Insurance hike

[Boomer54]

24 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

Might be illegal contriving to con all policyholders en bloc BUT this scheme they operate seems above the law and endorsed by the Authorities sadly 

 

HOUSE and HOME INSURANCE anyone ?    
Mines just gone up about 25%  RSA for my small 2 bed 1650’s ( maybe ) timber built ancient house that’s thankfully not Listed at this time 

My price searching last year put my RSA policy much much less expensive than others ……. not many interested insuring  my ancient house 

Malc 

What "scheme" would that be Malc? Does it have a name like "screwuall", or is it somewhere on the web where I could find it like " evilschemesutd.com" ?

The problem gentlemen is you are obviously unhappy with the level of premiums in the market and are going to that dark place in your minds where it's all a conspiracy. The reality is our Insurance Industry really is free market economics . Don't compete and you are toast.

[Notamech]

58 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

"greedy cartel". Here is the reality;

Being involved in a cartel and participating in illegal price fixing is prohibited by competition law in the UK and considered an offence under the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002.

Other than that I was clapping at the point that you really ought not to be making something necessary by law without at least putting into place a mechanism that supports those least able to comply. Very good point and I would support it.

Sure that only applies when you are not a bank or financial institution. Else everything flies. If you're a bank then you're free to do whatever...tank the economy at taxpayers expense gamble away like its a giant casino. Do whatever when you have friends who are bureaucrats and policy makers. Laws apply only to us regular people. 

Also when I say cartel obviously it's a metaphor. These companies have the best lawyers money can buy and often find grey areas.

[Notamech]

5 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

What "scheme" would that be Malc? Does it have a name like "screwuall", or is it somewhere on the web where I could find it like " evilschemesutd.com" ?

The problem gentlemen is you are obviously unhappy with the level of premiums in the market and are going to that dark place in your minds where it's all a conspiracy. The reality is our Insurance Industry really is free market economics . Don't compete and you are toast.

I for one find it really hard to believe that if the insurance companies charges us the same price as last year for example (assuming nothing has changed) that they will go bust.

[GMB]

Well girls, it's all about fair play and proportional increases based on reality and not based on greed. We all know that prices have to go up, but it seems the insurance industry are being excessive. If you ran a business and saw all your competitors getting away with "too high" price increases you may be tempted to join in the gold rush.

The possible silver lining could be that more equitable insurance companies may see an opportunity to offer a better value product, gain customers and make money.  Where are they?

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Notamech said:

Sure that only applies when you are not a bank or financial institution. Else everything flies. If you're a bank then you're free to do whatever...tank the economy at taxpayers expense gamble away like its a giant casino. Do whatever when you have friends who are bureaucrats and policy makers. Laws apply only to us regular people. 

Also when I say cartel obviously it's a metaphor. These companies have the best lawyers money can buy and often find grey areas.

So how did we go from Insurance companies to Banks?

Look I expect this level of naivety and lack of understanding of commerce from some people. I just did not expect to find it here amongst people who are equipped to find themselves behind the wheel of a Lexus.

I shall refrain from further participation .

[Notamech]

57 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

So how did we go from Insurance companies to Banks?

Look I expect this level of naivety and lack of understanding of commerce from some people. I just did not expect to find it here amongst people who are equipped to find themselves behind the wheel of a Lexus.

I shall refrain from further participation .

Ooh the level of judgement. You shall refrain from further participation? Ooh no! we're going to miss out on all the condescending comments.

Its laughable that you think you're better than others because you drive a Lexus. Goes to show the size of the peanut where your idea if your "expertise" comes from.

Also since you're such an award winning expert on commerce you should know these business are all intertwined. The best example is AIG that tanked and was bailed out at taxpayers expense. But you already know that since you're a baller award winning, lexus driving, rolex wearing commerce expert 🤣 

 

[Malc1]

I feel the insurance companies ( and finance institutions often ) hold general public over their barrel and there’s no Ombudsman or Govt Control that’s effective to protect us all against the potential greed of some ……. sure some insurers are having a bad time financially probably but others are probably doing very well indeed, too well maybe ……. that’s their Management and Board for the Shareholders ……. poor judgements often too in risk assessment …….. and it might be that some Lexus drivers are indeed poor risks …… their driving skills, easy theft cars, anti-social areas by where they live …… and more ……BUT the oft feeling by very many is that we are simply being ripped off …… and that’s a bad feeling to have and some Ombudsman / Authority whatever should be taking due notice to investigate why and suggest remedy ……. 
Sitting on their backsides just won’t cut it I’m afraid …… a revolutions a’coming  🥵

Malc 

[Mr_Groundhog]

3 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

The reality is our Insurance Industry really is free market economics

Calle me deluded, that's fine. 🙂 I have been called worse by others who can't grasp the basics of what it means to own (or not own) capital and the pressures on ever-increasing profits driven by an economic model favouring shareholders above all else.
With all due respect, this thing you call free market is not free, nor a market (such belief sounds disingenuous), and whatever that thing may be, it is essentially at odds with the concept of democracy itself (but may be going a bit too off-topic here).
The bit about price fixing being prohibited made me smile: once you learn a bit of history of economics & the financial sector as a whole, surely you cannot be as naive as to think it plays by any rules you & I have to abide to.  🫠 

[Tickedon]

7 hours ago, Notamech said:

The problem is not capitalism itself but how unfairly its being applied. If the government says motor insurance is compulsory it must make provisions to ensure even lower income groups are able to afford at least some basic level of cover. E.g. education is compulsory but everyone gets to go to a local  school for free and if they have the money they're free to opt for private schools. 

 

Educating your children is mandated by law. Owning a car is not, and therefore insurance isn’t mandatory and shouldn’t be state provided. 

The problem is we’ve been too generous bailing out those making unwise life choices (e.g. those on benefits see a financial increase if they have more kids, courtesy of other taxpayers; whereas those earning & paying their way typically see a big decrease in their household finances if they have more children) that it’s now become expected that the government will solve all problems. Any sense of personal responsibility is sadly gone. 

I fear too many people aren’t aware of how bad nationalised companies were. I suspect we all may have a refresher course in the next few years. 

[Notamech]

1 hour ago, Tickedon said:

Educating your children is mandated by law. Owning a car is not, and therefore insurance isn’t mandatory and shouldn’t be state provided. 

The problem is we’ve been too generous bailing out those making unwise life choices (e.g. those on benefits see a financial increase if they have more kids, courtesy of other taxpayers; whereas those earning & paying their way typically see a big decrease in their household finances if they have more children) that it’s now become expected that the government will solve all problems. Any sense of personal responsibility is sadly gone. 

I fear too many people aren’t aware of how bad nationalised companies were. I suspect we all may have a refresher course in the next few years. 

I agree owning a car is not mandated by law but neither is having children. Also you can't argue against the fact that it is a necessity for some.

I personally know people who serve as community nurses and physios who literally need to own a car to do their job and make ends meet. The NHS does not provide them with a car or pay for their insurance & associated costs. The NHS only pays a fixed rate for fuel used and thats it. Even that has been the same for several years now and has not risen with the rising cost of energy. I know some of these people personally and they struggle to make ends meet as their salaries have not gone up commensurate with the cost of living. This is just one example I am sure there are 100s of people out there with jobs like these. These are not people slacking it off and living on benefits that just expect the govt to bail them out. And it is these people that are squeezed the most.

And yes the government is there to regulate and solve these problems. Else your argument about poorly run nationalised companies should apply to education and helathcare as well. Would you rather pay for education and healthcare too? If not the government then who should be solving these issues? What else are we paying such high taxes for? Bailing out banks?

 

 

[GMB]

7 hours ago, Notamech said:

I personally know people who serve as community nurses and physios who literally need to own a car to do their job and make ends meet. The NHS does not provide them with a car or pay for their insurance & associated costs. The NHS only pays a fixed rate for fuel used and that's it.

Nurses are also punished when trying to park their cars at their workplace and charged and fined for the privilege. One friend has racked up over £500 in fines for parking at the hospital. They, and others are refusing to pay.

[Mr_Groundhog]

10 hours ago, Tickedon said:

we’ve been too generous bailing out those making unwise life choices (e.g. those on benefits see a financial increase if they have more kids, courtesy of other taxpayers; whereas those earning & paying their way typically see a big decrease in their household finances if they have more children)

1. I wanna think in this paragraph you're referring to the Royal family? They've been on benefits for a long time too, refusing to get real jobs.
2. On publicly-owned utilities, I'll just say you should look up what happened with the privatised water supply in Paris for example. 
3. Also, it is not "the government", it is us (as a group of humans forming a society) who need to help those who aren't able to help themselves. A younger society (with children) ultimately benefits everyone.

[Malc1]

9 hours ago, Notamech said:

The NHS does not provide them with a car or pay for their insurance & associated costs. The NHS only pays a fixed rate for fuel used and thats it.

is this the HMRC figure that you're referring to by any chance ?  That all those that can claim mileage for from whomsoever ..............  if that's so then the HMRC figure of 45/47p per mile is it, ......... is the HMRC calculation to cover costs of all associated with the person claiming  ............ for the total car costs, not just fuel  .  and not thereby making a profit on the payment that would otherwise then become a taxable benefit 

Forgive me if I've misunderstood !  🙃

Malc

[wharfhouse]

5 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

is this the HMRC figure that you're referring to by any chance ?  That all those that can claim mileage for from whomsoever ..............  if that's so then the HMRC figure of 45/47p per mile is it, ......... is the HMRC calculation to cover costs of all associated with the person claiming  ............ for the total car costs, not just fuel  .  and not thereby making a profit on the payment that would otherwise then become a taxable benefit 

Forgive me if I've misunderstood !  🙃

Malc

AFAIK the NHS actually pays for private car use over the HMRC rate of 45p per mile first 10,000 miles and 25p per mile thereafter - I think something over 50p per mile now. It's the only organisation that I know of that actually pays more then the HMRC rates. I assume that the nurses getting paid that will pay tax on the excess over the HMRC rates... HMRC really need to review the figures for everyone with the significant increases in recent years running a car (not just fuel but everything else).

[Notamech]

1 hour ago, wharfhouse said:

AFAIK the NHS actually pays for private car use over the HMRC rate of 45p per mile first 10,000 miles and 25p per mile thereafter - I think something over 50p per mile now. It's the only organisation that I know of that actually pays more then the HMRC rates. I assume that the nurses getting paid that will pay tax on the excess over the HMRC rates... HMRC really need to review the figures for everyone with the significant increases in recent years running a car (not just fuel but everything else).

I can double check. But as far as I am aware when you work in the community, the role requires you to have a car as you do around 4 - 5 visits a day. The only thing you can claim back from the NHS is the money you spend on fuel. I don't know what the exact rate is but they pay this out based on the no of miles done. Unless this is what you are talking about too and you're saying the fixed rate they pay is not for fuel only but for personal car usage? Even so the rate per mile has stayed the same for several years. I remember them complaining about how bad they were hit at the peak of the energy crisis. The NHS do not cover any additional costs like insurance (they have to buy business insurace which costs more) or maintenance.  

So they would often end up being out of pocket on an already not very high salary. 

[wharfhouse]

49 minutes ago, Notamech said:

I can double check. But as far as I am aware when you work in the community, the role requires you to have a car as you do around 4 - 5 visits a day. The only thing you can claim back from the NHS is the money you spend on fuel. I don't know what the exact rate is but they pay this out based on the no of miles done. Unless this is what you are talking about too and you're saying the fixed rate they pay is not for fuel only but for personal car usage? Even so the rate per mile has stayed the same for several years. I remember them complaining about how bad they were hit at the peak of the energy crisis. The NHS do not cover any additional costs like insurance (they have to buy business insurace which costs more) or maintenance.  

So they would often end up being out of pocket on an already not very high salary. 

The rates are published here: NHS mileage allowance rates | Royal College of Nursing (rcn.org.uk)

In summary for the NHS: The national guidance in England is 59 pence per mile for the first 3,500 miles and 24 pence per mile thereafter.

This compares to HMRC published (tax free) rates of 45p per mile for first 10,000 miles and 25p per mile thereafter. For the NHS rates there would be tax due on the excess payments over the HMRC published rates, but depending on mileage this would tend to zero for higher mileage drivers as more miles would then be done at the lower rate, and their overall compensation would fall within HMRC guidelines. The RCN are trying to get the rates raised, which I agree with as would any other person using their own car for business mileage since HMRC have hardly changed the rates for many years, but this should be the same for anyone that is using their own car for business mileage and not for any one particular profession.

[RadicalCoupe-Fuji]

could be worse, apparently land rover & range rover owners cant even get insured because of all the theft. 

[Malc1]

27 minutes ago, RadicalCoupe-Fuji said:

could be worse, apparently land rover & range rover owners cant even get insured because of all the theft. 

JLR have recently moved all their UK spare parts to a centralised depot AND often unable to track down parts for repairers .  this, from my Insurance coy working neice, resulted in many many repair claims taking months to fix coz they only use genuine new JLR parts ..  resulting in excessive car hire costs and a tentative wish by the insurers to write-off the damaged cars ........  coz of the car hire costs too especially ...........

Therefore a reluctance to now insure JLR cars ............. my nephew insures with them and had a deer crunch his front underside 2 months back and whilst an insurance repair they have now allowed the indy repairer to source 2ndhand eBay parts to finish the job .............  he gets the car back next week  .  he hasn't claimed for any interim car hire as he has use of another car ok, his daughter's at Uni car so she doesn't have that !

So it's often this scenario that causes a hiccup with insurers

Malc

[Malc1]

….. and some prohibitive quoted car insce premiums …… or none offered at all 😰

Some of the car manufacturers like JLR have totally cocked up …… is Lexus similar with some models parts availability perhaps ? 

Malc 

[Notamech]

1 hour ago, Malc1 said:

….. and some prohibitive quoted car insce premiums …… or none offered at all 😰

Some of the car manufacturers like JLR have totally cocked up …… is Lexus similar with some models parts availability perhaps ? 

Malc 

I remember reading on this forum a while ago someone complaining about insurers wanting to charge him £5000 to insure a newish RX350 as his previous RX350 got stolen. I think with lexus some models are definitely affected due to high likelihood of being stolen.

[Guest]

I reckon the government should do more in regulating and keeping insurance companies in line - since it's a mandatory requirement for motoring. Not that it should be 'free' or anything - it absolutely should not be. Motoring isn't mandatory, but as a first world free country, the right to travel freely is important and as some have mentioned, let's face it, most people on the road aren't 'car people' or enthusiasts, but simply have no better or more economical way of transporting their families or self across long, tedious routes and distances. So owning a car isn't always a nice to have luxury although it is for some of us. 

As for the NHS charging its staff.. that is awful, but I have to wonder how useful the unions are [ever] [in general] that despite making a lot of noise and money from membership, haven't achieved much in that very real, everyday issue that costs a lot of hard working key workers a tonne of money and frustration in simply trying to come to work everyday. But if you are publicly funded and have no obligation/motivation to make a profit, or be accountable for poor management decisions (such as outsourcing everything for sheer convenience) then what do you expect? Their biggest problem is putting healthcare people in charge - who are experts in health care and high in empathy, but not experts in balancing books, strategy or a business mentality. They shouldn't mix the two, or you get people over spending in the wrong areas out of 'empathy' with no real concept of the impact down the line and that's what we see all the time. No amount of government throwing money at the NHS will make a difference (before someone inevitably blames the tories). It's a structural problem and until they can straighten it out, I hate to say it, but it's only continuing to make a case for privatisation. And I don't say that as some stuck up rich guy, I'm definitely a beneficiary of the NHS and would probably be screwed without it. But service user or not, my need and want for 'free healthcare' is no reason for highly skilled key workers, in stressful jobs, to have to keep turning up to be treated like crap, paid too little or laid off..  

[Mr_Groundhog]

35 minutes ago, CT200NI said:

balancing books, strategy or a business mentality.

That's exactly what brought the NHS to the situation it's in, my dear! ...Public health is not a zero sum game, and its very concept is at odds with maximising revenue.

In healthcare, savings are often false savings... costing a lot more in the long run as conditions go undiagnosed until it's too late for it to be cheap to cure... (but the one in charge already "balanced the books" to look good to others with "business mentality"). 

That and the army of private consultants draining ludicrous amounts of public money in return for PowerPoint decks (I know because I once worked for a huge consultancy firm who did just that). That is the structural problem.

It is not a question of "empathy", just good economic sense. A healthy society is more productive, if you like. Right now long waiting lists mean (among other things) that lots of people cannot go back to work and their conditions will worsen, just so the books can be balanced the upcoming quarter. 

[Malc1]

I’m thinking the NHS employees cover a huge range of skills, not just Drs Nurses and other health giving professionals …… the payroll is summat like 1.25 million persons overall I understand …… it’s just an impossible business to manage …… not one I’d ever wish to get involved with for sure 🤔

Malc 

[Notamech]

36 minutes ago, Malc1 said:

I’m thinking the NHS employees cover a huge range of skills, not just Drs Nurses and other health giving professionals …… the payroll is summat like 1.25 million persons overall I understand …… it’s just an impossible business to manage …… not one I’d ever wish to get involved with for sure 🤔

Malc 

Exactly this plus the NHS isnt just one organisation from what I understand. While there are some guidelines that are applicable to all each trust is run as its own separate entity with its own rules and schemes / benefits for employees. Given the way things are I reckon eventually the big insurance companies will have their way and all of us will be having the same discussion about how our health insurance has reached crazy heights with them being hand in glove with big pharma.

[Malc1]

I doubt there’ll ever be any intention to cancel the NHS 

it’s enshrined in the UKs DNA 👍

Malc