Bad news with CAMC

[Dustydog]

Been with the Club Insurance for 15 + years. Annual net premium for new car quoted at £1000+
A bit of research and found their own Insurer was over £600 cheaper going direct for identical cover t&c.
According to CAMC Broker they are bound by the terms of their scheme and cannot price match even though the same Insure direct is so cheaper.
very disappointed indeed

 

[Anseo]

According to CAMC Broker they are bound by the terms of their scheme and cannot price match

Oh well, that makes it all OK then, it's nice to see that good old customer loyalty is still rewarded.

 

[otherclive]

Oh well, that makes it all OK then, it's nice to see that good old customer loyalty is still rewarded.

That does seem very expensive. I’m with LV and the Subaru Forester XT was a few pound cheaper than my Skoda Superb estate and it is just over £250 fully comprehensive with a 10000 miles self selected estimated mileage and full European cover should I venture across the ditch.

 

[Damian]

Sadly loyalty went out of the window years ago.
A loyal customer is one who gets ripped off every year.

I regularly change all my suppliers and insurers as and when renewal dates come up.
It is a bit of a nuisance but it simply does not pay to stay with any one business just for the sake of spending a while searching for better deals.

One of the worst rip off merchants were (Name Removed) who tried to charge me over £700 more than their own Insurer.
They lost my business !!!

 

[Parksy]

Customer loyalty is a thing of the past nowadays, look at the various deals and offers available to new customers for a range of goods and services but not for loyal long termers.
Having said that, when it's insurance policy renewal time for my 2 car insurance I check various brokers and policies and for the past 5 years my current broker has bern able to price match and to find policies with similarly favourable T&Cs.
I wonder how much business the CAMC have lost because of their no price match rule?
Internet availability means that customers no longer have to accept second rate service or archaic Spanish practice.

 

[otherclive]

Customer loyalty is a thing of the past nowadays, look at the various deals and offers available to new customers for a range of goods and services but not for loyal long termers.
Having said that, when it's insurance policy renewal time for my 2 car insurance I check various brokers and policies and for the past 5 years my current broker has bern able to price match and to find policies with similarly favourable T&Cs.
I wonder how much business the CAMC have lost because of their no price match rule?
Internet availability means that customers no longer have to accept second rate service or archaic Spanish practice.

We have been with LV, formerly Frizzels, for many years now and each year the policy has been remarkably stable. I do occasionally check alternatives but at £250 (ish) for the Subaru Forester XT and less than £200 for the Kia Rio I prefer to stay with a company that has a good reputation for settling claims fairly and smoothly. We had a Volvo 740 estate written off and the claim was settled quickly. This compared to the hassle of using Norwich Union when my wife’s Saab 9000 was written off.

Must desist from crash testing Scandinavian cars to destruction.

 

[Woodentop]

We have been with LV, formerly Frizzels, for many years now and each year the policy has been remarkably stable. I do occasionally check alternatives but at £250 (ish) for the Subaru Forester XT and less than £200 for the Kia Rio I prefer to stay with a company that has a good reputation for settling claims fairly and smoothly. We had a Volvo 740 estate written off and the claim was settled quickly. This compared to the hassle of using Norwich Union when my wife’s Saab 9000 was written off.

Must desist from crash testing Scandinavian cars to destruction.

+1 for LV.
And for the record Norwich Union have been Aviva for many years now

 

[Dodger524]

I've never been able to obtain a remotely competitive quotation from the CMC so will no longer bother. I do shop around each year for all policies, but I'd rather not have to.

 

[otherclive]

Even in a No Fault claim it’s often the case that you’re next years renewal premium increases. It’s all based on risk assessment and statistical probability. If you hadn’t placed your car in harms way there would not be an accident. Bizarre I know but that’s how it works. Same with home insurance too.

 

[Parksy]

Please refrain from the growing tendency to name and shame insurance companies on this topic.
I' ve edited / deleted three posts this morning which contained specific complaints about named insurance companies.
I'm sure that many of us will have car insurance horror stories but all complaints should be taken up direct with the companies involved.
This forum has no way of checking or verifying facts, so no named companies in connection with complaints please

 

[Raywood]

Even in a No Fault claim it’s often the case that you’re next years renewal premium increases. It’s all based on risk assessment and statistical probability. If you hadn’t placed your car in harms way there would not be an accident. Bizarre I know but that’s how it works. Same with home insurance too.

This does vary from company to company but if it happens move the business. After one no fault accident I was able to get quotes from various companies without problem. Admiral does seem to be a problem for this. The idea that you will have another accident just because someone ran in to you seems ludicrous to me and so that firm is not on my list of potential insurers if I want a quote.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Insurance in my universe should operate differently!

The need to have car ( and most types of insurance) insurance stems from the probability that that at some time you will need to make a claim or some one will claim against you. Consequently when you make your claim, it actually reduce your future likelihood of needing to claim.... So before a claim your premium should ramp up, and diminish after a claim.

That probably explains my high premiums

One day society will agree with me, but I may not be around when it happens

 

[Parksy]

I like the lateral thinking Prof 😁

 

[camel]

Parky, why was my post deleted when I mentioned (Name Removed) and Damians post is still there for all to see giving (Name Removed) a bashing

 

[Dustydog]

We need to remember that CAMC etc are intermediaries not the actual Insurer who gets changed from time to time. Different Insurer and different claims approach. My main gripe is that a so called Club representing hundreds of thousands of motorists can’t better a better deal with their panel Insurer when I a mere mortal can save hundreds of pounds by going direct to the same panel Insurer? Something very wrong somewhere!

 

[Damian]

Parky, why was my post deleted when I mentioned (Name Removed) and Damians post is still there for all to see giving (Name Removed) a bashing

I have slapped myself on the wrist, wearing sackcloth and ashes, and hanging head in shame, and have deleted the name I referred to.

 

[camel]

I have slapped myself on the wrist, wearing sackcloth and ashes, and hanging head in shame, and have deleted the name I referred to.

About time you admitted to something , carry on ,

 

[Damian]

About time you admitted to something , carry on ,

I have no idea what you are inferring with that post, and frankly have no interest.
However, stick to forum rules and do not start a personal attack on anyone.

 

[Dustydog]

I-have no wish to break Forum rules but all Damian did was quote an intermediary who charged more for the same Insurer than he could get direct and save £700. Just like me!
Reminds of Petplan. A few years ago they moved from Insurer R to Insurer A. What a fantastic improvement in all aspects , especially claims performance!
Hope I haven’t been a bad dog Steve

 

[Parksy]

Parky, why was my post deleted when I mentioned (Name Removed) and Damians post is still there for all to see giving (Name Removed) a bashing

When this thread started I didn't anticipate that several naming and shaming posts would begin to appear, so to be honest I didn't take much notice at first.
When the third one today was posted I decided that it might be a good idea to put the brakes on.
I really don't want to interfere with anybody's comment, but this forum has in the past come unstuck when we allowed a certain caravan insurer to be criticised on the message boards.
They threatened legal action, and insurance companies have the wherewithal to carry out their threats.
It's not just you Camel, and its not personal, but we have to try to keep within guidelines without ruining the forum experience for members.

 

[Guzzilazz]

Insurance in my universe should operate differently!

The need to have car ( and most types of insurance) insurance stems from the probability that that at some time you will need to make a claim or some one will claim against you. Consequently when you make your claim, it actually reduce your future likelihood of needing to claim.... So before a claim your premium should ramp up, and diminish after a claim.

That probably explains my high premiums

One day society will agree with me, but I may not be around when it happens

Unfortunately, Insurance industry statistics don't agree with you Prof... The stats that the actuaries have are that if you have been involved in a claim, you are MORE likely to make another claim...

 

[Raywood]

Unfortunately, Insurance industry statistics don't agree with you Prof... The stats that the actuaries have are that if you have been involved in a claim, you are MORE likely to make another claim...

I agree the Prof is wrong. Basically your chances of having an accident is the same each year. It is a bit like the lottery, where at every draw the same numbers have the same chance of coming up, irrespective of if they have come up before. The law of averages suggests that you should have an accident every so many years, but two can easily occur in the same year, or two consecutive ones, so the chances of a claim remain the same. On that basis the premium should, no claims bonus and inflation apart, remain static.
In practice the insurer will look at the claim to see if it reveals a problem, drink driving or excessive speed being examples, and if they appear then the premium will be loaded for future years to cover increased risk.
What is wrong is the suggestion that if you have one claim, you are more likely to have another, statistically at least it should not add up and I would avoid any company that works on that theory

 

[Guzzilazz]

I agree the Prof is wrong. Basically your chances of having an accident is the same each year. It is a bit like the lottery, where at every draw the same numbers have the same chance of coming up, irrespective of if they have come up before. The law of averages suggests that you should have an accident every so many years, but two can easily occur in the same year, or two consecutive ones, so the chances of a claim remain the same. On that basis the premium should, no claims bonus and inflation apart, remain static.
In practice the insurer will look at the claim to see if it reveals a problem, drink driving or excessive speed being examples, and if they appear then the premium will be loaded for future years to cover increased risk.
What is wrong is the suggestion that if you have one claim, you are more likely to have another, statistically at least it should not add up and I would avoid any company that works on that theory

It's not a theory I'm afraid, it's statistical analysis across claims, across UK insurers. They all contribute to and use the pool of data

 

[Dustydog]

I too have to agree the Prof is wrong.

The average Insurers underwriting guides generally show drivers below 25 years old with little experience present a high risk. Sadly the same becomes true of those past 70. Whilst experienced in years driving, deteriorating reaction times and complacency become a potential hazard. The actuarial historic and predicted tables prove this point. My kids in their late 30’s early 40s enjoy cheap insurance.

 

[otherclive]

I too have to agree the Prof is wrong.

The average Insurers underwriting guides generally show drivers below 25 years old with little experience present a high risk. Sadly the same becomes true of those past 70. Whilst experienced in years driving, deteriorating reaction times and complacency become a potential hazard. The actuarial historic and predicted tables prove this point. My kids in their late 30’s early 40s enjoy cheap insurance.

Strange as my son drives a 2008 Freelander and daughter a 1.6 2015 Focus and both pay quite a bit more than me. Neither have business mileage either.
But the older drivers tend to have less expensive claims than younger males.

A 2016 study may be of interest

Older drivers no more dangerous, accident data study says

Elderly drivers are less likely to have an accident than young motorists, a study suggests - challenging the idea they are more dangerous on the roads.

www.bbc.co.uk