Baloney! Inflation can’t be blamed for 49% price rise, Admiral, says JEFF PRESTRIDGE

Insurance premium inflation may be declining, but it’s not controlled, that’s for sure. Many home and auto coverage providers continue to take the proverbial Michael by presenting customers with outrageous renewal quotes.

Outrageous? Yes, in many ways: in terms of the increases being demanded (double digits, 50 percent, sometimes 200 to 300 percent); a complete failure to inform policyholders why their premiums are skyrocketing; and, to top it all off, premiums that can be negotiated by those customers willing to challenge the original renewal price.

So much for the regulator’s supposed cleanup of these insurance markets to ensure existing customers are no longer exploited. Total nonsense. Financial Conduct Authority: You’re laughing.

Earlier this month, I wrote about the sobering experience marketing consultant Danny Russell had with his insurer, Admiral.

Danny’s multi-coverage policy, which combines auto and home coverage, was up for renewal just over a week ago. Admiral wanted to increase its premium by 49 per cent, from £616.77 to £921.08. He also said he would increase the excess on any motor claim from £250 to £350.

Given that Danny and his wife Julia had not filed claims since taking out their cover four years ago, they were somewhat taken aback by the surprising premium increase. And rightly so because they have done nothing to justify it.

Regarding car coverage, neither of them have earned points on their driver’s license since starting to work with Admiral. They have also not been involved in any accidents.

Also, their age (they are both 50 years old) is not a factor. Premiums for people over 70 tend to increase, regardless of whether policyholders have a clean driving record and hold advanced driving certificates. But that age discrimination does not extend to people in their 50s.

Domestically, they live in a beautiful house in a sought-after area of ​​the country, Thames Ditton in Surrey, where crime is not a big problem. In fact, it is identified by having a low level of crime.

Yes, flooding is an occasional problem in some parts of the village due to the proximity of the Thames, although the Russell home has not been directly affected.

So overall, there is no identifiable reason for the increase and (of course) Admiral offered none in the renewal notice.

An omission that I believe the regulator should address by requiring all insurers to explain unusual increases.

After my initial article about Danny’s experience three weeks ago, I asked Admiral (with Danny’s permission) why it had decided to increase the price of his and Julia’s coverage by 49 percent.

His response was both insulting and false. Firstly, Admiral said it was “truly sorry” that Danny was “disappointed” with the quote and that it had always tried to “provide fair and accurate prices to our customers.”

So, I don’t regret trying to scam you, I’m just sorry that you were disappointed with the scandalous date. And for the admiral’s information, Danny wasn’t “disappointed” with the date: he was apoplectic.

He then tried to justify the increase by saying Danny had benefited last year from a “discretionary” premium discount of just over £73.

Ignoring this discount, the increase was a more modest (but still unacceptable) 34 percent.

This argument raises questions worthy of regulatory investigation. For starters, it mocks Admiral’s previous statement that it always tries to “provide fair and accurate pricing to our customers.” How can last year’s original £689.85 premium be “fair and accurate” when, after Danny’s call, they were only too happy to offer him a price of £616.77?

Unlike Danny, some loyal customers (especially older ones) simply don’t question their renewal premium. This means they continue to pay the price for their inertia, something the Financial Conduct Authority said it had already removed, but evidently has not.

As for other reasons for the 49 percent increase in Danny’s premium, such as the risk of flooding or an increase in local crime, Admiral could only offer the following nonsense: “We can confirm that the increase observed in the renewal of This mandate is correct and in line with our pricing structure.

“The main driver of this quarter’s increase is due to the general changes we have made to react to inflation, which is affecting many areas of the economy that insurance is unfortunately not exempt from.”

I’m not sure what planet Admiral lives on, but inflation is currently around two percent, not 49 percent.

Finally, Admiral said it had not had the “opportunity” to give Danny an explanation of the prices “directly” as it had not been in contact since the renewal notice was issued. This suggests that if you had made a phone call, you would likely have received another “discretionary discount.”

On Friday, Danny told me that he has now saved himself and Julia a huge fortune by taking out alternative cover with Aviva (house) and Hastings Direct (car).

He said: ‘We had been with Admiral for four years and had full no claims bonuses for both motor and home cover.

‘Unless I’m missing something, aren’t we the kind of customer you’d want to keep?’ But maybe you want customers who complain and fail all the time to apply even bigger price increases.”

For the record, Admiral’s recent half-year results reported a 32 per cent rise in profits (to £310m) and a 39 per cent jump in interim dividend to shareholders (to 71p per share).

The message is clear. In many cases, it is better to be a shareholder in this FTSE100 listed company than a customer like Danny, whose loyalty counts for nothing.

Battle over ‘brutal’ fuel ax continues

Although Sir Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves may feel triumphant after

Faced with a widespread revolt over its indiscriminate restriction of winter fuel payments, the battle for justice on this issue is not over. Nothing of the sort.

After last week’s riot by unions and members over the means test of payment at the moribund Labor Party conference in Liverpool, the National Pensioners Convention is planning a demonstration and lobby in Parliament.

The demonstration will take place on October 7, starting at midday next to the statue of George V in Abingdon Street, London SW1. The lobby will take place in the House of Commons from 2:00 p.m. Anyone wishing to participate can obtain more details on the NPC website: npcuk.org. Those interested in joining the lobby should email the NPC at info@npcuk.org (space is limited).

I leave the final say on winter fuel payments to 83-year-old widow Sheila Littlewood, who lives in the cathedral city of Wakefield, West Yorkshire. Like many pensioners, Sheila’s income is just above the level needed to qualify for pension credit, so she has missed out on her £300 winter fuel payment. She describes Labour’s decision

stop paying it because it is “brutal.” The only consolation you can take from the nastiness of Starmer and Reeves is that Jon Trickett, your Labor MP, bravely voted against making the payment means-tested. In fact, he was the only Labor MP to do so.

“I hope payment is restored for the hundreds of thousands of people like me who are struggling to get by,” he told me last week. “Not qualifying for pension credit doesn’t mean you’re rich.”

Absolutely. The battle for justice in paying for winter fuel must continue.