Is the Government finally listening to the motorist?

bear1

I've been following this story for a while now:

http://www.thejournal.ie/motor-insurance-oireachtas-committee-2970129-Sep2016/

And it would appear that the Government are finally starting to hear what a shambles the insurance industry is in this country.
50% in insurance costs in 1 year is mental and it shouldn't have even been allowed to get this far before committees are set up to investigate.
With the looming idea that diesel at the pump will slowly increase to match petrol than maybe they could do us all a favour and help save some money.
Does anyone see a shining light coming out at the end of this?

alta stare

Nope as per usual they will bury their heads in the sand......unless it suits themselves of course.

CiniO

IMO car insurance system in Ireland needs total refurbishment - which would change the whole system completely.
Probably basing it on systems in place in Continental EU is a good idea.

bear1

CiniO wrote: »

IMO car insurance system in Ireland needs total refurbishment - which would change the whole system completely.
Probably basing it on systems in place in Continental EU is a good idea.

Which countries would be a good role model? Italy has just as expensive insurance premiums as Ireland for eg.

Jesus.

The only thing I would add is when the chap Griffin explained about the huge premiums involving older cars he perhaps should have brought up the NCT and how its being undermined in many people's eyes because of this.

Bongalongherb

The government have to do something soon, because I can only imagine how many folks are driving now with no insurance to get to work and of which just cannot afford this extortion.

I sold my car 2 weeks ago as I had no choice and could not afford the 100% hike from all insurers, and believe me I tried them all over a full week on the phone and just gave up. Now I'm off the road and using the bus, but now there is no buses working.

Jesus.

Bongalongherb wrote: »

The government have to do something soon.

This is what they told me last week. I put it up in the insurance section

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100862630&postcount=1503

Vic_08

bear1 wrote: »

Which countries would be a good role model? Italy has just as expensive insurance premiums as Ireland for eg.

Car insurance can't be fixed until our legal system is fixed and there is no way the Dail is going to do that.

As long as people can get a fat payout for an un-provable injury from a minor tip then any other solutions are just hot air.

bear1

bear1 wrote: »

Which countries would be a good role model? Italy has just as expensive insurance premiums as Ireland for eg.

Their system is much better though, you insure the car not the driver basically so there is no messing with named drivers etc. You insure the car and anyone with a licence can drive it and be fully covered.

We also need a proper and straight forward way to insure two or more car on the one policy for a reasonable price, i.e. not having to pay a full insurance policy for both cars when you can only be driving one at a time and that if you can even get your no claims bonus on both cars which can be difficult.

kupus

Bria Abundant Bank wrote: »

Their system is much better though, you insure the car not the driver basically so there is no messing with named drivers etc. You insure the car and anyone with a licence can drive it and be fully covered.

A lot of euro countries do this its a lot simpler. but the insurance monopolies in ireland refuse to do this as it would lose them money.

I call them monopolies cos what else do you call competing companies that (allegedly) trade secrets with each other....

munchkin_utd

kupus wrote: »

A lot of euro countries do this its a lot simpler. but the insurance monopolies in ireland refuse to do this as it would lose them money.

I call them monopolies cos what else do you call competing companies that (allegedly) trade secrets with each other....

no, in a lot of european countries the politicans actually legislate during the term of the parliament, whereas in Ireland they quite literally see attending funerals as being more important than shaping the future of the country with inventive and progressive laws to improve the country.

sure it took the crazy green party to reform the shambles that was property management companies and other things relevant to the large amount of people renting in the country - and then they get booted out at the first chance !

Obviously they hadnt attended enough funerals.

skywanderer

Jesus. wrote: »

This is what they told me last week. I put it up in the insurance section

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100862630&postcount=1503

Another reason we should leave the EU, interfering in our affairs every single day. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Ireland will not be a member of the EU in five years time.

CalamariFritti

kupus wrote: »

A lot of euro countries do this its a lot simpler. but the insurance monopolies in ireland refuse to do this as it would lose them money.

I call them monopolies cos what else do you call competing companies that (allegedly) trade secrets with each other....

