Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Aviva Insurance
Interesting that Aviva are going to cut their work force with 1800 jobs to go, I have to wonder how much this is due to being rumbled on over charging regular customers for years, whilst dangling a carrot for new customers. Their looking for a saving of £300 million, is this how much they've been over charging ? but now have to put their house in order of fairness across the board.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by teacake44. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
>>> I have to wonder how much this is due to being rumbled on over charging regular customers for years, whilst dangling a carrot for new customers
Getting as much money as possible from existing customers, while providing incentives to increase the size of your company's customer base is sound commercial practice. Companies should be applauded for following it, not criticised.
If I was a shareholder in Aviva I'd be asking why, if they can function with 1800 fewer staff, they didn't get rid of them years ago.
Getting as much money as possible from existing customers, while providing incentives to increase the size of your company's customer base is sound commercial practice. Companies should be applauded for following it, not criticised.
If I was a shareholder in Aviva I'd be asking why, if they can function with 1800 fewer staff, they didn't get rid of them years ago.
Buenchico. They didn't get rid of the staff years ago, because they've been ripping people off for years, but not so easy now for them to do that. As for increasing the size of a company's customer base, there's a right and wrong way to do that, and I for one am very glad that the power's that be out there make sure they do it the right way.
//I have to wonder how much this is due to being rumbled on over charging regular customers for years,...//
If you are a "regular customer" of an insurance company (or a bank, a building society, a gas or electricity supplier) and you don't investigate alternatives (all aspects, not just price) then you are foolish. It is easier than it has ever been to compare the market in all these products. The reason that such suppliers are able to rip off their customers is apathy and inertia. They know large numbers of their customers simply cannot be bothered to look around for better deals and they therefore make the most of it.
If you are a "regular customer" of an insurance company (or a bank, a building society, a gas or electricity supplier) and you don't investigate alternatives (all aspects, not just price) then you are foolish. It is easier than it has ever been to compare the market in all these products. The reason that such suppliers are able to rip off their customers is apathy and inertia. They know large numbers of their customers simply cannot be bothered to look around for better deals and they therefore make the most of it.
hc4361, you've got the wrong end of the stick, this is nothing to do with the £100 computer error. judge, most of the folk that have been over paying, are older people that don't have family to guide them, they also don't understand how the markets work, they have lived in an age were they could trust in their billing.
Before they became Aviva, the company was Commercial Union founded 1861 after a massive fire in Tooley Street in London's docklands. The losses were so huge that the insurance companies increased their fire rates by as much as five times. The big city merchants weren't having that so they formed their own insurance company and called it Commercial Union.
Totally unrealistic, but an answer to those who moan about their insurance company. Start your own!
Totally unrealistic, but an answer to those who moan about their insurance company. Start your own!
>the present day scams of insurance companies.
I don't think you realise what a difficult, complicated and competitive market it is. Car insurance for example can be profitable until a company gets a handful of claims where the insured is reponsible for an accident that causes someone to get permanent serious injuries and result in multimillion pound settlements. There are so many comparison sites now that insurers should be able to shop around if they take the trouble, and should walka way from any company that wriggles out of claims or should puruse their claim via a solicitor if they think the insurer is scamming them. The reality is that insurers struggle to make much of a profit, however hard they try.
I don't think you realise what a difficult, complicated and competitive market it is. Car insurance for example can be profitable until a company gets a handful of claims where the insured is reponsible for an accident that causes someone to get permanent serious injuries and result in multimillion pound settlements. There are so many comparison sites now that insurers should be able to shop around if they take the trouble, and should walka way from any company that wriggles out of claims or should puruse their claim via a solicitor if they think the insurer is scamming them. The reality is that insurers struggle to make much of a profit, however hard they try.
>If I was a shareholder in Aviva I'd be asking why, if they can function with 1800 fewer staff, they didn't get rid of them years ago.
That's a good point Buenchico. When I worked in business we always tried to run a tight ship, e.g. not replacing leavers until we were sure of the need and redeploying resources as needed. I could never understand how companies siudden;y discovered they had say 1000 staff too many and needed to make urgent cuts.
But as things became more competitive and markets changed rapidly profitability could suddenly turn into a loss. Sometimes the company simply had to reduce costs by say £2m p.a. to stay afloat if there was no prospect of boosting sales sufficiently. So the directors would say we had to find a way of saving money, usually by cutting staffing by say 1000 staff. It was the job of line managers to find ways of becoming even more efficient; they were told make the savings and make it work and you'll get a nice bonus, or if it fails you'll be replaced. Often it resulted in corners being cut or projects shelved, often false economies.
I was glad to get out in the end.
That's a good point Buenchico. When I worked in business we always tried to run a tight ship, e.g. not replacing leavers until we were sure of the need and redeploying resources as needed. I could never understand how companies siudden;y discovered they had say 1000 staff too many and needed to make urgent cuts.
But as things became more competitive and markets changed rapidly profitability could suddenly turn into a loss. Sometimes the company simply had to reduce costs by say £2m p.a. to stay afloat if there was no prospect of boosting sales sufficiently. So the directors would say we had to find a way of saving money, usually by cutting staffing by say 1000 staff. It was the job of line managers to find ways of becoming even more efficient; they were told make the savings and make it work and you'll get a nice bonus, or if it fails you'll be replaced. Often it resulted in corners being cut or projects shelved, often false economies.
I was glad to get out in the end.
