roughyed:
Bogus 'cash for crash' insurance claims push up premiums | Daily Mail Online
Crash for £cash is a very minor problem when you consider the practices of the insewerance industry as a whole.
Why are you highlighting this minority aspect of a totally rotten & corrupt industry?
Chas:
roughyed:
Bogus 'cash for crash' insurance claims push up premiums | Daily Mail OnlineCrash for £cash is a very minor problem when you consider the practices of the insewerance industry as a whole.
Why are you highlighting this minority aspect of a totally rotten & corrupt industry?
Ooooooooh, eermmmm, let me think now, errrrrrrrrm, possibly cos it involves lorry drivers ? 
i bet the drivers name was either mustafa or mohamed
i think that video shown on the mail’s site, is an actual genuine accident…
now this is crash for cash—> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NqXGtvI9MQ
philgor:
i think that video shown on the mail’s site, is an actual genuine accident…now this is crash for cash—> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NqXGtvI9MQ
Problem is, even if that was a crash for cash, IMO the driver has to take some of the blame. He was a set distance from that car for quite some time. Change the scenario and the car needs to brake for a genuine reason. The result would still be the same, a rear end collision.
You need cameras all round your vehicle otherwise you will get allegations of cutting across another vehicles path or changing lanes when you haven’t or that you were in a different lane to the one you were actually in.
As is the norm the lorry driver is to blame.
Crash for £cash is a very minor problem when you consider the practices of the insewerance industry as a whole.
Why are you highlighting this minority aspect of a totally rotten & corrupt industry?
[/quote]
And you know this for a fact do you?
Chas:
insewerance industry
Not sure if trying to be edgy or poster is a halfwit.
Given that it fails at being edgy I can only then assume he’s a halfwit.
big boots:
i bet the drivers name was either mustafa or mohamed
No, it was Zelim and he woz white.
Any insurer who dodges a payout when 100% in the frame for paying out already - has gotta be a crook. I’d suggest though, that not 100% of insurers act in this manner, just like 100% of agencies are not “dodgy” either.
One would expect the “cheapest” insurers or the “lowest paying” agencies to be the most bent - but that’s not always the case. Most of the skulduggery In motor insurance occurs over this big issue of insurers preferring to compete for the premiums of total idiots @ four-figures pa, and totally neglect the “maxed out no claims” market. Having taken on the meaty premiums, there are then insurers who still don’t accept the fact they have to pay out when their insured has an accident due to their idiocy that was known about from the very beginning. 
Think of it like the “Sub Prime Market” - only in insurance. Do I think we’re going to have an “insurance crunch” soon? - Yes, I dream of it. Driver hourly rates will skyrocket when this eventually happens ya see. 
BBC’s panorama ran an investigation into crash for cash 2 years ago
youtube.com/watch?v=oJZywPErbr4
youtube.com/watch?v=MydG65cc6q4
It’s in 2 parts, you can skip part 1 because in part 2 one of the ring leaders does the worst thing possible a criminal could do
Winseer:
Any insurer who dodges a payout when 100% in the frame for paying out already - has gotta be a crook. I’d suggest though, that not 100% of insurers act in this manner, just like 100% of agencies are not “dodgy” either.One would expect the “cheapest” insurers or the “lowest paying” agencies to be the most bent - but that’s not always the case. Most of the skulduggery In motor insurance occurs over this big issue of insurers preferring to compete for the premiums of total idiots @ four-figures pa, and totally neglect the “maxed out no claims” market. Having taken on the meaty premiums, there are then insurers who still don’t accept the fact they have to pay out when their insured has an accident due to their idiocy that was known about from the very beginning.
Think of it like the “Sub Prime Market” - only in insurance. Do I think we’re going to have an “insurance crunch” soon? - Yes, I dream of it. Driver hourly rates will skyrocket when this eventually happens ya see.
The majority of Insurers target the standard market eg the safer drivers with maximum no claims bonus and cleanish records as this is traditionally where they make money due to the lower frequency / value of claims.
I’m not sure what you mean by “Insurance crunch”, the current market is what is defined as “Soft” which has followed the traditional “hard” market as Insurance goes in cycles. Traditionally the cycles are caused by a very large event eg 9/11 or a recession or a change in the law which cause a hard market. This is basically caused by lower returns from their investments and / large claims payments which tend to make the number of insurers in the market reduce and the premiums to increase.
Our last hard market started due to the most recent recession hitting investment returns and the regulators panicking about Insurers staying solvent and requiring them to hold more liquid assets to prevent insolvency. When you factor in the fall in property values (Which Insurers tend to invest a significant portion of the funds into) and the requirement to hold more cash reserves it gives you the double wammy causing the hard market
A hard market is always (eventually) followed by a soft market, this type of market is caused by the premiums rising to a point that attracts new ventures into the market and / or the returns on investments increasing. Normal market forces entail that larger numbers of companies competing for business cause a fall in prices which tend to keep falling until the next hard market event.
We’re currently on the verge / in a soft market as evidenced by premiums dropping.
if it is crash for cash, then all i can say is the car driver has some bottle to do that with an hgv,if it had gone wrong he could have ended up a lot worse off,what a muppet
A “soft” market then, seems unstable because it is unsustainable. If you see premiums for max no claims punters climb everywhere at once, then it might be argued that “this is good for the industry”, but in fact you’ll just get more cut-throat competition going on, each insurer trying to undercut the now meaty premiums for even the safest drivers. Thus, a “soft” market quickly becomes a “hard” one almost as a self-fulfilling prophecy! 
I would argue that the thing most likely to bring down insurers isn’t so much a “high frequency” of claims, but “high legal costs” trying to defend the very highest liability claims, that either get lost in court eventually anyway, or are won, but at unrecoverable legal costs to the “winner” - eg. when the opponent is the same insurer for both parties! I could say “Don’t beat yourself up over it” - but how many insurers when faced with a big whopping claim involving a big payout from A to B (bang to rights accident say) quickly realise they are fighting themselves, and throw their hand away AT THE OUTSET to minimise costs?
Perhaps “Boy Racer driving a Ferrari” does occasionally go up the arse of “Big Boy II driving a Lamborghini”…
No, don’t think “He doesn’t need a Ferrari to do that”. Just don’t go there. 
What is the insewerance industry ? I guess its when you get faulty drains.
philgor:
i think that video shown on the mail’s site, is an actual genuine accident…now this is crash for cash—> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NqXGtvI9MQ
Even if it was crash for cash, the truck driver got into that situation him self, the car he hit was slowing down for at least 15 seconds before impact, were as the the truck driver lost about 1 mph after getting up to 48/9 mph before impact, he had plenty of time to slow or move into lane 2, but decided to do neither.
It might be cash for crash, but truck driver was still too close to stop in time. I can’t see how that footage is going to 100% exonerate the truck driver, just because the two cars seemed to be doing something in cahoots there…