Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Remapping implications

12346

Comments

  • #152
    grogi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,618 ✭✭✭grogi


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    Insurers can accept or decline any risk. They are commercial entities however and can quite rightly take on only business that suits them.

    Don't you think that is part of the problem?

    They are offering a mandatory service, but might freely decide who will and who will not get it.


  • #153
    CiniO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »
    If insurers come across an aspect of the market where misrepresentation is common place, they will price the product to deter anyone taking the cover.. This leaves restricted availability and higher prices.

    Not nonsense

    It is nonsense.
    It would only make sense, if misrepresentation was within that aspect of the market.
    But in our case, misrepresentation causes insurers not knowing at all they are dealing with that aspect of the market, so what good increasing prices does?

    I could understand if within their statistics, 18-22 year old passat tdi drivers are most likely to not disclose modifications, and if they would make prohibitive premium for such drivers... That's logical.

    But increasing prices for modified car, to discourage people from not telling insurers about modifications is completely pointless. Completely illogical.

    It's exactly like a supermarket had highest rate of theft on bottles of vodka, so to solve the problem, they would increase prices of vodka from €20 to €200.
    What difference would it make? Vodka would be still being the highest theft item, no matter the price.


  • #154
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    grogi wrote: »
    Don't you think that is part of the problem?

    They are offering a mandatory service, but might freely decide who will and who will not get it.

    I appreciate the point but why should they be obliged to write what they'd see as "bad business" at a low premium?


  • #155
    grogi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,618 ✭✭✭grogi


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    I appreciate the point but why should they be obliged to write what they'd see as "bad business" at a low premium?

    If the car is safe and road legal, and the driver up to date with the medical exams etc - yes, they should be obliged to offer the cover at reasonable price. What that price is - different story...

    But that requires the state to take bad drivers off the road - seriously bad drivers, serial offenders etc. Keeping scrap of the roads too. If a driver is allowed on the road, that driver should be able to get reasonable cover.


  • #156
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    grogi wrote: »
    If the car is safe and road legal, and the driver up to date with the medical exams etc - yes, they should be obliged to offer the cover at reasonable price. What that price is - different story...

    But that requires the state to take bad drivers off the road - seriously bad drivers, serial offenders etc. Keeping scrap of the roads too. If a driver is allowed on the road, that driver should be able to get reasonable cover.

    No insurer will be told what underwriting criteria to use or what premium to charge.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    CiniO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    Motor underwriting is similar in the UK. Just thought I'd fire that in. It's not wholly relevant but so what?
    It's similar, but much better regulated.
    Therefore I haven't heard of people being refused cover in UK, or being asked to pay extraordinary prices for regular products like insurance for remapped car.
    When I actually read UK forums, it looks like many insurers don't charge at all for remap, and some do the like of 5% to 10% increase in premium. That's reasonable. What's happeneing in Ireland is not.
    Cost and frequency of claims are indeed very high here - it's well documented and universally accepted. Why do you believe any different?
    Sorry, I worded it wrong.
    I do believe cost of claims is very high. What I actually don't believe is that recent increase in premiums over last 2 years was caused by high cost of claims. But that's quite irrelevant to thread subject.
    Insurers can accept or decline any risk. They are commercial entities however and can quite rightly take on only business that suits them.
    And this shouldn't be the case, in relation to product which is legally required for any vehicle owner.

    Take Poland for example, where third party insurance is fully regulated by legislation. No insurer can apply their own terms and conditions of the policy, as those are set by legislation. They can't void the policy for any sh1te like Irish insurers can, they have very specific list of cases when after paying for the claim they can apply to policyholder to recoup the amount if he/she was in breach of conditions, and they can only rely on certain things when assessing risk (described in legislation), and anything else they ask (like what's your profession or what's your shoe size) is in no way binding so policyholder can literally answer anything to questions like that.
    In short, unlike Ireland, it's a market which favours regular people, not big insurance companies.
    If insurance company don't like those rules, they don't need to offer third party policies. But believe it or not - they all still do offer it.


  • #158
    rex-x
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,893 ✭✭✭rex-x


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    No insurer will be told what underwriting criteria to use or what premium to charge.

