Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

walm said:

Apologies for sounding angry but the tinfoil hattedness is a little depressing sometimes.

Agreed.

What I don't get is that the OP is saying he can't get a quote below £3500. And this is ridiculous. If he's right, and the non fault claim does not make him a higher risk, and he is being ripped off, then why can't he get a lower quote from anyone? Surely if the true risk was only £1500, then someone would offer to do it for £3K and make a killing. Then someone else would undercut them at £2500. And £2K. Eventually arriving at a price where they could cover the risk and still make some money.

In fact, why isn't there an insurance company marketing themselves as a specialist insurer for non fault accident victims. If the PH massive are right, they would clean up, charging no additional premium to people in that position.

Maybe some on hear should put their money where their mouth is. Start an insurance company for young drivers with high performance cars with a non fault claim on their record, and undercut everyone else. See how much money you make?

[Soov535]

eztiger said:

I don't know anyone budgeting for a car that even considers a *fault* claim and what it does to insurance.

These are the same pricks who haven't considered what will happen when interest rates go up and they can't afford their mortgages any more. The same pricks who will demand that the gubberment helps them when they do.

Idiocy. This country is full of entitled cretins.

[eztiger]

Soov535 said:

These are the same pricks who haven';t considered what will happen when interest rates go up and they can't afford their mortgages any more. The same pricks who will demand that the gubberment helps them when they do.

Idiocy. This country is full of cretins.

Hand on your heart - from your first ever car onwards, you've always budgeted your insurance costs based around what would happen if you had a fault claim on your record?

Where do you stop? One fault in the lifecycle of the car? Two? Three? Full write off or just a windscreen claim?

My hats genuinely off to you if you have.

[walm]

eztiger said:

walm said:

It is literally the opposite of dysfunctional. It's a highly efficient market... hence the low profits.

So they do make a profit then?

Your previous post said they didn't. In big capitals no less.

They weren't big capitals, just regular ones.
And you missed the "almost all" after them!

I have already explained the transparency - there's loads - it's a non-issue.

I think people might be struggling to follow my argument.
I will try to clarify.

The TFHs (tin-foil-hatters) are suggesting the following:
- A non-fault claim makes no difference to your risk levels.
- Insurance companies know this but raise your premium anyway.
- Hence, for those policies they make higher-than-normal profits.

My counter is that the industry DOESN'T make higher-than-normal profits. Therefore, either the non-fault hike is justified OR the industry is somehow blowing those extra profits on something else such as a bloated infrastructure or excessive management remuneration... (at ALL companies, don't forget).

But the latter isn't possible because, barriers to entry are low, scale matters, innovations spread rapidly across the industry and pricing is usually very similar at the low-end.
These are all characteristics of a COMPETITIVE market.

It is literally nonsense to claim that there is some bizarre conspiracy on one very tiny carve out of the market AND that the market is competitive. Those two premises are inconsistent. It's that simple.

Sadly for you it isn't worth insurance companies running a huge marketing campaign to explain the facts because as people keep pointing out, insurance is compulsory, not optional. So pretty much ALL the time, people just want the cheapest.
How much more or less they hate the industry as a whole is irrelevant to their purchase decision.
This isn't L'Oreal trying to shake the animal-testing reputation for a discretionary item.

[Soov535]

eztiger said:

Soov535 said:

These are the same pricks who haven';t considered what will happen when interest rates go up and they can't afford their mortgages any more. The same pricks who will demand that the gubberment helps them when they do.

Idiocy. This country is full of cretins.

Hand on your heart - from your first ever car onwards, you've always budgeted your insurance costs based around what would happen if you had a fault claim on your record?

Where do you stop? One fault in the lifecycle of the car? Two? Three? Full write off or just a windscreen claim?

My hats genuinely off to you if you have.

Of course I did, up until the point where I was old enough and well off enough to not care.

When I was in my 20s I ran a car that I could afford to insure, and would be able to continue to insure if I stacked it or someone stacked me.

I planned ahead, and build some slack into my finances.

I did NOT go out and spend every last penny on a car I could only just afford, and would not be able to insure if something happened.

[walm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

In fact, why isn't there an insurance company marketing themselves as a specialist insurer for non fault accident victims. If the PH massive are right, they would clean up, charging no additional premium to people in that position.

The fact there isn't such a company is prima facie evidence that the TFHs are wrong.

[eztiger]

walm said:

They weren't big capitals, just regular ones.
And you missed the "almost all" after them!

No I saw that. But if you're going to put the words before them in capitals- that's the onus that's going to be taken from the sentence.

Making a sweeping definitive statement - then chucking in a 100% disclaimer in small print at the end isn't very useful.

walm said:

I have already explained the transparency - there's loads - it's a non-issue.

Well that's your opinion. My counter is the opinion of the general public (who, yes myself included are a bunch of idiots for the most part) would disagree. Sadly we're your customers for better or worse.

The statements of transparency all seem to come from people in the industry who would of course think that was the case!

walm said:

I think people might be struggling to follow my argument.
I will try to clarify.

I'm not sure that's the case. As with most things on PH these conversations end up black and white. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The lack of empathy on here for people who end up caught in the tangled web of insurance confusion always amazes me for a car site.

On the flip - the explanations from industry insiders who explain why things are the way they are make perfect sense. Don't have to like it, or even fully understand it - but that's the grey area in the middle of the 'conversation'.

I will however strongly stand by my assertion that the industry doesn't help itself. No one understands the implications of a 'no fault claim' (and the name itself is a misnomer as the statistics suggest you are at fault for being in the position to have the accident. And for driving a black car instead of maybe a more visible red car), how NCB bonuses and protections work or why the opening price of a renewal can be immediately cut by double figure percentages with a single phone call. Increase understanding and people would be better informed. My thought is it won't happen as it doesn't make the truth very nice or marketable.

walm said:

Sadly for you it isn't worth insurance companies running a huge marketing campaign to explain the facts because as people keep pointing out, insurance is compulsory, not optional. So pretty much ALL the time, people just want the cheapest.

They want the cheapest because they don't understand, and as a result, see the value in anything else. It's not sad for me - it's sad for the industry. Missing a trick perhaps? Though I imagine they will have crunched the numbers on that as well and come up with a firm disagreement.

As I said above - I'm not arguing against you form the industry side (I am about your capitalization debating tactic though ). Just trying to balance the usual black and white of these threads with the view of the punter caught in the middle.

As usual with these threads we're be stuck in the usual loop (I'm sure there is a template thread we could just copy and paste in) so I'll bow out. Hope my words have helped the OP feel a bit better even if there's not much to be done - in the same way I suspect your words have left him better informed for next time round (which, sadly is how I think most people learn the real way insurance works. See previous re: transparency).

[eztiger]

Soov535 said:

Of course I did, up until the point where I was old enough and well off enough to not care.

When I was in my 20s I ran a car that I could afford to insure, and would be able to continue to insure if I stacked it or someone stacked me.

I planned ahead, and build some slack into my finances.

I did NOT go out and spend every last penny on a car I could only just afford, and would not be able to insure if something happened.

Then my hat is firmly doffed. You are a rare breed (though we knew that anyway ).

[walm]

eztiger said:

Making a sweeping definitive statement - then chucking in a 100% disclaimer in small print at the end isn't very useful.

That's fair!

And I can't argue with your view from the perspective of a customer who feels wronged. I do get that.
It's just that with a minimum of digging people who care can perhaps see what might be happening from the industry side.

That said, I am NOT in the industry!
(I am a business analyst, I look at lots of different industries.)

[Soov535]

eztiger said:

Soov535 said:

Of course I did, up until the point where I was old enough and well off enough to not care.

When I was in my 20s I ran a car that I could afford to insure, and would be able to continue to insure if I stacked it or someone stacked me.

I planned ahead, and build some slack into my finances.

I did NOT go out and spend every last penny on a car I could only just afford, and would not be able to insure if something happened.

Then my hat is firmly doffed. You are a rare breed (though we knew that anyway ).

[TooMany2cvs]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

What I don't get is that the OP is saying he can't get a quote below £3500. And this is ridiculous. If he's right, and the non fault claim does not make him a higher risk, and he is being ripped off, then why can't he get a lower quote from anyone? Surely if the true risk was only £1500, then someone would offer to do it for £3K and make a killing. Then someone else would undercut them at £2500. And £2K. Eventually arriving at a price where they could cover the risk and still make some money.

In fact, why isn't there an insurance company marketing themselves as a specialist insurer for non fault accident victims. If the PH massive are right, they would clean up, charging no additional premium to people in that position.

Maybe some on hear should put their money where their mouth is. Start an insurance company for young drivers with high performance cars with a non fault claim on their record, and undercut everyone else. See how much money you make?

Dingly. fking. Dong.

[budgie smuggler]

Soov535 said:

Of course I did, up until the point where I was old enough and well off enough to not care.

When I was in my 20s I ran a car that I could afford to insure, and would be able to continue to insure if I stacked it or someone stacked me.

I planned ahead, and build some slack into my finances.

I did NOT go out and spend every last penny on a car I could only just afford, and would not be able to insure if something happened.

You'd be a bit silly to have no slack in your budget, but I doubt many people are really going to allow enough room to double or more their insurance costs. Especially when for many those costs are over £1K to begin with (even with a ropey car).

[Glasgowrob]

have a fault claim in the last 5 years along with a fault claim,

playing about on the compare the stuffed animal site seems to suggest that my non fault claim loads the premium more than my fault claim does.



pray tell how adding a non fault claim where someone rear ends you whilst your minding your own business makes your premium dearer than writing a car off and having a 15 grand claim?

I do understand that there are many complex and varied statistical models and all sorts of fancy algorithms to predict and value risk but this does leave a sour taste


ergo pistonheads, if your going to have an accident, make it A) your own fault and B) bloody expensive


just to add some perspective to the OP the 2 claims together added approx. £80 to my policy or about 30%

[bigbob77]

Glasgowrob said:

playing about on the compare the stuffed animal site seems to suggest that my non fault claim loads the premium more than my fault claim does.

Comparison sites give you options for claims which they send to all of the insurance companies to get quotes. The options they give you for non-fault claims don't necessarily match the options that each individual insurance company has. They freak out "NON STANDARD CLAIM" and inflate the price.

Try getting direct quotes. Some insurers (like LV) seem to handle claim information quite well.

[EdEd]

Thanks for all the input, and the gent above who tried it himself...

After trying every single (I can think off & what google says) comparison website, insurer and broker.... and also changing various inputs over and over again...and also going directly to insurers and trying their inputs etc.....and also phoning insurers etc....... the lowest I could get it down to was just over £2400....without the accident it would be, £1500. £900 increase due to a non fault accident. That's the best result I have got it down to today anyway.

Not bad at all for an S3 at 19, but £900 increase for a non fault accident and no claim made on my insurance, shocked.

[Soov535]

EdEd said:

Thanks for all the input, and the gent above who tried it himself...

After trying every single (I can think off & what google says) comparison website, insurer and broker.... and also changing various inputs over and over again...and also going directly to insurers and trying their inputs etc.....and also phoning insurers etc....... the lowest I could get it down to was just over £2400....without the accident it would be, £1500. £900 increase due to a non fault accident. That's the best result I have got it down to today anyway.

Not bad at all for an S3 at 19, but £900 increase for a non fault accident and no claim made on my insurance, shocked.

You have done well there.

Statistically you are more likely to have another claim now that you've had one already.

Not fair, not right, but that's the way it is!

[popeyewhite]

walm said:

To all the morons on here claiming OP is being "ripped off" and that the highly regulated industry "isn't regulated" and that it's "sharp practice", perhaps you should go and learn some market economics 101 before sounding any more like ill-educated idiots.

Car Insurance makes NO PROFIT for almost all market participants.
It is RIDICULOUSLY competitive.

Quite finished?

The Office of Fair Trading released recommendations to increase competitiveness in the private insurance market in 2014. It found numerous problems and concluded a change in law was really needed to make it properly competitive. This has yet to happen.

walm said:

The pathetic narrative that there is some kind of cartel behind insurance and that somehow compulsory insurance makes it anti-competitive (just like all those other compulsory things like tyres, fuel and servicing) is utterly shameful of this site, and plain ignorance.

You should calm down.

Private car insurance in the UK is a staggering rip off, only made possible because we're legally obliged to take motor insurance. Car insurance is not legally required in New Zealand: Because there is no captive market insurance is cheap. Some have car insurance, some don't. Somehow the NZ roads haven't yet turned to Mad Max 5 and civil society continues in an orderly fashion.

[58warren]

Im lucky in paying only £280 fully comp with protected NCD for an E39 M5; however I do currently live in a small village in N.E. Scotland, which probably helps!

Accident statistics used to calculate insurance premiums can be a pain - I've been driving since 1987 and was involved in a fatal RTC in 1991 in my company car, when a van drove around a bend and lost control at a well known accident black spot near Bromsgrove and destroyed the car in front of me, before ploughing into my now stationary vehicle. I couldn't take any evasive action to avoid the van hitting me as there was a very high 'Titan' kerb preventing me from steering onto the grass verge.

I never really got hammered by the insurance though when I bought my own car a year or so later despite declaring the accident, so I guess I was fortunate; however it seems somewhat unfair to penalise drivers who are not at fault and may have not even been driving it (parked up) when it was hit...

[Roo]

popeyewhite said:

Private car insurance in the UK is a staggering rip off, only made possible because we're legally obliged to take motor insurance. Car insurance is not legally required in New Zealand: Because there is no captive market insurance is cheap. Some have car insurance, some don't. Somehow the NZ roads haven't yet turned to Mad Max 5 and civil society continues in an orderly fashion.

I thought the NZ system was financially broken.

[heebeegeetee]

Soov535 said:

You have done well there.

Statistically you are more likely to have another claim now that you've had one already.

Not fair, not right, but that's the way it is!

Has he had a claim? Surely another person has had a claim, on another insurance policy, to repair the OP's car?