Cavalier attitude of car insurers.
On last night's BBC Watchdog, it was reported that customers were receiving increased premiums/cancelled policies, even though no claims had been made. this could occur where the insured person had enquired about a problem, but not proceeded with a claim.
An insurance rep appeared on the programme, but his responses were as devious as the proverbial Arthur Daley.
Since certain insurances are compulsory (vehicle, and home via mortgage lenders), isn't it time the government applied protective legislation to rein-in these people. The situation is getting out of control, to the point that it could have a seriously adverse effect on the social economy.
Banks and energy companies are under scrutiny with possible threats of legislation if they don't behave responsibly; why should insurers escape the net?
If any politician dares to question the Insurance (industry?), insurers usually bleat about higher costs to the public, no politician (in the past) has wanted his name associated with that. They also claim to be providing motor cover at a loss – I wonder why they advertise so much?
All the large conglomerates employ highly paid accountants to turn (on paper) their profits into loss, so as to rake in even more profit. And since many politicians are also shareholders or have other vested interests in these companies, then they are not going to knock the proverbial golden eagle off its perch, are they?
Another thing about these insurance companies is that although they are competitors they share information on their customers, saying that its being done to prevent fraud?
Granted, there are such people out there who do make fraudulent claims, yet they treat all their customers with suspicion.
Treating all customers as fraudulent claimers is the same attitude as the police in this country, whereby everyone is guilty until proven innocent or someone is paid to drop the case.
I've never got the argument about it costing us, the honest driver, more due to fraudulent claims. If the insurers paid up for hit-and-runs, (which they can afford to do, what with the amount they charge everyone when the vast majority don't claim in any given year so they earn millions of pounds for doing absolutely zilch in most cases, so they can certainly afford the occasional expensive claim), then no, it wouldn't cost us any more. The sole cause for the increases are the insurance companies, no other reasons, they are using irrelevant factors as an excuse but at the end of the day they have bottomless pits of money and could afford to insure us on half of what we pay and still make a profit.
Unfortunately, all too often in my dealings with utility companies and the service industy, including telephone and motor insurance, I hear the comment; "Well, nobody else has queried this." That is the problem. Too few of us actually query their behaviour, basically allowing them to get away with whatever they want to change, whether it be Policy decisions or price increases.
Perhaps part of the problem is how the policies of the AA and RAC have changed over the years. Once they operated for the exclusive benefits of providing a service to their members, which included fighting the corner against injustice to motorists.
Originally Posted by Rolebama
Now, they are affiliated to many commercial organisations, which includes insurance companies, with their interests spread far and wide across business far removed from motoring circles, and accountant-driven. You cannot fight a war if you support both sides!
Referring back to post #1, I suppose the best solution to the problem when purchasing insurance, under the heading any previous claims insert as per CUE (Claims and Underwriting Exchange) that way they cannot trip you up over any forgotten claims or queries about claims. In the program, the FSA were going along with the insurers and their devious practices.
Sounds like a good idea. But, in practice, would this be enough to legally close any loopholes? Also, would an insurance company allow the policy to proceed with such an endorsement added to a proposal form?
Originally Posted by wagolynn
The problem these days is that we have been brainwashed by most companies into having to accept their T&C's (very often cloaked in a fog of legalease), and rarely offering cover in line with their upfront promotional dirge.
The practice of having to register appliance guarantees, which included an acceptance of no liability for users' injuries, etc., was stamped out years ago. Perhaps it is time T&C's were subjected to a government clean-up.