Is the Government finally listening to the motorist?

hi5

Its nothing to do with whether the car has an NCT or not, it's about the value of the car.
Insurance companies are penalising old cars not because they may be faulty but because they say older cars are used in fraudulent scams because of their low value.
Also because owners of low value cars will not be as careful in general.

Insurance need to show statistical breakdowns to back up their claims.

nice_guy80

Stop lawyers going through courts for personal injury claims

Put them all through injury claims board, set mandatory fees payable.
Lawyers will still get paid, just not chase court settlements

H3llR4iser

grogi wrote: »

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

Conversely, if it was the bloodbath insurers would make us believe, we'd see them leaving the business left, right and centre - especially as many of them are actually foreign based private companies, who are under no obligation to provide a specific service in Ireland. They could let all the policies lapse, offering no renewals, and leave the market - just as some of the smaller players (Clements...) did. If they find it "difficult to make ends meet" and there were safer and more stably profitable businesses in other fields or countries, they'd go for them instead.

The reality is that the Irish motor insurance market is one of the least regulated in Europe, they can literally do whatever they want; There are zero provisions in the law to harmonize or calm the prices, we see things like two drivers of the same age, experience, NCB and driving the same car getting wildly different quotes from the very same insurer. That alone is proof that there's quite a bit of "funny stuff" happening in the background.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Stop lawyers going through courts for personal injury claims

Put them all through injury claims board, set mandatory fees payable.
Lawyers will still get paid, just not chase court settlements

As I said before, non-measurable injuries should not be allowed to generate claims, end of the story. Medical expenses cover and loss income protection, sure - but make it so that nobody can make a stash of money by saying "my neck hurts". As it stands, it's too easy for most people to resist; If you search the 'netz, there are plenty of international studies who demonstrate a curious effect - injuries like whiplash are almost never lamented where more serious, measurable ones like a fracture are present...

Hellrazer

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.

Just quoting myself here.
This is great news for the motorists that the competition authority are now getting involved.

bear1

Hellrazer wrote: »

Just quoting myself here.
This is great news for the motorists that the competition authority are now getting involved.

I just saw that story now.
Great news indeed and I'm glad they are taking this seriously.
Wonder what will come of it.

Special Circumstances

bear1 wrote: »

I just saw that story now.
Great news indeed and I'm glad they are taking this seriously.
Wonder what will come of it.

A sub committee has been formed to generate a report outlining the possible terms of reference, staffing requirements and lines of communication for the investigation itself. This report will be presented to the task force and reviewed, before being handed over to the action group for presentation to the steering committee.

Progress is expected to be brisk, they have already narrowed down the choice of meeting nibbles to kitkats OR hobnobs and expect a concrete decision to be made between the two before the October bank holiday.

Irish Steve

It would help if there was a proper analysis of accidents and claims, to include things like location, type of road, time of day, age of driver, number of people in vehicle and their ages, age of vehicle, engine size, type of journey, type of vehicle, NCT status, driver insurance history (number of years no claim and number of years driving experience), results of drink and drug impairment tests, third party involvement (pedestrians, cyclists etc) and the premium paid by the insured, with the information being a mandatory provision, from all insurers, and released into the public domain, so that a real analysis of the spread and cost of claims could be analysed.

I suspect that an independent analysis of all of the returns would be more than revealing, and show some very significant distortions in the relationship between the cost of the insurance and the payments made as a result of the claim, and I would not be surprised to see some very unexpected distortions in the location and type of claims, both in terms of time of day, and type of road.

There are a couple of other things that are factors that should be in the list above, but these will be political dynamite, they are for sure factors, and they are the age of the driver, and the quality of the driver's eyesight, both of which are very poorly regulated and monitored at present, but they are most definite factors in a significant number of accidents, especially at junctions, where misjudging speeds can and do cause huge problems.

Maybe another option would be that if a driver is involved in an accident above a certain threshold of severity, their licence should be suspended until such time as they have either attended and passed a driving standards refresher course, or taken a repeat driving test, so that there is an incentive to actively avoid accidents, as being involved with one will have consequences, the present system does very little to encourage defensive driving.

kupus

Dialogue between competition authority and multinational insurance head honchos.

Shure you can't be doing that Barry, tisnt fair to the people. And you making all them profits and sthuff.
And shure why not Ann, it's a free market. Tis the whole point of it shaft the lil people for all their worth. Shure isn't everybody else doing it as well.
I know Barry but cmon on for a second. Yere taking the piss completely didn't you and your competition have a lovely chat so ye don't have to insure old cars.
You can't be saying things like that Ann those meetings were never recorded and shure I don't like the auld bollix anyway. He wouldn't give me a gimme at the last captains prize and I ended up 23 under for the competition.

Anyhow How are the kids Ann
grand Barry, all grown up now flying the nest. All of them finished in ucg and trinity and ul. One is going to Uganda to help the repressed. One is going to Haiti to help the homeless and one is going to South Africa to help the poor.
Things are a bit tight still Barry, Paddy had to take a bit of a pay cut from the charity he owns but we will survive we,ll probably have to sell the holiday home in Connemara but we,ll keep the one in kinsale. And shure we always have the one in Marbella anyway. Tis better sunshine and a better class of people than them Connemara locals.
I know Ann them connies can be a quare breed all right. They'd be like them achill Islanders where I have the weekend house. Jesus thieir eyes all awful close together. The wife has a couple of apartment complexes in Donegal as well and them lads have the hairiest arms I've ever seen. Tis madd altogether when you go pass the Shannon. Hard to believe that we are all Irish isn't it. It's like a different country.

About the kids Ann, shure I've a friend that works for the Clinton news network in Haiti, I can get them set up after they've finished helping all them poor homeless there. In Uganda I've a friend in the oil business I can set them up in a cushy number there. And shure in South Africa, we virtually own the place thru our mining division.
Jaysis Ann they'll get great expiernce helping them poor people and a job with my friends after, and then they can all come home and maybe set up their own family charity business.
That's mighty Barry thanks for doing all that. And just to let you know my contract with the Competition authority is nearly up. Any chance of anything popping up in your big insurance company shortly.
Don't you worry Ann I'll let you know what to do when the time comes.

Jesus Barry is that the time. I'd better get back to work. Listen I forgot, did I tell you that you can't be doing that?
You did Ann.
well that's fair enough so Barry at least I tried.

Talk to you later Ann, and shure stop by and we,ll go for a coffee in that new place beside grafton st.

B00MSTICK

Did anyone see/hear anything from the oireachtas discussion yesterday?

There's another at 11 today: http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/oireachtasbusiness/committees_list/fpert-committee/

No idea if it will be any use, probably just used to push whatever political agenda...

Someone from the injuries board will be on apparently so I'd be interested to see what is discussed, I know many feel the payouts are a joke and the injuries board have had a part to play in this.

H3llR4iser

B00MSTICK wrote: »

Did anyone see/hear anything from the oireachtas discussion yesterday?

There's another at 11 today: http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/oireachtasbusiness/committees_list/fpert-committee/

No idea if it will be any use, probably just used to push whatever political agenda...

Someone from the injuries board will be on apparently so I'd be interested to see what is discussed, I know many feel the payouts are a joke and the injuries board have had a part to play in this.

Well, looks like a bit of the proverbial sh1ite is starting to hit the fan:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/awards-for-car-crash-claims-stable-for-past-six-years-board-says-1.2790882

So, first news in, insurers lie to customers on the price hikes being due to "an increase in payouts". Surprise, surprise.

Sue Pa Key Pa

kupus wrote: »

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.

There is nothing to stop that. However, if you think you will persuade another EU Insurer to deal with Irish claimants, under Irish jurisdiction with Irish costs and (allegedly) Irish scammers and STILL offer the premiums they charge in their home Countries, you're on a fool's errand.

There is a reason FOREIGN EU Insurers, such as Aviva, Allianz, AXA, AIG, Zurich, Royal Sunalliance etc. charge different premiums in different territories.

As long as the provision of compulsory motor insurance remains in the private sector, the cost will always be;

Claims + Costs + Profit = Premium

If you want lower premiums, you have to tackle some or all 3 of the rating factors. Either that or have the system State run and subsidised

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

There is nothing to stop that. However, if you think you will persuade another EU Insurer to deal with Irish claimants, under Irish jurisdiction with Irish costs and (allegedly) Irish scammers and STILL offer the premiums they charge in their home Countries, you're on a fool's errand.

There is a reason FOREIGN EU Insurers, such as Aviva, Allianz, AXA, AIG, Zurich, Royal Sunalliance etc. charge different premiums in different territories.

As long as the provision of compulsory motor insurance remains in the private sector, the cost will always be;

Claims + Costs + Profit = Premium

If you want lower premiums, you have to tackle some or all 3 of the rating factors. Either that or have the system State run and subsidised

Investments.
Why are the bad returns on poor investments always forgotten?
Not mentioned in recent newspaper quotes from insurers.
Not mentioned 123.ie explanation page on site despite mentioning far far far far less important factors (car jacking increased 75%!!!!OMG!).
Rarely mentioned by insurance people here - far more allegations of scummers and scammers having the audacity to drive older cars.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Investments.
Why are the bad returns on poor investments always forgotten?
.

Covered in 'profits' in my calculation.

When insurers were making mega profits on their investments, they were able to use them to offset against claim costs and offer low premiums. Now they are not making money on investments, that lost revenue must come from the premium. I never said it was fair

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Covered in 'profits' in my calculation.

When insurers were making mega profits on their investments, they were able to use them to offset against claim costs and offer low premiums. Now they are not making money on investments, that lost revenue must come from the premium. I never said it was fair

And you're willing to acknowledge them which is fair enough.
They seem to be absent from a lot of explanations or at least hidden "we have seen some losses recently, aaaand moving swiftly along to those despicable 15 year car drivers well janey mac if they aren't bleeding us dry altogether"

grogi

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Well, looks like a bit of the proverbial sh1ite is starting to hit the fan:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/awards-for-car-crash-claims-stable-for-past-six-years-board-says-1.2790882

So, first news in, insurers lie to customers on the price hikes being due to "an increase in payouts". Surprise, surprise.

The average award did not change.

How did change the numbers of awards, and how many of those are settled outise of the Injury Board?

B00MSTICK

grogi wrote:

The average award did not change.

How did change the numbers of awards, and how many of those are settled outise of the Injury Board?

Indeed, if we had the same data as some other countries we'd know for certain how many claims were made in total (claims made through the Injuries Board as well as through solicitors) and the actual average payout.
Saying the average number/payout from the Injuries Board claims has remained static is not really showing the whole story. AFAIK this doesn't include the number that settled before court or the number that went through a solicitor from the start.

Could easily be wrong but if I was a scummer looking for a massive payout or making a fraudulent claim I'd probably go the solicitor route.
Although it'd be much more cost effective to go via the IB so hard to know...

Given that the current crop of insurance companies are essentially loading us for years of mis-management and under-charging one has to wonder if there is room for a new player who doesn't have that burden.
Surely if part of the premium includes this hindsight-charge, a new company should be able to undercut the majority that are doing this whilst ensuring the premium can cover the claims and make a profit too?

Bongalongherb

I wonder if RTE are doing a prime-time investigation on this one, that would be interesting to have someone on the inside. Maybe they should think about it seeing that citizens are paying their wages.

For the moment, at least some investigation is being done.

Special Circumstances

B00MSTICK wrote: »

Indeed, if we had the same data as some other countries we'd know for certain how many claims were made in total (claims made through the Injuries Board as well as through solicitors) and the actual average payout.
Saying the average number/payout from the Injuries Board claims has remained static is not really showing the whole story. AFAIK this doesn't include the number that settled before court or the number that went through a solicitor from the start.

Could easily be wrong but if I was a scummer looking for a massive payout or making a fraudulent claim I'd probably go the solicitor route.
Although it'd be much more cost effective to go via the IB so hard to know...

Given that the current crop of insurance companies are essentially loading us for years of mis-management and under-charging one has to wonder if there is room for a new player who doesn't have that burden.
Surely if part of the premium includes this hindsight-charge, a new company should be able to undercut the majority that are doing this whilst ensuring the premium can cover the claims and make a profit too?

Don't they all have to be notified to the injuries board, but can be settled before the injuries board deal with them? Or can go through the injuries board but then reject that amount and go for court.

Yes, there is a lot of them disappear into a big black hole where insurance companies keep all their amazing and contradictory statistics, but I think there should be a clear number of how many claims are started at least.

One would also assume that anything is started but disappears before the injuries board deals with it is being settled for less cost than would be expected through the injuries board.

I'm applying common sense as I see it to the information generally available, and assuming that the insurance companies aren't complete imbeciles when it comes to giving out money. I'm also assuming that everything starts with the injuries board, or that the exceptions are so few and so obviously genuine (serious serious injuries, fatal) that even insurance companies wouldn't call them cheating scum even if they were driving a 15 year old car.

This type of approach has led me astray in Ireland before unfortunately!

Sue Pa Key Pa

Special Circumstances wrote: »

One would also assume that anything is started but disappears before the injuries board deals with it is being settled for less cost than would be expected through the injuries board.

An awful lot of Injury Board applications are rejected by the claimant, on the advice of their solicitor, in the knowledge that they will receive higher compensation in the courts or in pre-negotiation with Insurers. Quite often, the insurer would prefer the claimant to accept the assessment of the Injury Board

H3llR4iser

grogi wrote: »

The average award did not change.

How did change the numbers of awards, and how many of those are settled outise of the Injury Board?

It says in the article that the number of claims has also been stationary.

On a different note, are we going to see a giant hike in the next 2-3 months as companies panic about some regulations possibly coming in? I ran a quote through Blue yesterday and they were looking fo 2000 Euro for one year, 3000 for a two year policy - 36, full emploument, EU license since 1999, never a claim in my life, 1.9 petrol 4 door saloon - great stuff.

Special Circumstances

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

An awful lot of Injury Board applications are rejected by the claimant, on the advice of their solicitor, in the knowledge that they will receive higher compensation in the courts or in pre-negotiation with Insurers. Quite often, the insurer would prefer the claimant to accept the assessment of the Injury Board

Sooooo the injuries board would have an accurate number of total initiated claims... which appear to have stayed fairly static.

What percentage reject the injuries board I wonder, and what does that increase their payout by?

50% reject injuries board, increasing their payout by 50%?

So claims cost under these circumstances would have have risen by 25% ?
But insurance companies have been signalling premium increases far in excess of this?

I know you don't have the figures for the industry as a whole (and you'd probably end up in a hole if you gave them out...), but the sooner they stop blaming the amounts given out by the injuries board (in a very very high cost country) and start giving equal or more prominent footing to the bajillions "lost" in investment income versus the good old days, and the step change in reserve requirements (to keep insurers more legit), the better.
Bit of a mess of a sentence/paragraph, in a rush here.

Special Circumstances

They keep banging on about the injuries board payouts, which doesn't include the claimants legal costs.
But the numbers of initiated claims have stayed static, and the numbers actually accepting payout from it has fallen.

But insurers keep banging on and on about it.

Surely the issue of increased cost of claims is due to all these "dark matter" claims hidden in the insurers magic vault of secrets - how about some transparency here and revealing these figures. Rather than using the "secret settlements that reject the injuries board" as a stick to beat the injuries board with and say "oh these awards which have stayed static in value, and decreased in number, are bleeding us dry. They MUST be reduced".

Not to say that the injuries boards figures shouldn't/couldn't be revised. But insurance companies seem to be very very flexible with the truth here.

B00MSTICK

Special Circumstances wrote:

Sooooo the injuries board would have an accurate number of total initiated claims... which appear to have stayed fairly static.

What percentage reject the injuries board I wonder, and what does that increase their payout by?

50% reject injuries board, increasing their payout by 50%?

So claims cost under these circumstances would have have risen by 25% ?
But insurance companies have been signalling premium increases far in excess of this?

I can't recall if they said that all claims start with the Injuries Board - could well be.

I think they said they had around 33,000 applications last year if memory serves and they followed though to awarding on approximately 50-55% of these so ~ 18,000.

I was only half listening so may have misinterpreted the above but that leaves ~16,000 claims we no nothing about.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still very certain we are getting screwed for the insurances companies negligence!

The discussion continues at 11am today but I wont be able to listen in.

Should we move this to the Motor Insurance forum instead maybe?

Special Circumstances

B00MSTICK wrote: »

I can't recall if they said that all claims start with the Injuries Board - could well be.

I think they said they had around 33,000 applications last year if memory serves and they followed though to awarding on approximately 50-55% of these so ~ 18,000.

I was only half listening so may have misinterpreted the above but that leaves ~16,000 claims we no nothing about.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still very certain we are getting screwed for the insurances companies negligence!

The discussion continues at 11am today but I wont be able to listen in.

Should we move this to the Motor Insurance forum instead maybe?

I quoted you as it was the handiest way of tacking my response onto that "subplot", I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you or grogi, just contributing my own thoughts. It's stuff like this where a reddit style layout would be beneficial.

I think it's a key fact actually - whether all or practically all (allowing exceptions for exceptional and probably statistically insignificant) claims are at least recorded with the injuries board. Even if they are settled eventually in court or on the steps of the court.

I think the insurers are not being upfront and straight with how they deal with this. Obviously they can't just open their books for the their competitors to look at, but it's their approach to the whole debate "minimising this, focusing on that, manipulate the other" that makes me feel like they have a LOT to hide here.

grogi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I think the insurers are not being upfront and straight with how they deal with this.

No, they are not.

The Regulator should get involved as well - that's why it is there for, isn't it?

Special Circumstances

grogi wrote: »

No, they are not.

The Regulator should get involved as well - that's why it is there for, isn't it?

"Are those MY feet?"