since when has this been on insurance policies. Obviously just since I
renewed last year, but why (other than to maximise profits/reduce
payouts).

Any one know if there is a get around?

Surely all it will do will make the "value" that is acceptable to the
claimant be whatever that may be plus the excess amount?


--
wsotw

On Jun 5, 7:02*pm, wsotw <wsha...@cmsinet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> since when has this been on insurance policies. Obviously just since I
> renewed last year, but why (other than to maximise profits/reduce
> payouts).
>
> Any one know if there is a get around?
>
> Surely all it will do will make the "value" that is acceptable to the
> claimant be whatever that may be plus the excess amount?
>
> --
> wsotw

Since always. Just reinsured with Aunty Carole and couldn't avoid a
massive £250 excess. Makes a bit of a mockery of FC insurance really.
I queried it and the drone reconed all the inscos they dealt with were
a minimum of £250, some £500 ffs !!

--
Speedgazebo

In article <89063c11-ba28-457e-bcb1-(E-Mail Removed)
s.com>, Speedgazebo MOTP #1 <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Jun 5, 7:02*pm, wsotw <wsha...@cmsinet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> since when has this been on insurance policies. Obviously just since I
>> renewed last year, but why (other than to maximise profits/reduce
>> payouts).
>>
>> Any one know if there is a get around?
>>
>> Surely all it will do will make the "value" that is acceptable to the
>> claimant be whatever that may be plus the excess amount?
>>
>> --
>> wsotw
>
>Since always. Just reinsured with Aunty Carole and couldn't avoid a
>massive £250 excess. Makes a bit of a mockery of FC insurance really.
>I queried it and the drone reconed all the inscos they dealt with were
>a minimum of £250, some £500 ffs !!
>
>--
>Speedgazebo

let me clarify this a bit, there has always been a compulsory excess,
but there is now a specifically listed compulsory excess for
theft/fire/malicious damage.

all my quotes so far a have had a comp. excess of 350, with the other
theft excess the same or in some cases 550

so are they perhaps just listing this out now as in some cases it may
differ for accident to theft/fire/malicious damage.

--
wsotw

"wsotw" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> since when has this been on insurance policies. Obviously just since I
> renewed last year, but why (other than to maximise profits/reduce
> payouts).
>
> Any one know if there is a get around?


TPO perhaps?

wsotw <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> since when has this been on insurance policies. Obviously just since I
> renewed last year, but why (other than to maximise profits/reduce
> payouts).
>

In another place someone was bemoaning the increasingly common practice of
levying a fee to make any changes to a policy.

Both are simply a consequence of the pressure on base premiums driven by
"comparison" sites. I have paid around £100 for a full comp policy
including breakdown recovery for the last 5 or 6 years. Usually with C Nash
but one of the years was with Ebike.

It seems insurers have adopted the same model as the cheap airlines. Offer
a low base price to pull the punters in and then make money on the added
value transactions. This suits me and seems to suit them, looking at the
profits some are making. I've had the same bike and address for 8 years and
made no claims, benefitting from the low base insurance price.

The alternative is that those extra charges are aggregated across all
premiums and I'd rather the Niges of the world get stung for a £30 admin
fee every time he changes a bike. I'm also happy to see that all claimants
pay an admin fee (that's what a policy excess is effectively) when they
make a claim, regardless of circumstances. Why should a crasher be treated
different to someone who has a bike stolen from the Arndale Centre?

> Any one know if there is a get around?
>

No. It's a supplier controlled market. The alternative is SORN.

> Surely all it will do will make the "value" that is acceptable to the
> claimant be whatever that may be plus the excess amount?
>
>

I think not. The insurers have all of the trump cards and use the same used
price guides as the motor trade.


--
wessie at tesco dot net

BMW R1150GS

On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 19:40:07 +0100, "Ian Field"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"wsotw" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> since when has this been on insurance policies. Obviously just since I
>> renewed last year, but why (other than to maximise profits/reduce
>> payouts).
>>
>> Any one know if there is a get around?
>
>
>TPO perhaps?

Which with some ins co's costs more than fully comp as you are seen as
HIGH RISK.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 11:29:05 -0700 (PDT), "Speedgazebo MOTP #1"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jun 5, 7:02*pm, wsotw <wsha...@cmsinet.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> since when has this been on insurance policies. Obviously just since I
>> renewed last year, but why (other than to maximise profits/reduce
>> payouts).
>>
>> Any one know if there is a get around?
>>
>> Surely all it will do will make the "value" that is acceptable to the
>> claimant be whatever that may be plus the excess amount?
>>
>> --
>> wsotw
>
>Since always. Just reinsured with Aunty Carole and couldn't avoid a
>massive £250 excess. Makes a bit of a mockery of FC insurance really.
>I queried it and the drone reconed all the inscos they dealt with were
>a minimum of £250, some £500 ffs !!

I wonder just how many people adjust the 'value' of their vehicle to
take into account the excess?
--
GSX-R1000 K8

Ben ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:
>
> I wonder just how many people adjust the 'value' of their vehicle to
> take into account the excess?

I advised V to do exactly that when she was renewing her scooter
insurance last week.

Daft not to, really.

--
ogden

gsxr1000 - the gentleman's sports-tourer
ktm duke - the practical cross-town commuter

Pip wrote:

> My round, i'd say.

Cool. Pint of Waggledance please.


--
Chris

Pip <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Bad form etc., but I've just spent 40 minutes on the phone dealing with
> car insurance and I put this exact question to the droid and got the
> answer from his manager: the valuation from the punter is just that - a
> best guess, from a member of the public who can't be expected to know
> the real answer. Most people let the valuation ride from year to year
> and may be paying more for their insurance that they need to as the
> vehicle that cost them 10 grand is now only worth four.
>
> "In the event of a claim the assessor decides the vehicle's value, based
> on knowledge, experience and the NCAP guide. If that value exceeds the
> customer's valuation, then the assessor's figure will be the one used as
> the basis of the claim".
>
> So I was right and wrong, all in one post. Result all round, i'd say.
>

If you'd paid attention I stated something very similar earlier in the
thread. You'd have to work hard to get an assessor to move from the lower
end of the NCAP figures. They'll quite happily use the scales to reduce the
value for higher than average mileage but just like car sales people, try
to avoid using the scales that add value for low mileage vehicles.

--
wessie at tesco dot net

BMW R1150GS