Am I missing something or is it pure greed?

[trevor 87]

MH insurance seems to be prone to big rises and many are adding conditions such as must have gas and electrical certificates alarms,and many other conditions that were not on their list a couple of years ago,along with others no longer offering cover for expensive or self built

Yes,! They do require gas and electric test here in Hungary but the mot is every 2 years. the down side for any self builds is they have changed the rules if it’s registered as a van then the mot now has to have pictures of the rear of the van empty They have for years always taken pictures of the vehicle and the instrument cluster ( mileage/ no error lights ) lots of sellers of self builds now sign of things to come in the uk

 

[suavecarve]

I got a nearly £1200 quote rising from £700 last year which had raised from £500 the year before (change of van this year but pretty much the same for insurance purposes)

Go compare equivalent gave me a few options and managed to get £616 but had to get +3500 kg european recovery for 138 so 754 and a 400 + saving

 

[oldiesontour]

Yes,! They do require gas and electric test here in Hungary but the mot is every 2 years. the down side for any self builds is they have changed the rules if it’s registered as a van then the mot now has to have pictures of the rear of the van empty They have for years always taken pictures of the vehicle and the instrument cluster ( mileage/ no error lights ) lots of sellers of self builds now sign of things to come in the uk

I guess the way UK legislators move I won't be around for it to bother me ... it'll take years to talk about it,have a study, fight the objectors and finally bring it in to apply to vans made after ICE vans will be old enough to be exempt under classic vehicle rules

 

[TheAleMan]

This is what gets right on my tits with insurance companies.
You did absolutely nothing wrong, got hit by someone else and yet YOUR premiums go up! WHY?
It wasn’t anything you did so why should you / we suffer financially for it? You’re damage should be covered totally by the guilty party.
The guilty parties insurer should also cover the cost of any raise in the innocents premium until it comes back down to what it was originally. They’d soon stop that disgraceful practice if it hit them in the pocket! Bastards!
Sorry, but I think it’s an absolute disgrace.

I probably should have made it clearer that the price hike had nothing to do with our recent accident which is no fault claim, it was just our annual renewal that I was citing. Sorry for any confusion.

Must just say though, NFU have been nothing short of brilliant sorting out our accident stuff.

 

[Tony50]

My private hire (taxi) insurance went from £894 to £1987 nothing had changed and no claims in 15 years

I probably should have made it clearer that the price hike had nothing to do with our recent accident which is no fault claim, it was just our annual renewal that I was citing. Sorry for any confusion.

Must just say though, NFU have been nothing short of brilliant sorting out our accident stuff.

But when I tried them they quoted a lot more than others, I do know from others they do give good service.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Rozzer]

The usual stupid insurance merry-go-round! I think they must be expecting a fair percentage to accept their increases. I had a similar hike this year and changed insurers at around 10% higher. Unscrupulous lot.

 

[Folkranger]

I know LV won’t insure new customers. So just for existing customers, my renewal with them this Dec was an increase from £415 to £464. This covers a £27k value MH for 15k miles pa including european breakdown with Britannia. I’ll give them a ring this week to see if they can do better!

I’ll most likely stay with them as they will give me the Green Card for Morocco.

For some years we have renewed with LV through comparison sites and always cheaper than their renewal quote. Still one of the best though for us

 

[Tony50]

For some years we have renewed with LV through comparison sites and always cheaper than their renewal quote. Still one of the best though for us

Not unreasonable cost , my house insurance I used 2 Brokers like for like spec., £100 + difference, when I looked in further they were using the same insurance company!!

 

[nicholsong]

Not unreasonable cost , my house insurance I used 2 Brokers like for like spec., £100 + difference, when I looked in further they were using the same insurance company!!

That is why I suggested earlier asking what the Underwriters are quoting to the broker. Then one can see what the broker is adding as their mark-up.

 

[JockandRita]

I recently questioned Saga about the hike in the renewal premium. Looking to see how it could be reduced, I was asked to consider reducing my annual mileage from 6000 miles. I wasn't happy to do so, but as pointed out by the operative on the phone, if I went from 6000 to 5999 miles per annum, it knocked £50 of the premium. Then she found another £35 as a customer loyalty bonus, knocking £85 off in total meaning that we were only paying £40 more, with a price promise for 3 x years.
It's their Saga Plus Motorhome Insurance which is quite comprehensive cover wise.

If we didn't need EU Breakdown & Repatriation Cover, I'd go back to NFU at the drop of a hat.

Cheers,

Jock.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[B-JandBella]

Hey GAVLAD

I had exactly the same happen to me so I said "Good by".
Got a great deal from Principal Insurance at a huge difference in price. Give them a try.
Billy

 

[nicholsong]

I recently questioned Saga about the hike in the renewal premium. Looking to see how it could be reduced, I was asked to consider reducing my annual mileage from 6000 miles. I wasn't happy to do so, but as pointed out by the operative on the phone, if I went from 6000 to 5999 miles per annum, it knocked £50 of the premium. Then she found another £35 as a customer loyalty bonus, knocking £85 off in total meaning that we were only paying £40 more, with a price promise for 3 x years.
It's their Saga Plus Motorhome Insurance which is quite comprehensive cover wise.

If we didn't need EU Breakdown & Repatriation Cover, I'd go back to NFU at the drop of a hat.

Cheers,

Jock.

Jock it is all a joke, were it not serious.

Everyone should declare 1 mile less than a round thousand.

Next they will be asking us for odometer readings at each renewal, or maybe not because if we do 2000 miles less than declared they may have to give a rebate - good luck to anyone on that one.

If there is a loyalty bonus why are they not applying it to every customer renewing? Shysters!

 

[Tony50]

Why don't the Office of Fair Trading look into Insurance Brokers and Companies, the way things are going a huge Public revolt, food, gas , electric,water vehicle tax , council tax Insurances, etc all costing extraordinarily more, losing the the £300 fuel allowance which don't cost the country £300 ie. Tax on purchases also this has took an enormous amount out of the economy,which could cost jobs, and then redundant people will be clay Social Security.
Happy Christmas to all!

 

[JockandRita]

Next they will be asking us for odometer readings at each renewal, or maybe not because if we do 2000 miles less than declared they may have to give a rebate - good luck to anyone on that one.

They don't need to Geoff, as they have access to the odometer readings between each MOT, so they know exactly what mileage you have done, up to the declared mileage at the point of a claim........ since the last MOT.

Cheers,

Jock.

 

[nev robinson]

Agreed. I have to the same every year for 3 vehicles and always decline auto-renewal.
I think everyone must expect to have to do the same. The ridiculous situation needs a Gov't review.

Sorry this government won’t lift a finger to help you,as the higher the bill the more they receive.
It’s called blatant theft…

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[AlanandMayya]

Time for a government investigation. The insurance industry now has a feel of operating like a cartel, except oh yes, forgot, the government get tidy no hassle 12% rake off of regularly increasing premiums, why would they throw a spanner in the wheel of the gravy train.
Mike.

Agree. Whenever something seems stupid, ask whose benefitting from this.

 

[The Wino]

We phoned up to increase the mileage on our car insurance from 12 to 15k. Thanks for letting us know there's no charge!

 

[PaulW2]

Sorry this government won’t lift a finger to help you,as the higher the bill the more they receive.
It’s called blatant theft…

More to the point, no British government will. Not the last 14 year one, not the one before that, and not this one.

 

[jollyrodger]

According to Which.

Pay monthly under the spotlight.......

Pay-monthly car insurance premiums brought under the spotlight - Which?

Regulator announces new investigation into insurers' interest rates

www.which.co.uk

 

[The Wino]

According to Which.

Pay monthly under the spotlight.......

Pay-monthly car insurance premiums brought under the spotlight - Which?

Regulator announces new investigation into insurers' interest rates

www.which.co.uk

Sorry but I have little sympathy. People get told the finance rate and payments before signing up it's a very transparent charge if they want to take it it's up to them. Same with finance on cars etc and store cards

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PaulW2]

Sorry but I have little sympathy. People get told the finance rate and payments before signing up it's a very transparent charge if they want to take it it's up to them. Same with finance on cars etc and store cards

And yet people do get caught.

The products are developed and offered because they are profitable. They are profitable because of human nature.

In much the same way that heroin addiction works. Or junk food.

 

[The Wino]

And yet people do get caught.

The products are developed and offered because they are profitable. They are profitable because of human nature.

In much the same way that heroin addiction works. Or junk food.

But as the review says the rates are more in line with credit card rates than things like payday loans. It's the balance between choice of the individual and regulation. I suppose in a way it comes down to if people choosing to pay monthly end up subsidising those who pay yearly or if the rates are reduced whether the monthly payments are effectively subsided by people who pay yearly both it seems to me would be equally unfair.

 

[nicholsong]

Sorry but I have little sympathy. People get told the finance rate and payments before signing up it's a very transparent charge if they want to take it it's up to them. Same with finance on cars etc and store cards

I suppose a lot of it due to people who 'Must have it now', even if they have not saved the money to afford it, just like the car/MH they are insuring which may also have been bought with credit.

 

[The Wino]

I suppose a lot of it due to people who 'Must have it now', even if they have not saved the money to afford it, just like the car/MH they are insuring which may also have been bought with credit.

