Non fault claim - affecting my insurance premiums
Discussion
LoonR1 said:
The rest do load, as their data, on their own claims, does see a correlation between the first claim and a subsequent propensity to claim.
What are your views on the moon landings, or Elvis' death?
We only have their assertions to support this and I choose not to believe them.What are your views on the moon landings, or Elvis' death?
The moon is made of cheese and Elvis was a Martian of course.
ikarl said:
LoonR1 said:
What are you talking about? I didn't edit 40% out. I stated "that's what they see in their own claims histories". Why has PH suddenly started to have an influx of people who struggle with comprehension?
Let's have another go shall we to help you with this.
60% of insurers do not load their premiums for anyone making their first non-fault claim, as their own claims experience does not show a correlation to make a subsequent claim
The rest do load, as their data, on their own claims, does see a correlation between the first claim and a subsequent propensity to claim.
The OP says that his insurer is charging more, but remains cheaper than the rest still. How is that ripping anyone off?
Everybody retains the right to go to any other insurer in the marketplace at renewal, so what their current insurer does is almost irrelevant, as they can easily let their feet do the talking.
What are your views on the moon landings, or Elvis' death?
Sorry Loon, but I haven't said that anywhere, although at 8 pages long I don't expect you to remember every post.Let's have another go shall we to help you with this.
60% of insurers do not load their premiums for anyone making their first non-fault claim, as their own claims experience does not show a correlation to make a subsequent claim
The rest do load, as their data, on their own claims, does see a correlation between the first claim and a subsequent propensity to claim.
The OP says that his insurer is charging more, but remains cheaper than the rest still. How is that ripping anyone off?
Everybody retains the right to go to any other insurer in the marketplace at renewal, so what their current insurer does is almost irrelevant, as they can easily let their feet do the talking.
What are your views on the moon landings, or Elvis' death?
My insurance has a few months left to run, but if my 'renewal time' was now, my current insurer doesn't look competitive when compared against the rest of the market (without this non fault claim being added)
However, when adding this incident the range of insurance premiums that I would've liked to purchased (pre incident) all increase.
I do feel like I'm being ripped off. Even with MY car damaged and me NOT wanting to claim, and she doesn't want to claim, I have to pay an increased premium for something I could've got cheaper if she hadn't phoned her ins co and told them she hit my car! The ONLY people that make money in this situation is the insurance companies. NO money claimed for but they increase both our insurance prices.
Edited by ikarl on Thursday 2nd July 18:21
Here's a slightly different way of looking at it.
My mate wants to go out for a few pints tomorrow with me. Unfortunately for me, he wants to go to The Stags Head. I used to love the pub, but a few weeks ago, we both went in amd got hit by a local nutter for no good reason. The next time my mate went in, he had no bother and has been in several times since without a problem. However, I've only np been back once and the same thing happened again.
So in our experiences, he senses the risk of it happening again as small, or even non-existent and is happy to go back there. I am less keen and see the risk as getting close to unacceptable. Our thought processes are the same as an insurer. Our first experience was the same initially, but it changed next time round.
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.
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.
PurpleMoonlight said:
We only have their assertions to support this and I choose not to believe them..
So what. They are running a business and have a right to decide how to assess risk however they see fit. They are also operating in a competitive market so there is little sense in them loading premiums for no reason.After all if there is no connection between no fault claims and the probability of making a fault claim then why not just start out with a higher premium than loading for something that is irrelevant. Especially since the customer can just take their business elsewhere. If a shop I use suddenly puts the price up I don't b
h about it, I shop somewhere else.PurpleMoonlight said:
LoonR1 said:
The rest do load, as their data, on their own claims, does see a correlation between the first claim and a subsequent propensity to claim.
What are your views on the moon landings, or Elvis' death?
We only have their assertions to support this and I choose not to believe them.What are your views on the moon landings, or Elvis' death?
The moon is made of cheese and Elvis was a Martian of course.
Loon, the insurance increases from £500 to £570, wasn't with my current insurer....it's one of the other 159 companies, one company were the cheapest at £500 now they're still in the top 5 but another company is the cheapest with this incident logged at £570
Your way of looking at it doesn't really work and I'm not sure why you've added it tbh
How am I an increased risk of making a claim when I'm not making a claim? In fact, no one is. Surely, if anything the insurance co's would look at the fact that im not claiming for £170 of damage (paying it out my own pocket) and make my insurance cheaper!! I know, it doesn't work that way.... :roll eyes:
Your way of looking at it doesn't really work and I'm not sure why you've added it tbh
How am I an increased risk of making a claim when I'm not making a claim? In fact, no one is. Surely, if anything the insurance co's would look at the fact that im not claiming for £170 of damage (paying it out my own pocket) and make my insurance cheaper!! I know, it doesn't work that way.... :roll eyes:
ikarl said:
Loon, the insurance increases from £500 to £570, wasn't with my current insurer....it's one of the other 159 companies, one company were the cheapest at £500 now they're still in the top 5 but another company is the cheapest with this incident logged at £570
Your way of looking at it doesn't really work and I'm not sure why you've added it tbh
How am I an increased risk of making a claim when I'm not making a claim? In fact, no one is. Surely, if anything the insurance co's would look at the fact that im not claiming for £170 of damage (paying it out my own pocket) and make my insurance cheaper!! I know, it doesn't work that way.... :roll eyes:
Do you understand statistics?Your way of looking at it doesn't really work and I'm not sure why you've added it tbh
How am I an increased risk of making a claim when I'm not making a claim? In fact, no one is. Surely, if anything the insurance co's would look at the fact that im not claiming for £170 of damage (paying it out my own pocket) and make my insurance cheaper!! I know, it doesn't work that way.... :roll eyes:
An insurer uses statistical data of past events to determine how much of a risk you are. Their data shows them that drivers who had a no fault accident where more likely to go on to make a claim than those who hadn't. They're using actual outcomes of past events to predict what will happen in the future. It's worth noting that just because they consider you to be a higher risk doesn't mean that you will make a claim, just that they think it more likely. Given the types of premiums you're talking about they still don't think it very likely, just a bit more than they did before.
LoonR1 said:
As you seem to think that insurers have some sort of duty to disclose every piece of information that they hold, does this extend to all other retailers? Maybe you should write to all the big supermarkets as a start and ask them to break down the whole pricing process of all the products on their shelves. Once you've done that you can write to the manufacturers of all those products amd ask them to justify their wholesale pricing structure.
An excellent comparison.After all, supermarkets are such a paragon of virtue to be trusted implicitly.
PurpleMoonlight said:
LoonR1 said:
As you seem to think that insurers have some sort of duty to disclose every piece of information that they hold, does this extend to all other retailers? Maybe you should write to all the big supermarkets as a start and ask them to break down the whole pricing process of all the products on their shelves. Once you've done that you can write to the manufacturers of all those products amd ask them to justify their wholesale pricing structure.
An excellent comparison.After all, supermarkets are such a paragon of virtue to be trusted implicitly.
Devil2575 said:
Again, so what? Supermarkets operate in a competitive market. If you don't like Tesco then you can shop elsewhere. Competition is driving prices down currently.
'what' because I happen not to agree with the argument that it is okay for businesses to rip off customers as long a some are ripping off customers less than others are.PurpleMoonlight said:
LoonR1 said:
As you seem to think that insurers have some sort of duty to disclose every piece of information that they hold, does this extend to all other retailers? Maybe you should write to all the big supermarkets as a start and ask them to break down the whole pricing process of all the products on their shelves. Once you've done that you can write to the manufacturers of all those products amd ask them to justify their wholesale pricing structure.
An excellent comparison.After all, supermarkets are such a paragon of virtue to be trusted implicitly.
Seriously, you seem to have an issue with big business, how do you act on these principles in your daily life?
PurpleMoonlight said:
Devil2575 said:
Again, so what? Supermarkets operate in a competitive market. If you don't like Tesco then you can shop elsewhere. Competition is driving prices down currently.
'what' because I happen not to agree with the argument that it is okay for businesses to rip off customers as long a some are ripping off customers less than others are.PurpleMoonlight said:
Devil2575 said:
Again, so what? Supermarkets operate in a competitive market. If you don't like Tesco then you can shop elsewhere. Competition is driving prices down currently.
'what' because I happen not to agree with the argument that it is okay for businesses to rip off customers as long a some are ripping off customers less than others are.If you wish to claim that we are being ripped off you really should provide evidence.
I'd suggest you just don't like the price so have decided it must be unjustified.
ikarl said:
Loon, the insurance increases from £500 to £570, wasn't with my current insurer....it's one of the other 159 companies, one company were the cheapest at £500 now they're still in the top 5 but another company is the cheapest with this incident logged at £570
Your way of looking at it doesn't really work and I'm not sure why you've added it tbh
How am I an increased risk of making a claim when I'm not making a claim? In fact, no one is. Surely, if anything the insurance co's would look at the fact that im not claiming for £170 of damage (paying it out my own pocket) and make my insurance cheaper!! I know, it doesn't work that way.... :roll eyes:
Your premium is statistics based and charmed by computers. The days of someone looking at your risk are long gone, as the cost would be prohibitive. Your way of looking at it doesn't really work and I'm not sure why you've added it tbh
How am I an increased risk of making a claim when I'm not making a claim? In fact, no one is. Surely, if anything the insurance co's would look at the fact that im not claiming for £170 of damage (paying it out my own pocket) and make my insurance cheaper!! I know, it doesn't work that way.... :roll eyes:
LoonR1 said:
It is your perception that they are ripping customers off. You have no facts at all to support this.
In the case of supermarkets, the facts speak for themselves, they have been making enormous profits (at least until recently). They screw suppliers into the ground and they have been caught using ethically bankrupt business practices on numerous occasions.However supermarkets aren't a good analogy with insurers. You aren't required by law to buy food, let alone buy it from a supermarket. You pretty much get to choose how much you want to spend on your food. The food is also the same price for everyone, no matter their history. If you don't like their dubious business practices and inflated prices you can legally grow and eat your own food.
You don't get someone at the till telling you that your cornflakes have doubled in price because you had the s
ts after a bad curry the previous week, and the supermarket's top secret data shows you are now more likely to die from eating cornflakes.Increasing premiums for random circumstances that may be completely outside the policyholders control, even if no claim is made, is simply indefensible morally and ethically, but when has a corporation ever given a s
t about that?Mr2Mike said:
In the case of supermarkets, the facts speak for themselves, they have been making enormous profits (at least until recently). They screw suppliers into the ground and they have been caught using ethically bankrupt business practices on numerous occasions.
However supermarkets aren't a good analogy with insurers. You aren't required by law to buy food, let alone buy it from a supermarket. You pretty much get to choose how much you want to spend on your food. The food is also the same price for everyone, no matter their history. If you don't like their dubious business practices and inflated prices you can legally grow and eat your own food.
You don't get someone at the till telling you that your cornflakes have doubled in price because you had the sts after a bad curry the previous week, and the supermarket's top secret data shows you are now more likely to die from eating cornflakes.
Increasing premiums for random circumstances that may be completely outside the policyholders control, even if no claim is made, is simply indefensible morally and ethically, but when has a corporation ever given a st about that?
That's a pretty poor responseHowever supermarkets aren't a good analogy with insurers. You aren't required by law to buy food, let alone buy it from a supermarket. You pretty much get to choose how much you want to spend on your food. The food is also the same price for everyone, no matter their history. If you don't like their dubious business practices and inflated prices you can legally grow and eat your own food.
You don't get someone at the till telling you that your cornflakes have doubled in price because you had the s
ts after a bad curry the previous week, and the supermarket's top secret data shows you are now more likely to die from eating cornflakes.Increasing premiums for random circumstances that may be completely outside the policyholders control, even if no claim is made, is simply indefensible morally and ethically, but when has a corporation ever given a s
t about that?1. Food is a bit more than a legal requirement. I've yet to meet anyone who can live without eating, so at some point you are going to have to visit a shop and buy food. Whether they make obscene profits or not is your dilemma.
2. Do you go to the rip-off profit making machine that charges you £1 for your cornflakes, or the corner shop owned by Doris, that doesn't make much money but will charge you £3? Nobody ever answers this question I notice. Whilst the prices are all the same in that store, they may differ between stores of the same company, or between different supermarkets in the same locale, or even. How do you deal with that? Is that a ripoff? Is Doris ripping you off and the supermarkets are actually White Knights?
3. You're right, but why is that Persil Bio now £10 a bottle when it was only £7 last week? The packaging is the same, they've had the sa,e cost delivering it, it's even the same batch number printed on the side. How can that be? But wait, the special offer has ended. What a farce, I demand the special offer be the only price anyone can ever charge. How do I know it's a "special offer" they won't share all their supply chain data with me. Must've a big conspiracy
4. I have done nothing to justify them increasing their prices on me. Doris put hers up to. They're all in cahoots. Morally bankrupt
Do you really think that a business can't charge what it wants? If Ferrari stick their new car up for £200,000 is that unfair, because you can't afford one? Does that make them morally bankrupt. Should they sell them for £25,000 so that most can have one? What about £1 so everyone can have one?
Bad news, the price of corn has gone by 25% in the past two months. How do you feel about that meaning your cornflakes are going up! After all, it's completely out of your control. The price of fuel is on the rise too. What control do you have over that? Why a should yours go up then?
You'll now say I'm being ridiculous, but if an insurer could charge less and turn a profit, then they would, as they'd clean up. If you don't like their pricing you can go somewhere else, but if you can't afford any of them,, then maybe, just maybe it's you who's being ridiculous with your demands. Think about that
Oh and please feel free to answer the question posed in point 1:
Where do you shop, if your principles have you believe that supermarkets are so corrupt?
Edited by LoonR1 on Thursday 2nd July 23:01
Another No Fault Claim Scenario :~
My better half's MG ZS which we've had from new since 2003 was rear ended by some inattentive woman in an SUV last year. That whilst waiting at the lights. Massive damage as the Tow Bar took most of the shunt. Can you see the damage? No, nor could we. There's a 5 cm crack in the bumper and the Tow Bar mounts moved 3mm in their slots.
Other party 100% responsible so I anticipated no problem there. Huge brand new Korean SUV Hire car provided which we did not really need. That costs. We sent it back after a week. Our car was drivable and perfectly safe. Those handling our claim in regular contact both by phone and letter. I took the car to two of the Insurance Company's "approved" repair firms. I stood by as each assessor complete with clip board assessed the car and took images. At least twice I heard him mutter under his breath "doesn't look good" ... "not looking good" ...
Much the same with their other approved repair outfit. Written Estimates arrived soon after with repair quotes over twice the "book" value of the car. Both quotes included the statement that the car was perfectly safe to drive in its damaged state.
Who would have anticipated that scenario! I did.
So, took car to my own "approved" accident repair firm based in Frampton on Severn in Gloucester who I've used a few times for bodywork repair or renovation. The sort of jobs beyond my limited DIY resources and each time the repair has exceeded my expectations and good value too. Every visit it's not unusual to see Ferraris, Porsches and even MGBs and other exotica
being repaired. I showed the estimates after he had looked at the car and he had a good laugh. He also pointed out a large sign on his office wall explaining in some detail that folks should not take the actions and words of Motor Insurance Company Claims operatives as Gospel. Amen to that. His firm is of course also approved by some Motor Insurers. His far more realistic estimate was for HALF the book value of the car. I submitted that estimate to those handling our claim and after a number of further phone calls, they agreed to pay for the repairs, remove CAT bovine excrement write off marker but, get this, they would not guarantee the work as it would not be done by one of their approved repair firms. Their approved firms had both prepared quotes to write it off! Pathetic.
It was as though their "approved" repair outfits had an arrangement to whenever possible, write a car off as that way is both expeditious and reduces claim overall handling costs which of course is more than just the cost of repair/write off. Surely not
Anyway, our superbly reliable MG ZS lives on and is still a delight to drive. Here's the repaired car. Can you see the join ... :~
My better half's MG ZS which we've had from new since 2003 was rear ended by some inattentive woman in an SUV last year. That whilst waiting at the lights. Massive damage as the Tow Bar took most of the shunt. Can you see the damage? No, nor could we. There's a 5 cm crack in the bumper and the Tow Bar mounts moved 3mm in their slots.
Other party 100% responsible so I anticipated no problem there. Huge brand new Korean SUV Hire car provided which we did not really need. That costs. We sent it back after a week. Our car was drivable and perfectly safe. Those handling our claim in regular contact both by phone and letter. I took the car to two of the Insurance Company's "approved" repair firms. I stood by as each assessor complete with clip board assessed the car and took images. At least twice I heard him mutter under his breath "doesn't look good" ... "not looking good" ...
Much the same with their other approved repair outfit. Written Estimates arrived soon after with repair quotes over twice the "book" value of the car. Both quotes included the statement that the car was perfectly safe to drive in its damaged state.
Who would have anticipated that scenario! I did.
So, took car to my own "approved" accident repair firm based in Frampton on Severn in Gloucester who I've used a few times for bodywork repair or renovation. The sort of jobs beyond my limited DIY resources and each time the repair has exceeded my expectations and good value too. Every visit it's not unusual to see Ferraris, Porsches and even MGBs and other exotica
being repaired. I showed the estimates after he had looked at the car and he had a good laugh. He also pointed out a large sign on his office wall explaining in some detail that folks should not take the actions and words of Motor Insurance Company Claims operatives as Gospel. Amen to that. His firm is of course also approved by some Motor Insurers. His far more realistic estimate was for HALF the book value of the car. I submitted that estimate to those handling our claim and after a number of further phone calls, they agreed to pay for the repairs, remove CAT bovine excrement write off marker but, get this, they would not guarantee the work as it would not be done by one of their approved repair firms. Their approved firms had both prepared quotes to write it off! Pathetic.It was as though their "approved" repair outfits had an arrangement to whenever possible, write a car off as that way is both expeditious and reduces claim overall handling costs which of course is more than just the cost of repair/write off. Surely not
Anyway, our superbly reliable MG ZS lives on and is still a delight to drive. Here's the repaired car. Can you see the join ...
:~And the moral of your story is what exactly? Clearly the damage as assessed by two repairers said it was a write off, which isn't a surprise on an old car. Another one, that you went to didn't see it as a write off, which is the outcome that you wanted.
I don't see insurers saying "you know what, there's a cheap repair, but you know what let's spend five, ten or fifteen times that amount writing it off instead"
The irony here is that many also complain about cheap repairs being done on their car, when it should've been written off.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I don't see insurers saying "you know what, there's a cheap repair, but you know what let's spend five, ten or fifteen times that amount writing it off instead"
The irony here is that many also complain about cheap repairs being done on their car, when it should've been written off.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
LoonR1 said:
And the moral of your story is what exactly? Clearly the damage as assessed by two repairers said it was a write off, which isn't a surprise on an old car. Another one, that you went to didn't see it as a write off, which is the outcome that you wanted.
I don't see insurers saying "you know what, there's a cheap repair, but you know what let's spend five, ten or fifteen times that amount writing it off instead"
The irony here is that many also complain about cheap repairs being done on their car, when it should've been written off.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Pointless any exchanges with you with a stance like that. Do you really need a verbal diagram to explain words like "expedient" and "arrangements" with "approved" repair firms?I don't see insurers saying "you know what, there's a cheap repair, but you know what let's spend five, ten or fifteen times that amount writing it off instead"
The irony here is that many also complain about cheap repairs being done on their car, when it should've been written off.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
My car was not cheaply repaired. It was repaired to a high standard at a reasonable cost one quarter of the "approved" firms convenient write off quotes. Who knew? Spot the differences if you can from your blinkered vested interest viewpoint.
MGJohn said:
Pointless any exchanges with you with a stance like that. Do you really need a verbal diagram to explain words like "expedient" and "arrangements" with "approved" repair firms?
My car was not cheaply repaired. It was repaired to a high standard at a reasonable cost one quarter of the "approved" firms convenient write off quotes. Who knew? Spot the differences if you can from your blinkered vested interest viewpoint.
Let's have another go then. An insurers approved repairer is one who is either owned by the insurer, where the insurer has bought a load of the repair capacity at a fixed price, or has agreed rates for repair in place. None of those give them the option to screw the price up that they will charge the insurer and all of them are done at a rate that helps the insurer control costs. My car was not cheaply repaired. It was repaired to a high standard at a reasonable cost one quarter of the "approved" firms convenient write off quotes. Who knew? Spot the differences if you can from your blinkered vested interest viewpoint.
Now explain to me again why an either wholly owned subsidiary that's run as a non-profit operation, or a repairer where the prices are contractually fixed could or would overcharge the insurer.
What you've got, is a car where the repair should have cost over 60% of the pre accident value. However, you've managed to find someone who will repair it for less, either as a favour, or as a way for them to keep the cash flowing even if it is less cash than it should be. That's fine. But don't slate the insurer for what they did.
Edited by LoonR1 on Friday 3rd July 00:42
LoonR1 said:
MGJohn said:
Pointless any exchanges with you with a stance like that. Do you really need a verbal diagram to explain words like "expedient" and "arrangements" with "approved" repair firms?
My car was not cheaply repaired. It was repaired to a high standard at a reasonable cost one quarter of the "approved" firms convenient write off quotes. Who knew? Spot the differences if you can from your blinkered vested interest viewpoint.
Let's have another go then. An insurers approved repairer is one who is either owned by the insurer, where the insurer has bought a load of the repair capacity at a fixed price, or has agreed rates for repair in place. None of those give them the option to screw the price up that they will charge the insurer and all of them are done at a rate that helps the insurer control costs. My car was not cheaply repaired. It was repaired to a high standard at a reasonable cost one quarter of the "approved" firms convenient write off quotes. Who knew? Spot the differences if you can from your blinkered vested interest viewpoint.
Now explain to me again why an either wholly owned subsidiary that's run as a non-profit operation, or a repairer where the prices are contractually fixed could or would overcharge the insurer.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff