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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Car insurance for >15 year old cars
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,065 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 58994
Oh oh. Christ I hope it's not just another pocket lining exercise for members of a quango. It's not as if we don't have lots of previous on this score.The Government is to establish a new commission
*crosses fingers*
Great idea and one long overdue and one wonders why it's not on the go already. Yours truly also wonder why it'll take 18 months to implement. Don't the Gardai already have a database of tax and insurance attached to number plates? Whatever about the driving records the NCT database seems pretty up to speed within that system. How difficult would it be to add that into the existing Gardai one?Under the plan, a national claims information database operated by the Central Bank will be set up within 18 months to hold motor tax, insurance and driving records of every motorist, and NCT details of every vehicle.
Not before time.Gardaí will also be given resources to allow for automatic number plate recognition.
What the actual f… 80%?? That's pure scandal. :mad::mad: There should be a solid cap on such injury claims.Whiplash accounts for up to 80 per cent of all motor insurance claims,
Hopefully this all gets implemented and quickly as insurance costs across the board are really hurting people and small and large business too. Never mind individually, it's bad for the economy.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
What the actual f… 80%?? That's pure scandal. :mad::mad: There should be a solid cap on such injury claims.
Ask yourself "what does 'Up to 80%' mean? Its either "80% of claims" or its some other figure. This is what the commission has been trying to get to. This is Kevin Thompsons game all along - fudge the figures so nobody has any idea of what is actually going on and all the while ripping off consumers. The linking the garda databases (which doesnt work byw) with an NCT database is a red herring - it would take years to sort out.
Fun fact if 80% of the 200,000* claims made last year were paid 15,000 as suggested by Insurance Ireland, it would have cost €2.4Bn. Yet they only paid out 700m
Fraud is an accepted issue and needs to be dealt with - we know this but it is not the root cause of spiraling premiums.
Has anybody asked the question of how it is insurance companies collect €1100m in premiums and pay out €700m, but this still leads to a loss on the books?
Ask how is it allowable to claim a "hold back"** to reserves as a loss on the books. For example, FBD balanced their premiums to claims+costs last year. But had to make a provision to reserves of €80m. Their "Claims paid" return was increased by that €80m, making it look as if thy lost heavily on their policy writing. Its not just FBD, this is a common wheeze by insurers to paint a drastically worse picture than is the case.
Why are insurance companies allowed to continue with a cost ratio of almost 50%? Thats an enormous margin for an industry that essentially produces nothing tangible. Its roughly split between 11% commsiion/bonus on sales (sorry rod, you missedout on that one!) and 23% operating costs. I see RSA and FBD have mademoves to tackle this, but pocketing €350m in expenses while criminalising the rest for having the temerity to claim of them seems bad form.
* "claims notified" on private motor policies only
** Its allowable, but its a great way to hide a profit.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
26000 Elephants wrote: »Ask yourself "what does 'Up to 80%' mean? Its either "80% of claims" or its some other figure. This is what the commission has been trying to get to. This is Kevin Thompsons game all along - fudge the figures so nobody has any idea of what is actually going on and all the while ripping off consumers.
...
Fun fact if 80% of the 200,000* claims made last year were paid 15,000 as suggested by Insurance Ireland, it would have cost €2.4Bn. Yet they only paid out 700m
...
* "claims notified" on private motor policies only
So we have 3 scenarios here
1) Insurance industry knows this and they are lying.
2) Insurance industry can't do basic maths and think they are telling the truth.
3) You and I are both genetically and intellectually inferior to the master race of insurance execs and their acolytes who can trace their pure roots back to the fatherland.
I know which option gets the most votes round here! :pac::pac::pac:0 -
-
-
-
-
-
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »Well, if 80% of accidents result in a whiplash claim here and 5% in France, the only possible reasons could be:
[ etc.]
Back that claim up. Please. €2.4bn would make whiplash one of the biggest industries in Ireland. But that doesn't happen. Total payouts were in the region of €700m
So, again, please. Back up that statement.
And as for "difference in payouts" - maybe learning the difference between the phrase "Up To" and "Average" might be a start.
And Rod Munch, I'm still waiting for your response, now that you have gotten over your fit yesterday.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
26000 Elephants wrote: »
1. Give us some figures to back up your 15,000 whiplash claims and generally spiraling claims costs.
Source.
Source.
I have mentioned it a number of times but so far none of you have answered or even given any sort of opinion. Ye keep banging on about car insurance being a rip off, gouging and other such things.
Insurance that involves potential risk to the public has spiked.
Massive increases in pub insurance.
Massive increases in SME insurance.
So I'll ask again, why has the likes of motor, retail and pub insurance spiked yet house insurance has remained more or less static?
If insurance companies are in a position to price how they want with no justification then why arent they loading home owners too? Most people that have a mortgage are bound by the terms of the mortgage to insure the property so its a captive market, same as motor insurance.
There has to be a reason that an insurance product that has little to no risk to the public has not increased in price other than a couple of percentage points but insurance products that have high risk to the public has increased massively.
Are you going to try and add anything or just skirt around the question?26000 Elephants wrote: »2. Insurance companies have only themselves to blame for their current mess. Using motor premiums to prop up investment losses sounds like a fraud to me.
You are a good man for demanding facts and figures so hows about you provide some yourself about this. The losses / lack of return on investment have been aided by the global financial market collapse. The interest rates available currently are significantly lower than they previously were. Insurers must ensure they have enough money in their reserves to cover claims. If they cannot get those extra funds because of the poor investment returns available, how can they?26000 Elephants wrote: »3. Legal professionals have a right to their opinion as any of us. To charachterise their position as "propaganda" is churlish.
The legal profession have a massive hand in claims costs. The injuries board was specifically set up so as to cut out the legal fraternity from the claims process to speed it up and to reduce costs. Approx 90% of IB cases are currently handled by solicitors. They operate on a percentage basis of the settlement figure so the bigger the settlement the bigger their cut. Do you honestly think they will not try and stretch claims out for as much money and as long as possible? It is how they make their money so it is in their interest to push for bigger settlement fees.26000 Elephants wrote: »4. To try and paint every unfortunate person who gets injured in an accident as a fraudster is simply wrong. Insurance companies are supposed to pay out money, thats the idea. To characterise all claims as theft is wrong. Actual fraud, while a problem that does need further work, is a small portion of this issue.
Complete and utter straw man.
Accidents happen, insurance companies have no issue paying claims that deserve to be paid, thats why people pay insurance, to be protected from financial loss in the event of an accident.26000 Elephants wrote: »And Rod Munch, I'm still waiting for your response, now that you have gotten over your fit yesterday.
Im not at your beck and call and I do not suffer muppets so if you expect any input from me then have some respect.0 -
-
-
-
So people would just default on their mortgage requirements then?
Of course they would.
Ok, you cant see the difference between the need for house insurance and car insurance from a statutory perspective. Thats fine.
That whole thing is a deflection anyway.
You have your opinions and I have mine, let's just leave it at that.
You havent forwarded your case that 40% premium hikes are due to rampant fraud. Ive provided plenty of evidence to the contrary.
I've provided figures to suggest that insurance 'losses' are simply creative use of provision accounts. You havent provided anything to counter that.
If you want to leave it at that, thats cool.
One more point to ponder. AXA's results for 2011 compared to 2015. When you drill into them you see a clear explantion for their loss:
.................................2011..2015 (millions)
Open Provision........ 124........124
Premium income......246........316
Close Provision ........119........164 (+ 40m!!)
Total claims paid ........228.......221 (Yes, that was a reduction)
Profit:...........................42....... -(38)
Bear in mind that "claims paid" is not just whats given to claimants, it includes all expenses associated with the process, adjuster and legal fees. But on top of these numbers we have 60m for "management expenses" and commission.
So no major spike in claims for the period under review. A huge spike in income, but a massive drop in profits? This is the real insurance "fraud".
(All figures from statutory insurance company returns as published by the Central bank)
(see table 13)
Apologies for formatting, dont have time to import a table0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
You want facts and figures?
Go to google.
I cited the source of my figures, why on earth would I google it?
Total Income €685,819,000
Total claims paid €808,486,000
Clever ploy to use the total figures, and not to drill into them. But it doesnt work.
You included RSA in there, have a look at their income figure - Negative 112m.
Over 200m is explained by negativve income, yet 'normal' claims of 130m
They were recovering from a major financial scandal, not a neck brace in sight.
Remove RSA as an outlier and see what you get. Better still, look at 2014 figures. Near 100m clear surplus.0
Advertisement