It certainly is also I'm convinced a lot don't understand interest and how it works. I wouldn't mind betting quite a few have monthly stuff which they could arrange to pay yearly at different times and spread the costs saving paying for the interest. It ought to be compulsory in school to learn about interest on purchases and the total paid. We recently bought a new car with a pretty hefty discount for outright purchase still get a lot saying PCP is better value I can't think of any charities offering them though!

 

[PaulW2]

It certainly is also I'm convinced a lot don't understand interest and how it works. I wouldn't mind betting quite a few have monthly stuff which they could arrange to pay yearly at different times and spread the costs saving paying for the interest. It ought to be compulsory in school to learn about interest on purchases and the total paid. We recently bought a new car with a pretty hefty discount for outright purchase still get a lot saying PCP is better value I can't think of any charities offering them though!

I agree education is important. Even with education though, compound interest is something our natural intuitions struggle with. A bit like probability.

An academic called John Allen Paulos wrote a brilliant little book called "Innumeracy" years ago which covers some of this ground. Many public policies, government decisions and court decisions are similarly afflicted.

As a proper understanding of it goes somewhat against the tide of human nature, and bluntly probably also against the intellectual capacity of a large percentage, what remains is regulation to protect individual consumers.

I don't think this will happen.

We need to look no further than defined contribution pensions to see why. Defined benefit pensions, which were good for beneficiaries, no longer suited companies, so they were phased out in favour of defined contribution arrangements. These arrangements rapidly exploded into thousands of options. You are free to choose, they shout. We offer you all the choice in the world because we care.

How many people can understand all this? Let's be generous. 20%. So who does it suit? The companies that offer it, obviously.

What shall we do about it? Offer 'education' and individual financial advice. Who benefits from this? Clearly those who offer the service. And maybe some of their clients.

What is the net effect? More profitable businesses and lower pensions.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[The Wino]

I agree education is important. Even with education though, compound interest is something our natural intuitions struggle with. A bit like probability.

An academic called John Allen Paulos wrote a brilliant little book called "Innumeracy" years ago which covers some of this ground. Many public policies, government decisions and court decisions are similarly afflicted.

As a proper understanding of it goes somewhat against the tide of human nature, and bluntly probably also against the intellectual capacity of a large percentage, what remains is regulation to protect individual consumers.

I don't think this will happen.

We need to look no further than defined contribution pensions to see why. Defined benefit pensions, which were good for beneficiaries, no longer suited companies, so they were phased out in favour of defined contribution arrangements. These arrangements rapidly exploded into thousands of options. You are free to choose, they shout. We offer you all the choice in the world because we care.

How many people can understand all this? Let's be generous. 20%. So who does it suit? The companies that offer it, obviously.

What shall we do about it? Offer 'education' and individual financial advice. Who benefits from this? Clearly those who offer the service. And maybe some of their clients.

What is the net effect? More profitable businesses and lower pensions.

So what's the solution? As you say defined benefit pensions are very good for employees but arguably very bad for taxpayers given that they have largely disappeared from the private sector because they are so expensive. My solution for the pension sector would be a government backed final salary pension available to everyone with the cost set accordingly. The public and private sector employees who afer all being taxpayers are all funding the current public sector ones then have equal access with the cost being transparently plain to see.
The only learning from education on interest and loans is that it's usually a lot cheaper to save up than buy on tick the higher the apr and term is the more your paying. I think if people know that and finance offers show the actual total cost that's enough.

 

[PaulW2]

So what's the solution? As you say defined benefit pensions are very good for employees but arguably very bad for taxpayers given that they have largely disappeared from the private sector because they are so expensive. My solution for the pension sector would be a government backed final salary pension available to everyone with the cost set accordingly. The public and private sector employees who afer all being taxpayers are all funding the current public sector ones then have equal access with the cost being transparently plain to see.
The only learning from education on interest and loans is that it's usually a lot cheaper to save up than buy on tick the higher the apr and term is the more your paying. I think if people know that and finance offers show the actual total cost that's enough.

I think the pension environment is a universe unto itself in some respects. I think solutions would include far greater fee transparency, a cap on fees that can be charged, control over the extraordinary multitude of nominally different products on offer (having a million flavours offers no advantage over having 100, but baffles the customer and adds cost), quite possibly a stronger role for the pension protection fund. The government backed final salary pension you mention may be a good idea but one would obviously need to see the workings.

I think interest on loans, and loan products offered, would benefit from stronger regulation generally. Most people, throughout their lives, can't avoid borrowing to purchase things. Cars, for instance - few people are able to purchase their first car for cash. Most people continue to finance cars.

But then we have a proliferation of financial products, some of which offer comparatively poorer value or where key features are hidden in the small print. An opportunity for regulation.

Particularly with the advent of electric cars, as it turns out. I understand that more people are adopting the mindset of having a monthly lease cost to use a car for a period, whereafter they simply hand it back and take another.

A fair part of the business model of some of the electric car manufacturers relies on this.

Maybe you and I, in our relative dotage, would purchase cars for cash, but we aren't where the market action is.

Unfortunately government is so often missing in action. They pass thousands of laws, many of which are nonsense or silly grandstanding. And they're generally quite noisy and vainglorious. But they are sadly typically quite eloquent but incompetent. Obviously. They get there by being eloquent and competence in any particular domain is never a requirement. We get what we select for.

 

[The Wino]

I think the pension environment is a universe unto itself in some respects. I think solutions would include far greater fee transparency, a cap on fees that can be charged, control over the extraordinary multitude of nominally different products on offer (having a million flavours offers no advantage over having 100, but baffles the customer and adds cost), quite possibly a stronger role for the pension protection fund. The government backed final salary pension you mention may be a good idea but one would obviously need to see the workings.

I think interest on loans, and loan products offered, would benefit from stronger regulation generally. Most people, throughout their lives, can't avoid borrowing to purchase things. Cars, for instance - few people are able to purchase their first car for cash. Most people continue to finance cars.

But then we have a proliferation of financial products, some of which offer comparatively poorer value or where key features are hidden in the small print. An opportunity for regulation.

Particularly with the advent of electric cars, as it turns out. I understand that more people are adopting the mindset of having a monthly lease cost to use a car for a period, whereafter they simply hand it back and take another.

A fair part of the business model of some of the electric car manufacturers relies on this.

Maybe you and I, in our relative dotage, would purchase cars for cash, but we aren't where the market action is.

Unfortunately government is so often missing in action. They pass thousands of laws, many of which are nonsense or silly grandstanding. And they're generally quite noisy and vainglorious. But they are sadly typically quite eloquent but incompetent. Obviously. They get there by being eloquent and competence in any particular domain is never a requirement. We get what we select for.

I think regulation in financial services is actually way better than it was when we were younger financial advisers at the time were hardly regulated with no training really required and could have hidden fees little transparency and you could feel them grabbing your wallet as they talked!
It's a difficult one on the one hand a lot of people are naieve and need protection on the other I'm convinced that some of prevented from being scammed one way will be caught out with fraud somewhere else.

 

[PaulW2]

I think regulation in financial services is actually way better than it was when we were younger financial advisers at the time were hardly regulated with no training really required and could have hidden fees little transparency and you could feel them grabbing your wallet as they talked!
It's a difficult one on the one hand a lot of people are naieve and need protection on the other I'm convinced that some of prevented from being scammed one way will be caught out with fraud somewhere else.

A large part of what we think should be done hinges on what sort of thing we think we are. How much of what sort of power should the collective have over me? What do I gain (eg protection) and lose (eg freedom) if I allow this? Almost all of the culture war battles we see are about similar questions.

For instance, we all know the marshmallow test that was done some decades ago. Young kids offered the chance to eat a marshmallow now or have two marshmallows later. Those who could defer gratification and wait for the two, we were told, were more successful in all sorts of ways in their later life.

This coloured our belief systems and bled into our culture, or at least reinforced that tendency in our culture (it is, after all, in the Bible too, minus the marshmallows).

But maybe that bit wasn't true, we have now discovered.

New Study Disavows Marshmallow Test's Predictive Powers - UCLA Anderson Review

For years, parents and scientists have turned to the marshmallow test for clues about kids’ futures. But new research dispels the theory that to raise successful kids, we must teach them to resist that first marshmallow.

anderson-review.ucla.edu

Back to the drawing board!

 

[The Wino]

A large part of what we think should be done hinges on what sort of thing we think we are. How much of what sort of power should the collective have over me? What do I gain (eg protection) and lose (eg freedom) if I allow this? Almost all of the culture war battles we see are about similar questions.

For instance, we all know the marshmallow test that was done some decades ago. Young kids offered the chance to eat a marshmallow now or have two marshmallows later. Those who could defer gratification and wait for the two, we were told, were more successful in all sorts of ways in their later life.

This coloured our belief systems and bled into our culture, or at least reinforced that tendency in our culture (it is, after all, in the Bible too, minus the marshmallows).

But maybe that bit wasn't true, we have now discovered.

New Study Disavows Marshmallow Test's Predictive Powers - UCLA Anderson Review

For years, parents and scientists have turned to the marshmallow test for clues about kids’ futures. But new research dispels the theory that to raise successful kids, we must teach them to resist that first marshmallow.

anderson-review.ucla.edu

Back to the drawing board!

There's another aspect to it as well though. What most would like is a really good pension and public services but not to pay for it just the same as they want high wages but low prices. Most I think realise the disconnect but if someone comes along and says they can provide it people are in quite large numbers going to vote for them.
It's the same as thinking you can buy on finance and the finance company is a sort of charitable foundation that doesn't need to run at a profit

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}