This is Money Blog

You shouldn't drive to Tottenham: the statistics prove it

More than 80% of Britons use credit cards to clean car windows, but three quarters have never cut up a pizza with their flexible friend.

Clearly the above is not true. But it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that there is some junior PR person out there working on a study to be sent out claiming the above.

The modern media gets bombarded with a lot of surveys and studies – some serious and some seriously spurious. And often the claims are either so blindingly obvious or completely irrelevant that you wonder why they bother.

That is until you read a story, quoting the bizarre statistic and company, and remember some suit reckons told the PR they may sell more credit cards by getting mentioned in an article stating people don’t cut up pizza with them.

But not all studies are like this. Some have a curious personal relevance and are actually quite good. So today I bring you the Premier League of car insurance claims, thanks to our friends at Churchill.

This gives a league table of how likely car insurance claims are in certain football stadium postcodes.

Not immediately useful you may think, but then there are a lot of people who park and drive near football grounds and it could be a handy guide for when to leave the car at home.

The fairly sensible advice I can distil from it seems to be it’s all right to drive to Bolton or Wigan, but avoid Tottenham or West Ham.

And I can support that. The number one Premier League hotspot for car insurance claims is Tottenham, and, as anyone who lives in North London knows, for some inexplicable reason people’s driving in Tottenham is uniquely awful.

On top of this, last year my car was written off by a drunk driver, while it was parked outside my house. He smashed into the back of it, abandoned his vehicle and ran off, leaving his car in the middle of the road (with the hazard lights on). Guess what the police accidentally told me? His address and yes, he came from Tottenham.

To add to this, I live within chant hearing distance of the fifth most likely ground for claims, so can now understand why this combination of statistics meant, despite its seeming randomness at the time, it was highly likely someone from Tottenham would write off my car while it was parked in my road.

I can also see why Man Utd come fourth, as most people driving there on a match day are in massive 4x4s, or Porsches, or worse still Porsche Cayennes, and don’t have the faintest idea where they’re going. (I’ve been there and seen them, it’s true). And football fans will guess Liverpool and Everton come so far down because of all those friendly kids who offer to mind your car, or damage it, depending on the payment of a small fee. (I've been there and seen them too, it's also true.)

My team Watford is not in the Premier League, so we don’t make it into the table. But I imagine our statistics would just be painfully mediocre and simply include those fans deliberately driving into walls after losing all hope when desperately trying to navigate their way out of a multi-storey car park.

So, should you be in any way interested, here you go: The Premier League car insurance table

- Simon Lambert, assistant editor, This is Money

	Football Club	Likelihood of claiming compared to average
1.	Tottenham Hotspur	59%
2.	West Ham United	46%
3.	Aston Villa	45%
4.	Manchester United	34%
5.	Arsenal	27%
6.	Manchester City	23%
7.	Middlesbrough	22%
8.	Fulham	20%
9.	Chelsea	20%
10.	Portsmouth	20%
11.	Hull City	14%
12.	Newcastle United	10%
13.	Liverpool	9%
14.	Everton	9%
15.	West Bromwich Albion	1%
16.	Blackburn Rovers	1%
17.	Stoke City	8%
18.	Sunderland	11
19.	Bolton Wanderers	11%
20.	Wigan Athletic	15

Hannah Jones' trip to Disney: An update

(Update (18 Nov): Hannah Jones WILL go to Disney)

Thank you for the 100-plus reader comments demanding a solution for Hannah Jones' trip to Disney World in Orlando in December. Hannah's dying wish is under threat because the family cannot find an insurer for the trip. 

I plan to write about this in my Mail on Sunday column this week to increase the pressure.

What I can tell you so far is that one American broker has been in touch with me. I put them on Caudwell Children, the charity arranging the trip.

Ben Sutcliffe of Caudwell also commented on the original blog post:

'I represent Caudwell Children, the Charity that will hopefully be taking Hannah and her family to Florida in just two weeks.

