Non fault claim - affecting my insurance premiums
Discussion
filski666 said:
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.
PurpleMoonlight said:
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.The key point is that an insurance premium is based on an assessment of the risk that you pose to the insurer. Some insurers take the view, based no doubt on data, that if you are involved in a no fault claim you are more likely to make an at fault claim in the future. This has nothing to do with the person who hit you.
Devil2575 said:
It's been explained in this thread already and discussed at length in the past.
The key point is that an insurance premium is based on an assessment of the risk that you pose to the insurer. Some insurers take the view, based no doubt on data, that if you are involved in a no fault claim you are more likely to make an at fault claim in the future. This has nothing to do with the person who hit you.
You may chose to believe the insurers that there is the statistical increase of making a fault claim, but I don't.The key point is that an insurance premium is based on an assessment of the risk that you pose to the insurer. Some insurers take the view, based no doubt on data, that if you are involved in a no fault claim you are more likely to make an at fault claim in the future. This has nothing to do with the person who hit you.
If they open the evidence to independent scrutiny to prove it, I will happily change my mind though.
PurpleMoonlight said:
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?
Because non fault accidents can cost your insurer. If you get hit whilst parked and the tp leaves a note, you may be parking in a dodgy car park. Next time you get hit they might not leave a note.Where is the logic that if you have a non fault accident you are suddenly more likely to have a fault accident?
PurpleMoonlight said:
You may chose to believe the insurers that there is the statistical increase of making a fault claim, but I don't.
If they open the evidence to independent scrutiny to prove it, I will happily change my mind though.
If they are wrong, then they will be overcharging for people who are a good risk, so those people will go elsewhere, and decent business will be lost.If they open the evidence to independent scrutiny to prove it, I will happily change my mind though.
The fact that many insurers charge for a non fault claim and are willing to price out customers must mean they don't mind losing that business. Because their stats tell them it isn't worth keeping unless they can get a higher premium.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If they are wrong, then they will be overcharging for people who are a good risk, so those people will go elsewhere, and decent business will be lost.
The fact that many insurers charge for a non fault claim and are willing to price out customers must mean they don't mind losing that business. Because their stats tell them it isn't worth keeping unless they can get a higher premium.
Inertia is the insurers best friend.The fact that many insurers charge for a non fault claim and are willing to price out customers must mean they don't mind losing that business. Because their stats tell them it isn't worth keeping unless they can get a higher premium.
Your claim should always be against the person responsible for the damage. Not their Insurance company. Sometimes folks are not even insured.
Probably too late now but, next time, arrange things so that the Insurance companies do not get involved. A claim for a small amount like that does not reflect the actual cost of handling the claim process.
For many years now, I have always had a large EXCESS on my policies. That covers most things like this and if you go about it sensibly with the person who is responsible ... the end result is usually much better than what looks like shaping up for you.
Regardless of who's responsible, it's a No CLAIMS Bonus ... Not a No BLAMES Bonus. You may be entirely blameless but, its still a claim.
Think about this and if there's a next time with a similar blameless low cost ding on your car, there are better ways to handle it. Sadly, far too many car users today have the "That's what Motor Insurance is for" attitude so drive and behave accordingly. Invariably, it's those of that mindset who are the biggest whingers when they see their next Insurance Renewal Invitation.
Whoosh Parrots would never cover it adequately.
Probably too late now but, next time, arrange things so that the Insurance companies do not get involved. A claim for a small amount like that does not reflect the actual cost of handling the claim process.
For many years now, I have always had a large EXCESS on my policies. That covers most things like this and if you go about it sensibly with the person who is responsible ... the end result is usually much better than what looks like shaping up for you.
Regardless of who's responsible, it's a No CLAIMS Bonus ... Not a No BLAMES Bonus. You may be entirely blameless but, its still a claim.
Think about this and if there's a next time with a similar blameless low cost ding on your car, there are better ways to handle it. Sadly, far too many car users today have the "That's what Motor Insurance is for" attitude so drive and behave accordingly. Invariably, it's those of that mindset who are the biggest whingers when they see their next Insurance Renewal Invitation.
Whoosh Parrots would never cover it adequately.
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.
That used to be the concept but, who knows how they think in today's distorted values and cartel riddled markets.
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.
Why do they just rip off innocent motorists that have been in accidents?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.
I've not had an accident in 25 years, and our insurance on the family car has just come in at £160 for the year. In all that time I can't think of a time I've paid more than £300, even on the Elise.
The longer I go without an accident and the more experienced I get, the cheaper my insurance gets. Its almost as if there is a link.
MGJohn said:
Some will tell you that it is a loss leader to enable their existing Motor Insurance clients to arrange other ( non-Motor) insurances with them which are more profitable. Probably cheaper to get new business that way than expensive advertising campaigns.
That used to be the concept but, who knows how they think in today's distorted values and cartel riddled markets.
"Cartel riddled". Really, what evidence have you got of that?That used to be the concept but, who knows how they think in today's distorted values and cartel riddled markets.
MGJohn said:
For many years now, I have always had a large EXCESS on my policies. That covers most things like this and if you go about it sensibly with the person who is responsible ...
But an excess doesn't apply on damage done to a tp. So you may want to avoid insurance, but you can't tell the tp what to do. If they damage your car and they want to put it thru their insurance, because they don't want to pay it and they will have no excess to pay, that's their choice.PurpleMoonlight said:
You may chose to believe the insurers that there is the statistical increase of making a fault claim, but I don't.
If they open the evidence to independent scrutiny to prove it, I will happily change my mind though.
Explain to me why a commercial entity should have to disclose the very thing that gives it, it's competitive edge? Do you expect all businesses to hand over their supply chain details to confirm that the population are happy with the end price?If they open the evidence to independent scrutiny to prove it, I will happily change my mind though.
Oh and don't come back with the tired "insurance is compulsory" argument. Only the TP element is compulsory, the rest is optional. There is a huge market out there, Al with their own different criteria for underwriting. If some see a claim as a trigger to higher risk and charge more, then that's their right. It's a free market amd you can choose to go elsewhere. However, if they still remain the right company for you, then you will pay the extra.
I don't understand why you expect a company to simply hand over years of data. Even if they did and it was to an independent company and they agreed with the insurer, you would still complain, until they handed it to you. If you think all insurers should be forced to underwrite the same vanilla product, in exactly the same way, then you're removing competition and making the market much more prone to higher premiums. Alongside that we'd also have crap products and no variation for the classic car enthusiast or the limited mileage driver, or the multicar family, or the extra years NCD hunters, or the online saver etc.
LoonR1 said:
MGJohn said:
Some will tell you that it is a loss leader to enable their existing Motor Insurance clients to arrange other ( non-Motor) insurances with them which are more profitable. Probably cheaper to get new business that way than expensive advertising campaigns.
That used to be the concept but, who knows how they think in today's distorted values and cartel riddled markets.
"Cartel riddled". Really, what evidence have you got of that?That used to be the concept but, who knows how they think in today's distorted values and cartel riddled markets.
What evidence do you have that it does not exist?
MGJohn said:
LoonR1 said:
MGJohn said:
Some will tell you that it is a loss leader to enable their existing Motor Insurance clients to arrange other ( non-Motor) insurances with them which are more profitable. Probably cheaper to get new business that way than expensive advertising campaigns.
That used to be the concept but, who knows how they think in today's distorted values and cartel riddled markets.
"Cartel riddled". Really, what evidence have you got of that?That used to be the concept but, who knows how they think in today's distorted values and cartel riddled markets.
What evidence do you have that it does not exist?
I'll go with a very recent thorough review of car insurance carried out by a Transport Select Committee amd the CMA (aka the Competion Commission) who were very complimentary about the level of competition in the UK car insuramce market.
Knock yourself out, there's plenty to read in there. A three year and they found that nothing needed doing.
https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/private-motor-insuran...
Here's the main report.
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media...
Edited by LoonR1 on Monday 29th June 23:07
TwigtheWonderkid said:
MGJohn said:
For many years now, I have always had a large EXCESS on my policies. That covers most things like this and if you go about it sensibly with the person who is responsible ...
But an excess doesn't apply on damage done to a tp. So you may want to avoid insurance, but you can't tell the tp what to do. If they damage your car and they want to put it thru their insurance, because they don't want to pay it and they will have no excess to pay, that's their choice.No two incidents are exactly the same. The claim should always be against the party responsible. There's no guarantee they are insured anyway.
All sections excess. If I damage someone's property, I will own up and pay up if it is not for a excessive sum. If my supermarket trolley damages another car in the car park, is that a Motor Incident which involves notification to my insurers even though my car was one hundred metres away and not involved at all. If the silly modern handbrake allows a parked and undriven car to move and slightly damage another vehicle, is that something the insurance company needs to know about.
There again, I realise not all other motorists have similar standards to my own. In fifty years of motoring, on three occasions folks have damaged my parked cars and furtively looking around to see if anyone noticed, drove off thinking they we scot free. On each of those three occasions someone in nearby offices or flats, did witness the incident and left details on a note under my windscreen wiper. I recovered the cost from the guilty ( or their insurers paid up ~ no matter to me as long as I recover the cost) and two of the three denied it happened at first when the Police paid them a visit. The other held their hands up but, was of the opinion of "where's the harm, you're insured anyway. Police will not release details of car keepers except under certain circumstances. Things may be different now.
More recently, whilst most folks have a small camera in their phone, this means there are eyes everywhere to record stuff as well as CCTV. That has to be a good thing.
These are the fine folks we share our roads with. Cowsons.
Edit to add ... Loonr1 .. cannot be r-sed.
Edited by MGJohn on Monday 29th June 23:24
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But an excess doesn't apply on damage done to a tp. So you may want to avoid insurance, but you can't tell the tp what to do. If they damage your car and they want to put it thru their insurance, because they don't want to pay it and they will have no excess to pay, that's their choice.
And that's the situation I'm in..... The TP wanted it to go through the insurance. So I have no choice. The fact that I didn't want the claim to proceed is neither here or therefilski666 said:
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!!
Just plain wrong. You are confusing 2 different things. Loadings for claims history and no claims bonus. If you have 2 cars with max bonus built up on each, and you have an accident in car A, your ncb on car B will NOT be affected. They may load your premium because you've had a claim on another car, they may not, but if they do, you will still get that premium reduced by 60 or 65% with your ncb.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff