Non fault claim - affecting my insurance premiums

[itcaptainslow]

Chap called Mo-his company is called 'No Mo Dents' (do you see what he did there?), the number I have for him is 07973337269. I've used him several times and each time I've been very happy with his work.

[stuart313]

98elise said:

ikarl said:

It's ridiculous though.. Why should ayone be out of pocket by any amount when someone hits their car and fully admitted liability?!

Because the insurance company has evidence to show that someone who has been involved in accident (regardless of the fault), is more likely to be claiming again soon. Its not the accident they are concerned about, its what that says about your future risk/cost to them.

There will be some people involved who truly have not increased their risk, but that's what happens when insurance is based on risk groups than individual risk.

You see, this is obviously bks on the part of the insurance industry. If you are a claimer then you are perceived as an increased risk in their eyes, yet they tell you to report every accident to them no matter how small. Surely if you do a cash deal then you wont put a claim in which means you are statistically less likely to make a future claim, isn't this what they want.

[V8forweekends]

Shiela Hancock has just been on Radio 5 - two non-fault incidents (one not claimed for at all) in 63 years ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sheila-ha...

[BORN2bWILD]

With 40+ years dealing with insurance companies I know only to well how they rob the motorist and repair shops.

Fair play is not their game, profit is.

And don't be fooled by the BS about the few dodgy claims some people make, staged accidents and whiplash etc etc, for every one of them there is 100 examples of an insurance company ripping the insured driver off.

I just helped a 75yr old lady out, her low mileage wheelchair converted Kangoo was valued at £1300, they wanted to write it off and give her the car back plus £975 with the vehicle recorded as a cat D total loss meaning her future premiums would most likely go up.

She was put under pressure to call back by 1800hrs and accept the offer, she was confused and distressed.

I spoke with the insurance company and they agreed with my valuation of the vehicle, £2,200!

She had an estimate for £1200, I repaired it for £950 as a contract price and obviously it was never really a write off.

TV programs are propaganda and BS to hopefully make the public feel sorry for them as we are all ripping them off with dodgy claims and high repair costs from bodyshops... well just take a look at their profits to know the truth.

[Aretnap]

V8forweekends said:

Shiela Hancock has just been on Radio 5 - two non-fault incidents (one not claimed for at all) in 63 years ....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sheila-ha...

I'm always amused by the "in 63 years" type comments. Why would anybody think that the way someone drove as a teenager on the empty roads of the early 1950s has any bearing on the risk they pose now as a pensioner. And I imagine if she'd had an accident in 1952 and was still being charged extra because of it, that would be a cause of outrage as well. There are good reasons why insurers are only interested in 3-5 years of claims history.

She's had two accidents in the last two years. That would make me nervous about insuring her as well. Fortunately she can shop around and find someone who isn't so nervous, and get insurance for half what Admiral wanted to charge. Isn't the free market wonderful.

[V8forweekends]

Aretnap said:

I'm always amused by the "in 63 years" type comments. Why would anybody think that the way someone drove as a teenager on the empty roads of the early 1950s has any bearing on the risk they pose now as a pensioner. And I imagine if she'd had an accident in 1952 and was still being charged extra because of it, that would be a cause of outrage as well. There are good reasons why insurers are only interested in 3-5 years of claims history.

Fair points, well made.

Aretnap said:

She's had two accidents in the last two years. That would make me nervous about insuring her as well.

Why?

Aretnap said:

Fortunately she can shop around and find someone who isn't so nervous, and get insurance for half what Admiral wanted to charge. Isn't the free market wonderful.

A fair point - up to a point. There are a number of reasons why it's not exactly a free market (including the fact that Insurance is compulsory), but it's good she has choices.

[LoonR1]

BORN2bWILD said:

With 40+ years dealing with insurance companies I know only to well how they rob the motorist and repair shops.

Fair play is not their game, profit is.

And don't be fooled by the BS about the few dodgy claims some people make, staged accidents and whiplash etc etc, for every one of them there is 100 examples of an insurance company ripping the insured driver off.

I just helped a 75yr old lady out, her low mileage wheelchair converted Kangoo was valued at £1300, they wanted to write it off and give her the car back plus £975 with the vehicle recorded as a cat D total loss meaning her future premiums would most likely go up.

She was put under pressure to call back by 1800hrs and accept the offer, she was confused and distressed.

I spoke with the insurance company and they agreed with my valuation of the vehicle, £2,200!

She had an estimate for £1200, I repaired it for £950 as a contract price and obviously it was never really a write off.

TV programs are propaganda and BS to hopefully make the public feel sorry for them as we are all ripping them off with dodgy claims and high repair costs from bodyshops... well just take a look at their profits to know the truth.

What profits? Look at car insurance and there isn't an underwriting profit to be seen in two decades. There's a reasonable amount of profit made internationally across multiple lines, none of which are car insurance.

Anyway, in 20 years of dealing with the shoddy repairs carried out by body shops, who are only in it for profit, I've seen some real Cowboys. In fact the whole repair industry is corrupt, what with doing deals with mates and overcharging insurers for basic work.

[LoonR1]

V8forweekends said:

Aretnap said:

She's had two accidents in the last two years. That would make me nervous about insuring her as well.

Why?

Because in the simplest sense, she is showing that her driving ability is starting to deteriorate. No claims in 63 years then 2 in 2 years is potentially the start of an expensive trend. Speaking from personal experience de alone, my Dad had never crashed his car since learning to drove and was very proud of that. However, in the last 10 years (he's 83) his driving has deteriorated to a level that my brothers and I are working out how to get him to give his licence up. His car is full of dings and scrapes, his NCD disappeared long ago and he's not a good risk for any insurer. In fact by putting me on his insurance saved him £300 this year alone, which shows how high his premium has now got

[AA999]

JustinP1 said:

Now you've had an incident, no matter how minor, you are statistically more likely to have an accident than someone who never claims at all.

Is that clearly what the statistics show?

Its funny because I had an insurance guy on the phone on other week trying to flog me legal protection and other add ons. I mentioned that I've never been involved in an accident and never made any claims in my 20 year driving history so I see no reason to have the add-ons..... his reply was that "given that just about everyone will have an accident at some point in their driving 'career', you are becoming more likely to have an accident in the future, given the remaining years you have left to drive".

The argument can be used either way seemingly by insurance companies to suit their desire of generating cash income. (irrespective of any meaningful statistics maybe?)

[ikarl]

and this is what I struggle to understand.

I was parked somewhere I will not be visiting again, total 1-off, I wasn't even at my car and another car put a tiny mark on my door, they contacted their insurance company and even though they won't be claiming....and I wasn't wanting to claim their insurance company for any damage, my insurance and their insurance is going up.

How am I an increased risk of another 'incident' and claiming when I wasn't even wanting to claim for this one.... well, I wasn't going to, now I may as well claim because I'm screwed if I do, screwed if I don't.

[Mr2Mike]

AA999 said:

The argument can be used either way seemingly by insurance companies to suit their desire of generating cash income. (irrespective of any meaningful statistics maybe?)

Of course it can, you can use statistics to show (or excuse) almost anything you want.

[spats]

LoonR1 said:

20 years of dealing with the shoddy repairs carried out by body shops, who are only in it for profit, I've seen some real Cowboys. In fact the whole repair industry is corrupt, what with doing deals with mates and overcharging insurers for basic work.

Considering insurance companies will tell their customers where the repairs will or wont be happening, to hear that in 20 years you've yet to find a decent shop hints that insurance companies are always picking the cheapest shoddiest shops they can find to actually do the work.


To the OP, I feel your pain. Ive been stung for being honest when having accidents when I was younger, and more recently stung with shoddy insurance companies and their over inflated admin costs. Next time if its a small mark just walk away its cheaper and less hassle to not get the insurance companies involved, which is probably the way they want it.

[LoonR1]

spats said:

LoonR1 said:

20 years of dealing with the shoddy repairs carried out by body shops, who are only in it for profit, I've seen some real Cowboys. In fact the whole repair industry is corrupt, what with doing deals with mates and overcharging insurers for basic work.

Considering insurance companies will tell their customers where the repairs will or wont be happening, to hear that in 20 years you've yet to find a decent shop hints that insurance companies are always picking the cheapest shoddiest shops they can find to actually do the work.


To the OP, I feel your pain. Ive been stung for being honest when having accidents when I was younger, and more recently stung with shoddy insurance companies and their over inflated admin costs. Next time if its a small mark just walk away its cheaper and less hassle to not get the insurance companies involved, which is probably the way they want it.

What you might want to consider is that I was being more than a little sarcastic in that comment. It was a direct response to the other poster who tarred the whole industry as shysters in one hit.

[V8forweekends]

LoonR1 said:

Because in the simplest sense, she is showing that her driving ability is starting to deteriorate. No claims in 63 years then 2 in 2 years is potentially the start of an expensive trend. Speaking from personal experience de alone, my Dad had never crashed his car since learning to drove and was very proud of that. However, in the last 10 years (he's 83) his driving has deteriorated to a level that my brothers and I are working out how to get him to give his licence up. His car is full of dings and scrapes, his NCD disappeared long ago and he's not a good risk for any insurer. In fact by putting me on his insurance saved him £300 this year alone, which shows how high his premium has now got

Obviously I don't know the exact details (NSS!) but according to her, the more serious one was where all her costs were paid by the TP and the other driver was prosecuted - hard to see how that's down to her deteriorating ability (if true).

The other one was a bloke who scraped her car going around Hyde Park corner and she decided not to claim for but reported to her insurer all the same.

I accept that older drivers are more risky and get charged more - but her Insurer said it was due to her non-fault incidents (hence adding it to this thread) not her age.

Seems a weak excuse - a bloke was on later saying that if you have a couple of non-fault bashes it might mean your pattern of driving takes you to busy places with lots of crap drivers - but it's all based on manky logic and supposition if that's all there is.

[LoonR1]

V8forweekends said:

Obviously I don't know the exact details (NSS!) but according to her, the more serious one was where all her costs were paid by the TP and the other driver was prosecuted - hard to see how that's down to her deteriorating ability (if true).

The other one was a bloke who scraped her car going around Hyde Park corner and she decided not to claim for but reported to her insurer all the same.

I accept that older drivers are more risky and get charged more - but her Insurer said it was due to her non-fault incidents (hence adding it to this thread) not her age.

Seems a weak excuse - a bloke was on later saying that if you have a couple of non-fault bashes it might mean your pattern of driving takes you to busy places with lots of crap drivers - but it's all based on manky logic and supposition if that's all there is.

You're absolutely right. If only there was a way for insurers to get data fed back to them around your specific driving style.....................

Oh look it's the "I want a bespoke policy tailored exclusively to the way I drive, but I won't have the very thing that could do just that installed in my car." debate.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ikarl said:

and this is what I struggle to understand.

I was parked somewhere I will not be visiting again, total 1-off,

But they don't know that. They just know you've had a non fault claim. Take 100 people who've had a claim like yours, and maybe 20% of them will have been hit in their company car park, that they use daily.

So those 100 with the 20 who have a dodgy work car park have a higher risk of a repeat performance as a group than 100 people who have never claimed. Because the fact that they've never claimed shows they probably don't have 20 people in their group who use a dodgy car park, maybe only 10 or 5.

It's pretty obvious if you strip out the emotion of it being you and just look at it logically.

[BORN2bWILD]

LoonR1 said:

What you might want to consider is that I was being more than a little sarcastic in that comment. It was a direct response to the other poster who tarred the whole industry as shysters in one hit.

The way you decided ALL repair shops were cowboys and ripping people off you mean?

Always love the hypocrites who talk out there backsides and have double standards on these forums.

[BORN2bWILD]

[quote=LoonR1]

What profits? Look at car insurance and there isn't an underwriting profit to be seen in two decades. There's a reasonable amount of profit made internationally across multiple lines, none of which are car insurance.

What profits?... what planet you on?

AVIVA and AXA should ‘come clean’ on their car insurance profits, says Thompsons Solicitors

The failure of two of the big four car insurers to divulge separate trading figures for motor insurance sales in the UK appears to be a clear breach of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), according to a new report published today by Thompsons Solicitors.

AVIVA and AXA do not reveal the profit they make from UK motorists, but close scrutiny of their group accounts by Thompsons suggests car insurance contributes more than 10% of their overall profit – triggering a requirement under IFRS to divulge the figures separately.

“At a time when there is intense debate about the cost of motor insurance, the public has a right to know how much profit the car insurers are making,” said Tom Jones, Head of Policy at Thompsons.

“We know from published accounts that Direct Line and Admiral have been enjoying a profits boom and have paid £478m in dividends to shareholders in the last 12 months alone – equivalent to £63 for each of their 7.6 million policy holders.

“Whilst the Direct Line and Admiral dividends are outrageous at a time that the industry says it is in crisis, AXA and AVIVA won’t even divulge their profit figures. They are so secretive they only make passing mention in shareholder communications of ‘good’ or ‘improving’ profitability in the UK car insurance market.

“AVIVA and AXA can’t have it both ways. They complain endlessly about ‘compensation culture’ and ‘whiplash fraud’ and demand government measures that would hit access to proper justice for injured people with genuine claims. Yet, at the same time, they are not prepared to come clean on how lucrative this captive market is for them.”

The new Thompsons report on car insurance, which has been submitted to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee, proposes measures to ensure greater accountability and transparency to protect consumers in a market now dominated by four major players. The measures include:

Setting minimum product and service standards
Proper disclosure of financial and trading information
Independent information for accident victims on their legal rights

[LoonR1]

BORN2bWILD said:

LoonR1 said:

What you might want to consider is that I was being more than a little sarcastic in that comment. It was a direct response to the other poster who tarred the whole industry as shysters in one hit.

The way you decided ALL repair shops were cowboys and ripping people off you mean?

Always love the hypocrites who talk out there backsides and have double standards on these forums.

Are you really this thick? I paraphrased your piss poor rant. That's all.

[LoonR1]

BORN2bWILD said:

What profits?... what planet you on?

AVIVA and AXA should ‘come clean’ on their car insurance profits, says Thompsons Solicitors

The failure of two of the big four car insurers to divulge separate trading figures for motor insurance sales in the UK appears to be a clear breach of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), according to a new report published today by Thompsons Solicitors.

AVIVA and AXA do not reveal the profit they make from UK motorists, but close scrutiny of their group accounts by Thompsons suggests car insurance contributes more than 10% of their overall profit – triggering a requirement under IFRS to divulge the figures separately.

“At a time when there is intense debate about the cost of motor insurance, the public has a right to know how much profit the car insurers are making,” said Tom Jones, Head of Policy at Thompsons.

“We know from published accounts that Direct Line and Admiral have been enjoying a profits boom and have paid £478m in dividends to shareholders in the last 12 months alone – equivalent to £63 for each of their 7.6 million policy holders.

“Whilst the Direct Line and Admiral dividends are outrageous at a time that the industry says it is in crisis, AXA and AVIVA won’t even divulge their profit figures. They are so secretive they only make passing mention in shareholder communications of ‘good’ or ‘improving’ profitability in the UK car insurance market.

“AVIVA and AXA can’t have it both ways. They complain endlessly about ‘compensation culture’ and ‘whiplash fraud’ and demand government measures that would hit access to proper justice for injured people with genuine claims. Yet, at the same time, they are not prepared to come clean on how lucrative this captive market is for them.”

The new Thompsons report on car insurance, which has been submitted to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee, proposes measures to ensure greater accountability and transparency to protect consumers in a market now dominated by four major players. The measures include:

Setting minimum product and service standards
Proper disclosure of financial and trading information
Independent information for accident victims on their legal rights

I'm right here on planet Earth and not quoting Unite's pet solicitors. Here's an independent review

http://www.towerswatson.com/en-GB/Insights/IC-Type...

Loads more if you google "motor insurance losses 20nn" pick a year, any year.