We are working hard to secure insurance cover for Hannah so we can fullfil this wish. Lots of brokers have come forward with offers of help, for which we are very grateful.

On behalf of the Charity and the Jones' family, we appreciate everyone's well wishes and kind sentiments.

Should anyone wish to support the Charity to enable other children, like Hannah, to go on similar trips can donate at www.justgiving.com/caudwell

All donations would be very gratefully recieved.'

We'll let you know if any of the brokers come up with a quote.

++++

Web Week column: The shame of travel insurers
Andrew Oxlade, Mail on Sunday
16 November 2008

LAST week we aimed to shame the travel insurance industry.

Hannah Jones, 13, is dying. Leukaemia treatment caused a hole in her heart. Her story sparked controversy when she refused a transplant, preferring to spend time with her family.

She also wants to go to Florida's Disney World. 'It is hard as I know it might be my last holiday,' she said.

'My sister, Phoebe, is so excited. She keeps saying: ''We are going to Mickey Mouse land''.' But Hannah's dying wish is under threat because no insurer would cover the trip.

This seemed ludicrous. Every risk has its price. For the entire travel insurance industry to refuse to offer anything signals abject failure. Just judge the risk and quote a premium, even if it is exorbitant.

We highlighted the issue and the response was immense, attracting more than 100 comments.

One US insurer approached me offering to attempt a quote and the charity arranging the trip, Caudwell Children, received several other offers. Let's hope Hannah gets her trip.

With UK financial services already subject to opprobrium, let's also hope it was a British insurer that did the right thing.

- Andrew Oxlade, Editor, This is Money

PPI: Industry outrage should not halt this victory

The financial services industry has various euphemisms to deploy when it wishes to display its displeasure at some new regulatory constraint thrown its way.

Usually, when a trade body expresses 'surprise' at some proposal that could hit its members' pockets, it can be translated roughly as 'you've got to be kidding'.

When a group 'agrees - up to a point', it actually means 'not on your life'. And a pledge to 'work closely with the authorities on these proposals', is code for 'over our dead bodies, sunshine.'

By this measure, you imagine the sentiments behind the press releases pinged off in response to the Competition Commission's plans for payment protection insurance (PPI) would have been unprintable.

They range from the relatively measured 'FLA highly disappointed with Commission's PPI recommendations,' from the Finance and Leasing Association, through the vaguely hysterical 'PPI ban is devastating for borrowers,' from the Association of British Insurers, to the frothing 'Competition Commission simply wrong on PPI,' from the British Bankers' Association.

So what has got so firmly up their noses?

Today the Competition Commission published it’s provisional proposals for PPI. It is the beginning of the end of its work on PPI that started in February 2007. PPI is the insurance sold alongside loans, credit cards and finance packages to cover repayments if the borrower is unable to work through accident, sickness or some cases of unemployment.

The charge list against PPI is long but includes, in no particular order, that it is overpriced, sold to people that can never claim on it, in many cases cannot be cancelled or refunded, will not cover many of the most common causes for unemployment, may pay out only a fraction of the amount owed and has been forced on to customers with pushy sales tactics, sometimes without their knowledge.

This is Money has argued for change in the PPI market since 2002 and later launched a campaign on the issue. We regard the proposed changes, if enacted, as a significant victory.

As insurance correspondent, I have covered several cases of customers who have suffered huge losses as a result of PPI policies that were mis-sold or could not be cancelled.

We have even produced a guide and template letters for anyone that thinks they may be able to reclaim PPI premiums.

Chief among the 'remedies' the commission proposes is that PPI may no longer be sold at the same time as the credit or loan being taken out.

Sellers will have to wait 14 days before they can re-contact borrowers to see if they want to also buy the insurance, rather than offering it when the customer takes the loan.

A small change you might think, but it will make a huge impact. If carried out, it means that the PPI sellers that have made huge profits out of the product (banks, shops, credit card lenders, car salesmen) will now have to rely on the customer proactively choosing PPI. They will no longer be able to apply sales processes that have often left borrowers feeling they have no choice but to take the insurance.

It also means that customers will be better able to compare prices for PPI across the whole market. Buying the insurance from an independent seller, one that is not also selling the accompanying credit, is much cheaper so the traditional sellers that have enjoyed the run of the market will likely have to lower their prices to compete. 

The trade bodies wail that this change will effectively kill the market for PPI at a time when unemployment is rising. PPI may be flawed, they say, but we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Luke warm welcomes have also come from the price comparison websites. These sites have cast themselves in the role of 'consumer champion' and, as such, have acknowledged the benefits consumers could reap from the changes. Yet they, too, have expressed fears that fewer policies will be sold, reducing the commission they make, and that the costs of loans may have to rise if the revenue from PPI is removed from lenders.

Being pragmatic, it is probably fair to say far fewer PPI policies will be sold if these changes come to pass.

But this betrays the fact that borrowers don’t actually see the need for this insurance unless it is being aggressively sold to them. Loans rates may have to rise but at least prices will then be transparent. At present, the financially savvy avoid PPI, benefitting from cheaper rates while the rest subsidise them, partly through unnecessary PPI.

If rising unemployment is making PPI more necessary, consumers will surely appreciate its value and will seek it out for themselves. The Commission’s proposals allow for this.

Or else, they will see that PPI sold on the terms that sellers have been offering is grossly over-priced and brings limited benefits. In which case, the market deserves to die.

- Ed Monk, News Editor, This is Money

Hannah Jones and the travel insurance disgrace

>> (Update (14 Nov): Hannah's Disney trip)
>> (Update (18 Nov): Hannah Jones WILL go to Disney)

Hannah Jones, 13, is dying. The powerful treatment for her leukemia caused a hole in her heart and she has caused controversy by deciding for herself not to have treatment. She wants to spend time with her family.  Hannah tells her story in the Daily Mail today -  it's the front page.

'I try not to think about death, but I do know my time is limited,' says Hannah. 'I live each day as it comes. I enjoy life. It's hard not to feel that life's unfair, but I am determined to make the best of it. I have lots to look forward to. I am hoping to go to Walt Disney World in December. It is hard, as I know it might be my last holiday.

'My sister, Phoebe, is so excited. She keeps saying: "We are going to Mickey Mouse land." I love my family. I don't want to waste time in hospital when I can be at home.'

However, Hannah's dying wish to visit Disney World is under threat because the family cannot find an insurer for the trip.  The children's charity, Caudwell Children, offered them the chance to travel together to Walt Disney World in Orlando with 40 other very ill children. But Caudwell has been unable to find an insurer. Cover must be found by 1 December.  Hannah said: 'It's been my dream to go for so long but never thought it would happen. I'm angry that they are stopping me going; it's upsetting as I am the only one who can't go.'

This struck me as ludicrous. Yes, insuring Hannah is high risk for a prospective insurer. But surely every risk has its price. If there's a potential of, say, incurring £10m in costs for specialist treatment in the US then the premium might be, say £500, £5,000 or £50,000. Either way, they'd be a price and Hannah's family may be able to raise the money to cover it. They would have an option.

For the entire travel insurance industry to refuse to offer anything signals failure. All they need do is judge the risk and quote a premium. The fact they can't is pathetic.

I put this to the Association of British Insurers. A spokesman said the industry aimed to offer policies to as many people as possible but that it wasn't always possible due to risks.

As I see it, the financial services industry, with its reputation rock-bottom, has the opportunity to do the right thing here. Please join me in calling for one of them to stand-up and be counted. Please add you thoughts below in Reader Comments and I'll ensure they're read by as many of our 1.7m readers as possible.

- Andrew Oxlade, Editor, This is Money

£30 cashback on car cover for This is Money readers

The battle-ground for insurers is changing. Once upon a time they could rely on loyal customers sleep-walking through the renewal process and gladly handing over premiums year after year.

But now home and car insurance customers who stick to the same insurer risk being hammered by renewal quotes that are deeply uncompetitive. A new breed of low-cost insurer will offer much better deals if customers are prepared to shop around.

Price comparison websites mean that these insurers can reach customers without having to support nationwide advertising campaigns and large support staffs that push up the cost of insurance.

But even in this ultra-competitive environment, canny customers can score even more money off their insurance and make the cheapest deals even cheaper.

Until the end of January, anyone that buys a Swiftcover car insurance policy through our car insurance deal finder will get £30 cashback.

The insurance from Swiftcover is a low-cost, no-frills option – for example, there is no replacement courtesy car – but Swiftcover is already one of the cheapest insurers and regularly features at or near the top of the price comparison tables.

Check our car insurance finder to see if the deal stacks up for you.

This is Money

Reclaiming PPI: Another successful claim

The best bit of the job here at This is Money is when we're able to help individuals by wading in against banks or other companies on their behalf. Or when people have simply helped through our "How to..." guides.

So I was chuffed today to receive an email from a lovely lady in Battersea, London...

"Just to say thanks – I love your website. I’ve claimed back £3400 from your charges and PPI campaigns, and on a salary of £27000, that’s significant. I also use your calculators daily! Please keep up the good work."

We have compiled more of these so you can read how we helped This is Money readers.

And don't forget, you should also use consumer power to reclaim your money. We have been reminding people as part of our campaign for the past 18 months that there are 20m payment protection insurance policies in the UK and that many of these PPI policies, attached to credit cards and loans, may have been mis-sold.

You can reclaim the money right now: Reclaim PPI

And see the full campaign here: PPI - beat the protection racket

If you want to tell us your PPI story, email us at editor@thisismoney.co.uk

- Andrew Oxlade, Editor, This is Money

The car insurance price trick - part 2

A year ago I switched car insurance to a new name in insurance - Swiftcover. I found the deal on our car insurance finder and, at £390, it undercut every other provider and our previous insurer Tesco, which wanted nearly £500 to cover our ageing Honda Civic.

But as predicted on this blog (The car insurance price trick), great insurance deals never last.

Companies suck in thousands of new customers with market-leading deals and then let the price drift down the best buy tables.

They then rely on inertia, for customers to blindly renew their policy the following year. The profits then come rolling in on the second and third years.

To be fair Swiftcover's quote fell to £360 (and was second on the best buy table), however, it was handsomely undercut by Bell at £262.

I guess Bell won't be making much profit on this year's premiums and then next year I'll be comparing and potentially moving on.

The internet has blessed consumers with incredible new power - make sure you use it.

- Andrew Oxlade, Editor, This is Money

The cost of keeping Nessie

Crufts, the world's greatest doggie extravaganza, has started at the NEC, Birmingham, and among the keenest viewers this year will be my dog Nessie.

She's a Scottish Terrier and she is transfixed by the TV pictures of the amazing variety of breeds on display.

Normally Nessie rushes furiously at the screen when she sees anything on four legs, but Crufts has left her gobsmacked, sitting quietly except for the occasional whine that suggests she'd love to be mingling with the kings and queens of the canine world.

At this time of year, pet insurers jump on the Crufts bandwagon to tell us that many pedigree breeds are more prone to inherited ailments than your everyday mongrel. For this reason, they say, insurance is essential. And for once, I have to agree.

Whatever your dog (or cat for that matter) pet insurance is a no-brainer when you consider the cost of treatment by a vet, as my wife and I found when we suspected Nessie had swallowed something she shouldn't have. Luckliy it turned out to be a false alarm, but we still walked away with a bill for £48. Fortunately, we had chosen pet insurance with Marks & Spencer, partly because the policy has no excess. This meant we were able to reclaim the whole amount.

Nessie recently celebrated her first birthday and for the past 12 months every penny spent on her has been carefully recorded - from her first collar to the latest bag of treats.

Here is where the money went:
Insurance: £127.60 (paid monthly)
Vet's fees including usual jabs and tagging: £187.68 (£48 refunded by insurers)
Puppy training classes: £60
Food: £132.86
Clipping: £112 (3 x £40)
Equipment (inc. lead, collar, car harness, bedding, etc): £113.65
Grand total: £733.79

The coming year should cost considerably less, because many of the first-year costs are one-offs. For example the embedded microchip and the puppy classes.

Sainsbury’s Bank says pedigree dogs will typically cost around £537 a year compared with £430 for cross-breeds. About a fifth of this is paid in vet's fees, yet only 12% of dogs and 80% of cats are insured.

- Simon Moon

PS: You can compare the cost of pet insurance using This is Money's price comparison service. Click here to go to it.

Standard Life: with-profits misery

February 23 2007

Standard Life, once top of the pile of with-profits providers, has sunk disastrously over the years. The price of past mismanagement is now horribly plain.

Here's a sample of 2007 payouts from Standard's big rivals - and Liverpool Victoria, whose returns are best of all:

Provider                      Payout

Liverpool Victoria          £63,905

Prudential                    £49,492

Norwich Union              £47,904

Standard Life               £38,054

Endowment payouts based on contributions of £50 per month over 25 years, maturing 2007. Figures provided by Liverpool Victoria, February 22 2007.

How can such a gap have opened up - particularly when, within recent memory, Standard Life was viewed as one of the best with-profits companies?

The answer lies in the devastating consequence of Standard Life's massive exposure to the stock market during 2000-2003, when share values plunged.

Sure, during that period other companies, including Liverpool Victoria, also had exposure to equities and so lost money, too.

But those other companies stuck with the stock market and so have bounced back magnificently since.

Standard's bosses, on the other hand, led by the insurer's disgraced former chief executive Iain Lumsden, left, were gambling on the markets with money they could ill afford to lose. When share prices really hit rock bottom, Standard was forced to sell its shareholdings - the bosses had effectively bust the bank - and it hasn't participated in the recovery since. It's a terrible tale of bungled and reckless management, for which policyholders are patently paying - years later.

I suppose the slender consolation - for which Lumsden and the other architects of the mess can claim no credit - is the fact that Standard's shares have performed nicely since the company was floated last summer. That, at least for the policyholders who kept their shares when the company demutualised, is some good news....

- Richard Dyson

Norwich Union windfalls: all your questions answered

(30 July 2008 - Update) - Norwich Union confirms £1,000 windfalls (and we answer all your questions)

Over 50 people have replied to my two blogs on the subject of potential windfalls being paid to with-profits policyholders of Norwich Union and (possibly) Prudential.

It's no wonder: there is big money at stake. Policyholders could net thousands of pounds each.

I've tried to address your questions in a general way in the blog below here, and the one before that here. And my colleagues have written more on the subject, too, like this piece by Simon Lambert here.

But many of you have asked additional questions and raised other interesting points. So I've asked Thisismoney to set up a special message board, which is now running here.

Anyone can browse the message boards, reading other users' discussions, without needing to register. But if you want to participate you need to register, which is free and quick.

It's well worth it, because you can discuss the issues more easily there than here on the blog. You can reply to one another and have a proper conversation as all posts are published instantly.

To start the conversation off, I've copied a number of the questions made in reply to my blogs into the message board and I've tried to answer several of them individually.

I promise to keep an eye on the boards in future too, and try to find answers to other questions as they crop up. But hopefully the message board will allow other people - better informed than I am - to chip in and provide their own answers and replies.

So if you've got any questions, thoughts, or anything at all to say on the matter of with-profits windfalls whatever, get to the message board and contribute right away here.

(All I'd ask is that if you want to contribute and you are employed by either Norwich Union or the office of Clare Spottiswoode, the Policyholder Advocate, that you're upfront about it!)

Best wishes and thanks for the interest you have shown so far,

Richard Dyson