protected no claims discount
Discussion
davek_964 said:
For what it's worth, I had a fault claim 4 or 5 years ago - with protected NCD, but I still expected my premium to go up the following year. It didn't - in fact, it went down - so sometimes it seems to work OK.
It works OK every time. If you have protected bonus, you WILL received a bigger discount off the accident loaded premium that you would have got without protected bonus.The fact that some people see the words "protected bonus" and think they've read the words "price lock guarantee" has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the product, but more to do with their complete idiocy.
davek_964 said:
For what it's worth, I had a fault claim 4 or 5 years ago - with protected NCD, but I still expected my premium to go up the following year. It didn't - in fact, it went down - so sometimes it seems to work OK.
It always 'works' provided you understand what it is designed to do, which quite a few people on this thread clearly do not!TwigtheWonderkid said:
It works OK every time. If you have protected bonus, you WILL received a bigger discount off the accident loaded premium that you would have got without protected bonus.
The fact that some people see the words "protected bonus" and think they've read the words "price lock guarantee" has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the product, but more to do with their complete idiocy.
The fact that some people see the words "protected bonus" and think they've read the words "price lock guarantee" has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the product, but more to do with their complete idiocy.
I also think it's important to note that the NCD does not necessarily always come off at the end of the calculation. Depending on the company, the NCD is applied at different stages in the premium calculation, meaning that it's not as cut-and-dry as £1,000 without 60% so £400 with.
If I recall from my time with The AA MANY years ago, the NCD was applied about 2/3rds of the way through. So in reality your NCD of 60% is not gross to the calculated premium, but a 60% discount applied at an arbitrary point before any other loadings re applied.
If I recall from my time with The AA MANY years ago, the NCD was applied about 2/3rds of the way through. So in reality your NCD of 60% is not gross to the calculated premium, but a 60% discount applied at an arbitrary point before any other loadings re applied.
PhantomPH said:
I also think it's important to note that the NCD does not necessarily always come off at the end of the calculation. Depending on the company, the NCD is applied at different stages in the premium calculation, meaning that it's not as cut-and-dry as £1,000 without 60% so £400 with.
If I recall from my time with The AA MANY years ago, the NCD was applied about 2/3rds of the way through. So in reality your NCD of 60% is not gross to the calculated premium, but a 60% discount applied at an arbitrary point before any other loadings re applied.
It is not really an 'arbitrary point', it would normally be applied to the risk premium (given what NCD is trying to achieve). Of course that risk premium methodology could differ by insurance company.If I recall from my time with The AA MANY years ago, the NCD was applied about 2/3rds of the way through. So in reality your NCD of 60% is not gross to the calculated premium, but a 60% discount applied at an arbitrary point before any other loadings re applied.
sidicks said:
PhantomPH said:
I also think it's important to note that the NCD does not necessarily always come off at the end of the calculation. Depending on the company, the NCD is applied at different stages in the premium calculation, meaning that it's not as cut-and-dry as £1,000 without 60% so £400 with.
If I recall from my time with The AA MANY years ago, the NCD was applied about 2/3rds of the way through. So in reality your NCD of 60% is not gross to the calculated premium, but a 60% discount applied at an arbitrary point before any other loadings re applied.
It is not really an 'arbitrary point', it would normally be applied to the risk premium (given what NCD is trying to achieve). Of course that risk premium methodology could differ by insurance company.If I recall from my time with The AA MANY years ago, the NCD was applied about 2/3rds of the way through. So in reality your NCD of 60% is not gross to the calculated premium, but a 60% discount applied at an arbitrary point before any other loadings re applied.
Because it can be at different stages in the calculation, it can appear a if at the whim of the company itself.PhantomPH said:
The 'arbitrary' was more of a dig at the insurance companies, tbh. Because it can be at different stages in the calculation, it can appear a if at the whim of the company itself.
I know exactly what you meant. My point was that, whilst it might appear to be 'arbitrary', in practice it is not (but certainly the same people who don't understand what a NCD is and how it works, will also be confused why the premium does not reduce in the way you explained). Because it can be at different stages in the calculation, it can appear a if at the whim of the company itself.Edited by sidicks on Monday 27th February 14:39
I have always gone for protected NCD.
When I used to use the comparison sites, I'd always enter the same details with and without my full NCD and the NCD always gave a genuine 60-70% discount over the base premium so that must be worth it in my opinion.
I totally agree that unreasonable weightings for fault (or non-fault) claims can make the base premium rise even more, but I'd still rather have the discount protected rather than face losing that and getting a double hike the next year.
It is only a relatively small percentage uplift on my premium.
When I used to use the comparison sites, I'd always enter the same details with and without my full NCD and the NCD always gave a genuine 60-70% discount over the base premium so that must be worth it in my opinion.
I totally agree that unreasonable weightings for fault (or non-fault) claims can make the base premium rise even more, but I'd still rather have the discount protected rather than face losing that and getting a double hike the next year.
It is only a relatively small percentage uplift on my premium.
kingston12 said:
I have always gone for protected NCD.
When I used to use the comparison sites, I'd always enter the same details with and without my full NCD and the NCD always gave a genuine 60-70% discount over the base premium so that must be worth it in my opinion.
I totally agree that unreasonable weightings for fault (or non-fault) claims can make the base premium rise even more, but I'd still rather have the discount protected rather than face losing that and getting a double hike the next year.
It is only a relatively small percentage uplift on my premium.
'Unreasonable' in whose opinion?When I used to use the comparison sites, I'd always enter the same details with and without my full NCD and the NCD always gave a genuine 60-70% discount over the base premium so that must be worth it in my opinion.
I totally agree that unreasonable weightings for fault (or non-fault) claims can make the base premium rise even more, but I'd still rather have the discount protected rather than face losing that and getting a double hike the next year.
It is only a relatively small percentage uplift on my premium.
kingston12 said:
I have always gone for protected NCD.
When I used to use the comparison sites, I'd always enter the same details with and without my full NCD and the NCD always gave a genuine 60-70% discount over the base premium so that must be worth it in my opinion.
I totally agree that unreasonable weightings for fault (or non-fault) claims can make the base premium rise even more, but I'd still rather have the discount protected rather than face losing that and getting a double hike the next year.
It is only a relatively small percentage uplift on my premium.
Good god....you understand how it works. That's 3 of us so far! When I used to use the comparison sites, I'd always enter the same details with and without my full NCD and the NCD always gave a genuine 60-70% discount over the base premium so that must be worth it in my opinion.
I totally agree that unreasonable weightings for fault (or non-fault) claims can make the base premium rise even more, but I'd still rather have the discount protected rather than face losing that and getting a double hike the next year.
It is only a relatively small percentage uplift on my premium.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The fact that some people see the words "protected bonus" and think they've read the words "price lock guarantee" has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the product, but more to do with their complete idiocy.
No. It has to do with naivete. Also because you understand something and others possibly far more intelligent than you don't doesn't put you in a position to judge them.
popeyewhite said:
No.
It has to do with naivete. Also because you understand something and others possibly far more intelligent than you don't doesn't put you in a position to judge them.
I suggest that, with all your talk about 'con men', 'lying and cheating', and 'thieving bIt has to do with naivete. Also because you understand something and others possibly far more intelligent than you don't doesn't put you in a position to judge them.
ds' etc, it was you doing the judging but from a position of ignorance!sidicks said:
popeyewhite said:
No.
It has to do with naivete. Also because you understand something and others possibly far more intelligent than you don't doesn't put you in a position to judge them.
I suggest that, with all your talk about 'con men', 'lying and cheating', and 'thieving bIt has to do with naivete. Also because you understand something and others possibly far more intelligent than you don't doesn't put you in a position to judge them.
ds' etc, it was you doing the judging but from a position of ignorance!No judgements on my part, just speaking for the naive motoring public who quite rightly think the motor insurance industry is run by lying, cheating, thieving con men b
ds. 
popeyewhite said:
If you're going to quote me at least read my post properly and try to recognise banter mixed with social observation. Here's some more:
Banter?!
popeyewhite said:
No judgements on my part, just speaking for the naive motoring public who quite rightly think the motor insurance industry is run by lying, cheating, thieving con men bds.
Given that most of the motoring public is as ill-informed as you on the subject under discussion, their (incorrect) opinions are fairly meaningless.ds. Now of course if there was actually something concrete that they could use to explain their opinions then we might actually have a sensible discussion, but in the meantime, clueless accusation by people ignorant of the topic they are discussing can rightfully be ignored!
sidicks said:
Given that most of the motoring public is as ill-informed as you on the subject under discussion, their (incorrect) opinions are fairly meaningless.
I'm sure your opinion means just as much to them, but I'm not convinced you actually know what 'opinion' actually is... .sidicks said:
Now of course if there was actually something concrete that they could use to explain their opinions then we might actually have a sensible discussion,
Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.Being an open forum, people can express their opinion based on fact or not, and whether you think it's sensible or not counts for very little.
sidicks said:
but in the meantime, clueless accusation by people ignorant of the topic they are discussing can rightfully be ignored!
Oh go and have your hissy then 
popeyewhite said:
Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Being an open forum, people can express their opinion based on fact or not, and whether you think it's sensible or not counts for very little.
Certainly - if people want to demonstrate how ignorant they are about a particular topic on an Internet forum, they certainly have a right to go do.Being an open forum, people can express their opinion based on fact or not, and whether you think it's sensible or not counts for very little.
Why they would want to do so, however, is a reasonable question...
We always go for protected - and we both have God possibly 20+ years NCD.
We pay
£330 ish each for an an S Max and a 535d given the above
Years ago when I have the Fiat Coupe I dropped from £1.2k down to £400 over a number of years I assume that was age and growing the NCD years at the time.
I think protected is about £20 extra on each car - I'd wager IF we had an accident the premium would jump by more than £20 so happy to pay up.
We pay
£330 ish each for an an S Max and a 535d given the above
Years ago when I have the Fiat Coupe I dropped from £1.2k down to £400 over a number of years I assume that was age and growing the NCD years at the time.
I think protected is about £20 extra on each car - I'd wager IF we had an accident the premium would jump by more than £20 so happy to pay up.
sidicks said:
Certainly - if people want to demonstrate how ignorant they are about a particular topic on an Internet forum, they certainly have a right to go do.
Well that's very kind of you 
sidicks said:
Why they would want to do so, however, is a reasonable question...
You're really struggling with the opinion thing aren't you.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff