Aspect Insurance

Consumer body claims insurance group charges drivers who have not lived in the UK since birth more for motor cover, which could put it in breach of the Race Relations Act

Car insurer Admiral has been plunged into a race row after being accused by the consumer body Which? of "discriminating" against people born outside Britain by charging them more for motor cover.

Which? said its legal advice had concluded Admiral was in breach of the Race Relations Act, and claimed its behaviour amounted to "shameful" discrimination. But the insurer – a FTSE 100 company with more than 2 million customers worldwide – rejected the accusations, saying that it "respects every customer, regardless of race, colour or religion".

An investigation by Which? found the group, which includes Bell, Diamond and elephant.co.uk, typically added 18% to car insurance premiums for drivers who had not lived in the UK since birth.

The consumer organisation said the legal experts it consulted "believe this is a clear-cut case of discrimination on the basis of national origin". It added it would be passing full details of its investigation to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Which? obtained quotes from four Admiral brands and 15 other major providers for two scenarios where the only difference was whether or not the applicant was born in the UK. It said the Admiral insurers were the only ones in its research to ask "have you lived in the UK since birth?" and then charge a higher premium for those who answered "no" where all other factors remained the same.

Under the Race Relations Act 1976, insurers can treat customers differently if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". Which? said it had consulted a race law expert, who did not believe Admiral's actions could be justified as being proportionate. "She told us that asking if potential customers had lived in the UK since birth, and charging them a higher premium if not, was, in her view, 'unlawfully discriminatory'."

Peter Vicary-Smith, Which? chief executive, said: "It is outrageous to charge someone more for insurance just because they haven't lived in the UK for their entire lives. We believe this kind of discrimination has been outlawed for decades. We're calling on the Admiral Group to stop this shameful practice immediately."

The consumer organisation sought quotes for a 50-year-old Citroen C1 Vibe driver living in north London. Quotes were obtained for both male and female drivers from each insurer. Where the company asked whether the applicant was born in the UK, two quotes were sought, answering "yes" in one application and "no" in the other. Where the individual was born outside the UK, they moved to Britain in 1975, aged 15. On average, premiums from the Admiral group of insurers were 18.3% more expensive for the applicant born outside the UK. There was no difference in the quotation received from any other insurer.

Which? said the company had claimed that in its experience, policyholders who had not lived in the UK all their lives had a worse claims record.

Admiral was launched in 1993 and specialises in "cheap car insurance quotes for drivers who often have to pay higher premiums". In a statement the company said: "Admiral respects every customer, regardless of race, colour or religion. We do not rate on race, colour or religion, but we do rate on the age someone first comes to the UK. This is not an origin question, but a residency [question]." It said it did not ask any questions about where a person was from or what religion they were.

Asked whether the company was taking legal advice about the claims made by Which?, a spokeswoman declined to comment.

The Guardian website last month highlighted the case of Cyprus-born Marios Hadjianastasis. Elephant.co.uk offered the most promising deal at £506 but when Hadjianastasis answered a question about how long he had been in the UK, the premium soared to £614.

• This article was amended on 17 March 2010 to clarify details of Marios Hadjianastasis's case

Thousands of car buyers hoping to take advantage of the scrappage scheme before it ends may have already missed their chance. Six of the biggest car makers have announced that they have run out of funding — two weeks before the scheme was supposed to close at the end of this month.

Volvo Trucks have released a new version of their well-proven FM truck.

Vic 'rolls out' the 2010 vintage with his beloved Inter and friends!

Used-car sales fell to the lowest level in almost a decade last year as the scrappage scheme encouraged buyers to turn to new models instead, new research shows.

The jobs of up to 4,000 UK workers were secured last week when AgustaWestland revealed that it had won a €560 million (£510 million) contract to supply helicopters to India. Westland will build 12 AW101s for the Indian Air Force, which will be used for transporting the country’s Prime Minister, President and other VIPs.

The UK motor industry has delivered a stark message to the Chancellor as the 2010 Budget was declared for Wednesday 24 March. Measures to encourage industry and boost consumer confidence will be required if the recovery is to be sustained and strengthened.

On Friday Business Secretary Lord Mandelson announced a €300 million (£270m) loan guarantee to GME Europe which will help secure the company’s operations in Britain and the rest of Europe. The outline agreement follows detailed and highly complex talks between the Government and GM.

Corporate rebrandings are almost always pointless, pompous or both. So it's a relief that bailed-out Benelux insurer Fortis has provided a crib-sheet to explain why as of April, it will be called "ageas" .

Apparently, the a and g at the beginning "celebrate our roots" – the firm began as AG Leven; the e and a in the middle refer to its two key markets, Europe and Asia; and the "as" at the end stands for "assurance". The absence of capital letters "heightens the sense of unity within our group" and shows that "we don't want to force our opinions on anyone". How very modest. To give Fortis its due, the pared-down, pure insurance firm that emerged from the £10bn cross-border taxpayer carve-up is a very different business from the banking conglomerate it had become. BNP Paribas got the group's Belgian banking interests, while a chunk of the ill-fated ABN Amro that Fred Goodwin didn't get his hands on was taken over by the Dutch state. What's left looks more like a boring old insurer, give or take some toxic legacy assets from the credit crunch era, which its boss Bart De Smet has been able to return to profit. But wouldn't it have been refreshing if he'd applied the same back-to-basics approach to Fortis's name, instead of succumbing to the brand consultants? It could have been Fortis's most sensible decision in ageas.

To consolidate its number one status, Renault is launching no fewer than three new models this year as it renews and upgrades its range with the introduction of New Master, Trafic Phase 3 and New Kangoo Van Maxi.

Biglorryblog recalls a particularly atmospheric ad campaign.

The latest news roundup from the SMMT.

The Pru's chief executive, Tidjane Thiam, dismisses critics of his takeover of AIG's Asian arm as 'eurocentric'

Tidjane Thiam, the chief executive of the Prudential, said this weekend he had embarked on a controversial $35bn (£23bn) takeover of the Asian assets of collapsed American group AIG in order to give something back to Britain.

Thiam, who was born in Ivory Coast and educated in France, also dismissed critics who claim the deal is too risky as "eurocentric".

He said: "I am very grateful to the UK. It has given me opportunities that I wouldn't get in France and I want to do something for the country."

The Pru is expected this week to obtain a dual listing of its shares on the Hong Kong stock exchange as well as in London. That move will fuel speculation the 160-year-old insurer may move its HQ or its chief executive's office to Asia. Thiam admitted he could not make a long-term pledge to keep his head office here. "At the moment we are committed to the UK and we are not saying positively that in 10 years we won't have our HQ here, we are just saying we don't know what might happen."

He downplayed speculation that he may seek to offload the insurer's UK business. He said: "I have always been very clear that the UK business is very important to us. We started here and used that to build an international vision that benefits the UK economy. Our name and identity is British; this is all good for the UK."

He denied it would have been better for the Pru to expand in Asia by growing its business organically. "We believe this is going to increase our growth potential significantly beyond that, because we will start from the number one position in seven markets."

He added: "I don't agree that it is risky – that is a eurocentric view of the world. Asian economies have very healthy balance sheets. It is the leveraged economies that are more risky."

His words contrast sharply with comments last week from Andrew Moss, chief executive of Thiam's former employer Aviva, who argued Europe was a better place for insurers to expand than Asia.

The Pru's share price dropped sharply after it announced the deal, which will involve a record £14bn issue of new shares. It closed at 520p, down from 602p, but Thiam was boosted by news that two sovereign wealth funds from Qatar and Singapore had agreed to back the capital raising.

There have been concerns that if the shares fall too far, investors will be reluctant to back the rights issue. Thiam said: "I'm sure there is a price at which it becomes uneconomic but I can't answer questions on that – it is not a game I want to engage in."

The Prudential's takeover of AIG's Asian arm will inevitably shift its centre of gravity away from its British operations

The Prudential's audacious bid to take over the Asian interests of failed US insurer AIG can be seen as a reversal of the tide of foreign sequestration of assets in the UK.

It is easy to see how Asia would seem much more exciting to its able young chief executive, Tidjane Thiam, than the UK, or Europe, where rival Aviva is pinning its hopes.

For the moment, the Prudential is committed to remaining a UK company but, long term, there must be a question mark as its centre of gravity shifts eastward.

Britain and, for that matter, its US operation, Jackson National Life Insurance, will become proportionately less important to the group.

It is sad to see how the once mighty insurance industry in this country has dwindled. Former big names have met sorry fates, including Pearl, which passed through several hands before being sold to Cayman Islands firm Liberty Acquisitions. Friends Provident was taken over by zombie fund operator Resolution.

Policyholders are powerless while their savings are passed around like parcels. At each turn financiers and advisers are taking a cut from a huge and undemocratic transfer of funds, nodded through by regulators without so much as giving policyholders a vote.

The business model for UK insurance savings has come adrift: one can only wish the Pru well, hope its Asian savers prosper and its UK customers escape the zombie curse.

Finally, the Prudential's share price bounces. Unfortunately, yesterday's gain was a mere 2.5% to 500p. The Pru is still down 17% since it announced on Monday its grand plan to pay $35.5bn (£23bn) for AIA to advance its ambitions in Asia.

Does 17% amount to a vote of no confidence in the deal? It's far too early to say that since Tidjane Thiam, the Pru's chief executive, has a full two months to woo his shareholders before he has to publish a prospectus. It is also true that there is nothing like the prospect of a gigantic rights issue to kill short-term demand for your shares. Even so, the fall might be twice as severe as the Pru's management would have hoped. This is starting to look serious.

So it should. The word in the investment banking world is that AIG had in mind a flotation value of $25bn to $27.5bn for AIA. If that is correct, it was adventurous for the Pru to pitch in at $35.5bn. So one way to think of the £3bn plunge in the Pru's valuation is as the market's calculation of the size of the overpayment for AIA but adding back the benefits of combining the two companies.

If the net figure at the end of April is still minus £3bn – as a 500p share price suggests – Thiam is not winning many plaudits. Many shareholders might prefer to call the whole thing off and, they would hope, see the Pru's share price return to last week's level of 600p.

It requires no genius to see that Asia is an attractive place to sell savings products. But Thiam has failed to explain why buying AIA is the best way to skin that cat. The Pru already has a very successful business in Asia. Concentrating on competing with a destabilised company such as AIA, and saving $1bn in bid costs in the process, looks a perfectly credible and lower-risk way to approach the Asian opportunity.