even have gone to court. The opposing insurance company would have immediately settled for tens of thousands and the driver of the car would not even have known about this claim until the renewal letter came in and the premium had tripled. We hear way too many stories of this kind in this section.

Liam McPoyle

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

I believe there these things called websites that allow prospective clients enter in their details, all without taxing the poor over worked Insurance agent.

Nate

But how can a website grade someone individually, which is what people on here are saying should happen?

Unless Skynet has been developed and there is a fully sentient quote engine out there to look at every single person on a case by case basis then the people that want to be looked at as an individual will have to ring a call centre and talk to a poor over worked insurance agent.

FishOnABike

Originally Posted by FishOnABike
If only someone could invent some whizzicaal elictrickle electronical computerimified thingamaboby that could automate most of the process and do it much faster and more efficiently.

Business Cat wrote: »

Oh dear, someone didn't have their brain medicine today.

When someone rings a call centre all the details have to be MANUALLY ENTERED by the agent, unless you know a better way for the agent to get all the callers details and go through the underwriting process that is?

Have you perchance mastered mind reading?

Maybe practice that instead of making stupid attempts at being funny, mmmkay.

Well I can't recall the last time I rang a call centre to renew my insurance and it's not because I didn't have my brain medicine today. Hint the world wide web has been around for the best part of a quarter of a century now.

I've done it online for as long as I care to remember. The manual input is distributed to the customers themselves no need for mind reading call centre staff. The back end processing can all be done by computer far more efficiently than any human could.

The motor insurance industry is so farcical that you've either got to laugh at it or cry about it.

Nate--IRL--

Business Cat wrote: »

But how can a website grade someone individually, which is what people on here are saying should happen?

Unless Skynet has been developed and there is a fully sentient quote engine out there to look at every single person on a case by case basis then the people that want to be looked at as an individual will have to ring a call centre and talk to a poor over worked insurance agent.

Are you joking? Risk calculation is Mathematics??? A computer would be infinitely quicker than a person to calculate risk.

Nate

dr.fuzzenstein

Business Cat wrote: »

But how can a website grade someone individually, which is what people on here are saying should happen?

Unless Skynet has been developed and there is a fully sentient quote engine out there to look at every single person on a case by case basis then the people that want to be looked at as an individual will have to ring a call centre and talk to a poor over worked insurance agent.

Don't insurance companies already grade by age and type of car?
A 5 year old A4 will be a lower risk than a 10 year old, why is it beyond their computers to calculate the same for a 15 year old model?
No wait, they do!
An Impreza will be a higher category than an A4, whatever the age.
So the mechanism and data is there, the insurers have simply decided to guillotine everything 15+.
So in fact THAT is one more step. The "too much bother" argument doesn't fly.

It's like going into a shop, picking up three items, going to the till "and a Mars bar please" and be answered back with "Get out of my shop!"

delthedriver

Lies, damn lies and statistics.............;)


Statistics produced by Actuaries ( Accountants without a sense of humour !)


The same profession involved in looking after your pension.


Perhaps it is time for an Insurance Enquiry?????

Bongalongherb

Business Cat wrote: »

But how can a website grade someone individually, which is what people on here are saying should happen?

Unless Skynet has been developed and there is a fully sentient quote engine out there to look at every single person on a case by case basis then the people that want to be looked at as an individual will have to ring a call centre and talk to a poor over worked insurance agent.

Well last year and all previous years were grand doing an online quotes for myself, never had a problem...

I did the quote online to many insurers and answered and input all details and 'Bing' my quote pops up for TPFT at €456 the best deal I found from 14 different insurers and brokers.

I rang the insurance folks regarding my delight of this quote and the personal one on one communication between us both was good. I told the lovely lady that I was happy with this online quote of €456 and I asked her can she lower it a bit if possible ?, she took €20 off this quote and that was it.

The only thing she asked me again was... have I had any endorsements in the last 5 years and I said no, and she said grand, send a copy of your license and NCB into us and that will be it.

Why was this so easy like it was last year and 7 years before ?. They always gave me the quote I got online and a tiny bit off as haggle.

Your comment in bold above doesn't hold water.

Sh1tbag OToole

It can be a business decision or not, but the big difference with car insurance is that we are legally required to depend on these companies or face massive fine and be described as scum on boards.ie, so for that reason it isn't really right that a group of these companies would have the right to gang up on the owners of cars over a certain age. After all their business would not exist if it wasn't for the government making car insurance compulsory and enforcing third party claims

Boskowski

Here is what I don't understand about what someone said about car insurance risk classes.

For example I have to provide a ton of information when I sign up for car insurance. My age, my job, my address, my type of license, how long I have it, convictions, penalty points, how many kilometres per year, use of car, named driver (partner), how many years I had no claim etc to name just the most common stuff. Thats a lot of individual information to put me in a risk class as a person/driver. Plus I have been with them in previous years with no claims.

Then there is the age of my car.

So I'm still sitting in the same car you insured me last for say €350. I'm still the same guy, same address, same spouse, same job, same license, same everything, just one more year claims free and my car is one year older.

So the age of he car overrules everything else and all of a sudden I'm uninsurable? Call me an ignorant layman but it doesn't add up.

To Elland Back

What people are asking for here is individual assessment and it cannot happen. With these 2 insurers, this is the way it happens

What is the age of the car?
Answer: 16 year
Result: No quote, next.......

People here seem to think Insurers have the time, technology or inclination to go in to minute detail. Example;

So your car is 16 years old, is it in good condition?
Answer; Great nick

So when was it last serviced?
Did you service it yourself or was it a main dealer or was it an independent mechanic?
What is the depth of thread on the tyres, NCT minimum or brand new?
Have you any children approaching driving age that you're going to ask us to cover under the policy soon?
Have you checked lately that spare parts are still available for your car\?

Do you see where this is going? This is just on the age of the car. There are other underwriting criteria where you could easily go in to equal depth, such as occupation variables, location, where and when you do most of your driving etc.

Unfortunately, we must all fit in to broad boxes and if those boxes are a problem, everyone gets hit. It may not be fair but 'a plague on all your houses' is how insurers deal with a category that is hurting them

As for this topic, no insurer has said that 15+ year old cars are dangerous, it is the use that some sectors are using them which is the bulk of the problem. And we all pay the price for that. We are a litigant nation these days

Boskowski

To Elland Back wrote: »

What people are asking for here is individual assessment and it cannot happen. With these 2 insurers, this is the way it happens

What is the age of the car?
Answer: 16 year
Result: No quote, next.......

People here seem to think Insurers have the time, technology or inclination to go in to minute detail. Example;

So your car is 16 years old, is it in good condition?
Answer; Great

So when was it last serviced?
Did you service it yourself or was it a main dealer or was it an independent mechanic?
What is the depth of thread on the tyres, NCT minimum or brand new?
Have you any children approaching driving age that you're going to ask us to cover under the policy soon?
Have you checked lately that spare parts are still available for your car\?

Do you see where this is going? This is just on the age of the car. There are other underwriting criteria where you could easily go in to equal depth, such as occupation variables, location, where and when you do most of your driving etc.

Unfortunately, we must all fit in to broad boxes and if those boxes are a problem, everyone gets hit. It may not be fair but 'a plague on all your houses' is how insurers deal with a category that is hurting them

As for this topic, no insurer has said that 15+ year old cars are dangerous, it is the use that some sectors are using them which is the bulk of the problem. And we all pay the price for that. We are a litigant nation these days

Not sure if directed at my post. If it is, so if no individual rating can be done why do I have to provide all that information?

Edit: And I'm not even talking about individual rating. The question is why is the age of my car so much more relevant than all the other personal information that seems very relevant to put me into a risk class as a driver/person. After all its not the car thats causing the claim, its the driver.

Bongalongherb

All that the insurance company websites have to do is add a tiny bit of code to their already atrocious websites on the front page of car insurance stating... If your car is over 15 years old don't bother as you will not be quoted. Simple code instruction implemented on their own websites and job done, saving many many folk having to input all their details only to get a rejection at the very end.

Having folk waste their valuable time inputting all this information online now compared to the easy quick quote way the last past years is un-professional from almost all insurance websites. Just bloody say it on the main page so at least then the person won't waste their valuable time ponsing around.