alchresearch Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Read between the lines. The Tory press is blaming the 'compensation' culture for your rising insurance premiums. Has there suddenly last year been a hundred percent increase in whiplash claims to warrant such a rise? Of course there hasn't! What about all the crashes during the bad snows of this year and last? Snows which hadn't plagued Britain for years and many drivers were simply inexperienced to cope or have the sense to stay at home. Someone ran in to the back of me during the snow. It was a clear cut case of him being at fault but his insurers dragged their heels to avoid paying, resulting in me having to take on a solicitor to get the money and sort out a hire car for the duration. In the end they paid out, but they also had to pay the solicitors fees as well. But you can bet they won't absorb the cost for their incompetence - you will - especially if you're with Churchill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greengeek Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 You're driving an older car, the comparison sites and regular insurance companies won't be much use. Try Sky Insurance, Footman James, Adrian Flux, Liverpool Victoria. I'm currently driving a 1.2 Clio, similar age and value to yours, I'm 28 and I'm paying £320. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Insurance companies are granted a monopoly by the state, it is a disgrace. No mo·nop·o·lyNoun/məˈnäpəlē/ 1. The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service. Your statement doesn't make sense, how can a plurality of companies be granted a monopoly. It's a contradiction in terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greengeek Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I think he means Cartel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 There's a lot of foaming at the mouth here... If it really was some sort of behind-the-scenes price fixing and they were making huge profits, do you not think someone would come along, undercut them by a bit and corner the market? Haven't the OFT just announced an investigation into the market to see if there is any price fixing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 I think he means Cartel. Aye I did, I mis-used the term. But it once sense it's a state monopoly also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 No, not really, since there is no state run insurance company. At best it's an oligopoly, but I don't think it meets that criteria either, so in reality you're just saying that some price fixing takes place, which might be true, the OFT are investigating to check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 This topic has come up a few times. One time, somebody reported that he and a group of friends set up a mutual insurance company and got underwritten as a collective. He claimed they saved a lot. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to go about doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 A friend of mine (who is black) recently had his insurance premiums hiked, and the reason was ????? crime had gone up in the area IT is true that crime such as number plates getting pinched, windows smashed has altered the crime stats, and pushed up the insurance premuims in that area. One of the neightbours is trying to more to an S6 postcode because what he saves on insurance, he can put that money to a a better home. This particular person is chinese - although I don't want to bring race into the debate on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 When the law is unjust there is a moral obligation to break it. Is it unjust to require you to be able to pay for any damage or injury you cause to others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.