What do ye actually want from your chosen insurer?

cplwhisper

Some insurers are better than others for

-different occupations
-distinctive cover/benefits
-different uses
-driver combinations
-different PBI(payment by instalments)
-standard/executive/high spec/Jap/euro cars
-different covers like total loss/stepback/protected & lifetime protections
-different approaches with penalty point offences

So what do people reaaly want when getting insurance

Sue Pa Key Pa

I think most people just want their premiums to be fair and policy restrictions to be clearly identified.

For various reasons, the cost of of claims is too high to allow the former and the legal aspect of cover is to complex to simplify the latter.

It's a mess that everyone has a share in

Owryan

Maybe greater transparency in how premiums or decisions are made?.

For example, i just renewed my insurance, 07 Ford Focus 1.4 petrol, my renewal quote was 60% higher than last year. Also they would only insure me for social/domestic not for commuting to work or going to college!!!! No reason why when last year they were happy to. But they were prepared to give me, free public liability I think they called it, cover again.

When i went to talk to them the dropped the quote to match last years and reinstated the cover to commute to work/college. Made no sense

rex-x

I want reform in the industry. It is a service provided and should be based on a few facts:Use class, NCB, Licence type, Previous accidents, Points/convictions, Car type. And all insurers should be legally required to provide a quote for all enquiries, opting out should not be an option.

It is not the insurers business if the car is imported or modified (once legal of course). It is not the insurers business what my occupation is or how long I have had my licence or indeed my car. It is definitely not the insurers business if the car had valid tax or NCT and I think age should be taken out of the equation. No NCB can imply young or new driver.

I also think all quotes should be completely transparent and traceable and public for everyone, so I can search for a male, 28, with X car shall we say and see everyone else's base quote and the reasons for discount/loadings. Last point is no BS get out clauses, you are insured regardless of situation or what happens or why.

Sue Pa Key Pa

So rex-x, you want insurers to base their quotes on facts you think are important rather than facts they consider to be relevant having evolved them over decades of analysing claims data.

It's about finding the best price and cover for your circumstances, not how the insurer calculates it and I agree that process should be easier

galwaytt

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

So rex-x, you want insurers to base their quotes on facts you think are important rather than facts they consider to be relevant having evolved them over decades of analysing claims data.

It's about finding the best price and cover for your circumstances, not how the insurer calculates it and I agree that process should be easier

.....if what you say was true they'd produce data to stand over with regard to, say, cars over 10 years old etc. The reason they don't is it doesn't suit them to, or in other words, it would undermine their position. In short, I don't know anyone who believes anything a car insurer tells them.

rex-x

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

So rex-x, you want insurers to base their quotes on facts you think are important rather than facts they consider to be relevant having evolved them over decades of analysing claims data.

It's about finding the best price and cover for your circumstances, not how the insurer calculates it and I agree that process should be easier

The problem is there are no facts and there is no rhyme or reason it seems to the quotes. They were asked to produce these facts but refused so we must assume they don't exist or are entirely inaccurate.

Don't get me wrong I don't blame the industry for everything, legal cases and costs definitely have alot to answer for too but I feel the insurance industry is rotten with long termers who feel the way it is done now is the 'only way' and can't see the wood from the trees.

I'd like to see a government created unit to provide non profit basic 3rd party insurance to people. The premiums would be based on a few simple facts and no compensation would be payed out out to the policy holder under any circumstances. The main premium concern would be to keep premiums at a level where the unit stays at break even level. The insurance companies can then offer better 3rd party cover and full comp etc to those who want it.

You cannot have the only options for a mandatory purchase in private hands.

Sue Pa Key Pa

galwaytt wrote: »

.....if what you say was true they'd produce data to stand over with regard to, say, cars over 10 years old etc. The reason they don't is it doesn't suit them to, or in other words, it would undermine their position. In short, I don't know anyone who believes anything a car insurer tells them.

It is commercially sensitive information their competitors would love to get their hands on. Anyway, why should they have to give you information on how they calculate their premiums. If they price too high, they lose your custom, if they price too low, they won't cover the cost of their claims. They don't have to justify their strategy to anybody but their shareholders

They are fully transparent is declaring their overall income, expenditure and claims every year, just like any other business

Sue Pa Key Pa

rex-x wrote:

I'd like to see a government created unit to provide non profit basic 3rd party insurance to people. The premiums would be based on a few simple facts and no compensation would be payed out out to the policy holder under any circumstances. The main premium concern would be to keep premiums at a level where the unit stays at break even level. The insurance companies can then offer better 3rd party cover and full comp etc to those who want it.

Insurance Companies would love if 3rd party insurance was a government function, leaving them to compete for the profitable damage fire and theft aspect of the cover. At least they would know on day one that the maximum they could lose would be the value of the car.

Ask yourself one question. Do you think that successive governments haven't already looked at the nationalising 3td party insurance and decided that there isn't a penny to be made out of it? They are much happier to apply a levy to premiums and take our money that way without having to risk losing anything. They would still have to take the same levels of premiums in to cover claims and if they received the same amount of abuse that insurers get, it would bring down the government. They won't risk that with the electorate

rex-x

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Insurance Companies would love if 3rd party insurance was a government function, leaving them to compete for the profitable damage fire and theft aspect of the cover. At least they would know on day one that the maximum they could lose would be the value of the car.

Ask yourself one question. Do you think that successive governments haven't already looked at the nationalising 3td party insurance and decided that there isn't a penny to be made out of it? They are much happier to apply a levy to premiums and take our money that way without having to risk losing anything. They would still have to take the same levels of premiums in to cover claims and if they received the same amount of abuse that insurers get, it would bring down the government. They won't risk that with the electorate

I don't imply they need to make a profit, I want a NON profit unit set up to break even and cover it's own small costs, nothing more. Im not saying all the change has to come from within the industry, I'm well aware of the government's shortcomings in this matter

Sue Pa Key Pa

rex-x wrote:

I don't imply they need to make a profit, I want a NON profit unit set up to break even and cover it's own small costs, nothing more. Im not saying all the change has to come from within the industry, I'm well aware of the government's shortcomings in this matter

Break even on 3rd party insurance is the holy grail that all insurers seek. What makes you think the government could succeed? Also, what do you mean by covering it's own small costs?

Fanny Wank

"Small costs"

Define small?

Fanny Wank

Random person: Insurance is a cartel

Same random person: insurers should publish sensitive information

Does not compute

cplwhisper

The cover & benefits I need for my peace of mind are -

1) No loss of bonus for non-fault claims (fire/theft/glass)

2) No excess to pay before the above claims paid out(no use paying excess as that be like being robbed twice)

3) All drivers given allowance for 3 penalty points at no extra charge (joys of motoring-things do happen) (speed-seatbelt-phone are normal non-court offences)

4)Minimum stepback bonus so don’t lose all my hard earned NCB due to crash (by me and-or additional drivers on my policy)

Any less than that cover no matter how cheap- I’ll not purchase

And yes 3 companies provide that level on standard car policies

rex-x

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Break even on 3rd party insurance is the holy grail that all insurers seek. What makes you think the government could succeed? Also, what do you mean by covering it's own small costs?

What I mean by small costs is a small team working, no advertising and zero frills just the most basic of cover, not provided to everyone. There should be restrictions (3 claims in a period, go to private companies etc)