Non fault claim - affecting my insurance premiums

[BORN2bWILD]

LoonR1 said:

And you have failed to accept the figures and reports that I've posted. I know the facts, because I'm inside that side of things at a senior level. You are a car repairer.
Oh and the word you're looking for is "maximise". Maximus probably means something in Latin.

---

Ref: 'You are a car repairer'..... yes, and a bloody skilled one and proud of it. I have dealt with people like you who sneer at honest tradesman because you don't like to get your hands dirty.

Ref: 'I know the facts, because I'm inside that side of things at a senior level'...... and I have management skills through having my own business for many years and running a bodyshop for a national garage, I have also passed various management college courses, I also run my business part time while Dispatching aircraft at Gatwick for 14 years, managing turnrounds and being responsible for millions of pounds of aircraft and peoples lifes.

Ref: 'Oh and the word you're looking for is "maximise". Maximus probably means something in Latin'..... when someone resorts to picking up on a simple typing error in an argument rather than deal with the facts they have lost the argument.

[LoonR1]

BORN2bWILD said:

---

Ref: 'You are a car repairer'..... yes, and a bloody skilled one and proud of it. I have dealt with people like you who sneer at honest tradesman because you don't like to get your hands dirty.

Ref: 'I know the facts, because I'm inside that side of things at a senior level'...... and I have management skills through having my own business for many years and running a bodyshop for a national garage, I have also passed various management college courses, I also run my business part time while Dispatching aircraft at Gatwick for 14 years, managing turnrounds and being responsible for millions of pounds of aircraft and peoples lifes.

Ref: 'Oh and the word you're looking for is "maximise". Maximus probably means something in Latin'..... when someone resorts to picking up on a simple typing error in an argument rather than deal with the facts they have lost the argument.

Keep shouting louder and louder

You seem to enjoy selective quoting, so let's see. What did I write immediately after "you're a car repairer". Oh yes, "Your expertise is as a car repairer". That's not dismissive of your skill set in any way.

I have never claimed to be able to repair a car, despite my role bringing me into contact with car repairers. The issue is that you claim to be able to comment on insurance underwriting profits because you come into contact with insurers on a daily basis. It simply doesn't work like that.

Anyway, here's the challenge I always put out there. If it's so easy to make money in car insurance why isn't everyone doing it? Come on, why didn't you see all their errors and simply do it better?

[anonymous-user]

LoonR1 said:

Keep shouting louder and louder

You seem to enjoy selective quoting, so let's see. What did I write immediately after "you're a car repairer". Oh yes, "Your expertise is as a car repairer". That's not dismissive of your skill set in any way.

I have never claimed to be able to repair a car, despite my role bringing me into contact with car repairers. The issue is that you claim to be able to comment on insurance underwriting profits because you come into contact with insurers on a daily basis. It simply doesn't work like that.

Anyway, here's the challenge I always put out there. If it's so easy to make money in car insurance why isn't everyone doing it? Come on, why didn't you see all their errors and simply do it better?

There are many barriers to entry - the main one being capital, "everyone" can't get the capital required.
But the fundamentals are that insurance companies make money by being involved in motor insurance, just not through "underwriting profit". But then you know that.

[PurpleMoonlight]

LoonR1 said:

Anyway, here's the challenge I always put out there. If it's so easy to make money in car insurance why isn't everyone doing it?

Isn't there approximately 350 different motor insurers in the marketplace?

Seems quite a lot for a business that only makes losses.

[LoonR1]

PurpleMoonlight said:

LoonR1 said:

Anyway, here's the challenge I always put out there. If it's so easy to make money in car insurance why isn't everyone doing it?

Isn't there approximately 350 different motor insurers in the marketplace?

Seems quite a lot for a business that only makes losses.

Here's a report written by an independent body and that was not funded by either side, where the output may be decided before the research even starts. I know most of you won't read it, instead preferring to shout things loudly and hope people follow you, a la Farage style of politics.

http://uk.milliman.com/uploadedFiles/insight/2014/...

Please don't hang your hat on the profits shown on page 9 , section 2.4 as this clearly states that a lot of insurers are excluded as they are regulated differently so do not submit returns to the PRA. However, it does show a significant batch of losses vs some years of profit. Even if this is a fair reflection of the market it should be obvious that it's not a profit making operation from an underwriting perspective.

They reference "add on" income, but also caution this, as things like solicitor injury referral fees were outlawed in 2013, so no money there anymore.

And to go back to the OP's situation, the article I quoted shows that 60% of insurers don't load for one non-fault accident in a 3-5 year period. His issue is that he had a fault claim in there too, maybe he should sue himself, as if he hadn't had that claim, then this one wouldn't have made any difference.

[Countdown]

BORN2bWILD said:

Regardless of what Looney Loon says on here back to the point:

OP had a small dink in a car park, 100% the other drivers fault who's insurer is paying the £173, so very minor damage.

OP is told he is now a higher risk and this justifies his insurer to increase his premium.

I say this is simply not true and another case of Loons insurance buddies ripping the innocent motorist off.

Apologies if this has been asked before....

It's a free market. If his insurer is unfairly increasing the premium (above the market rate) then surely OP would turn to other providers to get a cheaper rate?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

silverfoxcc said:

Likewise i have had a heart attack followed by a 4 way by pass, the doctor ( my body mechanic) discharged me saying you are fitter and more healthy than 80% of other men. When i apply for travel insurance i get stuffed because of the MI, despite my protestations on
What the Doctor said
My new healthy lifestyle to keep me fit
Etc

They just shrug and say you had one you can have another

My argument on the fat overwieght obsese slobs the inhabit most of the UK at the moment have more chance than me of getting one, its the shrug again

It's amazing how people always warp the idea of how insurance should be to suit their own circumstances. If someone had charged you extra for travel insurance years ago because you hadn't yet had a heart attack, you'd have gone bloody mental. But now you've had a heart attack, you're all in favour of those who haven't being classed as a higher risk.

I know a few people who have had multiple heart attacks, so I'm not convinced by your argument.

How would you feel if your house insurance shot up at next renewal because you've never had subsidence, thus never had your house underpinned?

[ikarl]

Countdown said:

Apologies if this has been asked before....

It's a free market. If his insurer is unfairly increasing the premium (above the market rate) then surely OP would turn to other providers to get a cheaper rate?

Correct, I can find a.n.other insurer but the companies that (on comparethemarket) do not load for this non-fault claim are already priced out of my business.

I.e. £504 pre non-fault, £570 with the non-fault incident added
The companies that do not load for this start at £740, so realistically, they're not aiming for my business anyway.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Why does it matter what they load for, so long as it's the best premium and suitable Ts & Cs. I couldn't give a stuff if they load me for being bald, if their price was better than someone else who didn't.

[Countdown]

ikarl said:

Correct, I can find a.n.other insurer but the companies that (on comparethemarket) do not load for this non-fault claim are already priced out of my business.

I.e. £504 pre non-fault, £570 with the non-fault incident added
The companies that do not load for this start at £740, so realistically, they're not aiming for my business anyway.

So, even with the non-fault loading, they're still cheaper than others? But you want them to be even cheaper?

If they were intent on ripping you off why would they be the cheapest provider?

[nipsips]

I got hit head on in Cornwall by a kamikaze caravanist who lost control going round a bend coming towards me. No loading however being 23 and insuring a V6 Mondeo was expensive enough at the time. Then in 2012 I had my car hit in the rear on a dual carraigeway. Then when I got it back someone reversed into it in a car park. Then after that someone drove into the drivers door in a car park. Then after that when I was driving away from my home address someone reversed off their drive into the side of it. So thats 5 non fault claims.

I get loaded for them, but then in my case the statistics turned out to be true. All non fault, and all fully recovered.

Life goes on!

[ikarl]

Countdown said:

ikarl said:

Correct, I can find a.n.other insurer but the companies that (on comparethemarket) do not load for this non-fault claim are already priced out of my business.

I.e. £504 pre non-fault, £570 with the non-fault incident added
The companies that do not load for this start at £740, so realistically, they're not aiming for my business anyway.

So, even with the non-fault loading, they're still cheaper than others? But you want them to be even cheaper?

If they were intent on ripping you off why would they be the cheapest provider?

eh?
There are quite a few insurers (all under £740) that have increased their premiums. The lowest priced insurer for this particular vehicle has increased the premium to £570.

I'm not sure why you're confused. I'm disgruntled that the policy (for this one vehicle) could have been bought for £66 less, prior to this person hitting my car in a car park, them fully admitting liability, and then neither of us claiming from the insurance company!

Again, this is regarding this one vehicle... I have other policies I will have to disclose this incident for and the total 'jump' in premiums is over £200 this year.

[Mandat]

ikarl said:

eh?
There are quite a few insurers (all under £740) that have increased their premiums. The lowest priced insurer for this particular vehicle has increased the premium to £570.

I'm not sure why you're confused. I'm disgruntled that the policy (for this one vehicle) could have been bought for £66 less, prior to this person hitting my car in a car park, them fully admitting liability, and then neither of us claiming from the insurance company!

Again, this is regarding this one vehicle... I have other policies I will have to disclose this incident for and the total 'jump' in premiums is over £200 this year.

For the reasons previously discussed (rightly or wrongly), your risk profile is now better understood by your insurer, than it did before the first or second claims / incidents, and is therefore pricing your policy accordingly.

[Countdown]

ikarl said:

eh?
There are quite a few insurers (all under £740) that have increased their premiums. The lowest priced insurer for this particular vehicle has increased the premium to £570.

I'm not sure why you're confused. I'm disgruntled that the policy (for this one vehicle) could have been bought for £66 less, prior to this person hitting my car in a car park, them fully admitting liability, and then neither of us claiming from the insurance company!

The point i was trying to get across was in relation to some people suggesting "insurance companies are trying to rip us off". They aren't. It's a free market and you have other providers.

The insurance company that you're currently with has certain criteria (risk factors) it uses to calculate it's premiums. Other companies may have different criteria. Some you win, some you lose.

It seems like you want ALL the insurance companies to ONLY use those risk factors that are in your favour.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Countdown said:

It seems like you want ALL the insurance companies to ONLY use those risk factors that are in your favour.

That's because everyone thinks insurance should be rated to suit them. If you live in a city, it should be cheaper than the country because you drive slower due to traffic. If you are young, it should be cheaper as you have better reactions. If you are old, it should be cheaper because you have maturity.

As with the poster above, who thinks he should get a reduction on his travel insurance because he's had a heart attack!

[Devil2575]

How has this topic gone on for 6 pages?

The concept of why a company may load a premium on the basis of a no fault calim is fairly simple and easy to understand yet some people on hee seem to be unable to grasp it.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Devil2575 said:

The concept of why a company may load a premium on the basis of a no fault calim is fairly simple and easy to understand yet some people on hee seem to be unable to grasp it.

Do tell.

[JM]

Op had no accidents, then has one. The insurance company say, due to that accident you are now more likely to have another one.
Op has another accident and insurance company is proved correct.

Similar(ish) happened to me a few years ago. After many years with no accidents, I was reversed into then a few months later someone else ran into the back of me.

[PurpleMoonlight]

JM said:

Op had no accidents, then has one. The insurance company say, due to that accident you are now more likely to have another one.
Op has another accident and insurance company is proved correct.

Similar(ish) happened to me a few years ago. After many years with no accidents, I was reversed into then a few months later someone else ran into the back of me.

But neither cost your insurance company anything as you were not at fault.

Where is the logic that if you have a non fault accident you are suddenly more likely to have a fault accident?

[filski666]

ikarl said:

Gets really painful when you have multiple cars because it obviously affects all vehicle policies.

That's something that really gets my goat. You have 15 year's NCB, yet you want to start a new policy for a second car and they say you have to have separate NCB built up for each policy!!! - Yet, if you have a claim, that affects ALL policies - to$$ers!!

I would think you would be perfectly in your rights to not disclose the claim on your other policies as THEY say they are separate.