Comment:
Article: “Stuck in Reverse: Which? Reveals the Fastest (and Slowest) Car Insurers for Dealing with Claims“
The article touches on key concerns about car insurance claims, including delays, settlement values, communication, and efficiency. However, while it suggests that “many firms are prolonging the ordeal for claiming motorists,” it does not provide enough insight into the underlying causes of these delays.
Delays: The Role of Third Parties
It is often assumed that insurers are solely responsible for delays, but in my experience, third parties – particularly the police – can be the primary cause, especially in theft and road traffic collision (RTC) claims. This need not be the case. A simple Subject Access Request (SAR) or ‘consent’ can facilitate the prompt disclosure of a police report, yet this process is often overlooked or misunderstood.
The article may have benefitted from exploring the insurer’s perspective. Are delays frequently caused by insured individuals failing to provide necessary documentation? A clearer discussion of these factors would help readers understand the full picture.
Another common misconception is that a crime reference number automatically expedites a theft claim. In reality, a crime number alone does not verify circumstances, and there is no seamless exchange of information between insurers and the police. Some police forces even prioritize certain insurers over others, an issue that remains unresolved.
For those looking to avoid delays, comprehensive guidance is available (see HELP!) – no matter who you insure with!
Settlement Value: A Source of Disputes
Settlement values are often contentious, but much of this stems from misconceptions rather than insurer misconduct.
Many people believe their vehicle is worth more than what they paid, but valuations are determined based on objective market data. Insurers rely on professional assessors- whether in-house or external – who consider factors like mileage, condition, and service history. Contrary to popular advice from “a mate in the pub,” not all first offers are unfair; rather, they are based on standard valuation guides.
A common point of confusion is what constitutes “market value”. A clearer definition might be:
The price at which the vehicle would reasonably sell within the same market in which it was purchased.
Arguably, this valuation should be based on the original purchase source – whether an auction, private sale, trader, or main dealer – each of which has different pricing structures. Insurers are not trying to devalue vehicles unfairly, but they must base settlements on objective market data rather than individual expectations.
For advice on how to support a claim for a higher settlement, see HELP!
Communication & Efficiency: A Two-Way Process
While the article suggests insurers lack responsiveness, my experience shows that delays in communication are often mutual. Insurers frequently wait for policyholders to respond to requests for information or documentation. For example, when an insured is informed that a police report may take weeks, they are often encouraged to follow up directly. However, some assume insurers have unrestricted access to databases like the DVLA, VOSA, or police records, which is not the case.
The claim process works most efficiently when both parties engage proactively.
Are Insurers Really “Stuck in Reverse”?
The suggestion that insurers are deliberately delaying claims appears sensationalist. I have never encountered an insurer that actively seeks to go backwards. If anything, insurers have strong incentives to resolve claims efficiently – prolonged disputes are costly for all involved.
Notably, the article itself states:
“Car insurers are generally more reliable than other sectors for accepting customer claims: data from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found that car insurers accepted 99% of claims last year.”
With over 40,000 total loss claims per month processed by the DVLA alone, the 4,700 respondents cited in the article represent a tiny fraction of overall claims. While every instance of inefficiency deserves scrutiny, the industry is far from being in crisis.
Final Thoughts & Assistance
If any information at HELP! is incorrect, incomplete, or missing a key aspect of claims handling, I welcome feedback and will address it.
Finally, it is worth remembering that insurance professionals – whether loss adjusters, claims handlers, or underwriters – are people who want to do a good job. Many have experienced the claims process personally and understand the frustrations involved.
A balanced discussion of these issues would benefit consumers and insurers alike.