Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.
Discussion
A women crashed into the rear of my car whilst on the motorway last year. She admitted full liability, fault etc. All was done through her insurance. I am now going to renew my insurance and the prices have hiked from what was around £2000 last year to at least £3500 now through all comparison websites. I have tried all websites and companies. I even have 1 years no claims bonus....
This means I will have to sell my car.....
All of this for something what was not even my fault, how does the system work for this bulls
t?
Is there anything else I can do about this?
This means I will have to sell my car.....
All of this for something what was not even my fault, how does the system work for this bulls
t?Is there anything else I can do about this?
EdEd said:
how does the system work for this bullst?
It's called sharp practice and it works because the car insurance industry is largely unregulated. Because of the greed you describe some young men drive whilst uninsured. There can't be many who would say they didn't understand why.t?EdEd said:
I was insured through a company but they changed all their policies according to my insurance group so they would not insure my anymore due to the type of car I have and age.. That company was Zurich.
But others will insure you - just not for a price you think reasonable.Have you checked to see what it would be without that at-fault claim? Perhaps it's just risen for you generally.
Either way, the actuarial statistics say that somebody involved in a claim - even not-at-fault - is more likely to be involved in another claim. Ergo, they're higher risk.
TooMany2cvs said:
But others will insure you - just not for a price you think reasonable.
Have you checked to see what it would be without that at-fault claim? Perhaps it's just risen for you generally.
Either way, the actuarial statistics say that somebody involved in a claim - even not-at-fault - is more likely to be involved in another claim. Ergo, they're higher risk.
Yes true, I can get insured with quotes but not with what I can afford, therefore cannot get insured. 75% increase is not what anyone is going to pay in my personal opinion. £1500 increase.....Have you checked to see what it would be without that at-fault claim? Perhaps it's just risen for you generally.
Either way, the actuarial statistics say that somebody involved in a claim - even not-at-fault - is more likely to be involved in another claim. Ergo, they're higher risk.
Without the accident it would be £1350, with accident, quoted same company, 'over four and a half grand' he did not even bother saying the exact price...
EdEd said:
TooMany2cvs said:
But others will insure you - just not for a price you think reasonable.
Have you checked to see what it would be without that at-fault claim? Perhaps it's just risen for you generally.
Either way, the actuarial statistics say that somebody involved in a claim - even not-at-fault - is more likely to be involved in another claim. Ergo, they're higher risk.
Yes true, I can get insured with quotes but not with what I can afford, therefore cannot get insured. 75% increase is not what anyone is going to pay in my personal opinion. £1500 increase.....Have you checked to see what it would be without that at-fault claim? Perhaps it's just risen for you generally.
Either way, the actuarial statistics say that somebody involved in a claim - even not-at-fault - is more likely to be involved in another claim. Ergo, they're higher risk.
Without the accident it would be £1350, with accident, quoted same company, 'over four and a half grand' he did not even bother saying the exact price...
TooMany2cvs said:
Either way, the actuarial statistics say that somebody involved in a claim - even not-at-fault - is more likely to be involved in another claim.
Statistics can be made to show whatever you want. Feed results into a computer and ask the right questions and you'll get whatever you need. However as this relentless pursuit of money by some insurance companies continues many more people will find themselves losing the incentive to declare incidents, resulting in loss of revenue for providers. TooMany2cvs said:
Either way, the actuarial statistics say that somebody involved in a claim - even not-at-fault - is more likely to be involved in another claim. Ergo, they're higher risk.
Yes but in a lot of cases that seems grossly unfair. If you had 3 or 4 non-fault incidents then you might think something is amiss, e.g. the driver panic brakes at inopportune times. But a single non-fault raising the premium from £1,500 to over £4000 is ridiculous.
The insurance on one of my cars has risen by 14.6% this year. No accidents, no modifications, no change of any sort other than a 3.5% increase in IPT (Insurance Premium Tax). As a result, I'll be shopping around even though I could afford the increase if I had to. As you can't, a less expensive car to run would seem to be the only answer.
budgie smuggler said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Either way, the actuarial statistics say that somebody involved in a claim - even not-at-fault - is more likely to be involved in another claim. Ergo, they're higher risk.
Yes but in a lot of cases that seems grossly unfair. If you had 3 or 4 non-fault incidents then you might think something is amiss, e.g. the driver panic brakes at inopportune times. But a single non-fault raising the premium from £1,500 to over £4000 is ridiculous.
OP - how old are you and what vehicle do you have?
The thing is as I will have to put this on my policy for the next 5 years, it will haunt me till then...I have estimated what it would be next year, the following year etc on all various types of cars. The summary is I will be forced to drive a small, 'typical' first time drivers car until this is of my insurance unless I wish to pay the extortionate prices, bearing in mind I am not involved in another accident which is not my fault..... Don't understand how this is legal in all respects.
TooMany2cvs said:
Either way, the actuarial statistics say that somebody involved in a claim - even not-at-fault - is more likely to be involved in another claim. Ergo, they're higher risk.
I know it's the way it is, but I have never understood this logic. Yes, maybe a fault claim could result in another. However, a non-fault? Odd.I have had one non-fault claim. I was parked waiting at a junction. Someone drove into the side of my car as it was snowing and they didn't understand simple physics. They were also a banned drink driver at the time. The car was insured though.
According to the statistics, I am a higher risk driver.
Is this your Audi S3? I would Change insurer, clearly you no longer fit the demographic or risk profile your current insurer wants to do business with.
I had a 10k fault claim & then a 6k non fault claim 12 months later (on my company car insurance but still declared) My private policy at renewal went down bizarrely after the fault claim & was not impacted on with the non-fault claim the year after, lucky for me I did not have to change insurer but in preparation for a price hike when gathering quotes there were more that wanted an increased premium than those that it made no difference to.
At a guess you are either a new inexperienced driver or a young driver with a performance car which the Audi clearly is. Those insurance algorithms don't like that combo without the added statistical risk of an increase in accident risk. Start talking to specialist brokers who may be able to negotiate a sensible quote.
Can you insure it another way, say adding your mam/dad/partner to the policy or have them take the policy out with you as the primary driver? whatever you do don't tell porkies or get somebody to 'front' a policy for you because when you get caught even the cheapest st box corsa/fiesta/micra worth about 10p will cost you thousands to insure for years.
I had a 10k fault claim & then a 6k non fault claim 12 months later (on my company car insurance but still declared) My private policy at renewal went down bizarrely after the fault claim & was not impacted on with the non-fault claim the year after, lucky for me I did not have to change insurer but in preparation for a price hike when gathering quotes there were more that wanted an increased premium than those that it made no difference to.
At a guess you are either a new inexperienced driver or a young driver with a performance car which the Audi clearly is. Those insurance algorithms don't like that combo without the added statistical risk of an increase in accident risk. Start talking to specialist brokers who may be able to negotiate a sensible quote.
Can you insure it another way, say adding your mam/dad/partner to the policy or have them take the policy out with you as the primary driver? whatever you do don't tell porkies or get somebody to 'front' a policy for you because when you get caught even the cheapest s
t box corsa/fiesta/micra worth about 10p will cost you thousands to insure for years. Edited by shep1001 on Monday 11th April 17:28
EdEd said:
The thing is as I will have to put this on my policy for the next 5 years, it will haunt me till then...I have estimated what it would be next year, the following year etc on all various types of cars. The summary is I will be forced to drive a small, 'typical' first time drivers car until this is of my insurance unless I wish to pay the extortionate prices, bearing in mind I am not involved in another accident which is not my fault..... Don't understand how this is legal in all respects.
You will have to drive a "typical" first time driver's car. Either that or find the money.Rooney had a Vanquish at 18 - he could afford £50k a year with a £100k excess though.
Of course it's legal - no one is obliged to insure you.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff