On 11/08/2023 10:42, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 09:24, Spike wrote:
>> Business news on the radio this morning.
>>
>> A representative from the vehicle insurance industry was speaking of
>> their
>> rising costs, noting that last year they paid out 110% of the money they
>> took in in premiums.
>>
>> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get
>> quotes are
>> monitored as to the responses they make - those that change their answers
>> to see if they can get a lower quote get their premiums loaded for doing
>> so.
>>
> I've always tried to get a 'one hit' quote, because it feels like under
> the bonnet that could well happen.

A friend of mine got caught out when thinking about modifying his car by
adding an induction kit. He decided to use his insurers quote facility
to see what difference it would make to the policy cost before deciding
if it was worth doing the mod. Later, having decided against doing the
mod, his renewal bounced because they said that the details he gave did
not match the vehicle. It was only when finally they spoke to him on the
phone he found out why - they had assumed that his car now had the mod.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

John Rumm <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 09:48, Theo wrote:
> >
> > I put in almost-but-not-quite-accurate answers to a comparison site work out
> > which insurer and options to go for, and then go to their site and put in
> > the correct details in order to buy it. That avoids my details being
> > spammed across all the insurers on a comparison site, and any kind of
> > profiling like this doesn't work.
>
> I would expect for the purposes of fraud protection they would uniquely
> fingerprint your browser and PC and log the information entered against
> that as well as the stuff you choose to give.

A given site might, but if you put in Joe Bloggs, 99 Acacia Avenue AB1 2CD,
2009 Ford Focus into the price comparison site, the insurer doesn't see the
PC and browser, they just get an API call to quote for that set of details
made by the comparison site.

Then you pick the insurer, go to their site and quote for your real details
of Joe Schmoe, 99 Larch Drive AB1 2CE, 2008 Ford Focus. They don't have
anything to match that up with.

Theo

On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 09:48:23 UTC+1, SteveW wrote:

> Which is unfair. I could be an Engineering Consultant, Principle
> Engineer,
I always correct such errors. It's a matter of principal.
Bill

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:29:32 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:

> On 11/08/2023 10:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 08:24:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
>>
>>> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get
>>> quotes are monitored as to the responses they make - those that change
>>> their answers to see if they can get a lower quote get their premiums
>>> loaded for doing so.
>>
>> Been that way for 10 years, when I worked in insurance.
>>
>> When you can't allow that women drive better than men* you have to use
>> all sorts of proxies to infer it.
>>
>> There are lots of little gems buried in the stats actuaries use.
>>
>> *Or at least cost less to cover.
>
> I read somewhere that women generally have more accidents, but that they
> tend to be smaller ones, thus cheaper to repair, particularly when the
> excess is taken into account.

It needs some unpicking. Which is *exactly* what actuaries do. However
the bottom line is pound or pound, insurers payout less when the
policyholder is a woman. Until the EU stick it's nose in.

Speaking of which can someone direct me to the story about insurers
taking advantage of Brexit to return to offering women lower premiums ?
Google seems to be a bit reticent.

On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 14:03:07 UTC+1, John Rumm wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 10:42, Mark Carver wrote:
> > On 11/08/2023 09:24, Spike wrote:
> >> Business news on the radio this morning.
> >>
> >> A representative from the vehicle insurance industry was speaking of
> >> their
> >> rising costs, noting that last year they paid out 110% of the money they
> >> took in in premiums.
> >>
> >> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get
> >> quotes are
> >> monitored as to the responses they make - those that change their answers
> >> to see if they can get a lower quote get their premiums loaded for doing
> >> so.
> >>
> > I've always tried to get a 'one hit' quote, because it feels like under
> > the bonnet that could well happen.
> A friend of mine got caught out when thinking about modifying his car by
> adding an induction kit. He decided to use his insurers quote facility
> to see what difference it would make to the policy cost before deciding
> if it was worth doing the mod. Later, having decided against doing the
> mod, his renewal bounced because they said that the details he gave did
> not match the vehicle. It was only when finally they spoke to him on the
> phone he found out why - they had assumed that his car now had the mod.

It's worse than that. Change any details & they may assume youo're attempting fraud. Cue refusals & a major price hike.

On 11-Aug-23 11:51, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:40:18 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2023 09:48, SteveW wrote:
>>> ..... Principle Engineer.......,
>> Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !
>
> Sounds like something this government needs...

Sounds like something a government might want.

"We wish to _appear_ to have principles, but let's 'engineer' things so
that principles don't get in the way of doing what is expedient.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 11-Aug-23 9:48, SteveW wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 09:24, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Business news on the radio this morning.
>>
>> A representative from the vehicle insurance industry was speaking of
>> their
>> rising costs, noting that last year they paid out 110% of the money they
>> took in in premiums.
>>
>> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get
>> quotes are
>> monitored as to the responses they make - those that change their answers
>> to see if they can get a lower quote get their premiums loaded for doing
>> so.
>
> Which is unfair. I could be an Engineering Consultant, Principle
> Engineer, Company Director, Electrical Engineer, Instrument Engineer.
> Some of which don't properly describe my position and others that aren't
> on their list, but all of which are correct. If they don't have a proper
> category for my profession, why should I be penalised for trying more
> than one of the closest options?

Back when I worked for a living, I never found anything on their lists
which accurately described me. I always ended up being forced to
pretend to some job description which was untrue, but seemed the least
inaccurate.

"Retired" is so much easier.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 11/08/2023 19:19, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:29:32 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2023 10:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 08:24:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>>> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get
>>>> quotes are monitored as to the responses they make - those that change
>>>> their answers to see if they can get a lower quote get their premiums
>>>> loaded for doing so.
>>>
>>> Been that way for 10 years, when I worked in insurance.
>>>
>>> When you can't allow that women drive better than men* you have to use
>>> all sorts of proxies to infer it.
>>>
>>> There are lots of little gems buried in the stats actuaries use.
>>>
>>> *Or at least cost less to cover.
>>
>> I read somewhere that women generally have more accidents, but that they
>> tend to be smaller ones, thus cheaper to repair, particularly when the
>> excess is taken into account.
>
> It needs some unpicking. Which is *exactly* what actuaries do. However
> the bottom line is pound or pound, insurers payout less when the
> policyholder is a woman. Until the EU stick it's nose in.

Probably somewhat biased because in so many couples, the man does all
the long distance driving and all the driving in busy or unknown areas,
so the risks are greater - but only because the woman in dodging the risk.

On 11/08/2023 09:48, SteveW wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 09:24, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Business news on the radio this morning.
>>
>> A representative from the vehicle insurance industry was speaking of
>> their
>> rising costs, noting that last year they paid out 110% of the money they
>> took in in premiums.
>>
>> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get
>> quotes are
>> monitored as to the responses they make - those that change their answers
>> to see if they can get a lower quote get their premiums loaded for doing
>> so.
>
> Which is unfair. I could be an Engineering Consultant, Principle
> Engineer, Company Director, Electrical Engineer, Instrument Engineer.
> Some of which don't properly describe my position and others that aren't
> on their list, but all of which are correct. If they don't have a proper
> category for my profession, why should I be penalised for trying more
> than one of the closest options?
>

Having worked for Gan Insurance for a few years (one of the
underwriters used ny the AA amongst others) I can assure you
that the list of occupations is eye-wateringly large.

Chicken Sexer comes to mind. Apparently this is a very
skilled job. You need to know if the day-old chick is
going to lay eggs or disappear into a vat of CO2.

On 11/08/2023 11:51, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:40:18 +0100, Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2023 09:48, SteveW wrote:
>>> ..... Principle Engineer.......,
>> Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !
>
> Sounds like something this government needs...
>
>
>

The publisher of the Beano employ a Director of Mischief

On 11/08/2023 13:28, Adrian wrote:
> In message <ub57jd$r48q$1@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes
>> On 11/08/2023 12:49, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2023 12:11, SteveW wrote:
>>>> On 11/08/2023 10:40, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>> On 11/08/2023 09:48, SteveW wrote:
>>>>>> ..... Principle Engineer.......,
>>>>> Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !
>>>>
>>>> I know. I spotted it just after posting, but it didn't seem worth a
>>>> follow-up to correct it.
>>>  I'm astounded the number of times I see it spelt that way, even on
>>> job adverts. Someone I met once even had that spelling on his
>>> business card !
>>
>> likewise prescribe/proscribe
>>
>
> See also :
>
> wonder / wander
> definitely / defiantly
>
Discrete/discreet, averse/adverse, and many others.

> These days no doubt blamed on auto corrupt.
>
>
> Adrian

Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Chicken Sexer comes to mind. Apparently this is a very
> skilled job. You need to know if the day-old chick is
> going to lay eggs or disappear into a vat of CO2.

According to the MSE job checker, a Poultry Worker pays less than half the
price of the same quote for a Chicken Sexer. So better not to admit to the
latter.

Theo

On 11/08/2023 09:24, Spike wrote:
>
> Business news on the radio this morning.
>
> A representative from the vehicle insurance industry was speaking of their
> rising costs, noting that last year they paid out 110% of the money they
> took in in premiums.
>
> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get quotes are
> monitored as to the responses they make - those that change their answers
> to see if they can get a lower quote get their premiums loaded for doing
> so.
>

And?

Just use a neighbours address and their car registration to get the best
quotes before buying your own insurance.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 21:07:08 +0100, SteveW wrote:

> On 11/08/2023 19:19, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:29:32 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/08/2023 10:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 08:24:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get
>>>>> quotes are monitored as to the responses they make - those that
>>>>> change their answers to see if they can get a lower quote get their
>>>>> premiums loaded for doing so.
>>>>
>>>> Been that way for 10 years, when I worked in insurance.
>>>>
>>>> When you can't allow that women drive better than men* you have to
>>>> use all sorts of proxies to infer it.
>>>>
>>>> There are lots of little gems buried in the stats actuaries use.
>>>>
>>>> *Or at least cost less to cover.
>>>
>>> I read somewhere that women generally have more accidents, but that
>>> they tend to be smaller ones, thus cheaper to repair, particularly
>>> when the excess is taken into account.
>>
>> It needs some unpicking. Which is *exactly* what actuaries do. However
>> the bottom line is pound or pound, insurers payout less when the
>> policyholder is a woman. Until the EU stick it's nose in.
>
> Probably somewhat biased because in so many couples, the man does all
> the long distance driving and all the driving in busy or unknown areas,
> so the risks are greater - but only because the woman in dodging the
> risk.

No - they flushed that out in analysis.

I had to work with out actuaries on a couple of projects. If big data is
your thing; they are the guys.

Worth remembering that the more you can isolate factors, the less
insurance is worth providing. If you could derive someones risk profile
to >90%, then a lot of people simply won't get insurance.

And with all the mountains of data building up, we are getting closer
each year.

I wonder if there will eventually be a need for the government to define
a universal service obligation for insurers ?

On 12/08/2023 09:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
> No - they flushed that out in analysis.
>
> I had to work with out actuaries on a couple of projects. If big data is
> your thing; they are the guys.
>
> Worth remembering that the more you can isolate factors, the less
> insurance is worth providing. If you could derive someones risk profile
> to >90%, then a lot of people simply won't get insurance.
>

Indeed. Insurance is not there to cover your incompetence, its there to
guard against acts of God so to speak.

When I ran our business, my younger business partner wanted to get 'key
man' insurance in case I died. They looked at my age, and mentioned a
premium that would have ruined the business anyway.

The funny thing is he died years ago from prostate cancer, and by the
luck of the draw, I haven't.

> And with all the mountains of data building up, we are getting closer
> each year.
>
> I wonder if there will eventually be a need for the government to define
> a universal service obligation for insurers ?

"There are two sorts of people, those who think the government is there
to help them, and those who think."

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20and%20Politics/GBU.png

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton

On 12/08/2023 09:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 21:07:08 +0100, SteveW wrote:
>
>> On 11/08/2023 19:19, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 12:29:32 +0100, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/08/2023 10:07, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 08:24:33 +0000, Spike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get
>>>>>> quotes are monitored as to the responses they make - those that
>>>>>> change their answers to see if they can get a lower quote get their
>>>>>> premiums loaded for doing so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Been that way for 10 years, when I worked in insurance.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you can't allow that women drive better than men* you have to
>>>>> use all sorts of proxies to infer it.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are lots of little gems buried in the stats actuaries use.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Or at least cost less to cover.
>>>>
>>>> I read somewhere that women generally have more accidents, but that
>>>> they tend to be smaller ones, thus cheaper to repair, particularly
>>>> when the excess is taken into account.
>>>
>>> It needs some unpicking. Which is *exactly* what actuaries do. However
>>> the bottom line is pound or pound, insurers payout less when the
>>> policyholder is a woman. Until the EU stick it's nose in.
>>
>> Probably somewhat biased because in so many couples, the man does all
>> the long distance driving and all the driving in busy or unknown areas,
>> so the risks are greater - but only because the woman in dodging the
>> risk.
>
> No - they flushed that out in analysis.

How? They have no idea how each couples' driving is split and they may
not fit the average at all. As it happens, in this house, my wife drives
a handful of times per year and only locally and the vast majority of my
driving is in her car, yet the insurance has her named first - no, we
are not scamming the system, it is a Motability car and she is required
to be first named, even if she never drove it.

She is also named as a second driver on my car, just in case, but has
never driven it.

There are reasons for us still having two cars - I can be working away
and she may suddenly need a car; I can only drive the Motability car for
her benefit, not my own, so work, shopping, etc. is fine; but not me
just going alone for a night out with friends; her EV hasn't the same
range, ability to tow or space to carry things inside as my Zafira and
isn't rated for a roof load.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 20:06:44 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> On 11-Aug-23 9:48, SteveW wrote:
>> On 11/08/2023 09:24, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Business news on the radio this morning.
>>>
>>> A representative from the vehicle insurance industry was speaking of
>>> their rising costs, noting that last year they paid out 110% of the
>>> money they took in in premiums.
>>>
>>> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get
>>> quotes are monitored as to the responses they make - those that change
>>> their answers to see if they can get a lower quote get their premiums
>>> loaded for doing so.
>>
>> Which is unfair. I could be an Engineering Consultant, Principle
>> Engineer, Company Director, Electrical Engineer, Instrument Engineer.
>> Some of which don't properly describe my position and others that
>> aren't on their list, but all of which are correct. If they don't have
>> a proper category for my profession, why should I be penalised for
>> trying more than one of the closest options?
>
> Back when I worked for a living, I never found anything on their lists
> which accurately described me. I always ended up being forced to
> pretend to some job description which was untrue, but seemed the least
> inaccurate.
>
> "Retired" is so much easier.

OT, but LinkedIn keeps emailing me about "opportunities for your job
description of Retired".

Not that I'm looking for work.

Cheers

Dave R

--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 10 x64

In article <kjsgajFnrncU1@mid.individual.net>,
David <wibble@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 20:06:44 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> > On 11-Aug-23 9:48, SteveW wrote:
> >> On 11/08/2023 09:24, Spike wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Business news on the radio this morning.
> >>>
> >>> A representative from the vehicle insurance industry was speaking of
> >>> their rising costs, noting that last year they paid out 110% of the
> >>> money they took in in premiums.
> >>>
> >>> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get
> >>> quotes are monitored as to the responses they make - those that change
> >>> their answers to see if they can get a lower quote get their premiums
> >>> loaded for doing so.
> >>
> >> Which is unfair. I could be an Engineering Consultant, Principle
> >> Engineer, Company Director, Electrical Engineer, Instrument Engineer.
> >> Some of which don't properly describe my position and others that
> >> aren't on their list, but all of which are correct. If they don't have
> >> a proper category for my profession, why should I be penalised for
> >> trying more than one of the closest options?
> >
> > Back when I worked for a living, I never found anything on their lists
> > which accurately described me. I always ended up being forced to
> > pretend to some job description which was untrue, but seemed the least
> > inaccurate.
> >
> > "Retired" is so much easier.

> OT, but LinkedIn keeps emailing me about "opportunities for your job
> description of Retired".

> Not that I'm looking for work.

Snap

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 11/08/2023 09:24, Spike wrote:
>
> Business news on the radio this morning.
>
> A representative from the vehicle insurance industry was speaking of their
> rising costs, noting that last year they paid out 110% of the money they
> took in in premiums.
>
> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get quotes are
> monitored as to the responses they make - those that change their answers
> to see if they can get a lower quote get their premiums loaded for doing
> so.
>
the wouldn't ...?

On 14/08/2023 11:40, Jim gm4dhj ... wrote:
> On 11/08/2023 09:24, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Business news on the radio this morning.
>>
>> A representative from the vehicle insurance industry was speaking of
>> their
>> rising costs, noting that last year they paid out 110% of the money they
>> took in in premiums.
>>
>> Parenthetically, she said that those people who go online to get
>> quotes are
>> monitored as to the responses they make - those that change their answers
>> to see if they can get a lower quote get their premiums loaded for doing
>> so.
>>
> the wouldn't ...?
they

On 13/08/2023 20:00, charles wrote:
>> OT, but LinkedIn keeps emailing me about "opportunities for your job
>> description of Retired".
>> Not that I'm looking for work.
> Snap

What gets me is that they give examples of jobs that people who were
retired have got.

Andy