Friday, September 22, 2006

Our motor rates are up to 30% lower than some competitors

Dear Mr Tan,

In your blog, you claimed that Income's motor insurance is 30% cheaper than competitors, I beg to differ.

When my company's van insurance was due, I renewed with Income.

I received a flyer from one insurance broker (with my company's name and van number on the flyer) and the amount of premium. It was much cheaper than NTUC. I called my Income agent and told him about what the other insurance company's charged.

About 2 weeks later, I received a letter from Income with a cheque inside the letter. Income gave me a discount on the insurance premium and the cheque was for the 'refund' of the discounted amount.

Therefore till now I do not believe that your premium is cheaper than competitors. Fthe next renewal, I will shop around for better rate.

ET

------------------------------------------

Dear ET

Our market survey shows that our premium is "up to 30%" cheaper than our major competitors. It does depend on the model, and the market situation (as some of our competitors adjust their premium rates to match our rates).

Please refer to this page for the comparison:
Comparison

Tan Kin Lian
Chief Executive Officer

1 comment:

Joe said...

What are your answers to the following questions/comments?

1. How successful do you view the "Quality Workshops" scheme in protecting Income's policyholders' interest?

2. The asssessment done by IDAC concentrates only on the obvious and visible areas damaged by the direct impact of an accident. Collateral damage which are always present, are discounted as long as no obvious damage is seen (by the naked eye). Isn't this unfair to the policyholder who expects that ALL damages - including those that are not obvious to a simple visual examination - would be repaired?

3. The bidding by the "Quality" workshops in done by assessing photographs - online - that may not show the full extent of the damages. So, what happens when the damages are far more extensive than IDAC's photos/assessments suggests and thus, exceeds the cost of the initial estimate when a "Quality" workshop puts in a winning bid for the job?

4. By limiting the repairs to "Quality" workshops, wouldn't the other workshops that are not on Income's "Quality" workshop list then have to increase their repair charges since most motor vehicles are insured by Income and if they are not on Income's "Quality Workshops" list, they basically have a much reduced pool of customers? Wouldn't this indirectly increase the costs of third-party claims against Income's own clients in the event a legitimate claim is made against them?

5. Since Income is only able to control the repair costs of its own policyholders via the "Quality Workshops" scheme, while the third-party claimant (non-Income insured driver) gets his repairs done at more realistic costs at non-"Quality" workshops - which of course, is now even higher given the reduced business available to such workshops as mentioned above, Does it still really reduce the total costs that Income has to pay? Since it seems to me the savings from the cheaper repair jobs Income's own customers are getting would have been offset by the increased charges by the third-party claims.

Blog Archive