Car insurance 2017: 237% increase in annual premium

It's on me to get new car insurance and my oh my is this something else. I had heard it went up a lot, but not this much. I've never had an accident or indeed a claim and have my NCB for 9 plus years (which is the maximum available option). It's been very handy money for car insurance companies.

My last premium was for €650. That was in summer 2015 and that was the total premium for two years (including full NCB, breakdown service, windscreen cover etc). In other words, my fully comprehensive etc premium for each of the past two years worked out at €325 per year.

Now, the cheapest quote I'm getting, with NCB protection, is €770 for a single year. By my calculations that's about a 237% increase in the annual premium. That 237% increase is the cheapest on the market so this nonsense spouted by rightwing ideologues of having "free choice" to go somewhere cheaper is, appropriately enough, thick.

How very nice of the Irish government to legislate that we must have car insurance, while sitting on their hands when the oligopolistic car insurance market that their legislation in effect created screw us royally. Forget social welfare - corporate welfare is where it's at in 2017.

State intervention seems to be fine when it's insisting that we must part with our hard-earned after-tax income and give it to one of these private corporations, but in our brave capitalist world in 2017 state intervention is unacceptable when it comes to the same government ensuring that these few firms do not take advantage of the dominant position Irish law gives them. Welcome to our fine capitalist "free" market, where our elected "representatives" do sfa to represent us against such powerful corporations.

/end rant.

Beyondgone

Try being 18 and starting out in life. They'll want a bit more than €770 a year off you. You can probably add close to a zero.

Then you have to try buy a home too.. which because the State deems themselves the arbiter of who can build what, when, will also rob you blind.

I'd hate to be young these days.

Jack the Stripper

Least they could do is supply the lube.

dreamers75

Sadly I got to listen to a radio show where people were calling in saying how they just simply dont have and have no intention of getting.

They literally felt justified in that they needed to bring Brittany or Jade to school and had to drive. The next day as I was bringing my kid to school I was bored and checked what cars had insurance, I counted 11 out of 20 on my side of the road.

All with pajama wearing mothers dropping kids off. I doubt they are the only ones.

Jack the Stripper

Bet the Pajamas women were driving new Dacia Dusters?

colm_mcm

Blue insurance buying market share 2 years ago, not so keen now that they've had the sums done for them.

ED E

First step: Lets lose this none of my business attitude. If you know somebody who claimed for a fender bender, rat the fecker out. Get pictures of them on golf course or horseriding or w/e.

fussyonion

My insurance went down this year.
I think I'm the only one who isn't being ripped off.
With Aviva 9 years, 9 years no claims.

Beyondgone

fussyonion wrote: »

My insurance went down this year.
I think I'm the only one who isn't being ripped off.
With Aviva 9 years, 9 years no claims.

Oddball.

Good luck with that. Everyone elses went up. They're grooming you to appear in their next TV campaign.

jackofalltrades

Deleted User wrote: »

In other words, my fully comprehensive etc premium for each of the past two years worked out at ?325 per year.

325 a year!!! :eek: Christ that's low.
What did you do, take the engine out of your car and tell them you'd be pushing it around.

Why did it shoot up? I missed all this.

mickrock

fussyonion wrote: »

My insurance went down this year.
I think I'm the only one who isn't being ripped off.
With Aviva 9 years, 9 years no claims.

Mine went down as well, by €100 to €550 (AXA).

I was pleasantly surprised.

Wheeliebin30

ED E wrote: »

First step: Lets lose this none of my business attitude. If you know somebody who claimed for a fender bender, rat the fecker out. Get pictures of them on golf course or horseriding or w/e.

Claims have nothing to do with the increases.

A massive stuey showed this recently.

Mostly insurance was too cheap for years with quinn undercutting everyone. It was never sustainable in the long run.

Don't be fooled by the insurance companies making you think it's to do with claims. Claims were always there before the increases.

Bishopsback

My daughters (26), 8 yrs ncb, went from €710 last year to €1050 this year with liberty ins. She went online got it with AA ins for €650.

Allah snackbar

Deleted User wrote: »

That 237% increase is the cheapest on the market so this nonsense spouted by rightwing ideologues of having "free choice" to go somewhere cheaper

/end rant.

I don't get this , is capitalism right wing now ? Are you someone who blames everything on right wing agendas and the big bad capitalist world

aon1998

I know a lot of people who have quite low premiums with aviva. My parents actually have the minimum possible quote (€280). They were also the only insurance company to make a profit last year.

I'm not certain but maybe it is due to their strict underwriting criteria?

Allah snackbar

Allah snackbar wrote: »

I don't get this , is capitalism right wing now ? Are you someone who blames everything on right wing agendas and the big bad capitalist world

It's really not complicated: corporations being given market dominance because of state intervention - in this case legislation stating we need car insurance - should not be allowed to escape state intervention when it comes to ensuring they don't abuse that position of dominance by, for instance, raising the annual premium by 237% for absolutely no reason connected with the actions of the insured person. You don't seem to find anything wrong with the current situation. Are you one of these rightwing ideologues who believe in unregulated free [sic] markets with no state intervention (except when it's making corporations richer, of course)?

And in this morning's news over in Britain, it shows once again where all this state intervention (and non-intervention) to make the rich richer is leading:

1. Britain has more billionaires than every before

2. UK's super rich carry on making billions

fussyonion

fussyonion wrote: »

My insurance went down this year.
I think I'm the only one who isn't being ripped off.
With Aviva 9 years, 9 years no claims.

mickrock wrote: »

Mine went down as well, by €100 to €550 (AXA).

aon1998 wrote: »

I know a lot of people who have quite low premiums with aviva. My parents actually have the minimum possible quote (€280).

The acturial logic behind these premia seems a law unto itself. I can fully understand an increased premium if you've caused an accident or the like. If everything else is the same (and you've demonstrated yet another year accident free) it makes no sense (and I'm not talking about staying with the same company, where I assume they'll load the premium because they judge you're less likely to go to the bother of changing).

defrule

Insurance policies are pricing using groups of data, you can be the best driving in the world but none of that matters if people that are similar to you are crap.

There are other factors as well that can cause your premiums to rise at no fault of your own. Expenses come to mind but probably the most significant is regulation.

Insurance transitioned into a new regulatory regime in 2016 and it is likely this has increased the amount of money insurers need to hold to better safeguard policyholders benefits. This is paid for by you.

Fiery mutant

My premium last year was €574. Renewal quote this year from AA was for €1140. Got it with Zurich for €518.

My brother got a renewal from his insurance company for €1200, didn't renew. Got a quote for a fresh policy starting a week later from the same company for €680.

CoolHandBandit

Mine actually went down by 30 euro this year i couldn't believe it with all the hype iv'e being hearing lately about car insurance. Still 410 a year which is far too dear when compared to the European norm.

Fanny Wank

325 to 770 is a 137% increase

Liam McPoyle

I predicted a couple of years ago that Blue insurance would not be able to sustain their 2 year gimmick pricing and it would seem I was correct.

I predicted about 7 years ago that the premiums 123.ie were offering were wholly unsustainable and I was 100% correct in that.

Since then we have had Setanta and Enterprise go bust, both of them were offering premiums between €300 and €400 per year.

So to those that are laying the blame for increases solely at insurers doors, if companies that were offering cheap insurance went bankrupt, and companies like 123 needed €200,000,000 from RSA to stop them going under, why in gods name do you think insurance could be kept cheap?

It is a clear as day that it is massively expensive to run.

If insurers are creaming it profit wise then why oh why aren't European insurance companies tripping over themselves to set up shop here?

Because the market is a basket case currently where fraudulent claims are the order of the day.

