protected no claims discount
Discussion
It`s a con
And here`s why.
I had 28yrs NCD. If I had a claim I would lose 3yrs ncd leaving me 25yrs, i.e Full ncd.
No point protecting it as I would get a loading regardless of blame. (utter con)
Fast forward to last year.
Companies now limit ncd to a max of 9 yrs, meaning you can never have more than max ncd and any claim loses most of it.
One company offers 15yrs ncd and one claim losed 11yrs of it !! (utter con.)
In any case, any claim results in heavy loading whether you protect it or not.
Insewerance companies are utter scum.
And here`s why.
I had 28yrs NCD. If I had a claim I would lose 3yrs ncd leaving me 25yrs, i.e Full ncd.
No point protecting it as I would get a loading regardless of blame. (utter con)
Fast forward to last year.
Companies now limit ncd to a max of 9 yrs, meaning you can never have more than max ncd and any claim loses most of it.
One company offers 15yrs ncd and one claim losed 11yrs of it !! (utter con.)
In any case, any claim results in heavy loading whether you protect it or not.
Insewerance companies are utter scum.
covmutley said:
I may be wrong, but I think when you protect your ncd it is with your current insurer.
When you inevitably get a higher quote for the next year and look to a new insurer, they will simply ask if you have been involved in any incidents and quote accordingly.
it is a con, your no claims is protected.. so if before you had the claim it was 60% it will still be 60% after the claim..however now you are a confirmed higher risk your basic premium will go up, lets say for example from £600 to £3000, you still get the 60% no claim discount on your new £3000 premium but your overall insurance has significantly increased as a result of your claim..bWhen you inevitably get a higher quote for the next year and look to a new insurer, they will simply ask if you have been involved in any incidents and quote accordingly.
ds the lot of them!!Brads67 said:
Insewerance companies are utter scum.
They are. But it has to be said there are a number of other businesses that will lie and cheat to get your money. The difference is, of course, you're not legally bound to use a mobile or take broadband or use a bank or buy from Bert's Second Hand Motors. It's not a con, but you have to understand what is does.
If you have a fault claim, it comes with 2 effects to your premium. Firstly, your ncb is reduced and secondly, you will probably get a loading for having had a fault claim. Protected bonus means you only get the second of these hits.
If you have a fault claim, it comes with 2 effects to your premium. Firstly, your ncb is reduced and secondly, you will probably get a loading for having had a fault claim. Protected bonus means you only get the second of these hits.
briang9 said:
it is a con, your no claims is protected.. so if before you had the claim it was 60% it will still be 60% after the claim..however now you are a confirmed higher risk your basic premium will go up, lets say for example from £600 to £3000, you still get the 60% no claim discount on your new £3000 premium but your overall insurance has significantly increased as a result of your claim..bds the lot of them!!
If you didn't have ncb protection, your new £3000 premium wouldn't get 60% ncb, but a lesser percentage. So the premium would be even more. ds the lot of them!!As I understand it, it works like this:
Using some random numbers for ease of illustration, your premium calculates at £1,000, but you have a 60% NCD, so you pay £400. After a fault claim your risk increases so now your premium calculates at £1,500, but as your NCD was protected you still get 60% off, so you pay £600. In summary, your premium goes up from £400 to £600, but if you hadn't protected your NCD it would have gone up from £400 to £1,500.
Using some random numbers for ease of illustration, your premium calculates at £1,000, but you have a 60% NCD, so you pay £400. After a fault claim your risk increases so now your premium calculates at £1,500, but as your NCD was protected you still get 60% off, so you pay £600. In summary, your premium goes up from £400 to £600, but if you hadn't protected your NCD it would have gone up from £400 to £1,500.
MitchT said:
As I understand it, it works like this:
Using some random numbers for ease of illustration, your premium calculates at £1,000, but you have a 60% NCD, so you pay £400. After a fault claim your risk increases so now your premium calculates at £1,500, but as your NCD was protected you still get 60% off, so you pay £600. In summary, your premium goes up from £400 to £600, but if you hadn't protected your NCD it would have gone up from £400 to £1,500.
Close, but your bonus wouldn't go from 60% to nil. It would go from 60% to possibly 40%. So your premium wouldn't have gone from £400 to £1500, but £400 to £900. So having protected bonus still saved you £300. Using some random numbers for ease of illustration, your premium calculates at £1,000, but you have a 60% NCD, so you pay £400. After a fault claim your risk increases so now your premium calculates at £1,500, but as your NCD was protected you still get 60% off, so you pay £600. In summary, your premium goes up from £400 to £600, but if you hadn't protected your NCD it would have gone up from £400 to £1,500.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
... and secondly, you will probably get a loading for having had a fault claim.
'Probably'? 
I don't know anyone who has made a fault claim whose premium hasn't risen.
