Car Insurance Companies

[FTBBCVoodoo]

Just now, wharfhouse said:

But then why can insurance companies lop say 30% off a premium when you say you can get it cheaper elsewhere - if the risk profile is the risk profile then the premium is the premium? 

This is where the new FCA regulation will come into effect.  One of the insurance companies we support already does this. 

I know this as we made the change to the policy, billing and claims software which produces the numbers 😉

 

 

 

[wharfhouse]

12 minutes ago, FTBBCVoodoo said:

This is where the new FCA regulation will come into effect.  One of the insurance companies we support already does this. 

I know this as we made the change to the policy, billing and claims software which produces the numbers 😉

 

 

 

 

I'm certainly hoping that for starters this will indeed stop this element of gouging (loyal) customers - it will then be interesting to see how aggressively companies compete for new business and whether it stops some of the churn. 

[NemesisUK]

Since ditching the high performance, highly modified cars of my youth my insurance premiums have equated to approximately £1 per day and in recent years more like 60p per day. A small (might even say trivial) sum to pay allowing me to do something I really enjoy.

[FTBBCVoodoo]

16 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

Since ditching the high performance, highly modified cars of my youth my insurance premiums have equated to approximately £1 per day and in recent years more like 60p per day. A small (might even say trivial) sum to pay allowing me to do something I really enjoy.

I remember those days like it was a good thing at the time.

When I was 21, I lived with 2 mates.  One had an Impreza Turbo Catalunya edition, another had a Suzuki GSX-R 600 and I had an Honda Integra Type R (one of 3 I have owned).

Insurance was 2k, 1.2k and 1.6k respectively.  Had a bit more disposable income then (no mortgage and no wife/kids) so saw paying that much on insurance as a rite of passage.

Funny how you get older one of the few things I can enjoy is cheaper insurance although I have started modifying the Type R already 😉 and yes the mods are declared on insurance 🙂

[FTBBCVoodoo]

24 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

I'm certainly hoping that for starters this will indeed stop this element of gouging (loyal) customers - it will then be interesting to see how aggressively companies compete for new business and whether it stops some of the churn. 

I do wonder if there will be some loophole like "brand new customer discount" which won't apply to existing or previous customers.

Not unlike Virgin Media or Sky...  Get everything for £50 if new customer or pay double that if existing 😉

[wharfhouse]

2 minutes ago, FTBBCVoodoo said:

I do wonder if there will be some loophole like "brand new customer discount" which won't apply to existing or previous customers.

Not unlike Virgin Media or Sky...  Get everything for £50 if new customer or pay double that if existing 😉

I can hear the marketing cogs in their offices whirring around already...

[FTBBCVoodoo]

5 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

I can hear the marketing cogs in their offices whirring around already...

You will probably find they will tempt people with freebies rather than a price reduction instead.  

I think Go Compare or one of them offered to cover an Excess, Meerkats was the meerkat and the cinema (we had every bloody meerkat at one point) and I think Confused had the dine out card.

You will probably find they (companies not the aggregators) offer amazon Alexa's, Google Homes or similar instead to get around the pricing.

[NemesisUK]

SAGA do a reasonable offer of 3yrs fixed price premiums, as long as no claims are made.

I was with Direct Line for almost 20yrs and each year the renewal letter arrived with an increased premium and I would challenge it, they would drop it down to within £5-10 of the existing premium. Two years ago the letter arrived with an almost 40% increase! I challenged it but they refused to entertain any reduction, so I moved, to SAGA paying slightly less than the existing DL premium. 

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, wharfhouse said:

But then why can insurance companies lop say 30% off a premium when you say you can get it cheaper elsewhere - if the risk profile is the risk profile then the premium is the premium? 

That only works if they know that you are truly getting this discount from other companies. So this means the risk profile is there and the "price floor" is strict - nobody will insure you below that, no matter what stories you tell and no matter if you leave them.

Where this certainly works are renewals - every time my insurance was hiked during renewal I did a quote on comparison site, every time the price was cheaper and every time when I called the insurance they matched the price. It think once it was the difference between £1100 and something like £620 on my old IS250, so the margin they were attempting to f**** me by was huge.

But they will never match the quote if you say your renewal was £1000 that you were offered say £600 elsewhere, but you say you were offered £500 and threaten to switch. I have all possible ways reducing my premium and I know the conversation to the smallest details.

Insurance companies are certainly ripping of the people if they don't bother challenging renewals, and I kind of understand why... when insurance is like £280 and next year it is £287 I would not bother calling either, but when my insurance fluctuates between £2000 and £800 I kind of "notice" that.

[LenT]

2 hours ago, NemesisUK said:

SAGA do a reasonable offer of 3yrs fixed price premiums, as long as no claims are made.

I took advantage of that for my wife’s Suzuki.  A very good premium fixed for three years.

What’s not to like?

[wharfhouse]

33 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

That only works if they know that you are truly getting this discount from other companies. So this means the risk profile is there and the "price floor" is strict - nobody will insure you below that, no matter what stories you tell and no matter if you leave them.

Where this certainly works are renewals - every time my insurance was hiked during renewal I did a quote on comparison site, every time the price was cheaper and every time when I called the insurance they matched the price. It think once it was the difference between £1100 and something like £620 on my old IS250, so the margin they were attempting to f**** me by was huge.

But they will never match the quote if you say your renewal was £1000 that you were offered say £600 elsewhere, but you say you were offered £500 and threaten to switch. I have all possible ways reducing my premium and I know the conversation to the smallest details.

Insurance companies are certainly ripping of the people if they don't bother challenging renewals, and I kind of understand why... when insurance is like £280 and next year it is £287 I would not bother calling either, but when my insurance fluctuates between £2000 and £800 I kind of "notice" that.

Agreed - there must be some sort of price floor for the calculated risk and you would expect that all insurance companies would use algorithms that bring them all close to each other given they are all sharing the same data and so these huge price reductions (as you say this can be hundreds of pounds) that they are capable of doing on renewal quotes when you call them means that they are simply inflating the actual premium based on the calculated risk before they post it out to you. For something that is a mandatory purchase in law to be able to drive the car you have bought is unethical IMHO at best! 

[wharfhouse]

25 minutes ago, LenT said:

I took advantage of that for my wife’s Suzuki.  A very good premium fixed for three years.

What’s not to like?

If Saga can do this then they all can - let's hope when the FCA changes kick in we start seeing more behaviour like this. 

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, wharfhouse said:

Agreed - there must be some sort of price floor for the calculated risk and you would expect that all insurance companies would use algorithms that bring them all close to each other given they are all sharing the same data and so these huge price reductions (as you say this can be hundreds of pounds) that they are capable of doing on renewal quotes when you call them means that they are simply inflating the actual premium based on the calculated risk before they post it out to you. For something that is a mandatory purchase in law to be able to drive the car you have bought is unethical IMHO at best! 

Yes, absolutely... and that is why I always thought that legal minimum TP insurance should be either provided by government, or it should be strictly regulated to make sure it is fairly prices and criteria transparent and non-discriminatory. This being legal requirement there should be no behind the scenes shenanigans.. 

After that.. if you wanted comprehensive cover, gap cover, excess cover, cover for your belongings, modifications... or whatever else - that could be free for all, free market, whoever needs it could have it if they feel it is worth the price. And then I think the price would be much fairer, because once you could legally drive it would become nice to have and insurance companies would have no leverage (at gun point) to force you to buy product you may not need.

As it happens now - you are legally forced to have the cover from the private company without any oversight or regulation and they can literally charge you anything they like, they don't need to justify the price, they don't need to prove it is fair and incriminatory... and if you can't afford it... well then you can't drive. It is basically private companies which decides whenever you could or can't drive... 

[LenT]

5 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Very poor comparison... I am sure that whatever you bought on amazon was not mandatory by law and not buying it was not putting you at risk to have your car confiscated, or for up to 10 points and £3000 fine.

Maybe I wasn't clear, Linus.  My comparison was not with the products, which are irrelevant, but with the corporate obfuscation techniques that both companies employed in one degree or another.  Namely, they made it unnecessarily difficult to cancel auto renewal on the one hand and replace a faulty product on the other.

Which brings me to...