Now just so I'm clear, when I talk about fraudulent claims I'm not on about minorities engineering crashes, its the every day Joe, exaggerating their injuries, claiming soft tissue damage for low impact accidents, banging their knees on table legs, all the while aided and abetted by a greedy legal system that thrives and profits on bigger claims payments.

Insurance companies are businesses and any business has to make a profit or at least break even to remain viable.

Up to 2015 insurers were making an underwriting loss ie what they were paying out was more than what they were taking in, AFAIK the central bank report for 2016 has yet to be finalised.

As for people saying they haven't had a claim so shouldn't pay more, insurance is pooled risk so the claims of the few are paid by the premiums of the many. Ye all benefited when the premiums were low so you have to take the rough with the smooth.

I'm confident that we have reached the peak of the cycle and that premiums for most will remain relatively static over the next 12 months.

Sirsok

I dont see how they can base their increases on fraudulent claims, if they have gone thru the courts how can they be deemed fraudulent?

Wibbs

Sirsok wrote: »

if they have gone thru the courts how can they be deemed fraudulent?

Irish courts? Ha. The amounts and frequency of payouts is way outa whack with our European neighbours. Off the top of my head in my own extended circle I can think of four who got daftly high payouts for eff all, with the legal profession it seems all too happy to egg them on and judges all too eager it seems to facilitate such claims and payouts.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It's 137% not 237 for a start.

How had you a two year deal at only 325 per year? That seems very cheap.

wordofwarning

Deleted User wrote: »

The acturial logic behind these premia seems a law unto itself. I can fully understand an increased premium if you've caused an accident or the like. If everything else is the same (and you've demonstrated yet another year accident free) it makes no sense (and I'm not talking about staying with the same company, where I assume they'll load the premium because they judge you're less likely to go to the bother of changing).

Do you not think €325 is ridiculously low? As they say with investment, previous performance does not act as an indicator for future performance. If you rear end a car tomorrow and drive on a slippy icy road into a wall. That €325 you have been paying for a decade won't cover that cost. Insurance at €325 is ridiculous for the level of risk involved. Look at household insurance where there is no risk of a dodgy claim such as whiplash, it is a solid structure and yet a premium for a basic house can be €500+

If insurance is such the cash cow in Ireland. Why isnt every German and French insurer jumping at the opportunity to make these massive profits? As it is not that profitable

scamalert

wordofwarning wrote: »

Do you not think €325 is ridiculously low? As they say with investment, previous performance does not act as an indicator for future performance. If you rear end a car tomorrow and drive on a slippy icy road into a wall. That €325 you have been paying for a decade won't cover that cost. Insurance at €325 is ridiculous for the level of risk involved. Look at household insurance where there is no risk of a dodgy claim such as whiplash, it is a solid structure and yet a premium for a basic house can be €500+

If insurance is such the cash cow in Ireland. Why isnt every German and French insurer jumping at the opportunity to make these massive profits? As it is not that profitable

your looking at it as if person paying for insurance is putting money aside for his retirement, what if OP doesn't ever have an accident and decides to stop driving can he claim his money back, if your attitude is that its another investment for these companies.As other user said all the money is pooled,its not x person has to be able to cover his losses since that's for insurance to work out, but currently system works in some mysterious way that one company puts increase person switches and gets discount, so in other words monopoly between few large companies who somehow dont seem able to manage money, that they need more each year.

colm_mcm

The point that's being made is that the OPs premium was unusually low to start with, which explains a lot of the increase.

suicide_circus

Wibbs wrote: »

Irish courts? Ha. The amounts and frequency of payouts is way outa whack with our European neighbours. Off the top of my head in my own extended circle I can think of four who got daftly high payouts for eff all, with the legal profession it seems all too happy to egg them on and judges all too eager it seems to facilitate such claims and payouts.

It's a problem that no one is willing to tackle and legal eagle boards users try and laugh you down when it's highlighted here

quadrifoglio verde

Rod Munch wrote: »

I predicted a couple of years ago that Blue insurance would not be able to sustain their 2 year gimmick pricing and it would seem I was correct.

I predicted about 7 years ago that the premiums 123.ie were offering were wholly unsustainable and I was 100% correct in that.

Since then we have had Setanta and Enterprise go bust, both of them were offering premiums between €300 and €400 per year.

So to those that are laying the blame for increases solely at insurers doors, if companies that were offering cheap insurance went bankrupt, and companies like 123 needed €200,000,000 from RSA to stop them going under, why in gods name do you think insurance could be kept cheap?

It is a clear as day that it is massively expensive to run.

If insurers are creaming it profit wise then why oh why aren't European insurance companies tripping over themselves to set up shop here?

Because the market is a basket case currently where fraudulent claims are the order of the day.

Now just so I'm clear, when I talk about fraudulent claims I'm not on about minorities engineering crashes, its the every day Joe, exaggerating their injuries, claiming soft tissue damage for low impact accidents, banging their knees on table legs, all the while aided and abetted by a greedy legal system that thrives and profits on bigger claims payments.

Insurance companies are businesses and any business has to make a profit or at least break even to remain viable.

Up to 2015 insurers were making an underwriting loss ie what they were paying out was more than what they were taking in, AFAIK the central bank report for 2016 has yet to be finalised.

As for people saying they haven't had a claim so shouldn't pay more, insurance is pooled risk so the claims of the few are paid by the premiums of the many. Ye all benefited when the premiums were low so you have to take the rough with the smooth.

I'm confident that we have reached the peak of the cycle and that premiums for most will remain relatively static over the next 12 months.

Agree with this.
Did the central bank not also instruct them that they had to have much more in reserves as well?

Add then that low risk bonds are yielding tiny yields. Previously you'd get 2 or 3% which was enough. Now you have to pay the Germans to loan them money and I'm guessing low risk bonds was a significant part of insurers income?

Sonics2k

Insurance prices have gone up to totally insane amounts.

My fianceé started driving last year and the insurance quotes we got for her (In her late 20's) was a little bit under €3000 for Third Party, Fire and Theft, which is a truly insane amount of money.

Thankfully because I have a full licence she was added to mine, but it sent my premium from €400 to €940.

Liam McPoyle

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Agree with this.
Did the central bank not also instruct them that they had to have much more in reserves as well?

Add then that low risk bonds are yielding tiny yields. Previously you'd get 2 or 3% which was enough. Now you have to pay the Germans to loan them money and I'm guessing low risk bonds was a significant part of insurers income?

The Solvency II requirements was an EU directive that came into effect in January 2016. In simple terms it means insurers are required to keep a minimum amount of money in their coffers at all times, iirc its a minimum of 100% of their reserves so if they have €50m in claims outstanding they have to have at least €100m in the bank.

The investment one is something that not many people are aware of and those that are try and paint it that insurers lost a fortune gambling on the stock market. Its as you said, since the global financial crisis investment income has dried up due to very low interest rates, historically insurers could pad their reserves with investment income but that's not possible any longer. Safe, low yield bonds are the order of the day.

Something else that I feel needs to be made clearer is that the claims environment is not just claims from motor insurance. Its all claims, particularly public liability.

Shop owners, publicans and sports clubs have all seen massive increases in their premiums due to slips, trips and falls and people more than willing to claim for anything.

I'd also draw peoples attention to home insurance.

Millions are bound by the legal requirements of their mortgage to have their homes insured so they have to buy it therefore are a captive audience.

So how come, if insurers are just putting up prices for the lols has home insurance not increased by much more than 5% over the last number of years for some and remained static for many more provided they are claims free?

The reason is that the claims environment for property has been pretty good for the last few years. There have been no real major weather events so rates have stayed more or less the same.

The reason for increases is down to third party risk, that's huge for businesses and motor but very small for home so business and motor premiums have spiked but home insurance hasn't.

I was looking for quotes for when I start driving at 29. On a 1.3 Astra all I could get was quotes for about 4.5k. When I changed the licence from 0 years to 1 year it went up by a tenner. Pure logic.

Sofiztikated

Sonics2k wrote: »

Insurance prices have gone up to totally insane amounts.

My fianceé started driving last year and the insurance quotes we got for her (In her late 20's) was a little bit under €3000 for Third Party, Fire and Theft, which is a truly insane amount of money.

Thankfully because I have a full licence she was added to mine, but it sent my premium from €400 to €940.

I remember my first quote for insurance, way back in 2000. €4,500 on a 306, TPFT.

Liam McPoyle

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I remember my first quote for insurance, way back in 2000. €4,500 on a 306, TPFT.

People have very short memories, premiums of that level for first time drivers were the norm in the mid 90s to mid 00s.

Quinn then started targeting the young driver market.

We all know how his company ended up.

SeanW

OP: the problem isn't evil greedy corporations, its costs. When each accident costs so much in preemptive payouts, legal fees and, mandated payouts etc. then that HAS to be reflected in costs eventually, because no business can spend more than it earns indefinitely.

Two things need to happen:

1. The cost of litigation needs to fall. Action should be taken on the "sheltered sectors" of the economy, and law is at the top of the list.
2. The standard of responsibility on drivers needs to be tightened. We have, by jurist precedent, concepts such as "strict liability" (whereby if a motorist is involved in an accident with a cyclist or pedestrian, the motorist is deemed "at fault" regardless of the circumstances) and also the "deep pockets principle" which states that the party with the greatest means should be held liable, where judges perceive the insurance policy to be a massive pot they can raid. Both of these ideas need to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

SeanW

In case you are wondering where our worthless government stands on the issue of legal costs:

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/lawyers-win-again-as-troika-admits-defeat-31221017.html

For a government that normally responds "How high?" when ordered by the EU to jump, it seems strange that they tell the EU to get lost only when they suggest doing something about the insane legal costs we have.

Outlaw Pete

Mine kept going up and a few folks on the Motors forum said try Bank of Ireland and so I did and they halved my annual and this year it went down a little even. No idea if that will continue or they fleece people on the third year, but so far they seem good. My car is over ten years old also, which I know a few companies are beginning to refuse to quote on.

.........

Insurance companies for as long as I can remember in Ireland have been charging over the odds for insurance in Ireland and finding something to blame it on.
As soon as their excuses are dealt with by government, they find something else. Rinse, repeat and spin.

Liam McPoyle

......... wrote: »

Insurance companies for as long as I can remember in Ireland have been charging over the odds for insurance in Ireland and finding something to blame it on.
As soon as their excuses are dealt with by government, they find something else. Rinse, repeat and spin.

Pretty big accusation there amigo.

Care to back it up with some, you know, facts, evidence, proof?

Arcade_Tryer

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Mine kept going up and a few folks on the Motors forum said try Bank of Ireland and so I did and they halved my annual and this year it went down a little even. No idea if that will continue or they fleece people on the third year, but so far they seem good. My car is over ten years old also, which I know a few companies are beginning to refuse to quote on.

:eek: A year ago that rule was 15 years! How in the name of Christ can they consider a 10 year old car to be a significant risk. This crap just proves them to be total chancers, making it up, and moving premiums up, as they go along.

Arcade_Tryer

Rod Munch wrote: »

Pretty big accusation there amigo.

Care to back it up with some, you know, facts, evidence, proof?

It's common knowledge that insurance companies in Ireland have recently been making false claims about claim culture being the main reason for rising premiums for the majority of drivers.

Allinall

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It's common knowledge that insurance companies in Ireland have recently been making false claims about claim culture being the main reason for rising premiums for the majority of drivers.

That has nothing to do with what the poster claimed.

Sirsok

Wibbs wrote: »

Irish courts? Ha. The amounts and frequency of payouts is way outa whack with our European neighbours. Off the top of my head in my own extended circle I can think of four who got daftly high payouts for eff all, with the legal profession it seems all too happy to egg them on and judges all too eager it seems to facilitate such claims and payouts.

Im not saying fraud doesnt happen, it definitely does. what im trying to say that if its claimed by companies that fraudulent claims are the basis of raising premiums, well then it should be proved by them in court to be allowed use that excuse.

Arcade_Tryer

Allinall wrote: »

That has nothing to do with what the poster claimed.

Yes it does. Overcharging relative to other EU countries and blaming the "claim culture".

washman3

ED E wrote: »

First step: Lets lose this none of my business attitude. If you know somebody who claimed for a fender bender, rat the fecker out. Get pictures of them on golf course or horseriding or w/e.

Second step :
Also on the same golf course make sure you take pictures of the bankers, speculators,crooked politicans, retired 50-55 year old public servants,
ie the real people who have ran this country into the ground. :mad:

Allinall

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Yes it does. Overcharging relative to other EU countries and blaming the "claim culture".

Where's the evidence that they're overcharging?

Why aren't European companies starting up here and charging lower premiums?

Have you examined annual accounts to see what profits companies are making?

Have you taken into account the fact that other countries are different marketplaces with different risk factors at play?

Or are you just going along with the mob and their incoherent rants who in the main have no understanding of the insurance industry?

osarusan

Ours went down by about €80.

.........

Rod Munch wrote: »

Pretty big accusation there amigo.

Care to back it up with some, you know, facts, evidence, proof?

I knew it wouldn't new long before a panicing shill turned up.

I'm not your amigo / pal / bud / dude.

Car insurance has always cost more in Ireland compared to other countries in western europe. I've lost count of the excuses from the giant PMPA scam, to the no MOT claim, to claims about provisional drivers, to needing a PIAB, to the Quinn insurance bail out, to ten year old cars are a problem, to the courts are scamming insurane companies claim. Every time a goverment addresses these claims, the insurance industry finds some other excuse to jack up premiums above the western European average.

The law society have rubbished the insurance industry's recent spin.

"There is little, if any, evidence that the level of awards being made to victims of motor accidents can account for the recent, alarming increases in motor insurance premiums” says Murphy.
“The vast majority of claims are handled by the injuries board or are settled directly by insurers. No costs are payable in those circumstances except by the consumer. The tiny proportion where proceedings are issued are subject to ever-decreasing levels of costs by a stringent taxing regime shortly to be strengthened by even more transparent and onerous legal costs requirements under the new Act,” he says.
“The Law Society’s view is reflected in a departmental briefing document for Minister for Transport Paschal Donohoe. It said, ‘It appears motor insurers are now imposing higher premium rates to return to profitability or to boost profitability after a number of years of insurers competing for market share with prices driven down accordingly and possible underwriting losses in some cases.’”

“It is worth noting that in his contribution to the Dáil debate on this subject on 20 April 2016, the Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan, referred to a letter he had written to the governor of the Central Bank of Ireland seeking a report on the insurance sector.
“In reply he was told by the Central Bank that until recently insurance firms enjoyed a prolonged period of reasonable investment return on the asset side of their balance sheets. This income stream provided firms with the scope to compete aggressively on price. The Central Bank proceeded to advise the Minister that ‘recent premium increases are designed to restore core underwriting profitability.’”

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/the-rise-and-rise-of-unaffordable-motor-insurance-1.2734118

Arcade_Tryer

Allinall wrote: »

Where's the evidence that they're overcharging?

Almost sure there was research released recently which said the "claims" are not the reason for the drastic rise in premiums, but rather it's simply a case of insurance companies wishing to return to previous higher profits. I'm not going looking for it but it was widely reported in media a few months ago. Hence why I said common knowledge.