67 comments Add a comment
Well that's my opinion anyway! They swarm around you trying to out quote each other when they smell the money, but are nowhere to be seen and don't want to know when there's a claim to be settled.
I'm speaking from experience here and mainly about motor insurance although I suspect the story is the same for any type of insurance.
I had my beloved motorcycle stolen from right outside my house last summer in the middle of the night and even although was properly insured, I am still left paying for the bike to this day because the settlement I received did not even come close to covering the value of the bike.
It took around three months to get what money I did out of the company that insured my bike and much of this time was spent with letters going back and forth or on the other end of the phone while some clerk gave me the but thats the best we can do speech! Meanwhile, I had to get around without a bike as I could not afford to go out and buy another one and didn't want to enter another finance agreement just yet.
Apparently I got off lucky though, because claims can take an awful lot longer to process and I've heard of people waiting up to six months for their cheque.
I still can't help feeling that these cowboys care more about extracting money from you than they do about covering your losses, which is after all what we pay them for in the first place.
Also, various reasons are given for why the premiums are all going up including increasing statistics for theft and vandalism. The latest one I heard about was these No win No Fee companies that fight for compensation on your behalf are forcing some insurance companies to hike their premiums to cover their losses.
Leave a comment
Insurance has always been a con trick. I took out a life policy out when I was eighteen, the salesman assured me that I was protected for life & although the payments were crippling at first, things would get easier. What he omitted to say was, he would take the lions share of my first 2yrs payments as his commission. So I would get no real benefits for the first 2yrs. The next time I spoke to him he advised me to increase my payments, as I was not keeping up with inflation. I chose not to do this, the thought had occurred to me that what he was actually saying, was to keep him a perfect stranger in the easy life. I must keep topping up my payments back to crippling levels every time things got easier. If you are sitting opposite an insurance salesman you are sitting opposite a thief and a con man. Insurance salesmen are leeches. However I am sure mikep will be able to point out the error of my ways and how the poor insurance salesman was conned by me into taking my money.
09/09/11 Boblet
-4
I was actually looking for a website that has advice for, and advocates, having less or no insurance policies in the majority of cases. I mean, I am sure many people these days are getting (as you are) increasingly fed up with insurance companies who are all too keen to arrange policies for virtually anyway you want, but it is a different story if you ever want to claim.
The nearest site I found was this: http://persistentitch.blogspot.com/2007/03/insurance-is-rip-off.html
... which although American does give some advice on insurance that you can avoid.
What has occurred to me is that the entire insurance industry is based on a fallacy. You take out insurance to protect yourself (seemingly) and have piece of mind if "the worst happens". For example, household insurance if your house burns down, or gets robbed etc. But as we increasingly see, if this happens the policyholder is still left out of pocket due to the slippery tactics of the insurance companies, who obviously operate on a principle of "we want as much of your money as we can get, and to pay you out as little as we can". Now, under normal circumstances, this is fair enough - but it is amazing how you are a "valued customer" when dutifully paying your premiums each month - but a leaching parasite on their company if ever you claim. "Customer" goes out the window then...
The fact is, insurance is a fallacy because if the likelihood of anything happening were that large, no company would want to insure you. They base their profits on the possibility of "the worse happening" being rather remote. And many people being rather paranoid or insecure.
I wonder whether people could start a "don't bother to insure" movement, advocating not insuring all but what is absolutely necessary. So, car insurance for instance: in the U.K. you need third party driving insurance by law. But what about fire & theft? How likely is your car to be stolen (is it garaged overnight?), and what kind of return would you get on your policy (at best) even if it was? Would paying for a better alarm/immobilizer be a better investment than constant high premiums? What is the car worth now? (Don't forget you will not get back as much as you paid for it - bear in mind depreciation can be severe).
When you purchase electrical items from a store, the "extended warranty" is a case in point. Rip off every time. If that product were likely to go wrong, they would not offer the extended warranty in the first place.
I tried Googling "no insurance" but just got websites telling you how bad/illegal it is not to have any insurance!
09/09/11 Steve W
The nearest site I found was this: http://persistentitch.blogspot.com/2007/03/insurance-is-rip-off.html
... which although American does give some advice on insurance that you can avoid.
What has occurred to me is that the entire insurance industry is based on a fallacy. You take out insurance to protect yourself (seemingly) and have piece of mind if "the worst happens". For example, household insurance if your house burns down, or gets robbed etc. But as we increasingly see, if this happens the policyholder is still left out of pocket due to the slippery tactics of the insurance companies, who obviously operate on a principle of "we want as much of your money as we can get, and to pay you out as little as we can". Now, under normal circumstances, this is fair enough - but it is amazing how you are a "valued customer" when dutifully paying your premiums each month - but a leaching parasite on their company if ever you claim. "Customer" goes out the window then...
The fact is, insurance is a fallacy because if the likelihood of anything happening were that large, no company would want to insure you. They base their profits on the possibility of "the worse happening" being rather remote. And many people being rather paranoid or insecure.
I wonder whether people could start a "don't bother to insure" movement, advocating not insuring all but what is absolutely necessary. So, car insurance for instance: in the U.K. you need third party driving insurance by law. But what about fire & theft? How likely is your car to be stolen (is it garaged overnight?), and what kind of return would you get on your policy (at best) even if it was? Would paying for a better alarm/immobilizer be a better investment than constant high premiums? What is the car worth now? (Don't forget you will not get back as much as you paid for it - bear in mind depreciation can be severe).
When you purchase electrical items from a store, the "extended warranty" is a case in point. Rip off every time. If that product were likely to go wrong, they would not offer the extended warranty in the first place.
I tried Googling "no insurance" but just got websites telling you how bad/illegal it is not to have any insurance!
-10
I am a 44 year old male and have held a full, clean driving licence for 20 years. I have no criminal convictions. I live in a small town on the edge of the Scottish highlands.
Can anybody tell me why I am quoted £3000 for third party insurance for a van, for social and domestic use, with a value of £500? Is it because I live at the "poor" end of town or because I am, by choice, not employed, though not claiming any "benefits" ?
If our beloved government decrees that motor insurance is a legal requirement, should it not also ensure that a cartel of corporations does not use this legislation to fleece the masses?
It's yet another example of our corporatocracy. Big business has bought and paid for our parliament and the country is governed for the benefit of the wealthy.
Does anyone know what we can do about it? (Please, do not suggest lobbying my MP)
02/09/11 Gownol
Can anybody tell me why I am quoted £3000 for third party insurance for a van, for social and domestic use, with a value of £500? Is it because I live at the "poor" end of town or because I am, by choice, not employed, though not claiming any "benefits" ?
If our beloved government decrees that motor insurance is a legal requirement, should it not also ensure that a cartel of corporations does not use this legislation to fleece the masses?
It's yet another example of our corporatocracy. Big business has bought and paid for our parliament and the country is governed for the benefit of the wealthy.
Does anyone know what we can do about it? (Please, do not suggest lobbying my MP)
-8
My insurance company told me I needed work on my ceiling done after fire in flat upastairs and they put in a surveyor who ignored the quotes I had got and employed his own cowboy builders in who damaged my property broke my window didnt protect my carpet did no risk assesment and now I have no bedrooom, they took away a beautiful lath and plaster ceiling with moulding rose and cornice with no protection to me or my family, dust everywhere which burns and causes irritation to eyes and mouth and I havent even had an apology and now they wont put in writing to me that they accpet liability to put the works right and accept the damages as well. Its been six weeks now and is affecting my physical and mental health
27/02/11 sparkles
1
I had been with the same Insurance company for my car insurance for over 10 years and had never made a claim. Then I got a lease car through work and sold my old car. After a year of driving the lease car, I bought it and when I went back to my Insurers for cover. They told me that because of the one year that I didn't have my own car, meant that all the no-claims discounts I had built up were no longer applicable and I would have to start from scratch with full non-discounted insurance. All insurers that I tried had the same line.
17/02/11 Alf Red
-16
I am a comlainer when things go wrong but I applaud honesty & efficiency when I find it.
I have to say that Aviva were very fair when my car was stolen.
02/01/11 Boblet
I have to say that Aviva were very fair when my car was stolen.
14
The law of insurance needs changing in favour of the consumer. Insurance companies need to be far, far more open about the arithmetical and statistical risks they are covering. For example, if they are selling a life insurance policy they should state in plain English what they think your life expectancy is. They should describe exactly the risk they think they are covering, yes, actuarial information should be given to the consumer. They should state how much money they have taken in premiums and how much they have paid out in the last 2, 3 or 5 years. They should be honest about how much of the policy paid is commission, claim administration and tax, adn what is used to pay claims.
Clear arithmetic and statistical informations of the risks covered. And of the risks specifically excluded.
Why is terrorism never covered? for example.
What is an Act of God?
Book value versus market value?
Insurance companies also need a star system proving their financial status worthiness. Am I insured with an A1 company or D?
02/01/11 Benefits Must Exceed Risks
Clear arithmetic and statistical informations of the risks covered. And of the risks specifically excluded.
Why is terrorism never covered? for example.
What is an Act of God?
Book value versus market value?
Insurance companies also need a star system proving their financial status worthiness. Am I insured with an A1 company or D?
-5
One word of advice to everyone - READ YOUR DAMN TERMS AND CONDITIONS!!!!
This is a simple approach that you should all adhere to.
People receive their documents and file them - they don't bother reading them until it's TOO LATE!!!!
The last thing the insurance advisor asks you to do on the phone is 'Read your terms and conditions and come back to me if you have any questions!!!!!
I read mine and never get nasty surprises as I know exactly what I am and am NOT covered for.
Also, check with your insurer whether they will paty 'book price' or 'market value' if your car needs replacing - there's a big difference.
Having your car taken in the middle of the night is NOT THEFT. According to your insurer it has just been taken without consent and is still potetnailly recoverable (within a reasonable period of time) so why would they pay out immediately for this? They would normally wait about 6 weeks before accepting that it has been stolen rather than just taken without consent.
Also, unless you have cover against this (T.W.O.C.) or against joy-riding, they may not pay out if your car is found burnt out in a field - it's been recovered hasn't it? despite the condition!!!!
So, people, do yourselves a favour and read your terms and policy details and if it doesn't cover what you need, phone them to discuss.
13/10/10 Jerry
This is a simple approach that you should all adhere to.
People receive their documents and file them - they don't bother reading them until it's TOO LATE!!!!
The last thing the insurance advisor asks you to do on the phone is 'Read your terms and conditions and come back to me if you have any questions!!!!!
I read mine and never get nasty surprises as I know exactly what I am and am NOT covered for.
Also, check with your insurer whether they will paty 'book price' or 'market value' if your car needs replacing - there's a big difference.
Having your car taken in the middle of the night is NOT THEFT. According to your insurer it has just been taken without consent and is still potetnailly recoverable (within a reasonable period of time) so why would they pay out immediately for this? They would normally wait about 6 weeks before accepting that it has been stolen rather than just taken without consent.
Also, unless you have cover against this (T.W.O.C.) or against joy-riding, they may not pay out if your car is found burnt out in a field - it's been recovered hasn't it? despite the condition!!!!
So, people, do yourselves a favour and read your terms and policy details and if it doesn't cover what you need, phone them to discuss.
-10
Try your best to steer well clear of tradewise insurance services limited or Tradewise as the are called, will do anything they can not to pay you out. our car was stolen in january and they are trying to use the small print in a policy not to pay out. They use the word modified as a clause not to pay out. our car was not modified and yet they are still trying. they are as bad if not worse than the thieves who took it!!!!
06/09/10 gdfarr1
-2
Do not use Towergate they are rip-off company they take your money and do not want to pay out.
07/07/10 OMANKAY
3
FONECARE refused to pay out on a phone that was left at a restaurant and then picked up by others. Although on their website they state phone insurance covers lost, stolen or damaged phones. It is only stated in the terms&conditions, too small to read, that a phone is not covered for loss and not covered for stolen if not reported to the police within 24 hours. Very quick to take your money but Foncare go to great lengths not to pay out! DONT USE THEM!
22/06/10 duffy
-3
Columbus Travel Insurance; Bought through 'The Trainline' I clicked on the £1 cover when buying my rail ticket before Christmas only to find that when I was unable to catch the train due to the massive cancellation of flights at Gatwick over Christmas they refued to pay out! The company said I was only covered for "extra costs incured to catch my train" NOT missing it due to incoming flight being snowbound and cancelled. HAS ANYONE ELSE HAD THIS RESPONSE I was told that as 'this was the worst snow in 50 years' they wouldn't meet claims, I thought that was the point of purchasing insurance.
07/02/10 Daveyjones
-1
I had a accident and illness policy for sixteen months which I will come back to in a moment.
The company I work for have got what I would call an open ended policy for sick pay, they state in the handbook that it is down to the companies discretion wether they pay sick pay or not.
Based on this I set up the said policy thinking well if I dont recieve sick pay I will be able to pay my outgoings at least.
At the start of January I came of work due to an injury which meant I couldnt do my job,i then rang this company to set up a claim they sent me the paperwork which myself and my doctor completed which by the way cost me £24 this was then returned.
A few days later they replied to say they had written to my doctor and employer for more information so I waited.
About a week later I recieve a letter telling me they had made contact with ny employer who told them I was recieving full company sick pay so therefore I wasnt able to make a claim because I had not had a financial loss, the saying spitting feathers doesnt even come close to my thoughts on this.
I have paid approximately £640 to this company in good faith and not seen a penny in return, I am also angry with the managment at work for not saying anything to me about sick pay after I have seen them about five times over this period of sickness.
As for this company to tell me I have not had a financial loss is an insult,my financial loss is £40 per month = £640 over sixteen months.
They also state it is in the terms and conditions which are as we all know written in some gobbledy gook language which I think is done deliberately to try and confuse us all.
The one thing which they wont do is write to your employer and doctor before you set up the policy, o no this would mean they might loose a pottential customer.
As a previos writer said they are ok while they are taking your money and they are indeed true predators.
Gingertrucker
03/02/10 Gingertrucker
The company I work for have got what I would call an open ended policy for sick pay, they state in the handbook that it is down to the companies discretion wether they pay sick pay or not.
Based on this I set up the said policy thinking well if I dont recieve sick pay I will be able to pay my outgoings at least.
At the start of January I came of work due to an injury which meant I couldnt do my job,i then rang this company to set up a claim they sent me the paperwork which myself and my doctor completed which by the way cost me £24 this was then returned.
A few days later they replied to say they had written to my doctor and employer for more information so I waited.
About a week later I recieve a letter telling me they had made contact with ny employer who told them I was recieving full company sick pay so therefore I wasnt able to make a claim because I had not had a financial loss, the saying spitting feathers doesnt even come close to my thoughts on this.
I have paid approximately £640 to this company in good faith and not seen a penny in return, I am also angry with the managment at work for not saying anything to me about sick pay after I have seen them about five times over this period of sickness.
As for this company to tell me I have not had a financial loss is an insult,my financial loss is £40 per month = £640 over sixteen months.
They also state it is in the terms and conditions which are as we all know written in some gobbledy gook language which I think is done deliberately to try and confuse us all.
The one thing which they wont do is write to your employer and doctor before you set up the policy, o no this would mean they might loose a pottential customer.
As a previos writer said they are ok while they are taking your money and they are indeed true predators.
Gingertrucker
-4
my car insurance ask me if I had any CCJs,county court judgements when I took the policy out,as for as I was awear I didnt have any,now I am making a claim they are now saying that I have CCJs,so thats why they are not paying me out has any one else had the same problem,it was a water bill wots that got to do with motor policy insurance.any one had problems with nfu paying out,its mad.
27/01/10 mark
11
Rica