5 hours ago, Linas.P said:

By the way, after 30 days it is indeed manufacturers responsibility, but I found Amazon accepting liability anyway in most cases. Sellers responsibility is limited to 14 days to issue refunds or replacements and customers have another 14 days to return the goods. Amazon rounds this and adds another few weeks for returns, to their policy is exceedingly compliance and they already accept returns above and beyond what law requires them. 

Even prior to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, this wasn't the case.  

The dates to which you refer actually apply to the buyer, not the seller.  They were originally the Direct Selling Regulations, as I recall, and now form part of the The Consumer Contracts Regulations.  Basically, they give the Buyer a cancellation period that starts the moment you place your order and ends 14 days from the day you receive your goods. 

You then have a further 14 days from the date you notify the retailer that you'd like to cancel your order to return the goods to them.  You also have the legal right to a refund if you return your faulty goods within 30 days of receiving them, irrespective of the retailer's policy.

But most importantly, your rights under the Consumer Rights Act are against the retailer, NOT the manufacturer.  So any claim should be taken to the retailer.

To save further posts, I would refer you to the Which website where you'll find an excellent series of pages on this aspect of consumer law.  This one is a good place to start.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act-aKJYx8n5KiSl

I suspect that manufacturers have a kind of love/hate relationship with the likes of amazon. The product I returned to amazon for a replacement was actually a Dualit Kettle.  I contacted Dualit to check if the problem was due to something I could easily correct.  Interestingly, the first two paragraphs of their reply were a reiteration of what I already knew.

Namely:  

If an appliance fails to operate properly, while in use under normal household conditions and within the warranty period, normal procedure would be to return the appliance to the store or retailer where purchased.

Under UK law, the Contract of Sale is between yourself and the retailer and it is principally the retailer’s legal responsibility to assist in resolving any issue with the product within the full warranty period (and not just in the first 30 days). Failure of the retailer to do so is in breach of your statutory rights.

So, far from the suggestion that amazon was doing you some kind of favour, they were actually complying with Consumer Law!  And I'm quite sure they were aware of that!

 

[LenT]

1 hour ago, wharfhouse said:

If Saga can do this then they all can - let's hope when the FCA changes kick in we start seeing more behaviour like this. 

I suspect we will, Phil.  If it proves to be a successful ploy in both customer retention and acquisition, then we may well be deluged with such offers.

This is not an Industry that doesn't know a bandwagon when it sees one!

[Linas.P]

I think you right in this case, although amazon is actually a market place, so above is only right for the products which are sold by amazon itself.

When it acts as retailer, then you are correct. 

Actually, I just hand another case recently where I tried to do exactly opposite - amazon was happy to give my money back, but I was trying to get manufacturer to repair the product instead. 

And just before that, I had and issue with kettle as well, in that case amazon was not seller so they didn't need to do anything about it, but after 9 month they just game my money back.

[NemesisUK]

Only you Linas.P only you...

[Linas.P]

3 minutes ago, NemesisUK said:

Only you Linas.P only you...

In this case it made sense, trust me... 😁

[LenT]

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I think you right in this case…

Could that be one in a row, Linus?  🙂

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

… although Amazon is actually a market place, so above is only right for the products which are sold by amazon itself.

When it acts as retailer, then you are correct. 

The key statement is ‘Distributed and sold by Amazon’.  And yet that didn’t stop their system trying to direct me to the Dualit site and promoting the 30 day fallacy.  And no doubt some shoppers would have thought they must know what they’re talking about.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is well worth brushing up on.  The Seller is always responsible for the performance of the products they sell.

I get a computer magazine which has a few pages devoted to resolving buyers’ problems.  One big High Street name features regularly.  When exposed they blame staff error!  

Call me an old cynic, but I sometimes feel the error was in getting caught!

[royoftherovers]

51 minutes ago, LenT said:

Could that be one in a row, Linus?  🙂

The key statement is ‘Distributed and sold by Amazon’.  And yet that didn’t stop their system trying to direct me to the Dualit site and promoting the 30 day fallacy.  And no doubt some shoppers would have thought they must know what they’re talking about.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is well worth brushing up on.  The Seller is always responsible for the performance of the products they sell.

I get a computer magazine which has a few pages devoted to resolving buyers’ problems.  One big High Street name features regularly.  When exposed they blame staff error!  

Call me an old cynic, but I sometimes feel the error was in getting caught!

You are another old cynic Len.

[royoftherovers]

18 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

You are another old cynic Len.

Hi Len, it`s another old cynic again.

It appears that amazon is not in fact a seller, but is an Organisation through which a Seller sells his goods.

I have come to this matter late and am unwilling to read much of the thoughts of "Linas the Omnipotent", so If I have missed an important point, then I must apologise.

[wharfhouse]

13 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

Hi Len, it`s another old cynic again.

It appears that Amazon is not in fact a seller, but is an Organisation through which a Seller sells his goods.

I have come to this matter late and am unwilling to read much of the thoughts of "Linas the Omnipotent", so If I have missed an important point, then I must apologise.

The problem is amazon is both - they sell goods as amazon in which case all rights are directly applicable to amazon but it also lists goods sold by other sellers (marketplace) in which case the other seller and not amazon is responsible for your rights although amazon will sometimes intervene on your behalf but it's at amazon discretion if it does. The issue is that for any search it shows both amazon sold products and marketplace sellers on the same page and a lot of people don't check and simply click to order. To be fair I have never had an issue with products sold directly by amazon in getting any problems resolved (much easy than many high street shops, bricks and mortar or online) but some of the marketplace sellers have proved a little illusive when a problem arises (though others have been excellent). I am always careful to check out any marketplace seller before placing an order via amazon. 

[royoftherovers]

57 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

The problem is Amazon is both - they sell goods as Amazon in which case all rights are directly applicable to Amazon but it also lists goods sold by other sellers (marketplace) in which case the other seller and not Amazon is responsible for your rights although Amazon will sometimes intervene on your behalf but it's at Amazon discretion if it does. The issue is that for any search it shows both Amazon sold products and marketplace sellers on the same page and a lot of people don't check and simply click to order. To be fair I have never had an issue with products sold directly by Amazon in getting any problems resolved (much easy than many high street shops, bricks and mortar or online) but some of the marketplace sellers have proved a little illusive when a problem arises (though others have been excellent). I am always careful to check out any marketplace seller before placing an order via Amazon. 

Thanks for that clarity Phil.

I have yet to see amazon itself listed as the seller though, but I too am generally more than satisfied with its free (to us) Brokering service.

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, LenT said:

Could that be one in a row, Linus?  🙂

Where you right you right... not much to add here.

But I am sure we can both agree, that in this case it is black and white, it is a law, you quoted it and i cannot disagree. I just pointed out it does not apply to market place sellers, but you have not implied it was marketplace so you were right.

In other thread you still have not provided any facts, so it remains your opinion, based on logical assumptions, but nothing more.

[wharfhouse]

29 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

Thanks for that clarity Phil.

I have yet to see Amazon itself listed as the seller though, but I too am generally more than satisfied with its free (to us) Brokering service.

The problem is that in a search listing it is not differentiated when you see a list of results but when you click on an item then in the box on the right hand side of the screen (or near the bottom of the screen on  the amazon app) it will tell you who the item is "Sold by" which will either be amazon or a 3rd party seller. If you see "Dispatched from and sold by amazon." then this means amazon is wholly responsible for the item as per any other retailer. The item however may be "Sold by" a 3rd party but "Fulfilled by Amazon" which means the seller is paying amazon to deliver it. In these cases although the 3rd party is responsible for any claim you may make if the item is not delivered for some reason amazon take responsibility. If you see "Dispatched and sold by xxx." then the 3rd party seller is selling the item and arranging delivery of the item. Since I have an amazon Prime subscription all of my deliveries are included in that and so my order of preference when looking at items to buy (assuming similar prices) are:

1. Dispatched from and sold by amazon. (I have no concerns placing orders for this - I have always found amazon very good at refunds etc. with no quibble when I have had to return something)

2. Sold by xxx and Fulfilled by amazon. (I will check the 3rd party seller ratings to make sure they have good ratings but I am confident the correct item will arrive or that amazon will rectify that part)

3. Dispatched from and sold by xxx. (I take greater care in checking these sellers out first as this is where I have had the most issues, for example packages not arriving or wrong items shipped)

Anyway, hope you find that useful if you are buying from amazon in the future.