Quite naively, some people think their premium won't rise because of their protected ncb. Which is one thing. But quite often the premium will rise considerably above that of the saving made of your p ncb. So I guess it depends on your definition of 'con'. To me, that's a outright con.
popeyewhite said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
... and secondly, you will probably get a loading for having had a fault claim.
'Probably'? I don't know anyone who has made a fault claim whose premium hasn't risen.
Quite naively, some people think their premium won't rise because of their protected ncb. Which is one thing. But quite often the premium will rise considerably above that of the saving made of your p ncb. So I guess it depends on your definition of 'con'. To me, that's a outright con.
The only question on protected bonus is "even though my premium has increased following my fault claim, without protected bonus, would I have paid even more for renewal?" If the answer is yes, then it wasn't a con.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
When there's a thread about premium increases for non fault claims, several people will post that they didn't even get charged extra following a fault claim, so it does happen.
I remember one or two. Out of over a dozen. Outside of internet land everyone I know with a fault claim has experienced an 'unexplained' rise in premium. Of course it's actually unfair to compare the two... I know personally perhaps 20 other drivers, while there's several hundred who visit here regularly to post.TwigtheWonderkid said:
The only question on protected bonus is "even though my premium has increased following my fault claim, without protected bonus, would I have paid even more for renewal?" If the answer is yes, then it wasn't a con.
Incorrect if the thieving b'stards make up any difference at renewal on the premium.It's a fairly simple system if you do a little research.
My only frustration is with is not being implemented uniformly across the industry with regard to number of years issued.
If 5 is the maximum, why have the option to list more? I think 1,2,3,4, Max would be easier for people to understand.
I'll admit to having 'juggled' NCB to my benefit. Does anyone else do this and do industry insiders have a view on it? There doesn't seem to be many set rules bar the 2 year expiry and even then I imagine some insurers would offer a introductory discount to match for say company car users.
My only frustration is with is not being implemented uniformly across the industry with regard to number of years issued.
If 5 is the maximum, why have the option to list more? I think 1,2,3,4, Max would be easier for people to understand.
I'll admit to having 'juggled' NCB to my benefit. Does anyone else do this and do industry insiders have a view on it? There doesn't seem to be many set rules bar the 2 year expiry and even then I imagine some insurers would offer a introductory discount to match for say company car users.
popeyewhite said:
Incorrect if the thieving b'stards make up any difference at renewal on the premium.
Are you saying that the insurers come up with a higher base premium if you have protected bonus. So they end up charging people with protected bonus the same as those who didn't pay for protected bonus?If so, where's your evidence? If not, then what's your point?
Brads67 said:
It`s a con
And here`s why.
I had 28yrs NCD. If I had a claim I would lose 3yrs ncd leaving me 25yrs, i.e Full ncd.
No point protecting it as I would get a loading regardless of blame. (utter con)
Fast forward to last year.
Companies now limit ncd to a max of 9 yrs, meaning you can never have more than max ncd and any claim loses most of it.
One company offers 15yrs ncd and one claim losed 11yrs of it !! (utter con.)
In any case, any claim results in heavy loading whether you protect it or not.
Insewerance companies are utter scum.
You are an idiot!And here`s why.
I had 28yrs NCD. If I had a claim I would lose 3yrs ncd leaving me 25yrs, i.e Full ncd.
No point protecting it as I would get a loading regardless of blame. (utter con)
Fast forward to last year.
Companies now limit ncd to a max of 9 yrs, meaning you can never have more than max ncd and any claim loses most of it.
One company offers 15yrs ncd and one claim losed 11yrs of it !! (utter con.)
In any case, any claim results in heavy loading whether you protect it or not.
Insewerance companies are utter scum.
popeyewhite said:
'Probably'?
I don't know anyone who has made a fault claim whose premium hasn't risen.
Quite naively, some people think their premium won't rise because of their protected ncb. Which is one thing. But quite often the premium will rise considerably above that of the saving made of your p ncb. So I guess it depends on your definition of 'con'. To me, that's a outright con.
I guess that most things could be regarded as a 'con' if you a) make up your own definition of 'con' and b) don't understand the basics about the 'thing' you are judging...I don't know anyone who has made a fault claim whose premium hasn't risen.
Quite naively, some people think their premium won't rise because of their protected ncb. Which is one thing. But quite often the premium will rise considerably above that of the saving made of your p ncb. So I guess it depends on your definition of 'con'. To me, that's a outright con.
popeyewhite said:
Outside of internet land everyone I know with a fault claim has experienced an 'unexplained' rise in premium. Of course it's actually unfair to compare the two... I know personally perhaps 20 other drivers, while there's several hundred who visit here regularly to post.
They had a claim so are therefore considered to be a more risky prospect in the future - anyone with an ounce of understanding of the industry would be able to recognise that is why the premium went up. Of course the protected no claims discount means that premium is subject to a higher discount that would otherwise have been the case.Not sure why you'd consider this to be 'unexplained?!
Edited by sidicks on Monday 27th February 13:14
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff