Admiral now penalize drivers on speeding awareness courses.

[srw]

Sorry meant to add that's the whole point, I am not a statistic I am a person

Alan..

Once upon a time it was possible to get away without buying car insurance if you put up a large enough bond (of the order of several hundred thousand). I don't think it is any more, I'm afraid.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Fiat Cinquecento Sporting. It started life as a 54bhp town car with a bit of zip but ended up a fair bit quicker & lighter.

I was hoping you'd say that. What lump went in?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Once upon a time it was possible to get away without buying car insurance if you put up a large enough bond (of the order of several hundred thousand). I don't think it is any more, I'm afraid.

Don't a good few self insure or is it all done through captives these days?

 

[Paul99]

Once upon a time it was possible to get away without buying car insurance if you put up a large enough bond (of the order of several hundred thousand). I don't think it is any more, I'm afraid.

It is still possible for a mere £500,000 bond.

 

[Paul99]

But insurance companies have the power to lobby Government I do not

Alan...

Alan, the law is there to protect you believe it or not.

 

[davefb]

No, of course not.
http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/insurance-fraud-hits-1bn-year
And that's just what the insurance companies managed to uncover.

no, that shows fraud is serious...
there is no incentive because the insurers take this cost from the customers .
compare the 1bn a YEAR with what they'd uncovered.
even the insane , went on for YEARS scam they uncovered, was only 3.2million.

and I recently found out one of the guys is in my postcode. which might explain some mad quotes!

mind you, lets hope their new 'actually bothering to check' system might help matters

 

[GrasB]

I was hoping you'd say that. What lump went in?

The good ole 1242cc 8v conversion. You know the one, bolt for bolt drop in from a Mk 1 Punto.

 

[Nortones2]

No I don't think I will amend it, but I will explain what I meant better for you I hope. If the insurers all said that we will charge a minimum of £5000 for the lowest level of cover for people with an exemplary driving record escalating rapidly for anyone else. Do you not think that the regulator will step in and say "oh no you won't"?

The regulators are constantly reviewing insurers making sure that they are pricing risks sensibly and making sure that their assets cover their liabilities etc

Of course you get significant differences between quotes, if the insurer has enough of your demographic in their portfolio then they will take you on for an increased premium because in doing so it increases their chances of claims in that demographic. They have to spread their bets, so to speak. So where you get a cheaper quote it is because they have enough younger drivers paying a high premium and they want some nice sensible drivers for a lower premium to spread the risk. Does that make sense?

For all insurers to act together, in your example, would be collusion and illegal. So within the real world, insurers can charge what they think the market will bear. This is nonsense "if the insurer has enough of your demographic in their portfolio then they will take you on for an increased premium because in doing so it increases their chances of claims in that demographic." Price out a low risk in a low risk area because they have enough low risk clients and would prefer a few boy-racers or other sub-standard risks? Absurd. As for assets and liabilities, the MIB and the Financial Services Compensation scheme fund rescue packages for those policy holders whose insurers have gone bust, and for those who will do so in future. The FSA will let the failures fail. Even Names go bankrupt!

 

[srw]

Don't a good few self insure or is it all done through captives these days?

It's mainly done through captives, I think - it's been a while since I was involved operationally. Alternatively you can get a ground-up policy and some sort of indemnity or pre-funding. You still need an insurer to take the top slice - no sane company would want unlimited liability.

 

[srw]

no, that shows fraud is serious...
there is no incentive because the insurers take this cost from the customers .
compare the 1bn a YEAR with what they'd uncovered.
even the insane , went on for YEARS scam they uncovered, was only 3.2million.

and I recently found out one of the guys is in my postcode. which might explain some mad quotes!

mind you, lets hope their new 'actually bothering to check' system might help matters

If I've understood you right, you need to read the link. The £1bn fraud is what the insurers have uncovered. And stopped. And saved you in premiums.

 

[davefb]

If I've understood you right, you need to read the link. The £1bn fraud is what the insurers have uncovered. And stopped. And saved you in premiums.

maybe i just don't believe them! (though see what you mean now ).

it was the response to the a34 rear end scam. the insurers did *nothing* , until an independent had taken video footage.. the police claimed they couldn't get involved because the insurers weren't reporting fraud, the insurers it *seemed* just shrugged and took the monies..
the poor saps who tapped the rear ends of the cars, just ended up paying out..

*and* if thats uncovered, then whats the size of the uncovered? Actually I don't get that, if they HAVE uncovered the fraud, then it DOESNT cost people!

 

[Paul99]

For all insurers to act together, in your example, would be collusion and illegal.
I didn't say they were acting together, I said " If the insurers all said"

So within the real world, insurers can charge what they think the market will bear. This is nonsense "if the insurer has enough of your demographic in their portfolio then they will take you on for an increased premium because in doing so it increases their chances of claims in that demographic." Price out a low risk in a low risk area because they have enough low risk clients and would prefer a few boy-racers or other sub-standard risks? Absurd.

Nonsense and absurd. I am doing well today. If you don't think that insurers spread risk would you care to explain why? Low risk of what? Low risk of car crime? Low risk of a motoring accident? Low risk of flooding, like in the north or SW of this country? Not really absurd. Insurance is a little bit like gambling to make bigger returns they have to take a bigger risk. If all they did was offer cheap insurance to the low risk they wouldn't make any money whatsoever, and yes they are allowed to make a profit, it's called business.

As for assets and liabilities, the MIB and the Financial Services Compensation scheme fund rescue packages for those policy holders whose insurers have gone bust, and for those who will do so in future. The FSA will let the failures fail. Even Names go bankrupt!

That's all right then. We have a bottomless pit of money so we'll let them do what they like and if it all goes tit's up we'll just pay for it. Brilliant.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

That's all right then. We have a bottomless pit of money so we'll let them do what they like and if it all goes tit's up we'll just pay for it. Brilliant.

You mean just like they were a bank, oh I forgot, banks & insurance companies go hand in hand,

Alan...

 

[Paul99]

You mean just like they were a bank, oh I forgot, banks & insurance companies go hand in hand,

Alan...

How very dare you!! Don't equate us with that shower!

 

[Deleted member 26715]

How very dare you!! Don't equate us with that shower!

But aren't most of you now owned by them, now that cash cow has been slaughtered?

Alan...