    But they most likely will be in the coming years and have only themselves to blame! Just look at the replies, 90% of people are unhappy with how the system is, therefore the system is broken but many working in insurance just cant see/ accept it :(


  • #159
    amf78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60 ✭✭amf78


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    No insurer will be told what underwriting criteria to use or what premium to charge.
    Sure they can be told. Any business must operate according to the laws of the land. So the existing legislation is the problem, not the insurers as such.


  • #160
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    An insurer would withdraw from the market completely if the govt tried to impose overly onerous restrictions.

    That certainly wouldn't solve any of the issues.


  • #161
    bazz26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 51,537 ✭✭✭✭bazz26


    Didn't seem to bother them too much during the boom years when they had plenty of money to horseshoe their profits into foreign investments and the likes until those went south during the crash. While spiralling claims and high injury costs are a contributing factor, losing their shirt on poor investments is also a factor that doesn't seem to get as much publicity.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    amf78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60 ✭✭amf78


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    An insurer would withdraw from the market completely if the govt tried to impose overly onerous restrictions.

    That certainly wouldn't solve any of the issues.

    so what? they're too greedy all to stand up and leave (where to, btw?). 2-3 would still stay behind and pick up the pieces. I'd rather have 2 german-like insurers rather than 30 banana republic style insurers.


  • #163
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    amf78 wrote: »
    so what? they're too greedy all to stand up and leave (where to, btw?). 2-3 would still stay behind and pick up the pieces. I'd rather have 2 german-like insurers rather than 30 banana republic style insurers.

    The primary reason that certain classes of motor risks are expensive or impossible to insure is down to a small market and a lack of competition.


  • #164
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    amf78 wrote: »
    so what? they're too greedy all to stand up and leave (where to, btw?). 2-3 would still stay behind and pick up the pieces. I'd rather have 2 german-like insurers rather than 30 banana republic style insurers.

    If you think that having only a couple of insurers remain in Ireland to provide a mandatory cover is a good thing, then you are deluded

    As for where they would go, you do realise that every insurer operating in Ireland (other than FBD) has it's head office outside of this country


  • #165
    amf78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60 ✭✭amf78


    Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »
    If you think that having only a couple of insurers remain in Ireland to provide a mandatory cover is a good thing, then you are deluded

    Henry & others have point out earlier to small market and lack of competition. I do believe the former is an issue but not the latter. The fact that now we have two dozen insurers hardly makes a difference for the better giving the deficient legislation, lack of regulations, and the "hands off" attitude of the government.

    Previous posters have mentioned words like "gang" and "cartel". It certainly looks like that's the case. If insurers are allowed to do whatever the fkuc they like, you can pretty much guarantee they'll all do just that, whether there's 10 or 100 of them. Going somewhere else in this case isn't really an alternative, since there isn't anybody else to go to.

    Last but not least, ask yourself this question: when is the last time you saw verifiable statistics showing that indeed the number of claims per capita in Ireland is one of the highest in EU?


  • #166
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    If we've plenty of competition why do they (apparently) all decline to cover mapped cars?


  • #167
    StereoSound
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,155 ✭✭✭StereoSound


    I've remapped my older 131 octavia and it was reliable and had no weird issues, I have plans to map my 171 golf 1.6Td as the car approaches 1 year old. Do I plan to tell anyone I did it? You go figure....


  • #168
    Caliden
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭Caliden


    amf78 wrote: »

    Last but not least, ask yourself this question: when is the last time you saw verifiable statistics showing that indeed the number of claims per capita in Ireland is one of the highest in EU?


    It's not the number of claims, it's the amounts being awarded when these claims go to court that's causing the rise in prices.

    I honestly don't know why we don't follow France and Sweden and require more proof for whiplash injuries.


  • #169
    amf78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60 ✭✭amf78


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    If we've plenty of competition why do they (apparently) all decline to cover mapped cars?

    If every insurer knows they can turn down people without giving proper justification and without assessing the situation, why would they jump in, considering they have no financial incentive either?

    If the perception is that modified cars are too high a risk, doesn't matter what the facts are. Perception is reality. For the situation to change without change in legislation, there has to be enough data showing modified cars are safe and reliable, but you also need one bold insurance company willing to look at the said data. And even then, you'd probably be charged through the roof until a 2nd and 3rd insurers join in.
    This is what happens when decision making is primarily influenced by financial gain (or at least minimizing financial loss). And that's fine in general, but not in a situation where everybody needs being looked after. Someone's right to own a car and drive it shouldn't be dictated by the financial worries of a private business.


  • #170
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    amf78 wrote: »
    If every insurer knows they can turn down people without giving proper justification and without assessing the situation, why would they jump in, considering they have no financial incentive either?

    If the perception is that modified cars are too high a risk, doesn't matter what the facts are. Perception is reality. For the situation to change without change in legislation, there has to be enough data showing modified cars are safe and reliable, but you also need one bold insurance company willing to look at the said data. And even then, you'd probably be charged through the roof until a 2nd and 3rd insurers join in.
    This is what happens when decision making is primarily influenced primarily by financial gain (or at least minimizing financial loss). And that's fine in general, but not in a situation where everybody needs being looked after.

    Insurers can accept or reject any risk at their discretion. If it doesn't fit their criteria it won't be accepted. They don't have to justify their underwriting decisions either.

    It's clear that there are plenty of mapped and otherwise modified cars out there, and it seems that there's a reluctance for the owners of these to disclose modifications, not withstanding that to do so is a fundamental of the insurance contract, and to chose to withhold material facts will potentially see the policy voided with nasty consequences for future insurability.

    Just because there are lots of people looking for modified car policies at or near standard rates doesn't oblige the insurance market to provide such cover.

    If a bold insurer took on this problem and offered cover based on the modifications at a increased level I have my doubts would any/many come clean and pay the extra. The poll is quite revealing on this attitude.


  • #171
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    amf78 wrote: »
    .....Someone's right to own a car and drive it shouldn't be dictated by the financial worries of a private business.

    If they can't drive it legally (and having proper motor insurance cover is a legal requirement) then they shouldn't drive it at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    amf78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60 ✭✭amf78


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    If they can't drive it legally (and having proper motor insurance cover is a legal requirement) then they shouldn't drive it at all.

    you forgot to mention that the legality in this case is not determined by a court or judge, or any other government body or official for that matter. It is determined by a 3rd party who primarily looks at their financial interests.


  • #173
    amf78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60 ✭✭amf78


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    Insurers can accept or reject any risk at their discretion. If it doesn't fit their criteria it won't be accepted. They don't have to justify their underwriting decisions either.

    Henry, I think we can all agree on the current situation in Ireland. But to suggest that's the only way things can be, is to pretty much ignore most jurisdiction where it's done slightly differently and it works better. You seem to suggest that things can operate only at extremes: either total freedom for the insurers, or all insurers withdrawing from the market at the slightest sign of regulations.
    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    It's clear that there are plenty of mapped and otherwise modified cars out there, and it seems that there's a reluctance for the owners of these to disclose modifications, not withstanding that to do so is a fundamental of the insurance contract, and to chose to withhold material facts will potentially see the policy voided with nasty consequences for future insurability.
    If a bold insurer took on this problem and offered cover based on the modifications at a increased level I have my doubts would any/many come clean and pay the extra. The poll is quite revealing on this attitude.
    And you would be wrong. If you introduce tough penalties for parking offences but don't provide any parking options guess what happens? People still park their cars wherever they can. If you don't believe me, look at Eastern European cities.
    The current attitude came about because people have no option, not because they have options they don't like.


  • #174
    honda boi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,692 ✭✭✭honda boi


    So has anyone been done or has an insurance company actually go after someone for non disclosure before?


  • #175
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    amf78 wrote: »
    you forgot to mention that the legality in this case is not determined by a court or judge, or any other government body or official for that matter. It is determined by a 3rd party who primarily looks at their financial interests.

    It's a legislative requirement under the RTA 1961. Availabilty is subject to underwriting and is not guaranteed.

    Suggesting that a business should provide insurance cover on a non commercial basis is crazy. It'll never happen.


  • #176
    grogi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,618 ✭✭✭grogi


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    It's a legislative requirement under the RTA 1961. Availabilty is subject to underwriting and is not guaranteed.

    Suggesting that a business should provide insurance cover on a non commercial basis is crazy. It'll never happen.

    There are regulations - such as customer protections - that are in principle 'anti-business'. Yet we still get sellers left right and centre...


  • #177
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    amf78 wrote: »
    Henry, I think we can all agree on the current situation in Ireland. But to suggest that's the only way things can be, is to pretty much ignore most jurisdiction where it's done slightly differently and it works better. You seem to suggest that things can operate only at extremes: either total freedom for the insurers, or all insurers withdrawing from the market at the slightest sign of regulations.


    And you would be wrong. If you introduce tough penalties for parking offences but don't provide any parking options guess what happens? People still park their cars wherever they can. If you don't believe me, look at Eastern European cities.
    The current attitude came about because people have no option, not because they have options they don't like.

    People have plenty of options. Put it back to standard or buy a more powerful car in standard tune are examples. The trouble is they are unwilling to take them.

    There's an attitude of entitlement that runs something like this:-

    1/. I want more power from my car. I'll remap it. It's the cheapest way to boost performance.
    2/. I know it'll jeopardise my insurance but insurers are robbers in suits so nuts to that.
    3/. Besides how will they ever catch me?
    4/. If they do I'll say I just bought the car like that, and plead ignorance.
    5/. Nobody can decide how much I enjoy my motor car.

    It's all been said on this and other threads.


  • #178
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    honda boi wrote: »
    So has anyone been done or has an insurance company actually go after someone for non disclosure before?

    It has happened, but rarely. Insurers usually decline any own damage claim, enforce a cancellation on the policyholder and move on. This has a long lasting effect on the policyholder who wishes to obtain cover, honestly, in the furure


  • #179
    CiniO
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    If they can't drive it legally (and having proper motor insurance cover is a legal requirement) then they shouldn't drive it at all.

    But having insurance as legal requirement without a guarantee to be able to obtain it, is not right way of doing things.
    Again - this is not fault of the insurers, but lack of appropriate legislation.
    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    It's a legislative requirement under the RTA 1961. Availabilty is subject to underwriting and is not guaranteed.

    Suggesting that a business should provide insurance cover on a non commercial basis is crazy. It'll never happen.

    No one is suggesting that they should provide cover on non-commercial basis.
    But way they provide it, should be adequately legislated, like million other things are.
    Selling alcohol is also heavily legislated, with all licences, rules terms and conditions attached to it, and there's still plenty of bars and shops interesting in selling alcohol.
    The same obligatory third party insurance market should be adequately legislated to provide simple and easy way of obtaining cover for anyone.


  • #180
    Sue Pa Key Pa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,060 ✭✭✭Sue Pa Key Pa


    CiniO wrote: »
    But having insurance as legal requirement without a guarantee to be able to obtain it, is not right way of doing things.
    Again - this is not fault of the insurers, but lack of appropriate legislation.

    Insurance Ireland will guarantee that anyone with an appropriate licence will obtain cover, providing it is not against the public interest


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    CiniO wrote: »
    But having insurance as legal requirement without a guarantee to be able to obtain it, is not right way of doing things.
    Again - this is not fault of the insurers, but lack of appropriate legislation......

    No one is suggesting that they should provide cover on non-commercial basis.
    But way they provide it, should be adequately legislated, like million other things are.
    Selling alcohol is also heavily legislated, with all licences, rules terms and conditions attached to it, and there's still plenty of bars and shops interesting in selling alcohol.
    The same obligatory third party insurance market should be adequately legislated to provide simple and easy way of obtaining cover for anyone.

    It's crazy to suggest anyone is guaranteed to obtain insurance just because they want it.

    An open obligatory 3rd party insurance scheme (such as exists in Poland no doubt) wouldn't work here. We have high and expensive claims, court awards, and legal costs here. They'd all need to be cut dramatically. The courts system would need to be changed and the legal profession relieved of one of it's main sources of income.

    Forget about it.


Advertisement