Oligopoly is what you call them.

munchkin_utd

skywanderer wrote: »

Another reason we should leave the EU, interfering in our affairs every single day. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Ireland will not be a member of the EU in five years time.

well, the EU does not proscribe that Irish courts make CRAZY payments for the most minor of injuiries which is now beginning to take its toll on premiums

the quinn insurance saga (edit: which everyone is paying a levy on their premium to cover the cost of) is also directly linked to Irish government mismanagement and light touch regulation, not down to bureaucrats in Brussels.

nice_guy80

the biggest costs are cases being settled between insurance companies, not the courts

most cases never get near court

CalamariFritti

skywanderer wrote: »

Another reason we should leave the EU, interfering in our affairs every single day. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Ireland will not be a member of the EU in five years time.

The whole point of entering a union of any sort is to draw up a common rulebook that supposedly benefits all. It's hardly interfering when we are part of it and helped drawing up those rules.
One can hardly blame the EU for our messed up legal/claims situation.

As for your 'high degree of certainty' prediction ... You wanna bet on it?

Ah scrap that. We'd only end up derailing this thread.

Btw fair play to Jesus for actually writing that letter. Well done Sir!

Special Circumstances

skywanderer wrote: »

Another reason we should leave the EU, interfering in our affairs every single day. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Ireland will not be a member of the EU in five years time.

Not a hope enda or micheal will take us that way. Unless we are kicked out somehow for defending our tax rates or sinn fein get a majority enda/micheal will continue to say "how high" when juncker or merkel or whoever says jump.

Nate--IRL--

skywanderer wrote: »

Another reason we should leave the EU, interfering in our affairs every single day. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Ireland will not be a member of the EU in five years time.

That's a cop out - blame the big bad EU, coward politicians. If our politicians had the the balls tackle the actual issues at hand (especially Legal System reform) then the problem wouldn't exist. But no, they say "Look over there" "Nothing to do with us" and they do ****ing nothing as usual.

Spineless the lot of them.

Nate

K.Flyer

munchkin_utd wrote: »

well, the EU does not proscribe that Irish courts make CRAZY payments for the most minor of injuiries which is now beginning to take its toll on premiums

the quinn insurance saga (edit: which everyone is paying a levy on their premium to cover the cost of) is also directly linked to Irish government mismanagement and light touch regulation, not down to bureaucrats in Brussels.

Light touch regulation :rolleyes: , where have we seen that before and it also got us into a $hitload of trouble.

CalamariFritti

Ah sure, the EU is great for the local politicians in many ways.

You can blame the EU if you don't want to do something that may be popular and when you do want to do something that's unpopular. For everything else you take credit yourself.

Vic_08

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the biggest costs are cases being settled between insurance companies, not the courts

most cases never get near court

Cases are not usually between insurance companies, they are insurance co v injured party.

The companies settle them because they know what sort of awards courts are likely to give as well as the massive costs the lawyers will heap on top.

Even if they win a case against scamming scummers the cost to an insurance co can be higher than a payout as they cannot recover court costs from the scummers.

The legal system is completely broken, it is a massive gravy train for our legal class who actively oppose any proper reform. It feeds off these inflated and fraudulent cases that provide a continual supply of guaranteed income whatever the outcome.

Until we get a government who is willing to break the criminal parasites and their equally criminal legal facilitators it will be business as usual and the apathetic public will continue to pay.

Special Circumstances

Vic_08 wrote: »

Cases are not usually between insurance companies, they are insurance co v injured party.

The companies settle them because they know what sort of awards courts are likely to give as well as the massive costs the lawyers will heap on top.

Even if they win a case against scamming scummers the cost to an insurance co can be higher than a payout as they cannot recover court costs from the scummers.

The legal system is completely broken, it is a massive gravy train for our legal class who actively oppose any proper reform. It feeds off these inflated and fraudulent cases that provide a continual supply of guaranteed income whatever the outcome.

Until we get a government who is willing to break the criminal parasites and their equally criminal legal facilitators it will be business as usual and the apathetic public will continue to pay.

I hear all these criminal parasites drive cars with yearly ncts (the dirty scum, the cheek of them, ha), surely it wouldn't be that hard to round them up?

Cabaal

skywanderer wrote: »

Another reason we should leave the EU, interfering in our affairs every single day. I can say with a high degree of certainty that Ireland will not be a member of the EU in five years time.

I'd say your ability to be certain is way off the mark,
Ireland will very much be part of the EU in 5 years time.

The issues with the insurance company relate to the Irish Governments decisions and our court systems, the EU didn't make this issue, we did it all on our own.

ebbsy

Thieves and child molesters are treated better than people who don't pay motor tax etc.

This government continues to smash drivers to pieces with yearly nct tests etc.

joeysoap

Cabaal wrote: »

I'd say your ability to be certain is way off the mark,
Ireland will very much be part of the EU in 5 years time.

The issues with the insurance company relate to the Irish Governments decisions and our court systems, the EU didn't make this issue, we did it all on our own.

A few short months ago I would have agreed with you. A few months before that i'd have said UK will remain in EU.

Not 100% certain of the first one now, the gubberment could make enough fcuk ups for people to start questioning the value of EU over the next few years, in common it must be said with other EU countries.

Saying the EU are interfering in our tax affairs but not interfering when it comes to water metres is double speak.

The first domino has fallen........... For the moment all bets are off.

Allinall

ebbsy wrote: »

Thieves and child molesters are treated better than people who don't pay motor tax etc.

This government continues to smash drivers to pieces with yearly nct tests etc.

Ah here.

Posts like that just undermine genuine attempts to understand the problem and try to come up with realistic solutions.

Jesus.

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Btw fair play to Jesus for actually writing that letter. Well done Sir!

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's



That is all

kupus

the only thing that talks is money....

If enough people can get insurance somewhere else in the eu and can drive legally in Ireland then the companies here will change.
Cos otherwise the only thing that will change is time.

Atlantic Dawn

Out of interest are there any EU countries which have government provided third party motor insurance at a fixed fee?

NIMAN

Got my renewal in today, given 3 options
1) 821, 776, or 686 (a very reduced option)

What was mine last year for same car, no accidents, no penalty points, in late 40s, never had a car claim, driving since 93? €342.

Absolute joke.

Went online to see if I could get a few cheaper. Chill throwing back €880 and the highly advertised SuperValu insurance is also 880 (you'd almost think the companies were in cahoots with each other).

Suppose gotta keep looking.

grogi

Bria Abundant Bank wrote: »

Their system is much better though, you insure the car not the driver basically so there is no messing with named drivers etc. You insure the car and anyone with a licence can drive it and be fully covered.

We also need a proper and straight forward way to insure two or more car on the one policy for a reasonable price, i.e. not having to pay a full insurance policy for both cars when you can only be driving one at a time and that if you can even get your no claims bonus on both cars which can be difficult.

You are contradicting yourself...

If you want open policies, you cannot claim that only one car will be driven at a time...

kupus

NIMAN wrote: »

Went online to see if I could get a few cheaper. Chill throwing back €880 and the highly advertised SuperValu insurance is also 880 (you'd almost think the companies were in cahoots with each other).

Suppose gotta keep looking.

They are possibly in cahoots with each other. Two multinational companies decide within hours of each other that they wont insure cars of a certain age.

I know about high level decision making in multi national companies and I know how long it takes for decisions to be made. And those type of decisions are not made within hours.

If that isnt cahoots I dont know what is.

Cookie_Monster

The way it works in NZ is great, but the legal system in Ireland could never cope without dramatic overhaul.

Wiki - New Zealand:
Within New Zealand, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides nationwide no-fault personal injury insurance.[8] Injuries involving motor vehicles operating on public roads are covered by the Motor Vehicle Account, for which premiums are collected through levies on petrol and through vehicle licensing fees.[9]

But despite basic insurance being in fuel and motor tax (rego) a litre of petrol is only e1.24 equiv and my rego on a 3l is only e55
Comprehensive insurance can be got from providers and is cheap as well.

