Insurers set for referral to competition watchdog over inflated premiums

Insurance companies are taking advantage of the system to inflate premiums for drivers by £225m a year, it is claimed
Thursday 31 May 2012 by John Hyde

Insurance companies are taking advantage of the system to inflate premiums for drivers by £225m a year, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) reports today.

The competition watchdog says that after a road traffic accident, insurers of the not-at-fault driver and others, such as brokers, credit hire organisations and repairers, exploit a lack of control in the current system. They charge referral fees for using expensive hire organisations and then add to the cost by replacing the car for longer than necessary.

The OFT has provisionally decided to refer the private motor insurance market to the Competition Commission after finding evidence that firms are competing in a ‘dysfunctional way’.

The report states that the government has focused its attention on reducing the cost of personal injury claims, but without intervention in the cost of replacement vehicles and repairs, artificially-inflated premiums are ‘likely to persist’.

John Fingleton, chief executive of the OFT, said: 'Competition in this market does not appear to work well for drivers. We believe the focus that insurers have on gaining the competitive edge through raising their rivals' costs means that drivers pay more than they need to for their motor insurance policies.

'Because insurers are distracted from competing primarily on the quality and value of service provided to insured drivers, incentives for greater efficiency may be reduced.’

Donna Scully, chairman of the Motor Accident Solicitors' Society (MASS), said the scale of the problem could be 'immense' once it is fully investigated.

'Money is clearly being made from consumers behind their backs and MASS would welcome full disclosure of specific fee income on every case so that the consumer is fully informed,' she said.

'It is no wonder the whole sector has fallen into disrepute and that consumers are so wary of everyone who operates in it, and frustrated by exploitative practices they are likely to encounter when they make a claim.'

The Association of British Insurers welcomed the report but declined to address the accusations over its members receiving referral fees from credit hire companies.

Nick Starling, director of general insurance for the ABI, said: 'For too long insurers have faced inflated rates for credit hire cars and excessive hire periods which have led to higher insurance premiums for customers.

'Regulation of all players in the market to tackle excessive costs is needed, and we hope that the work by the Competition Commission will bring much needed reforms that in turn will result in lower car insurance premiums for consumers.'

The report says that after accidents, many insurers of the not-at-fault drivers refer those drivers to credit hire organisations that tend to charge higher daily rates, in exchange for a referral fee of between £250 and £400 per car hire. The not-at-fault drivers appear to receive replacement vehicles for longer periods than necessary, leading to inflated bills for the at-fault driver’s insurer to cover.

The cost of vehicle repair and replacement vehicles is estimated to add around £10 to the premium of every driver in the UK.

Interested parties wishing to respond to the consultation on the proposed market investigation reference can send written representations to the OFT before 6 July by emailing motorinsurance@oft.gsi.gov.uk.

The OFT expects to reach a final decision by October 2012.

Comments

Referral fees

For too long the insurance giants have blamed Solicitor's costs for increasing motor insurance premiums. The results of this investigation will show that that is not the case. The whole referral fees system operated by the insurance companies is a total racket.

You've got to hand it to Nick

You've got to hand it to Nick Starling and his team - absolutely brilliant bit of spin to make the insurers look like they are the ones being extorted!

While everyone has a job to do, I wonder if there is ever a pang of guilt that the real vicitims in all of this are the genuine claimants who will soon find themselves well and truly shafted.

So the OFT, which forced the

So the OFT, which forced the payment of referral fees on the legal profession, is complaining that the insurance companies are getting referral fees and this distorts the market.

Whilst one rarely expects common sense from our quangocrats, this is surely the choicest piece of irony imaginable. These people quite simply do not know what they are doing, and what their meddling leads to.

And, of course, unless you

And, of course, unless you are on the insurance company's panel of Solicitors (who have to pay referral fees to be on those panels), the insurance companies refuse to allow you to be instructed under the Claimant's BTE legal expenses cover.

So the OFT, which forced the

So the OFT, which forced the payment of referral fees on the legal profession, is complaining that the insurance companies are getting referral fees and this distorts the market.

Whilst one rarely expects common sense from our quangocrats, this is surely the choicest piece of irony imaginable. These people quite simply do not know what they are doing, and what their meddling leads to.

OFT

The OFT didn't force referral fees on the profession. The officials and officers of the Law Society repeatedly stated that a referral fee ban would be declared unenforceable by the courts and so referral fees should be allowed. The first case that came up after the ban had been repealed confirmed that the ban was lawful.

As I recall the OFT

As I recall the OFT threatened legal proceedings to remove the ban on referral fees.

The Law Society did indeed "bottle out" (having been told by the profession it did not want referral fees!)-but a clearer case of "force" would be difficult to imagine-agreement under threat.

Wouldn't it be more accurate

Wouldn't it be more accurate to call referral fees "bribes?"

10 pounds - ASDA advert maybe?

Is it me or tackling an issue which reportedly adds 10 pounds to each insurance premium is petty? When the average cost of insurance is in the thousands for the smallest car imaginable for a new driver and above 500 pounds for a driver with around 5-6 years NCB driving a decent average car we are about to get up to 10 pounds discount! In other words if this is tackled head on by industry's “experts” and a “significant step” is achieved with a reduction of say 30% we would be getting back 3 pounds?

I just hope that there will be better news ahead…

I'd be amazed if Dan above is

I'd be amazed if Dan above is correct with his estimate that all the dodgy practices add only £10 to the cost of each policy. Have a look at John Hyde's excellent blog here on the subject.

The problem is that even trivial accidents have become situations that can be exploited for vast profit by everyone from lawyers to CMCs, credit hire companies, garages, doctors and a variety of intermediaries. Insurers have gone along with this because they get referral fees, and when they are picking up the tab, the ultimate cost can be passed on to the motorist.

The number of accidents has been going down. Damages are static. The only explanation for 40% annual increases in motor insurance is the impact of all the scams. Cleaning out the Augean stables is long overdue.

To Patrick

The 10 pounds is not my estimate but a figure mentioned in the above article where the second to last paragraph says:

"The cost of vehicle repair and replacement vehicles is estimated to add around £10 to the premium of every driver in the UK."

.

I should point out that

I should point out that elsewhere in the report it states that each at-fault driver has an extra £560 put onto their insurance claim after an accident through these practices. Probably a more concerning figure than the £10 one.

But there is nothing to say

But there is nothing to say that figure will come down, only that the £10 may be reduced. Break out the moderately priced saver cava.

10 vs 560

Yes John 560 dwarfs 10 by some margin.

But while 560 is the extra charge put on drivers at fault the vast majorty feel the 10. So yes lets fight the 560 but if the end result is likely to be below 10 or maybe around 3-4 to be more precise then lets concentrate elsewhere for real fights and lets allocate relvant resources for achieving a 3-4 pounds deduction overall if that is relevant to some. I am not arguing the fairness point but the net result point which I think that you have to agree that if this will be tackeld and the 3-4 deduction will be achieved then the insurers can easily find other grounds to recoup the "lost ground".

To put it into perspective I think that the saying is "beating around the bush" although the 560 fight may serve other interests...streamlining of profits anyone?