The Commentary Box - August 2010
Welcome to the August edition of Commentary Box.A concern of every law abiding motorist, especially the younger ones, is the subject of insurance premiums. Yet recently a newspaper reported the example of a young man allegedly being quoted a premium of £17,000 to insure a car valued at around about one eighth of the premium asked for! And people wonder why there are so many uninsured drivers on the road!
Clearly, in the above case, the Insurer did not want the business but unless Insurers get their act together, and come up with a sensible regime for insuring young drivers, the temptation to drive uninsured will escalate among the junior ranks. With the damage caused by uninsured drivers being carried proportionately by all policy holders, and the Courts seeing fit to set fines according to the driver’s ability to pay, we have a never ending circle that defies logic. An unemployed youngster, living on benefits, could make a staggering number of Court appearances before spending £17,000.
Meanwhile, on the political front it is encouraging to see the stance being taken against speed cameras by the new Government. While their ability to collect money remains unquestioned, the jury is still out on their ability to reduce accidents, resulting in many cameras now having a bag placed over them. Congratulations to the town that has already seen fit to abolish them in total. Hopefully far more councils will follow suit.
Yet, are we in danger of seeing one cash collector replaced with another, with reference to overhead gantry cameras linked to average speed checks? A ten mile section of the A52 near Grantham is now completely covered by a whole series of these overhead cameras, probably subjecting drivers to the same intensive scrutiny given to an aircraft making it’s final approach to Heathrow! Surely if cameras do effectively reduce accidents should it not be the Insurance companies who fund them, and not taxpayers? Let’s face – with fewer accidents Insurers benefit. What an advertising scoop “This camera is sponsored by XYZ Insurance.” Given the money insurers throw away on premium saving television advertising, would this not be a cheaper form of promotion while they could keep the fines to reduce all premiums?
Staying with Insurers, I recently came across an example whereby one Insurer is ramping up policy holder’s excesses if they failed to use the Insurers approved repairers. Given the belief that policy holders have the right to select their repairer, is this a fair practice? Conversely might this mean that a repairer could, for example, offer to meet the difference in the policy holder’s excess, and then complete repairs, maybe even at a better labour rate and without having to give the Insurer a discount? Of course this is just a thought, but maybe one worth exploring with some proper legal support.
Staying with repairs, while this column has long been a supporter of PAS 125, our backing has always been conditional upon Insurers making policy holders properly aware of the Standard, and that their approved repairers meet with it. Sadly there would seem to be no real evidence to support our thinking on this one.
Therefore could this state of affairs develop into the accelerator that drives the industry towards a two tier structure of repairers, namely those with PAS 125 and those without it? If so, and resulting from this, might policy holders in future, not wishing to be “steered” to an approve repairer, find themselves being offered “cash in lieu” by their Insurer for their accident damage, so being free to select their own repairer?
Of course, while “our industry” will remain in a permanent state of change, it gives pleasure to report that the “wind of change” is also blowing through the Bodyshop Fellowship. Members are being contacted with the pertinent details relating to customer retention, cost reductions, an improved Members Area plus another major development. Evidence of this and other changes will be seen on this website over the coming months.
In the meantime thank you for your attention and I’ll sign off now until the September edition of Commentary Box appears on line.
Until next month,
Peter Warrilow,
The Bodyshop Fellowship
