In a message dated 20/12/2003 17:49:55 GMT Standard Time,
jq@xxxxxx.freeserve.co.uk writes:
The assumption is that whoever you "hire" to
carry out work is an employee, in insurance terms.
That maybe so but it doesn't stop Axa from claiming 2 premiums on the same
job does it. Potentially if Ken gets me to do a job for him and then I get my
Forestry associate to do some winching or something, he's insured, I'm
insured
and Kens insured! 3 premiums on the same job!
And where did you get that 500% figure from Jim? I think you're getting mixed
up: The reserves put aside for old claims has gone up by 500% according to
the AA website. I thought David Hewitt said that costs were outstripping
premiums by about 10% but I can't find that in the blurb. Anyway that would
seem to
justify a premium hike of 10% not 200%. If you'd been trading for a year and
discovered that your turnover was down 10% on your revenue would you triple
your
prices? I suspect not. Double them perhaps if you were determined to get rid
of the less profitable clients but triple?
It seems to me that we should encourage AXA to get out of insurance
altogether; that would reduce their risks. The trouble is they are virtually
a monopoly
at the moment so some porsche driving wonder kid in the city can do whatever
he likes.
Perhaps the MMC (Monopolies Commission) should get involved?
And while we're on the subject why is there only one MMC?
Bill.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
