Why car insurance premiums will jump 25%

ReenaSewraz
by Lovemoney Staff ReenaSewraz on 25 June 2012  |  Comments 9 comments

The decision to rule in favour of the RSA and its `in-house' repair costs is bad news for motor insurance premiums.

Why car insurance premiums will jump 25%

A High Court judgement on the repair charging practices at Royal & Sun Alliance (RSA) means car insurers will have to increase the cost of premiums to cover a 25% increase on accident repair charges.

The case

The case involved a dispute about a costly repair bill from the RSA that the at-fault insurance company refused to pay.

Usually when a car is damaged in an accident the repairs are carried out by an approved garage and the insurer paying for the cost is sent an invoice of charges. But RSA uses its own subsidiary company called RSA Accident Repairs Limited to repair vehicles damaged in a crash.

The size of the bills submitted by the RSA has been contested by a number of insurers who claim the company is profiting from the in-house repair work by adding on costs and fabricating the price.

The ruling

The new High Court ruling, decided last week, overturned a previous decision by Romford County Court and determined that the RSA had used its accident repair arrangements fairly.

Mr Justice Cooke said that as long as the bill sent to the at-fault-driver’s insurance company is similar to what would have been payable if an individual had arranged the repairs personally, it does not matter if the repair actually should have cost less given the industry's buying power.

Adrian Brown, RA's chief executive, told us he was pleased the RSA’s approach had been ‘vindicated’ and sees the ruling as a way to resolve the issues that exist within the motor market.

The implications

But the legal victory means that the rest of the insurance world has to adapt to the motor repair practices at the RSA, so the cost of motor insurance will likely go up.

Allianz Insurance - one of the insurers that contested the original case - claims that the decision could add 25% to even minor motor repair bills , causing a knock-on effect to premiums.

Other parties have said the entire sector may have to follow suit to avoid being at a commercial disadvantage through increased repair costs.

Clearly the case sets a dangerous precedent for insurers to start setting the cost of repairs without any thought of value for the customer.

This is a peculiar development considering the recommendation from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) last month to refer the industry to the Competition Commission after research uncovered evidence that private motor insurers are “preventing, restricting and distorting competition”, potentially causing premiums to go up by £225 million a year through questionable repair practices.

The OFT's concerns were that rather than competing on the quality and value of repairs, there is an emerging trend for insurers to compete by increasing costs of rival insurers by any means possible. At-fault drivers have little control over the way in which these repairs and vehicle replacement services are carried out or the associated costs but all drivers may end up paying the price in the end with higher premiums.

What are your thoughts on the High Court ruling vindicating the RSA? Will premiums rise as sharply as predicted? Let us know in the comment boxes below.

More insurance stories:

Car insurance: female drivers are being cheated!

Car insurance: why we're complaining more

How to claim on your insurance after a flood

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (9)

  • charles125
    Love rating 53
    charles125 said

    Hope the Appeals Court knock this one on the head immediately. Makes no sense whatsoever that industry 'clout' in getting lower repair charges counts for nothing for claimants under the present ruling. It would just give unscrupulous insurance companies a gross and unfair extra profit margin by negotiating lower charges and then claiming maximum and grossly inflated amounts from third party claimants.

    Report on 25 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • PDB11
    Love rating 72
    PDB11 said

    I always thought that the principle was that actual costs were reimbursed, rather than what some (hopefully independent) body sees as reasonable.

    When I first started full time work, there were meal allowances, whereby if you worked out of hours you could claim a certain amount of money for appropriate meals without having to produce a receipt. I used to pop into a local supermarket and buy a roll, stuff to put in it, and a small apple pie; I'd claim the allowance and make a profit of about 3 quid. It was a great system, because workers were encouraged not to submit excessive claims, and could still make some money on the side.

    Changes in tax rules stopped this. For many years now, all expense claims have had to be backed by receipts, or HMRC will regard them as a taxable benefit.

    In insurance, however, it is going the other way. Insurance companies can now source repairs as cheaply as they like, and submit a bill for some "reasonable" figure, and get it paid. At our expense.

    Interesting how the government swings one way when it's the people who are benefitting from a loophole, and the other way when it's large corporations. Maybe it's because the government is elected by the people and responsible only to them? No, that would push it the other way, wouldn't it...

    Report on 25 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • driver67
    Love rating 22
    driver67 said

    I'm fed up with hearing year-on-year that 'insurance will be rising' What with false claims and uninsured drivers the rest of us are getting perpetually shafted -now this. As an advanced driver with a near -perfect driving record I've had enough! What's the answer? Oh, pay up again... surprise.

    Report on 25 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mikeeiley
    Love rating 0
    mikeeiley said

    I'M an ex driving ADI and I have passed 3 advanced driving tests,no claims for at least thirty years so why should I have to pay because of yobs who dodge car tax and ins.

    We need more Police and less quangos and abolish the Lords

    and cut the number of MPs to about fifty.This will make a lot more money available.

    Report on 25 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • electricblue
    Love rating 643
    electricblue said

    @Reena

    Why the scaremongering and inaccurate headline?

    Did you do maths at school? A potential 25% increase in repair costs does not in any way, shape or form correlate to a 25% increase in premiums any more than a 50% rise in the cost of sugar would make Starbucks add 50% to their prices. WHO told you it would? A 'knock on effect' is not the same as 'an increase of the same magnitude'. Any significant increase requires that all insurance companies will follow in the sharp practice of RSA and there is no way that this would have to happen. Insurance companies have to take many factors into account and certain repair practices due to new vehicle manufacturing techniques have had a far larger effect on premiums than this one unscrupulous practice by RSA. Vehicle repair costs are only one part of a whole range of items contributing to accident claims. Inflated replacement vehicle costs are by far the most significant factor.

    Report on 25 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • callahan
    Love rating 2
    callahan said

    The problem is clear.

    Customer: How much for the repairs?

    Garage: We could do that for £400.

    Customer: Great. I will inform my insurance.

    Garage: Oh is it through your insurance? That will be £1200.

    Report on 25 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • CuNNaXXa
    Love rating 362
    CuNNaXXa said

    I agree with callahan. When I visit the vet, they always ask me whether my vets bill is covered by insurance, and when I say I am paying for it, they charge me a reasonable amount. When I did have insurance, they used to bump the bill up.

    What we have to realise is that the insurance companies don't pay out for anything, we do. If they did, they would soon go out of business. So, all those people who claim left, right and centre are stealing off the rest of us, especially if they are inflating their claim, or making a false claim.

    Report on 25 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 140
    MK22 said

    electricblue I would dearly love to think that that your argument, logical and correct as it is, was actually the way business worked. Sadly we all know that if the price of sugar goes up by 50%, the cost of a Starbucks coffee does go up by 50%. Just like when the cost of a barrel of crude drops the price of petrol, goes up....

    Report on 25 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • isobelsgrandma
    Love rating 35
    isobelsgrandma said

    @MK22, whilst I concur with your cynicism about price increases, @electricblue has a valid point: as usual the headline writer is guilty of inaccuracy and, dare I suggest, sensationalism.

    @callahan has it in a nutshell in my (limited) experience.

    Report on 26 June 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 26Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 26 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable)

Barclaycard 25Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 25 months (2.4% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.5% to 2.4% (T&Cs apply)

Halifax BT 25 Month MasterCard

0% for 25 months (2.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 19.0% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV1