Virtually every year it is cheaper for me to insure several bikes separately than on a multibike policy,…

[GSite]

Virtually every year it is cheaper for me to insure several bikes separately than on a multibike policy, surely the purpose of these is to save you money, so as far as I can see the only benefit is getting round the issue of earning separate NCB on each bike. Most insurers have a policy limit on the value of bikes on cover and most multibike underwriters don't want several quite new valuable bikes as this exceeds the value limit. A mate of mine has 12 big bikes 3-10 years old on cover for less than another mates 3 newer bikes, as riders they are of similar risk profile, so it is largely down to value when you get to a certain age. A few months back when I was considering a 1000 versys, the quote for a 650 versys of similar value was only £20 a year less from a dozen or more insurers even though there is a considerable difference in the performance of these bikes.

 

[GSian]

The NCB staying with the bike is a rip off that only benefits the insurance company and broker. there would be no extra risk of it being with the insured. after all, if I had an accident on one of the bikes it would affect the cost of insurance on the other bike. And, I would have to declare that for the next 5 years for any of my other unconnected motor policies. Even if you protect it you have to declare it, resulting in more cost for all vehicles if you've had an accident and you was at fault. If you wasn't at fault, they put it up and use the excuse of the price of oil or gas or something else. Insurance companies are Robdogs that are basically regulated by financial people that make from it.

 

[Hartley]

The NCB staying with the bike is a rip off that only benefits the insurance company and broker. there would be no extra risk of it being with the insured. after all, if I had an accident on one of the bikes it would affect the cost of insurance on the other bike. And, I would have to declare that for the next 5 years for any of my other unconnected motor policies. Even if you protect it you have to declare it, resulting in more cost for all vehicles if you've had an accident and you was at fault. If you wasn't at fault, they put it up and use the excuse of the price of oil or gas or something else. Insurance companies are Robdogs that are basically regulated by financial people that make from it.

Completely agree. If it’s no claims why are you not entitled to use the fact you’ve not claimed on several different policies. For I long time I’ve felt this is something that should be looked into.

 

[TechnoGSA]

Completely agree. If it’s no claims why are you not entitled to use the fact you’ve not claimed on several different policies. For I long time I’ve felt this is something that should be looked into.

Underwriters the people/company's that provides the cash are in it for one reason, make money. They do, lots o it, if they pay out they just increase the rate, they never lose. Insurance company's buy a wedge and sell that as policies, brokers sell policies with a selling fee added. Those that sell make up their own rules, it's a self licking lollipop. They've got little to no interest in making things better, certainly not cheaper for the rider/driver. It's all about profit.

 

[GSian]

There needs to be a proper meaningful regulator, like infrastructure sort of does. After all it's compulsory, for a valid reason. But they are starting to take the p155. As I said, Robdogs. Can't see how a 40% increase can be justified. That was my car insurance renewal, I've not had a fault claim, have full no claims bonus (9+, that's another rant it's more than 25yrs in reality) on 2 of 3 different policies, and no other circumstanced had changed in the year.

 

[GSite]

Agree 100% on the NCB issue - Protecting it is also a rip off as the top end rises in the event of a claim, convictions etc but the % discount remains so overall the price still increases. The protection only applies to that policy and that specific underwriter, so shopping around for a better renewal price means you can't take that protection to another company so you may not as well have it in the first place.

Insurers will want proof of NCB either at inception of the policy or in the event of a claim so if you have several polices it pays to keep good records of which NCB you have declared to which company if you are a regular switcher. They will lay on you the duplication of NCB line if you are not careful.

Further, some companies say their maximum NCB is say 6 years, but if you go to them with 20+ years then the renewal notice after that year will only state 6 years for you to take to another insurer who may have amximum of 9 years meaning you have lost the difference at your cost.

If you cancel or don't renew, the NCB is only valid for two years before it is lost, despite having other policies and /or being able to prove you are a regular insured driver.

As said, they want it all their own way with no sense of fair play or ethical considerations, they are a money making machine and will do whatever it takes to maximise this - Robdogs and then some.

 

[GSian]

Agree 100% on t(e NCB issue - Protecting it is also a rip off as the top end rises in the event of a claim, convictions etc but the % discount remains so overall the price still increases. The protection only applies to that policy and that specific underwriter, so shopping around for a better renewal price means you can't take that protection to another company so you may not as well have it in the first place.

Insurers will want proof of NCB either at inception of the policy or in the evnt of a claim so if you have several polices it pays to keep good records of which NCB you have declared to which company if you are a regular switcher. They will lay on you the duplication of NCB line if you are not careful.

As said, they want it all their own way with no sense of fair play or ethical considerations, they are a money making machine and will do whatever ot takes to maximise this - robdogs and then some.

Exactly!

 

[TechnoGSA]

As stated they've no interest in improving anything, that removes the possibility of making more money. This situation is not only in insurance, it's banks, power, water, internet anything that's necessary. Making money is not wrong providing a proportion is ploughed back in. To maintain and improve infrastructure/services, that's no longer happening and we're all getting ripped off.

 

[ilkleymoron]

there we go
i appreciate some of you have no interest and spout the same shit every time you get your renewal but the reasons why you’re now paying just a little more

after all everyone likes an insurance bashing thread from the brain-dead bar room experts

conspiracy init mate, just profit, just profit, they're just robbin b'stards

well, no they aren't for every £1.00 of premium income they paid out £1.14

https://www.ey.com/en_uk/news/2023/06/ey-uk-motor-insurance-results-analysis

https://www.actuarialpost.co.uk/art...rs-to-make-largest-loss-in-a-decade-21449.htm

 

[ATT]

There needs to be a proper meaningful regulator, like infrastructure sort of does. After all it's compulsory, for a valid reason. But they are starting to take the p155. As I said, Robdogs. Can't see how a 40% increase can be justified. That was my car insurance renewal, I've not had a fault claim, have full no claims bonus (9+, that's another rant it's more than 25yrs in reality) on 2 of 3 different policies, and no other circumstanced had changed in the year.

I have successfully argued that an accident on my motorcycle should not affect my car/van policies, when I was in the UK I received compensation on two occasions, the last payout in compensation was when I was living out here, two years after leaving the UK!

You just have to be firm and polite with them and ask them to explain why and the reasoning for such piss taking.

I treated it as a hobby of sorts and had no emotional involvement in the procedure or the outcomes.

 

[GSite]

there we go
i appreciate some of you have no interest and spout the same shit every time you get your renewal but the reasons why you’re now paying just a little more

after all everyone likes an insurance bashing thread from the brain-dead bar room experts

conspiracy init mate, just profit, just profit, they're just robbin b'stards

well, no they aren't for every £1.00 of premium income they paid out £1.14

https://www.ey.com/en_uk/news/2023/06/ey-uk-motor-insurance-results-analysis

https://www.actuarialpost.co.uk/art...rs-to-make-largest-loss-in-a-decade-21449.htm

Good point regarding payouts exceeding premiums generated which I feel most thinking folk know and it has to be said that it is the brokers who compound many of the issues described above. However this does not get away from all the other issues re poor service, communication, unreasonable administration fees multiple NCB issues and changes in direction experienced by many insurance customers from both brokers and insurance companies in varying proportions.

 

[TechnoGSA]

there we go
i appreciate some of you have no interest and spout the same shit every time you get your renewal but the reasons why you’re now paying just a little more

after all everyone likes an insurance bashing thread from the brain-dead bar room experts

conspiracy init mate, just profit, just profit, they're just robbin b'stards

well, no they aren't for every £1.00 of premium income they paid out £1.14

https://www.ey.com/en_uk/news/2023/06/ey-uk-motor-insurance-results-analysis

https://www.actuarialpost.co.uk/art...rs-to-make-largest-loss-in-a-decade-21449.htm

Don't make me laugh you don't by chance work in the insurance trade?

If that was the case across the insurance industry, they'd be bankrupt and out of businesses. Underwriters are in the business to make money plain and simple.

As for paying just a little more. If what others are stating on here is to be believed, I've no reason to doubt them, these aren't small increases.

 

[er-minio]

There needs to be a proper meaningful regulator, like infrastructure sort of does.

Ahaha – good luck with that.

Agree with you.
My NCB stays with the policy. But then a claim taken on another policy (not even at my name – car, corporate fleet) is used against all policies.


I only have three bikes and they've been on a multipolicy since 2014 I think.
I split them this year because it was difficult to insure them (London. Garage at separate address) and kept the most expensive one on the existing NCB and bundled the other two on a new policy starting at 0NCB.
Didn't cost that much more than a single policy, just more of a faff to follow up with renewals and all.

Going back in time, I would have kept them on separate policies to build multiple NCB on all.


I recently discovered, on my old car policy, that Admiral has a top of 5 years NCB. I was insured with them for almost 10 years with no claims

Anyway, I'd rather pay a bit more (or, reverse it, I'd be ok with small increases) in order to keep the same insurer instead of having to shop around.
I used Admiral a lot, as said above, because I had decent service from them (everything clear, good cover, etc.) and never switched for ages.
Would like to have something similar on bikes, especially now that they are split.

 

[Wapping]

One might start to wonder why, if motorcycle insurance (along with other classes) is so profitable, insurers pull out of it and, in some cases, the intermediary brokers close their doors. Axa being the latest example of an insurer, saying “No more” to an apparently lucrative stream of money.

 

[er-minio]

As I wrote before: compared to what I have seen in other countries (Italy) the insurance premiums here are fairly low to be fair.
Obviously, different country/driving and risk profile. Italian insurance is also way less detailed than here (at least when I lived there): Model, plate, place of residence. Also the vehicle is insured not the rider. But overall, comparing Rome to London, both car and motorbike insurance was way higher in Rome.

My (very wild) guess is that motor insurance in a lot of cases (not all) has been involved in a race to the bottom that made it non lucrative for underwriters and a pain in the ass for the customer (see: wasting time having to shop around every year because the system is designed that way).

 

[Wapping]

You are indeed correct:

A. It is very difficult (and largely pointless) to benchmark the UK’s insurance costs and cover against another country’s.

B. There was a race to the bottom, where insurers (assisted by the intermediaries) chased premium volume - and not necessarily profit - as the Holy Grail of business success. In short, market share (a bigger slice of the cake) became the mantra. That model is flawed and it makes the market cyclical. Cyclical means: Prices fall when there is stiff competition for business (insurers chasing the largest cake slices) but rise when there is no or less competition.

C. Motor insurance is more complicated than insuring a single vehicle for a year. It can be attractive as with it can come sizeable liability claims, which might take many months of even years to establish, let alone pay out in full. The insurer can set this money aside as a reserve, in very crude terms taking it off their day-to-day balance sheet and away from the tax man. Indeed, the regulator demands that they prove their reserves are adequate to meet today’s claims and any future claims made against them. This can make the Motor sector attractive for an insurer to enter.

D. All insurers - to some degree or another - rely on the secondary market (reinsurance) to remove parts of their exposure to risk. This secondary market has been ‘hard’ (it, too is cyclical) for industrial and commercial business for about the last three to five years. ‘Hard’ in this context means expensive to buy. Eventually, the insurers, who in party rely on their reinsurance, cannot absorb these costs, so they have to pass it on to their customers. That, in basic terms, means premiums go up. There is often a time lag, meaning that it takes the public world (your and my basic annual domestic Motor or House or Travel insurance premiums) to catch-up with what has been happening elsewhere for the past three years. The good news is that the ‘hard’ market is starting to soften, which might mean that, in a year or two the domestic market will probably soften too. The cycle is back; just like the tides, washing in and out on the seashore.

E. External to all this but interlinked is and are inflationary and rate of exchange pressures. Everything costs more, which includes repair costs of vehicles and, inevitably liability claims. Imports take longer and cost more. Labour costs rise. Basic products, like metals, plastics, glass or rubber, all cost more. Technical products, like electronics, cost more. Energy is expensive. The money to pay for it has to come from somewhere; it really does not grow on trees.

 

[wessie]

Another factor that is not given any consideration by those that decry insurers making profits, is that the economy revolves around those profits. If insurers do not make money in the retail and reinsurance business then where does the profit come from that pays dividends to the shareholders? Most of these shareholders will be institutional investors such as pension companies, unions, local authorities, life assurance companies, ISA managers and unit trust managers. All reliant on the magic money tree to pay out to the great unwashed who have trusted them to get a better return than stuffing cash under the mattress.

 

[Wapping]

Indeed so, Wessie.

The problem is added to when:

A. People regard insurance, particularly Motor, as a tax, in as much as they are obliged by law to buy it.

B. Some people regard it as an investment ie. if they see zero return for their premium in a year, two years, three years or maybe a lifetime, then they believe it has no value at all. In short, it’s all a rip-off.

C. They believe nonsense that insuers never pay, when UKGSer has more than enough reports of happy customers who have been paid promptly and, sometimes, for more than they expected.

D. Some cannot (or refuse to) understand the difference between an insurer, a broker and an on-line search engine.

E. It is failed to be accepted that insurers cannot run every line of business at a loss or even a very low profit margin forever, any more than a corner shop or Woolworths can. Eventually they will go bust, as some do. Most though close their doors before the liquidator turns up.

F. The business, though very heavily regulated, is marketed and sold to Joe Public in a very unprofessional manner, often by chimps in a call centre. The regulator and, bless them, even the EU has stepped in to try to improve things. But, even were it to be sold by the world’s most friendly, compliant, customer serving robot (as many self-serve online search engines are staffed by) bods would still complain or revel forever in “My mate says it’s shit….”

 

[TechnoGSA]

I don't think people mind things going up slightly (that being the word) or that if you buy a more valuable bike your premium will increase, I certainly don't. What's happening at present is the majority are paying for the minority who, crash, ride/drive recklessly, take little or no security precautions and the thieves actions, to recover the losses. Made worth by countless corporations retching up prices, blaming COVID and the Ukraine, this includes stock that was already sitting on shelves before any of that started, it's just profiteering. The other big issue is manufactures aren't making their vehicles more secure (just look at all the keyless car thefts at present) or reducing the ridiculously high spare parts prices, one feeds the other! Both the insurance and vehicle industry could do more to reduce costs, but they don't as it makes money. We can chop it up in countless ways, underwriters, brokers, and manufactures are in business, to make money, they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Wapping]

How can paying larger and more frequent claims, ‘Make money for insurers’? That is bizarre economics and a dreadful business plan.

It is true that insurers are ‘In it to make money’, as is your employer or, if you are self-employed, yourself. It’s a universal trend. Without ‘making money’ they go bust, eventually.

If you want to have a good moan about something, maybe direct it towards the premium tax, first introduced in April 1997, the percentage rate of which has increased steadily ever since. That’s where 12% of your premium goes, straight into the Chancellor’s pockets.