Why do we put with with the way we are treated by our insurance companies these days?
They walk all over us, demand instant payment from us, yet take months to pay us out, and even then try to rip us off with poor settlements?
They hide behind small print, and treat us badly as customers. We wouldn't put up with that kind of treatment in our other dealings.
There should be a better policing of insurance companies in general.
I agree entirely Smudger. I have never had a satisfactory outcome with an insurance company without a lot of unnecessary debate, usually leading to me having to be very assertive about what I will accept. The problem is that there are too many people who are willing to put up with their somewhat questionable ways, and just accept whatever they say.
I imagine that if this was a forum for insurance people we would see something like:
Why do people tell such lies on their applications?
Why do they tell lies on their accident reports?
Why do people think that the rules don't apply to them?
Do people really think that we are charitable organisations?
Direct Line house insurance was £320 after 12 years with no claim ever made, never ever. Saga £118 for identical cover - yes checked the small print and the excesses - so if that is not as close to legal fraud as you can get, I don't know what is.
To answer Smudger, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is supposed to police this now.
Rather than fraud, isn't that a good example of a free market working well? DL made you an offer, you shopped around and found a better deal elsewhere. What's wrong with that?
Originally Posted by Hometune
Everything! It raises the loyalty issue yet again but how you can suggest it is a free market working well is just muddying the waters.
A free market working well is where a supplier trades with a customer to both their benefit, not just one party. The supplier should consider the loyalty, the number of claims made, location, age of customer, number of family members etc, and in order to promote a good honest and trustworthy product, offer reduced premiums.
To suggest that it is a free market 'working well' is nonsense. The supplier is relying on a customer being complacent or lazy in not shopping around which I am guilty of. How anyone can suggest otherwise shows how society has changed and this 'fraud' has become the norm. So now the customer no longer benefits because the supplier has been greedy. The result is that the supplier has lost trade. Hardly a recipe for a free market working well.
No, a free market is one where the customer has a choice of suppliers, and can compare their offerings and prices, which is exactly what we have here. There are literally dozens of insurers competing for your business.
Loyalty is a different issue entirely, but did your insurer ever offer you his loyalty, or ask for yours? These are commercial transactions - the days when most insurance companies were mutual organisations are long gone.
I'm not getting at you - I've been just as guilty of complacency and/or laziness in the past.
The one practice which I do think is unethical/dishonest is for your current insurer to quote but offer to "price-match" any competitor. My view is that if he hasn't given me his best price up front he deserves to lose the business.
Another point to consider is, that car insurance is mandatory by law, so the insurance companies know at least one of them are going to get you as a customer.
House/contents insurance, is not required by law, so there is more competition there.
Another thing to consider, a lot of these "independent" companies are all under the umbrella of one major one, I've been told that at least 4 out of the top five, are all under one company?
This cant be a good thing, as it means both drivers involved in an accident could, in theory, be insured by the "same company", so how can one contest with its sister company?
This is not a good position for the two drivers concerned?
I still don't understand how Third Party can be more expensive than what is sold as Comprehensive cover.
I have seen various explanations for that "Steve Sweeney, moneysupermarket.com's car insurance expert, explained: "In recent years, drivers with a more 'risky' profile, such as younger motorists or those with driving convictions have opted for this cover to keep the cost of motoring down. Providers have reacted to this perceived increase in risk by driving up the cost of third-party only cover."
This still doesn't sound convincing to me, since so many factors are used these days to arrive at a premium.