Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.
Discussion
Haven't read the entire thread so this has probably already been said...
We had a non-fault claim (the car was parked - we weren't even in it!) - other driver accepted liability, all through their insurance... Our premium went up about 50%. We spoke to the lawyer working for our insurance company and were told we can't claim that off the other driver as it's too far removed from the actual claim, or something like that.
However - I did find that some insurance companies genuinely don't care about non-fault accidents. The one we went with is LV. They still took all the claim details but non-fault claims have no bearing on your premium.
We had a non-fault claim (the car was parked - we weren't even in it!) - other driver accepted liability, all through their insurance... Our premium went up about 50%. We spoke to the lawyer working for our insurance company and were told we can't claim that off the other driver as it's too far removed from the actual claim, or something like that.
However - I did find that some insurance companies genuinely don't care about non-fault accidents. The one we went with is LV. They still took all the claim details but non-fault claims have no bearing on your premium.
ALT F4 said:
IMO the non-fault claim should never be used as a cost factor in insurance quotes. As pointed out already, its because the system is unregulated that they can get away with it.
If only there was some kind of ombudsman to help in this "unregulated" industry:http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
ALT F4 said:
IMO the non-fault claim should never be used as a cost factor in insurance quotes. As pointed out already, its because the system is unregulated that they can get away with it.
Insurance is one of the most regulated industries in the country. The FCA impose very strict regulation on all aspects of the industry, and consumers are hugely protected under the TCF (treating customers fairly) regs.The fact is that some insurers have stats that show an increase in future risk for those involved in non fault claims, and this has been looked at by the FCA under TCF and they have passed it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Riley Blue said:
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).
Maths fail. You're using two different percentage calculation criteria. IPT went from 6 to 9.5%, which is not a 3.5% increase as you claim, it's a 58% increase. But as it's a 58% increase on only a small part of your premium, the overall premium has only risen 14.6%.bigbob77 said:
We had a non-fault claim (the car was parked - we weren't even in it!) - other driver accepted liability, all through their insurance... Our premium went up about 50%.
I had one a few years back - parked outside my house, and reversed into from the drive over the road. It increased my premium by more than a brace of three point photos.The OP is claiming it's tripling his premium.
EdEd said:
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.
...
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...
...
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...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Insurance is one of the most regulated industries in the country. The FCA impose very strict regulation on all aspects of the industry, and consumers are hugely protected under the TCF (treating customers fairly) regs.
The fact is that some insurers have stats that show an increase in future risk for those involved in non fault claims, and this has been looked at by the FCA under TCF and they have passed it.
I stand corrected on the amount of regulation - teaches me to blindly quote other poster's comments.The fact is that some insurers have stats that show an increase in future risk for those involved in non fault claims, and this has been looked at by the FCA under TCF and they have passed it.
But I do still have the question that if it is so regulated, then why can it be the case that non-fault claims are resulting in a loss to the non-faulted person?
Surely that shouldn't fall under the "treating customers fairly" clause(s) ?
Riley Blue said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Riley Blue said:
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).
Maths fail. You're using two different percentage calculation criteria. IPT went from 6 to 9.5%, which is not a 3.5% increase as you claim, it's a 58% increase. But as it's a 58% increase on only a small part of your premium, the overall premium has only risen 14.6%.The rest of that 14.6% increase comes from the base premium itself.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Insurance is one of the most regulated industries in the country. The FCA impose very strict regulation on all aspects of the industry, and consumers are hugely protected under the TCF (treating customers fairly) regs.
The fact is that some insurers have stats that show an increase in future risk for those involved in non fault claims, and this has been looked at by the FCA under TCF and they have passed it.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant...The fact is that some insurers have stats that show an increase in future risk for those involved in non fault claims, and this has been looked at by the FCA under TCF and they have passed it.
TooMany2cvs said:
Because, actuarially, they DO show a customer at increased risk.
But is this from totally independent data or is this via vested interest funded/compiled statistics?It is usually accepted that surveys, statistics and compiled data in the form of reports all needs to be funded, and the reason it is funded will be to demonstrate a cause/interest.
Would an independent company/body one day just suddenly fund such an activity for the fun of it?
Of course I once again stand to be corrected - I am asking these questions as I am wanting to further my knowledge on "the system".
TooMany2cvs said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
£35 and £3.50 I think you'll find.
If we're being absolutely precise, then £33 and £3.30.Thirty quid rather than a hundred quid or a fiver.
If it's £1000 including 9.5% ipt, it would have been £968.03 had the tax still been 6% so a £31.96 increase.
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.
If one company was massaging the data to show that a non-fault claim makes you more risky when you aren't then rest assured ALL the other companies would hoover up those customers in a matter of months.
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.
Grow up!!!
To the OP, this is a total nightmare for you and I am very sorry to hear about it.
Sadly, life isn't fair and the other regular moronic suggestion that "insurance puts you back in the situation before the crash" simply isn't true unfortunately.
Car Insurance makes NO PROFIT for almost all market participants.
It is RIDICULOUSLY competitive.
If one company was massaging the data to show that a non-fault claim makes you more risky when you aren't then rest assured ALL the other companies would hoover up those customers in a matter of months.
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.
Grow up!!!
To the OP, this is a total nightmare for you and I am very sorry to hear about it.
Sadly, life isn't fair and the other regular moronic suggestion that "insurance puts you back in the situation before the crash" simply isn't true unfortunately.
elvismiggell said:
2nd year of driving in an S3 and the premium was going to be £1350?!
Ruddy hell, I wish I'd been able to find a rate like that 10 years ago!
I think this is the issue - the insurance company took a punt in the first year with a low quote to see what happens. OP suffers a "no-fault" claim. Insurance co. begins to wonder if the OP did something to contribute to the crash and so premium increases to where it would be normally. When I had a no-fault claim a few years ago my policy only went up by the normal increase you get when you stay with the same company - a quick shop-around found somewhere cheaper.Ruddy hell, I wish I'd been able to find a rate like that 10 years ago!
ALT F4 said:
Of course I once again stand to be corrected - I am asking these questions as I am wanting to further my knowledge on "the system".
Do you think all the insurance companies get together and say to each other..."We know there is no change in risk for a non-fault claim but let's pretend there is and rip them off!" <evil laugh, strokes cat>
Or do you think they have ALL looked at the data independently and reached the same conclusion... namely if you have one non-fault claim, you tend to have more claims?
For your preposterous "actuarial statistics are wrong" hypothesis to be right, it needs an anti-competitive cartel that would surely drive super-normal profits and higher-than-justified returns on investment.
Both of which are empirically false.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
TooMany2cvs said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
£35 and £3.50 I think you'll find.
If we're being absolutely precise, then £33 and £3.30.Thirty quid rather than a hundred quid or a fiver.
If it's £1000 including 9.5% ipt, it would have been £968.03 had the tax still been 6% so a £31.96 increase.
Vaud said:
But think through the consequences of people being able to fully recover future increased premium costs. Guess what, it would drive up everyones premiums...
Not if they loaded it all onto the premiums of the people who actually cause the accidents and leave everyone else alone.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff