Insurance question - stitched up?

[joebongo]

A pissed up bloke (who was arrested on scene by BiB) ploughed into a car and then bounced himself and his moped into my wife's car which was parked on the road.

Now as she's only had a licence for coming up 3 years this year she gets 70 odd % NCB, however the incident shows on the insurance details and shows me as the driver of the vehicle (when in fact I called the insurance co. and informed them what had happened).

So, two questions:

1. Why does it show me as the driver when there was no driver and all claims were with his company not hers. They were only informed of the incident as per the policy requirements.

2. Even though she now has this much higher no claims discount the premium is up from last years.

Cheers,

Joe

[Shaw Tarse]

That's how it works, it's unfair, but now the insurance co consider her to be at risk of being crashed into.

[carmonk]

1. They have the details wrong

2. Premiums are up anyway this year, again (blame crash-for-cash, chavs, car manufacturers and fake medical claims). Also, insurance companies have no concept how to assess risk. Because they cannot deal with stats they have concluded that your wife is more at risk now of making a claim than she was before.

[joebongo]

Thanks guys. Her Primera estate is 80% of the cost of my E38 4.4 V8 mofo wagon. Admittedly I have 20 years with no fault claims.

The world's gorn mad guv'nor.

[LuS1fer]

Insurance is becoming a real pain in the ass. A girl with a MINI had it damaged by a drunk throwing a wheelie bin at it and attacking it. Over £2000 worth of damage. Large excess. If she claims, her premium has been given an indication of almost doubling so she is now between a rock and a hard place. Maybe it's about time they started insuring people, not the cars, including pedestrians.

[R1 Loon]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Or you could explain the voiding of the policy based on the legal requirements of Insurance Law and that the concept of Utmost Good Faith applies.

Still, better to go with the name-calling when you don’t understand it.

carmonk said:

1. They have the details wrong

2. Premiums are up anyway this year, again (blame crash-for-cash, chavs, car manufacturers and fake medical claims). Also, insurance companies have no concept how to assess risk. Because they cannot deal with stats they have concluded that your wife is more at risk now of making a claim than she was before.

So you could do better could you? I’d like a quote please, you can ask me any info you like, but I want it cheap and within the next 5 minutes please.

LuS1fer said:

Insurance is becoming a real pain in the ass. A girl with a MINI had it damaged by a drunk throwing a wheelie bin at it and attacking it. Over £2000 worth of damage. Large excess. If she claims, her premium has been given an indication of almost doubling so she is now between a rock and a hard place. Maybe it's about time they started insuring people, not the cars, including pedestrians.

They do insure people, the car is merely part of the risk that’s assessed.

[Bursar]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I didn't think that was allowed. If you had declared the mods they would still have insured you. If they were undeclared then I was under the impression that they can deduct some money from your claim to cover the difference in policy, but they still had to pay up.

I think it's only really a problem if they would have refused to insure you had the mods been declared.

Scroll down to the last couple of entries on this page:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
Also this: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...

IANAL.

Edited by Bursar on Friday 28th January 21:32

[R1 Loon]

Bursar said:

I didn't think that was allowed. If you had declared the mods they would still have insured you. If they were undeclared then I was under the impression that they can deduct some money from your claim to cover the difference in policy, but they still had to pay up.

I think it's only really a problem if they would have refused to insure you had the mods been declared.

IANAL.

Nope Utmost Good Faith and material facts, more here:

http://www.lexico.co.uk/insurance/ins_understandin...

Please note the reference to "Law" not "what the ing fking insurance comapny wkers do at random and on a whim"

[carmonk]

R1 Loon said:

carmonk said:

1. They have the details wrong

2. Premiums are up anyway this year, again (blame crash-for-cash, chavs, car manufacturers and fake medical claims). Also, insurance companies have no concept how to assess risk. Because they cannot deal with stats they have concluded that your wife is more at risk now of making a claim than she was before.

So you could do better could you? I’d like a quote please, you can ask me any info you like, but I want it cheap and within the next 5 minutes please.

Yes, there's no question I could do better, all things being equal. Insurance companies don't even attempt to assess risk accurately, it's not in their interests. They're good at loading premiums for high risk drivers but when it comes to unrecoverable claims for low risks drivers they have no mechanism for dealing with that. Well, they do, it's to assume the driver is a higher risk than they were before, which in many cases is nonsense.

[R1 Loon]

carmonk said:

Yes, there's no question I could do better, all things being equal. Insurance companies don't even attempt to assess risk accurately, it's not in their interests. They're good at loading premiums for high risk drivers but when it comes to unrecoverable claims for low risks drivers they have no mechanism for dealing with that. Well, they do, it's to assume the driver is a higher risk than they were before, which in many cases is nonsense.

Excellent, then tell me what info you need and you can generate a quote for me and we'll see how it compares to my current policy to see how good you really are.

All I need is a list of the info you need and we're up & running.

I won't hold you to the quote obviously, just an interessting exercise.

[carmonk]

R1 Loon said:

Excellent, then tell me what info you need and you can generate a quote for me and we'll see how it compares to my current policy to see how good you really are.

All I need is a list of the info you need and we're up & running.

I won't hold you to the quote obviously, just an interessting exercise.

I ignored your silliness before but now I realise you are actually being serious. So, I won't provide a quote because

1) I don't provide insurance quotes
2) You would not provide private information to a stranger on a forum, so I couldn't even begin, and if you did you'd be an idiot, so I wouldn't want to
3) I don't have the database of information on all the other claims and policy holders necessary to perform any sort of analysis
4) I have not developed any sort of algorithm or methodology for the occasion, nor will I
5) Whilst I do waste my time a fair bit here I don't think I will perform several hundred hours of work in order to prove a point to someone on a forum, still less someone who isn't remotely interested in discussing the points that others make

[R1 Loon]

carmonk said:

I ignored your silliness before but now I realise you are actually being serious. So, I won't provide a quote because

1) I don't provide insurance quotes
2) You would not provide private information to a stranger on a forum, so I couldn't even begin, and if you did you'd be an idiot, so I wouldn't want to
3) I don't have the database of information on all the other claims and policy holders necessary to perform any sort of analysis
4) I have not developed any sort of algorithm or methodology for the occasion, nor will I
5) Whilst I do waste my time a fair bit here I don't think I will perform several hundred hours of work in order to prove a point to someone on a forum, still less someone who isn't remotely interested in discussing the points that others make

Right, so you could do it if you wanted, you just don't want to and you'd be miles better if you could be bothered as well

I'm happy to provide info on here, most fo it coul dbe found easyily enough anyway, but a change in date of birth etc by a couple of days either way shouldn't matter too much.

Oh and I don't want to wait 4 days for a quote either, I can get one in 3 minutes on the internet.

[carmonk]

R1 Loon said:

Right, so you could do it if you wanted, you just don't want to and you'd be miles better if you could be bothered as well

Are you actually serious? I've already answered the question, yes I could do. I have developed several statistical analysis programs for applications far more demanding and complex than car insurance. You asked a question, I answered and now you're getting all upity because you don't like the answer. Which is a moot point anyway, because as I explained (and you ignored) the insurance companies don't want to do proper analysis.

R1 Loon said:

Oh and I don't want to wait 4 days for a quote either, I can get one in 3 minutes on the internet.

What are you talking about? Are you on drugs?

Edited by carmonk on Friday 28th January 22:42

[R1 Loon]

carmonk said:

Are you actually serious? I've already answered the question, yes I could do. I have developed several statistical analysis programs for applications far more demanding and complex than car insurance. You asked a question, I answered and now you're getting all upity because you don't like the answer. Which is a moot point anyway, because as I explained (and you ignored) the insurance companies don't want to do proper analysis.

Yes, I am serious. You claim to be able to do better than a multi-billion pound industry can manage, alongside the software houses who build their systems.

Misys are one such company, they are currently valued at c£1.2billion, so you really ought to get into that business and become a billionaire if it will only take a few hundred hours and certainly wouldn’t be a “waste of your time.

carmonk said:

What are you talking about? Are you on drugs?

See below, your expectation of effort needed, I equated several hundred hours to the lowest figure of 100 hours; 24 hours in a day = c4 days for a quote. That’s not very customer friendly is it? Is the rest of your insurance service just as poor?

carmonk said:

....... I don't think I will perform several hundred hours of work......

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I’ve absolutely no idea I’m not an underwriter or an actuary. Maybe the insurer has a history of more (or more expensive) claims on modified cars than standard ones. Bear in mind they don’t model exclusively for the individual, they do it on statistical risk, but carmonk knows more about that than anyone else.

[carmonk]

R1 Loon said:

absolute impenetrable nonsense

Now I know how you got your name. Incredible.

[R1 Loon]

carmonk said:

Now I know how you got your name. Incredible.

Impenetrable? Do you understand what that means? I think you mean logical. Here it is in simple steps for you.

1. You believe insurers are unable to assess risk
2. You believe you could do it better
3. I asked you to do it
4. You decided it was too much effort, but you could still do it
5. I asked you to do it anyway
6. You decided not to, but continue to claim you could and it would be easy
7. I showed you how much money you could be worth if you did what you claim to be able to do.
8. You claimed not to understand it.

Clear enough?

[DrTre]

Have to say, I do like your posts R1 Loon. In a positive way.

[carmonk]

R1 Loon said:

Impenetrable? Do you understand what that means? I think you mean logical. Here it is in simple steps for you.

No, I meant impenetrable. I'm not in the habit of using words I don't know the meaning of, unlike you, who seem to throw them out at random. I will attempt one more time to explain, then leave you to have your fun.

Insurance companies, as I've explained three times, do not fully or accurately assess risk. It is not in their interests to do so and they do not do it. This results in low risk drivers being classified as moderate or high risk.

It is pretty obvious what type of steps should be taken to rectify this. It's obvious to me, obvious to most people with half a brain, and yes, obvious to the £multi-billion corporation that develops their software (although why you think multi-billion company = good s/w is beyond me, but that's another story I won't be getting into).

You asked, could I do better. The answer is, yes I could. I could, and have, developed s/w that assess risk accurately and without bias, across the board. If you had asked, could I do better given the same spec, one person vs a corporate solution, the answer is no. You didn't, therefore I didn't answer that question. Simples.

As for giving a quote, have a little think about this. When the nice lady gives you a quote over the phone, do you think she develops the algorithm and does the calculation on a pad of paper? No, not even you could believe that, she has all the tools there she needs. They have already been developed and reside on a nice little computer in a room somewhere. And that's why, if you were asking me, who does not have those tools, to provide a quote, regardless of the silliness of the request, I would not be able to do it in four minutes because I do not have those tools.

I hope this answers your questions, although I know it won't because already I can hear the gears churning for another laughable reply. So, well done in advance, and you can have the next one on me.

[R1 Loon]

carmonk said:

No, I meant impenetrable. I'm not in the habit of using words I don't know the meaning of, unlike you, who seem to throw them out at random. I will attempt one more time to explain, then leave you to have your fun.

I'll wager that you don't leave me to it though, you won't be able to help yourself. That prediction was made without the need for any statistical modelling too.

carmonk said:

Insurance companies, as I've explained three times, do not fully or accurately assess risk. It is not in their interests to do so and they do not do it. This results in low risk drivers being classified as moderate or high risk.

I did not claim they assessed every risk accurately or independently. However you asserted that they can't do it. There is a difference between not doing something and not being able to. In this case the issue is over the economic viability of statistically modelling every risk individually, when the concept of insurance is one of pooled risk anyway.

carmonk said:

It is pretty obvious what type of steps should be taken to rectify this. It's obvious to me, obvious to most people with half a brain, and yes, obvious to the £multi-billion corporation that develops their software (although why you think multi-billion company = good s/w is beyond me, but that's another story I won't be getting into).

Explain to me in words of three syllables or less (I'll need it that way, as I am apparently incapable of using the English language) what this "obvious" position is please.

I didn't say that multi-billion pound software is good, I stated that MISYS (who have some shocking software are worth £billions. If you have a better solution, then think how many £billions you could be worth.

carmonk said:

You asked, could I do better. The answer is, yes I could. I could, and have, developed s/w that assess risk accurately and without bias, across the board. If you had asked, could I do better given the same spec, one person vs a corporate solution, the answer is no. You didn't, therefore I didn't answer that question. Simples.

So do it then. Talk is cheap. If you genuinely believe that your solution would ensure better pricing across the board, then surely it's worth you producing something to pitch to the insurance market. They are crying out for new ideas on the decade old problem of haemorraging money on private motor insurance.

carmonk said:

As for giving a quote, have a little think about this. When the nice lady gives you a quote over the phone, do you think she develops the algorithm and does the calculation on a pad of paper? No, not even you could believe that, she has all the tools there she needs. They have already been developed and reside on a nice little computer in a room somewhere. And that's why, if you were asking me, who does not have those tools, to provide a quote, regardless of the silliness of the request, I would not be able to do it in four minutes because I do not have those tools.

Thanks for the education on how a quote is produced, I may need to reflect on that having run a broker, which sold for a lot of money in 2007 and currently keeping myself occupied in one of the top 5 UK insurers in a Directorial capaciy.

carmonk said:

I hope this answers your questions, although I know it won't because already I can hear the gears churning for another laughable reply. So, well done in advance, and you can have the next one on me.

I reckon you'll be back.

[LuS1fer]

I've seen some threads degenerate into boring quickly but this must be a new record.

Try changing it.