Another insurance whinge

Author
Discussion

irocfan

40,153 posts

189 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
LucreLout said:
Mandat said:
Look at the OP. He has been hit up the rear on two separate occasions.

Rather backs up the statistical probability, doesn't it?
Happened to me twice, ten years apart... And I am an advanced driver, was driving defensively, and paying appropriate attention.
I'm pretty sure it'll fit in some matrices at the insurers and that they'll rate on it. Seems ok to me....
happened to me once - just starting to move forward on a slip-road roundabout and some arse at warp-speed hit me up the arse. Nothing I could do about it frown

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
As you know the extra cost because of the accidents just sue the perpetrator for everytime renewal comes round until it no longer affects your premium.

LucreLout

908 posts

117 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
gottans said:
As you know the extra cost because of the accidents just sue the perpetrator for everytime renewal comes round until it no longer affects your premium.
It's entirely possible I'm wrong, but I thought the words "full and final settlement" prevented this.
Any actual lawyer or insurance bod want to provide some clarity?

Rick101

6,959 posts

149 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
It's rubbish but thats just the way it is. You're over a barrel.

If you think it would have been cheaper to just pay for it yourself, you always have that choice. Obviously you need to think about whether you want to advise your insurer that you've been involved in an incident.

over_the_hill

3,185 posts

245 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
The OP was rear-ended twice. No fault and full costs recovered. Therefore it did not cost his insurer a penny.

Maybe he is more likely to be in this type of collision.

However, even if he is rear ended ten times in the next 12 months in the same circumstances, again, it would not cost his insurer anything as they could reclaim full costs.

I have yet to hear any credible explanation of why he should be paying more.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
over_the_hill said:
However, even if he is rear ended ten times in the next 12 months in the same circumstances, again, it would not cost his insurer anything as they could reclaim full costs.

I have yet to hear any credible explanation of why he should be paying more.
Assuming the other party is insured. Assuming the other party doesn't reverse up and drive off at speed. Assuming the other party doesn't lie and say the OP reversed into him. And loads of other scenarios.

Redgate

325 posts

146 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
over_the_hill said:
I have yet to hear any credible explanation of why he should be paying more.
Thanks for bringing this thread back on track. In all seriousness, I would love to hear from the Insurance experts and understand their arguments for hiking your premium when you haven't done anything wrong, just like OP.

Recently I had the surprise to discover that my premium had increased only because my Insurer "had experienced a lot of cars similar to mine have had accidents or technical problems over the last year".

Preemptive strike ?

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Redgate said:
Thanks for bringing this thread back on track. In all seriousness, I would love to hear from the Insurance experts and understand their arguments for hiking your premium when you haven't done anything wrong, just like OP.
Why not start up an insurance company offering lower rates for people who have had claims but done nothing wrong. Let's see how much money you make.

There's another thread going about a guy who keeps having his tyres slashes by someone with a vendetta against him. He's done nothing wrong. Maybe you could agree to insure him against future attacks.

Zoobeef

6,004 posts

157 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
It's the "assume guilty" by making you pay more, until "proven innocent" by reducing the price after you have 5 accident free years again.

Redgate

325 posts

146 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Redgate said:
Thanks for bringing this thread back on track. In all seriousness, I would love to hear from the Insurance experts and understand their arguments for hiking your premium when you haven't done anything wrong, just like OP.
Why not start up an insurance company offering lower rates for people who have had claims but done nothing wrong. Let's see how much money you make.

There's another thread going about a guy who keeps having his tyres slashes by someone with a vendetta against him. He's done nothing wrong. Maybe you could agree to insure him against future attacks.
Calm down dear. Let me try to explain my situation again. I drive for a whole year without causing nor being involved in any accident, whether serious or superficial. I have declared a maximum annual mileage of say 7,000 miles and manage to stay under that limit. I don't get booked by the Police, I have a clean license. I don't claim for anything, not even for a chipped windshield. My car is serviced by a professional dealership. It is alarmed and garaged. Yet, when comes renewal time my premium goes up because, I quote, "there are other people with a car similar to yours who have been having problems and therefore have had to claim".

Where is the logic in that ?

So forget about slashed tyres for a minute and help me understand why, in my situation, I should expect my premium to increase. This is not a challenge to try and get the last word, I am genuinely interested.

MitchT

15,788 posts

208 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
singlecoil said:
Moonhawk said:
scarble said:
I think it's quite likely true that if you've been run into once you're at a higher chance of being run into again. What do you think defensive driving is?
I'd love to see the statistics that back that up.

I was run into by a car whist stationary in a queue of traffic. How exactly would defensive driving have helped in my situation?
I should imagine as far as scarble is concerned defensive driving would be being somewhere else at the time.
Hmm - don't remember 'clairvoyance' being indicated as one of the skills of defensive driving. wink
Indeed. I was hit in the front by a woman in front of me who put her car into reverse while in a queue of traffic! There was someone behind me so I couldn't get out of the way. Fortunately she was honest about it all so it was settled in my favour, but it disturbs me that insurance companies could twist it to extract more money from me on the basis that it somehow makes me a greater risk!

Insurance companies do love to interpret things in the way that best serves their revenue. High mileage driver = higher risk as you're on the road more. Low mileage driver = higher risk as you are 'less experienced', even though, as was the case with my OH, being a low mileage driver in her own car was because she was doing significant mileage in a company car ... and then when she pointed this out they told her her own car was at greater risk as it was parked at home while she was out at work so she wouldn't be around to keep an eye on it! The fact that it was locked in the garage was lost on them. Any excuse to crank up premiums basically. They really are second only to politicians when it comes to spinning things to serve their own argument.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Redgate said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Redgate said:
Thanks for bringing this thread back on track. In all seriousness, I would love to hear from the Insurance experts and understand their arguments for hiking your premium when you haven't done anything wrong, just like OP.
Why not start up an insurance company offering lower rates for people who have had claims but done nothing wrong. Let's see how much money you make.

There's another thread going about a guy who keeps having his tyres slashes by someone with a vendetta against him. He's done nothing wrong. Maybe you could agree to insure him against future attacks.
Calm down dear. Let me try to explain my situation again. I drive for a whole year without causing nor being involved in any accident, whether serious or superficial. I have declared a maximum annual mileage of say 7,000 miles and manage to stay under that limit. I don't get booked by the Police, I have a clean license. I don't claim for anything, not even for a chipped windshield. My car is serviced by a professional dealership. It is alarmed and garaged. Yet, when comes renewal time my premium goes up because, I quote, "there are other people with a car similar to yours who have been having problems and therefore have had to claim".

Where is the logic in that ?

So forget about slashed tyres for a minute and help me understand why, in my situation, I should expect my premium to increase. This is not a challenge to try and get the last word, I am genuinely interested.
But that's how it works!

Teenagers pay more for insurance than people in their 50s. Because of the record of other teenagers.
If you live in Inner London you pay more than living in the Scottish Highlands. Even if you haven't claimed.

Ferrari owners pay more than Fiesta owners. Because they are more likely to claim, or have more expensive claims.

Insurance is based on a combination of what has happened, and what the stats show is most likely to happen.

If you took out life insurance, you'd expect to pay less than an 80 year old. But using your logic, the 80 year old has never died, so shouldn't be penalised, just because other 80 year olds have died!!!

singlecoil

33,313 posts

245 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
I have an anecdote as well. I moved to a new job, a long time ago. The place was a large private estate in South Bucks. Nearest house was half a mile away. The car was kept at a lodge house inside large, locked iron gates with all the normal security measures.

I informed my insurance company that I had moved, and they wanted more money! The reason? Through a quirk of the post code system the address was SL1, the same as central Slough. Protests, including a letter to the chairman, were in vain,

Redgate

325 posts

146 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But that's how it works!

Teenagers pay more for insurance than people in their 50s. Because of the record of other teenagers.
If you live in Inner London you pay more than living in the Scottish Highlands. Even if you haven't claimed.

Ferrari owners pay more than Fiesta owners. Because they are more likely to claim, or have more expensive claims.

Insurance is based on a combination of what has happened, and what the stats show is most likely to happen.

If you took out life insurance, you'd expect to pay less than an 80 year old. But using your logic, the 80 year old has never died, so shouldn't be penalised, just because other 80 year olds have died!!!
Apologies in advance, I don't mean to hijack the discussion.

I agree with you that you have to base your risk analysis on factual data in order to evaluate said risk and to infer the potential cost associated with it. The factual data will keep fluctuate, to your advantage or disadvantage.

There is no discussion that if you have been involved in several accidents and that they were all your fault you should be made to pay for those. And that your insurer should change the terms of your contract.

But what I am struggling with is that even when the data evolves to your advantage (as I described in my previous post) it still does not mean that you will be rewarded for it.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
I have an anecdote as well. I moved to a new job, a long time ago. The place was a large private estate in South Bucks. Nearest house was half a mile away. The car was kept at a lodge house inside large, locked iron gates with all the normal security measures.

I informed my insurance company that I had moved, and they wanted more money! The reason? Through a quirk of the post code system the address was SL1, the same as central Slough. Protests, including a letter to the chairman, were in vain,
That probably wouldn't happen now. Increased data and computerisation means they can do variable rating for individual streets.

covboy

2,573 posts

173 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
I have an anecdote as well. I moved to a new job, a long time ago. The place was a large private estate in South Bucks. Nearest house was half a mile away. The car was kept at a lodge house inside large, locked iron gates with all the normal security measures.

I informed my insurance company that I had moved, and they wanted more money! The reason? Through a quirk of the post code system the address was SL1, the same as central Slough. Protests, including a letter to the chairman, were in vain,
I know of a similar case. A work colleague moved from Worcester to Redditch (which at one time was in Worcestershire) and had an increase because he now had a Birmingham post code.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Redgate said:
There is no discussion that if you have been involved in several accidents and that they were all your fault you should be made to pay for those. And that your insurer should change the terms of your contract.

But what I am struggling with is that even when the data evolves to your advantage (as I described in my previous post) it still does not mean that you will be rewarded for it.
What about several non fault accidents, like the slashed tyres?? Who is more likely to have them slashed next, you or him. But then again, he's done nothing wrong!

And the data did not evolve to your advantage. You drive a car that, overall, has a poor claims record. Why shouldn't you pay more than someone with identical details who drives a car with a better overall record?

Redgate

325 posts

146 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What about several non fault accidents, like the slashed tyres?? Who is more likely to have them slashed next, you or him. But then again, he's done nothing wrong!
If the slasher gets caught and prosecuted, isn't the Insurance Company going to sue them to get compensation for the amount of tyres they had to pay for? I know you have a point there but we were moving away from that particular aspect, weren't we?

TwigtheWonderkid said:
And the data did not evolve to your advantage. You drive a car that, overall, has a poor claims record. Why shouldn't you pay more than someone with identical details who drives a car with a better overall record?
How and why has my car a poor claim record? What could I possibly do to improve its claim record?

stargazer30

1,582 posts

165 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
timbo999 said:
ummmm - maybe defensive driving is not dropping out of gear and putting the hand brake on until you're certain no one is going to shunt you up the rear...? Just saying..
You are just being ridiculous now.
Not really. In 30s maybe overkill but (being a tyne tunnel person) I wince coming over the brow of that hill on the morning to see the queue of 15mph traffic being right after it. I tend to deliberately leave my brakes on, leave a big gap and plan an escape route etc..

Its saved my bacon at least once, not at the tunnel but same thing on the A19 when some ones exhaust flew off and all three lanes were swerving/hammering the brakes to avoid it. It would have been my tin can MR2 fairy weight vs 18 wheeler who realized he wasn't gonna stop, then tried and failed to execute an emergency lane change.

Mandat

3,879 posts

237 months

Friday 31st October 2014
quotequote all
Redgate said:
How and why has my car a poor claim record? What could I possibly do to improve its claim record?
Buy a different car?