Vic_08

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The way it works in NZ is great, but the legal system in Ireland could never cope without dramatic overhaul.

Wiki - New Zealand:
Within New Zealand, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) provides nationwide no-fault personal injury insurance.[8] Injuries involving motor vehicles operating on public roads are covered by the Motor Vehicle Account, for which premiums are collected through levies on petrol and through vehicle licensing fees.[9]

But despite basic insurance being in fuel and motor tax (rego) a litre of petrol is only e1.24 equiv and my rego on a 3l is only e55
Comprehensive insurance can be got from providers and is cheap as well.

Without a complete overhaul of the legal system and a proven way of stamping out the current compo-culture I would not like that system adopted here, as bad as the current crap fest is at least you can opt out by not having a car.

Bring that in and it would be yet another bottomless pit of taxpayer funded free money for the usual types.

Besides the NZ one has also had issues with escalating costs.

"in 2009, ACC posted a $4.8 billion loss – described as the biggest corporate loss in New Zealand's history. This cost escalation is thought to have been due to an increase in the number of claims, a widening of entitlements and increased costs of meeting the claims"

as per your link.

Also I don't know if a system where even the most reckless muppet can cause a crash and go out buy a banger and be legally on the road with no increase in insurance cost is a very good one, the amount of young lads hooning around NZ in high powered jap imports is unreal.

Cookie_Monster

Vic_08 wrote: »

"in 2009, ACC posted a $4.8 billion loss – described as the biggest corporate loss in New Zealand's history. This cost escalation is thought to have been due to an increase in the number of claims, a widening of entitlements and increased costs of meeting the claims"

that's 7 years ago now though and in the last two years rego has come down nearly 50% because of reforms to ACC and increased profitability.

It's not the perfect system but it is light years ahead of the cluster**** that is insurance in Ireland; but again without a near total overhaul of the entire legal and compensation systems in Ireland it could never work there.

Also I don't know if a system where even the most reckless muppet can cause a crash and go out buy a banger and be legally on the road with no increase in insurance cost is a very good one, the amount of young lads hooning around NZ in high powered jap imports is unreal.

it's not really, not that I've noticed anyway. Yes there are muppets but in my experience at least less here than there are in Ireland in their little ****box glanzas and the like.
Don't even need the jap imports anyway when you can get old 5l v8 holdens and fords for half nothing

bear1

So essentially in NZ your insurance premium doesn't increase if you claim or whatnot it only goes up with the cost of fuel?

hi5

Minister of state Eoghan Murphy is setting up a working group to overhaul motor insurance.
Both long and short term solutions will be sought.
Short term may include 'care not cash' medical bills paid instead of lump sum payout.
A data base to record repeat claimants will also be looked at.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/motor-insurance-settlements-lack-transparency-minister-says-1.2783235

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/national-database-of-bogus-insurance-claims-likely-to-be-set-up-35027673.html

H3llR4iser

Something is royally effed up with the insurance market, and it's not just about the stupidly high payouts - which ARE a problem, I personally know a "long-time-jobseeker-allowance-claimer" who got paid about 25k compensation for a dislocated ankle slipping on a wet Tesco floor; I mean...I'd have understood if it was a 100m dash competitor, rather than somebody sitting on her arse 24/7 watching Coronation Street...

When customers with zero claims and no penalty points get renewals that are in fact a not-so-subtle "PFO" letter, it's clear something is VERY WRONG with the system - the same "data" and "statistics" (which until are publicly shown, do NOT exist - check the Russell's teapot analogy for comparison) that define that person a "safe driver", suddely are twisted on their head to say that person is "due an accident" because it's been "very long". A really, really funny way to spin things around.

The market needs to be heavily regulated yesterday, Ireland is still a largely car-dependant country. In any case, given the current situation, it'd probably reach a critical point very soon where people start getting rid of cars and the companies start finally losing revenue, as there isn't a 1:1 relationship between customers and claims...

