I guess that many people believe that SAGA is some form of charity set up to help pensioners and those approaching retirement. This was never true although some of their previous advertising gave this impression.
The present owners of SAGA appear the have a mountain of debt so what is the correct level of premium for their business?
In much the same way as RAC/AA would like you to think of them as 'motoring organisations' rather than breakdown insurance companies.
The same is true of Age Concern/Age UK and funeral plans. They earn stacks of money selling funeral plans for Dignity, Britain's most expensive undertaker, whilst if 'concern' was any part of their agenda, they'd be pointing people in the direction of lower cost quality independents.
i think that SAGA and the AA are owned by the same organisation.
Unfortunately a lot of vulnerable old people believe this and are very reluctant to be disloyal even when they are so obviously being ripped off by premiums that are 3-5x too high. The same applies to utility bills - my parents refuse to move from their original geographic suppliers and pay an extra 30% or so for their misguided loyalty.
(this latter minor ripoff sounds quite reasonable compared SAGAs)
Tough. If they can't service their debt they go bankrupt. Next question.
The market rewards serial disloyalty so they should not be surprised if that is how savvy consumers respond.
I am pleased that the charity with which I am involved has only minor commercial links - things like they allow you to use their Amazon affiliation, a few highly relevant items are available with a small sum going to them. But the facts are obvious and open. I would prefer none were necessary.
On the other hand, if they managed to get a serious link of the type you are talking about, maybe they would achieve much more?
In the long run, too much reliance on such sources of funds does leave you unable to walk away.
Just to note that the price Saga quote for landlords' insurance seems quite competitive.
Perhaps because landlords tend to be more active and involved that elderly people insuring their own homes.
It would be interesting to know if the hike on premium is cynically based on the age of the insured and their time with the company.
I might expect that those in their early 50s would be less likely to be gulled than those in their early 90s.
Cheers
Dave R
In the late 1990s when what is now Dignity was the UK arm of Service Corporation International it was the subject of numerous press and broadcast exposes of its then business [mal]practices. Age Concern's silence was telling: they weren't going to upset a key funder.
In contrast at the time Mind was refusing to accept funds from drug companies, not because they were bribes, but because it wanted to be free to speak its mind about drug treatments and not leave people wondering whether they had been bought even though they hadn't. Don't know whether this is still their policy but it's a principled one I admire.
Since when sales of anti-depressants have, I believe, continued to rise. With older ones (which everyone now says were not much use as A/Ds) now heavily recycled for pain relief, etc.
And people with depression *as a symptom of another disorder* continue to be inappropriately offered A/Ds rather than treatment for the fundamental disorder.
(Not blaming Mind for this! :-) )
Reminds me of my first job after university, and I'd not been there long, so "working in the real world" was still new and intriguing to me. One of the senior engineers was walking through the computer room, and one of the 19" rack units was pulled out on its runners, which he didn't notice, and it ripped the shoulder off his jacket. He claimed a new jacket on expenses, and it was rejected.
A few weeks later, there was a customer meeting, and both he and I were there as the technical reps, and lots of senior management on both sides. He turned up in his ripped jacket, with several layers of brown parcel tape holding the shoulder together. I couldn't look at him for fear of breaking out giggling. The company bought him a new jacket after that. (That was GEC.)
Many charities seem to spend most of their money on administration.
In the past few years I have been targeted by a couple of charities who seem to have an endless bucket of money sending me large envelopes stuffed with begging letters, Christmas cards for me to "buy" etc. The British Legion Poppy appeal must have spent £100+ attempting to part some money from me - the result being that it is a charity that I'll never support again.
One of the issues that irks me is that the various forms of chugger around seem to do their damnedest to try to make you feel bad for not giving them anything. Sorry mate, anything I give goes with suitable added value from HMRC. And I support the charity with which I have a very strong affinity - not your one just because you have turned up at the supermarket/my front door/wherever else.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.