BoatMad

It's going to be very difficult to do anything concrete regarding insurance costs.

Ultimately the. State cannot deny people access to the courts not can it regulate awards to the extent that would have a meaningful effect on claims.

All we will see is tricking around at the edges

NIMAN

I got my renewal yesterday, its gone up 250%.

Never had a claim in my life. Closing in on 50 years of age. Drive a standard family saloon.

Insurance is a joke. Why am I getting punished?

H3llR4iser

BoatMad wrote: »

It's going to be very difficult to do anything concrete regarding insurance costs.

Ultimately the. State cannot deny people access to the courts not can it regulate awards to the extent that would have a meaningful effect on claims.

All we will see is tricking around at the edges

There is actually plenty that can be done, both towards the public's attitude and the insurer's operations. Just a the first things coming in my mind:

- Eliminate, completely, cash compensation for soft tissue damage and any kind of non-measurable injury; As in, not a cent in the person's pocket. Provide instead full coverage of medical bills for the time required, and eventual loss of income from professional activities. It would curb fake claims of whiplash and the likes to zero, while still making sure that the genuine cases don't get left out of pocket. Basically, zero possibility of financial gain;

- Force insurers to disclose the means, data and basis of assessment when providing customers with quotes; They are providing a Government-mandated service and thus, said Government needs to keep a close watch on it. This would curb insanely high quotes with no reason whatsoever (e.g. experienced EU drivers being often quoted as much as Irish learners - which is potentially illegal due to the EU non-discriminatory rules), but would also make it extremely difficult for any provider to undercut others massively by the means of underpricing, lowering the likeliness of another Setanta situation;

- Maybe end the "one driver, one policy, one NCB" scheme that has the sole purpose of extracting money from families with young adult / learner drivers children; Basically it was the way insurers found, in the past, to hike a 50-years-old's-full NCB customer's premium by 200% from one year to the other as his/her child turned 17. Seems like they have no need for it anymore anyway...

- Maybe the most difficult, but forbid insurers from throwing every single claim in the same cauldron and effectively offload the costs of recreational and non-mandatory policies on motorists (and subscribers of other legally-mandated policies). E.g. - I don't have to pay for the guy who broke his leg paragliding last Saturday;

Just a few, some feasible some less, but it's not true there's "nothing to do".

Special Circumstances

H3llR4iser wrote: »

When customers with zero claims and no penalty points get renewals that are in fact a not-so-subtle "PFO" letter, it's clear something is VERY WRONG with the system - the same "data" and "statistics" (which until are publicly shown, do NOT exist - check the Russell's teapot analogy for comparison) that define that person a "safe driver", suddely are twisted on their head to say that person is "due an accident" because it's been "very long". A really, really funny way to spin things around.

I've certainly thought this "you're overdue an accident" thing was implied... but has anyone heard this over phone or in writing?

H3llR4iser

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I've certainly thought this "you're overdue an accident" thing was implied... but has anyone heard this over phone or in writing?

Not personally, I tend to get the lame "it's going up all across the board" excuse; A couple of friends swear they've been directly told that, I can't guarantee it's true. But I've heard it mentioned many times.

Anyhow, as you said perfectly, it's practically implied - there's no other reason whatsoever for a company to literally "shoo away" a customer that has been paying through his/her nose for years without a single claim other than "let's run with the money NOW"

grogi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I've certainly thought this "you're overdue an accident" thing was implied... but has anyone heard this over phone or in writing?

Such statement is simply against any probability theory.

Special Circumstances

grogi wrote: »

Such statement is simply against any probability theory.

"Sir I'm afraid we don't insure high performance vehicles such as your HDI citroen C5"

...

The prosecution rests your honour.

Hellrazer

What needs to change is the fact that insurance companies can pull a figure out of their arse when giving quotes/renewals.
Drivers should be rewarded for being a oood driver.Ive no claims,convictions,zero penalty points but yet my premium almost doubled this year.If you have a history/penalty points etc then yeah you should be loaded but not screwed because you might have a crash.

Also there is the fact that an NCT isn't worth the paper its printed on according to the insurers.Whats the point of a "safety" check if it means feck all.I know its only a snapshot in time but it should still be worth something.The government should enforce this alone.If a car has a valid NCT it should not be allowed to be loaded regardless of the year.

Then theres this that I personally tested with numerous insurance companies :
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100684246&postcount=17

How can they get away with this?How can they prove that a 2 week newer car is safer than one two weeks older yet that is what I was told by various insurance companies.
Btw the only difference in the test above was the registration date of both vehicles.Exact same model,engine size etc.Even down to colour.You could literally have swapped both plates around and not told the difference.

See someone needs to take a test case against an insurance company asking them to prove that the older car is less safe.


I don't see it in my job. Id even go so far as to say that older cars are less likely to have huge claims against them especially in 1st party claims.A 2001 focus is worth almost nothing so the claim is almost always just paid out without a repair being done ie the car is written off.Then you have a 2016 that has had all the airbags gone,2 seatbelts extensive front end damage and its repaired at a cost to the insurance of multiple thousands.
Ive a two week old car at the minute with me that's going to be repaired and the bill is going to be probably in the region of 18-20k
Yet that driver has been insured probably at a lower cost than someone driving a 2001 focus.

I don't have any statistics regarding 3rd party claims so Im basing the above on what I see every day but I don't believe that older cars are more responsible for causing more accidents than newer ones.

And whats with 3rd party being more expensive than fully comp??
Surely that should be lower??No last quote I got it was dearer.

When the insurance companies start loosing money you`ll see premiums drop.
Makes my blood boil seeing these vultures screwing with the ordinary motorist.

grogi

Hellrazer wrote: »

What needs to change is the fact that insurance companies can pull a figure out of their arse when giving quotes/renewals.
Drivers should be rewarded for being a oood driver.Ive no claims,convictions,zero penalty points but yet my premium almost doubled this year.

You are rewarded... Your premium increased only twice. Should you have a claim, your premium would increase five-fold...

Hellrazer wrote: »

If you have a history/penalty points etc then yeah you should be loaded but not screwed because you might have a crash.

But that's the whole point of insurance - many people pay money to the insurer because something might happen. And as long as it does not happen, that is a lost money...

In current judicial climate the financial consequences of the crash are much more severe - thus the premium must go up in order to finance the claims.

Also there is the fact that an NCT isn't worth the paper its printed on according to the insurers.Whats the point of a "safety" check if it means feck all.I know its only a snapshot in time but it should still be worth something.

The purpose of NCT is not to guarantee safety. It is to improve safety.

Those safety checks force a minimal maintenance effort on the cars that are on the roads. If it wasn't for NCT, half of the cars now would have corroded break lines and bald tyres.

I don't really mind if an idiot in a non-maintained car kills himself. What I might not like if he hurts himself (and we have to pay for his healthcare, rent etc) or what's even more hurts or kills someone else.

The government should enforce this alone.If a car has a valid NCT it should not be allowed to be loaded regardless of the year.

But there is a significant statistical difference. And that have been evidenced even here - some poster asked if deflating the tyres can help passing the test, because properly fixing the car would cost half of what the car is worth. Such attitude is not something exceptional, Joe Average does not maintain old car because it costs to much compared to the value of the vehicle itself. He just wants to pass the NCT as cheaply as possible.

I have seen multiple times advises like "remove child seats from the car before the NCT". Yes, it will fail if they are not properly secured. But that's exactly a thing I would like to know. I can fix it and have a FREE retest... But not Joe - he just wants to pass.

Then theres this that I personally tested with numerous insurance companies :
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100684246&postcount=17

How can they get away with this?How can they prove that a 2 week newer car is safer than one two weeks older yet that is what I was told by various insurance companies.
Btw the only difference in the test above was the registration date of both vehicles.Exact same model,engine size etc.Even down to colour.You could literally have swapped both plates around and not told the difference.

You are simply touching a corner case - and there always will be one.

The case with old cars is a difficult one - because there are tons of well maintained older cars. And people who own them are being penalized for being friendly to the environment... Yet even more of those cars are just rust on wheels. The bangernomics thread sometimes comes with a "buy it, use it until NCT is valid and scrape it" vibe. No notion of maintaining that car in safe manner...

I don't know, maybe insurers could work with NCT, AA or some other agency to test riskier cars at induction point.

grogi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

"Sir I'm afraid we don't insure high performance vehicles such as your HDI citroen C5"

So that's what you drive... :] I just could not resist...

Jesus.

Grogi whatever way you dress it up, the way insurance has gone on older cars it has rendered the NCT almost meaningless.

Don't be surprised if the average Joe you're complaining about has already decided its a racket and is something that just needs to be ducked or dodged. You can't ask people to be totally compliant with a raft of new regulations etc and then penalise them for doing so. Well you can but they'll rightly rebel against a farcical system.

Whoever's to blame it needs sorting out, not putting the burden on people who've done all they're required to do in accordance with the law.

Hellrazer

grogi wrote: »

You are rewarded... Your premium increased only twice.

Thanks for letting me know that Ive been rewarded.Remind me to send a thank you letter to the CEO of Allianz.Doesnt feel like Ive been rewarded--my arse feels sore.

Should you have a claim, your premium would increase five-fold...

And rightly it should.Ive no arguments about bad drivers being loaded at all.

But that's the whole point of insurance - many people pay money to the insurer because something might happen. And as long as it does not happen, that is a lost money...

But that amount of lost money is going up and up every year despite people being safer drivers ie another years experience without a claim.That should really mean that their premium should at least be static and not go up.

In current judicial climate the financial consequences of the crash are much more severe - thus the premium must go up in order to finance the claims.

See this is where people have it wrong.Its not the litigious climate we are in that's increasing premiums by as much as they are going up by.Legal costs have very little to do with insurance premiums.They account for 5% if even that of increase.


Its the fact that some insurers slashed premiums in the good time,drove out the smaller insurers and now with the market down to a few of the big boys so to speak with a lot less competition and the remanider of them in cahoots with each other in increasing premiums the consumer has no option but to use their companies.
The competition authority would be the first place Id start if I were on that panel investigating the insurance industry.

The other issue is that solicitors are bypassing the PIAB and going straight to court where the payouts are significantly higher. On average the payout is 70% higher.
Again the government should enforce the PIAB as the place to make decisions on personal injuries.

The purpose of NCT is not to guarantee safety. It is to improve safety.

The NCT was introduced to guarantee a "level" of safety in the entire fleet of private vehicle in the country when the vehicle was tested at regular intervals.
That's what it was introduced as.The certificate is even called a certificate of roadworthiness.
The insurance companies have decided together to completely ignore the NCT and its assessment of a vehicle safety.That should be number 2 on the governments hit list ie a vehicle cant be loaded if it has a valid NCT certificate.

Those safety checks force a minimal maintenance effort on the cars that are on the roads. If it wasn't for NCT, half of the cars now would have corroded break lines and bald tyres.

So you are agreeing that the NCT has made these cars safer!!!

I don't really mind if an idiot in a non-maintained car kills himself. What I might not like if he hurts himself (and we have to pay for his healthcare, rent etc) or what's even more hurts or kills someone else.

But that what we are doing.Were paying through the nose for the mistakes/incompetence of other road users despite us ie the people with no claims etc being safer drivers.

But there is a significant statistical difference. And that have been evidenced even here - some poster asked if deflating the tyres can help passing the test, because properly fixing the car would cost half of what the car is worth. Such attitude is not something exceptional, Joe Average does not maintain old car because it costs to much compared to the value of the vehicle itself. He just wants to pass the NCT as cheaply as possible.

I have seen multiple times advises like "remove child seats from the car before the NCT". Yes, it will fail if they are not properly secured. But that's exactly a thing I would like to know. I can fix it and have a FREE retest... But not Joe - he just wants to pass.

Id have to disagree with this.There are people out there that want to pass as cheaply as possible but I thnk they are in the minority but I see the other side of that daily.Ill hand a customer a list of 500+ of work needed to pass an NCT and nearly all of them will get the work done. People used to trust in the NCT but that's being eroded by the insurance companies failure to accept the NCT for what it is.

You are simply touching a corner case - and there always will be one.

No Im not. This is entirely repeatable with multiple makes and models and years.
There are easy ways to prove what the insurance companies are at. Ive had different quotes on the same car/driver/driver details 2 days apart from the same company just using a different name. Same details ie age,ncb,make model,location etc.
Try it yourself. The random number generators in those offices are working overtime lately.

The case with old cars is a difficult one - because there are tons of well maintained older cars. And people who own them are being penalized for being friendly to the environment... Yet even more of those cars are just rust on wheels. The bangernomics thread sometimes comes with a "buy it, use it until NCT is valid and scrape it" vibe. No notion of maintaining that car in safe manner...

See this is the mentality that the insurance companies have aswell. If those so called rust buckets have a valid NCT then that should be taken for what it is ie a valid NCT.
The NCT is being undermined by this mentality.Not just by the insurance companies but by ordinary people.
You shouldn't be able to "pick and choose" whether one NCT is more valid than another NCT and neither should the insurance companies.

I don't know, maybe insurers could work with NCT, AA or some other agency to test riskier cars at induction point.

Exactly--maybe a 6 monthly check at a reduced rate(say 30.00 euros) for cars older than 14 years old.But only if its accepted by the insurance companies for what it is and these vehicles are not allowed to be penalised or loaded with increased premiums

grogi

Hellrazer wrote: »

Its the fact that some insurers slashed premiums in the good time,drove out the smaller insurers and now with the market down to a few of the big boys so to speak with a lot less competition and the remanider of them in cahoots with each other in increasing premiums the consumer has no option but to use their companies.
The competition authority would be the first place Id start if I were on that panel investigating the insurance industry.

If Irish insurance market is such a money cow, we would have seen far more boys and girls wanting to eat this cake...

Hellrazer wrote: »

The other issue is that solicitors are bypassing the PIAB and going straight to court where the payouts are significantly higher. On average the payout is 70% higher.
Again the government should enforce the PIAB as the place to make decisions on personal injuries.

I really don't and hope to never know the details here... But from what I read, the solicitors are just doing their job - trying to get as much money for the clients (and by extension to themselves) as possible. If they did not, they might be facing a misrepresentation claims.

It is the Government and the Parliament responsibility to build a system, which will close those routes.

Hellrazer wrote: »

So you are agreeing that the NCT has made these cars safer!!!

Absolutely, no doubts about that.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Id have to disagree with this.There are people out there that want to pass as cheaply as possible but I thnk they are in the minority but I see the other side of that daily.Ill hand a customer a list of 500+ of work needed to pass an NCT and nearly all of them will get the work done. People used to trust in the NCT but that's being eroded by the insurance companies failure to accept the NCT for what it is.

My observations are definitely biased and my sample is small. But that's what I have seen, even between the wealthier people.

No Im not. This is entirely repeatable with multiple makes and models and years.
There are easy ways to prove what the insurance companies are at. Ive had different quotes on the same car/driver/driver details 2 days apart from the same company just using a different name. Same details ie age,ncb,make model,location etc.
Try it yourself. The random number generators in those offices are working overtime lately.

I must check that then. But I usually don't bother typing my real data into the online systems when looking for best quotes - and usually it does not really mater.

I am definitely not discarding it.

I have seen a different thing - penalizing current customers.
Last year I got my renewal and it was higher than I paid before... But I got quoted for a new policy from same insurer, it was much cheaper. I've called them and ask WTH - "it must be a glitch, we'll renew you with the online price of course"... Glitch my a...se.

Exactly--maybe a 6 monthly check at a reduced rate(say 30.00 euros) for cars older than 14 years old.But only if its accepted by the insurance companies for what it is and these vehicles are not allowed to be penalised or loaded with increased premiums

Yeap.