Insurance rant
Discussion
People keep asking how, if they have a non fault claim, can increase their chances of having another. That's the wrong question. The correct question is, if you take a large group of people who have had a non fault claim, and compare them to a similar sized group who have had no claim, which group is more likely to make more claims in the coming year?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You say wrong place wrong time. But what is it's your company car park? That also happens to be the right place at the right time. And you'll be back there tomorrow and the next day, same wrong place same wrong time. If it's a tight car park with narrow spaces, you are at a greater risk of it happening again than if you worked for the firm across the road, who have a much better car park. And next time the guilty party may not leave a note, so it will be in insurance terms a fault claim.
If, if, if It wasn't though was it. Did you read my example?I can understand it if you regularly park somewhere like the example you made up, as that would be increased risk
JagXJR said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
You say wrong place wrong time. But what is it's your company car park? That also happens to be the right place at the right time. And you'll be back there tomorrow and the next day, same wrong place same wrong time. If it's a tight car park with narrow spaces, you are at a greater risk of it happening again than if you worked for the firm across the road, who have a much better car park. And next time the guilty party may not leave a note, so it will be in insurance terms a fault claim.
If, if, if It wasn't though was it. Did you read my example?I can understand it if you regularly park somewhere like the example you made up, as that would be increased risk
Just like 17 year olds have a worse record than 57 year olds. But not every 17 year old will crash, and some 57 years olds will. But as a group, I know who will be a safer bet.
JuanGandini said:
So... (deep breath)
c) too poor to pay for the damage they caused rather than go through their insurers.
The whole point of insurance is to cover costs of damage to third parties. Why on earth would they not claim through their insurers!c) too poor to pay for the damage they caused rather than go through their insurers.
You do realise you'd have had to report the accident to your insurer whether this would have gone through the insurer or not.
Shotgun Rider said:
You do realise you'd have had to report the accident to your insurer whether this would have gone through the insurer or not.
That's true, just as you should report every incident. So every time you kerb a wheel you should report it. If you have an old pick up and your renovating your house, every time you chuck something in the back and scratch or dent the floor, you should report it. But you won't, and if an incident is settled out of insurance and no claim is ever made thru insurance, no one will ever know the difference.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you have an old pick up and your renovating your house, every time you chuck something in the back and scratch or dent the floor, you should report it.
You have to declare incidents which would give rise to a claim; scratches on a pick up bed would probably be classed as wear and tear which wouldn't give rise to a claim. TwigtheWonderkid said:
Shotgun Rider said:
You do realise you'd have had to report the accident to your insurer whether this would have gone through the insurer or not.
That's true, just as you should report every incident. So every time you kerb a wheel you should report it. If you have an old pick up and your renovating your house, every time you chuck something in the back and scratch or dent the floor, you should report it. But you won't, and if an incident is settled out of insurance and no claim is ever made thru insurance, no one will ever know the difference.
Ok please stay on the line whilst we dick you about for an hour.
God I hate ringing them about anything
xRIEx said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you have an old pick up and your renovating your house, every time you chuck something in the back and scratch or dent the floor, you should report it.
You have to declare incidents which would give rise to a claim; scratches on a pick up bed would probably be classed as wear and tear which wouldn't give rise to a claim. Of course if you did this, you'd find it very difficult to get insurance in year 2 after making 273 claims in year 1.
People forget that the UK car Insurance market is one of the most mature and also competitive in the world.
If people with a non fault accident were genuinely no greater risk of having an accident, one or two of the very competitive Insurers eg Admiral would simply apply no loading for customers with non fault accidents. They would then attract all of these customers who people are saying are n greater risk of having an accident then people with no accidents. They would then increase their customer base and profit.
This is not how it tends to be, the vast majority of Insurers apply a relatively small loading to customers with a non fault accident as their own data shows them overall the group of drivers with non fault accidents is a slightly higher risk than drivers without a non fault accident.
The market has to act individually eg the Insurers have to price their products using their own data as they cannot act as a cartel otherwise they would fall fowl of the FCA and competition authorities and receive huge fines. This is something Loon frequently explains on PH.
If people with a non fault accident were genuinely no greater risk of having an accident, one or two of the very competitive Insurers eg Admiral would simply apply no loading for customers with non fault accidents. They would then attract all of these customers who people are saying are n greater risk of having an accident then people with no accidents. They would then increase their customer base and profit.
This is not how it tends to be, the vast majority of Insurers apply a relatively small loading to customers with a non fault accident as their own data shows them overall the group of drivers with non fault accidents is a slightly higher risk than drivers without a non fault accident.
The market has to act individually eg the Insurers have to price their products using their own data as they cannot act as a cartel otherwise they would fall fowl of the FCA and competition authorities and receive huge fines. This is something Loon frequently explains on PH.
dacouch said:
People forget that the UK car Insurance market is one of the most mature and also competitive in the world.
If people with a non fault accident were genuinely no greater risk of having an accident, one or two of the very competitive Insurers eg Admiral would simply apply no loading for customers with non fault accidents. They would then attract all of these customers who people are saying are n greater risk of having an accident then people with no accidents. They would then increase their customer base and profit.
This is not how it tends to be, the vast majority of Insurers apply a relatively small loading to customers with a non fault accident as their own data shows them overall the group of drivers with non fault accidents is a slightly higher risk than drivers without a non fault accident.
The market has to act individually eg the Insurers have to price their products using their own data as they cannot act as a cartel otherwise they would fall fowl of the FCA and competition authorities and receive huge fines. This is something Loon frequently explains on PH.
Spot on. If people with a non fault accident were genuinely no greater risk of having an accident, one or two of the very competitive Insurers eg Admiral would simply apply no loading for customers with non fault accidents. They would then attract all of these customers who people are saying are n greater risk of having an accident then people with no accidents. They would then increase their customer base and profit.
This is not how it tends to be, the vast majority of Insurers apply a relatively small loading to customers with a non fault accident as their own data shows them overall the group of drivers with non fault accidents is a slightly higher risk than drivers without a non fault accident.
The market has to act individually eg the Insurers have to price their products using their own data as they cannot act as a cartel otherwise they would fall fowl of the FCA and competition authorities and receive huge fines. This is something Loon frequently explains on PH.
dacouch said:
People forget that the UK car Insurance market is one of the most mature and also competitive in the world.
If people with a non fault accident were genuinely no greater risk of having an accident, one or two of the very competitive Insurers eg Admiral would simply apply no loading for customers with non fault accidents. They would then attract all of these customers who people are saying are n greater risk of having an accident then people with no accidents. They would then increase their customer base and profit.
This is not how it tends to be, the vast majority of Insurers apply a relatively small loading to customers with a non fault accident as their own data shows them overall the group of drivers with non fault accidents is a slightly higher risk than drivers without a non fault accident.
The market has to act individually eg the Insurers have to price their products using their own data as they cannot act as a cartel otherwise they would fall fowl of the FCA and competition authorities and receive huge fines. This is something Loon frequently explains on PH.
I said this early on page 1 and it was completely ignored.If people with a non fault accident were genuinely no greater risk of having an accident, one or two of the very competitive Insurers eg Admiral would simply apply no loading for customers with non fault accidents. They would then attract all of these customers who people are saying are n greater risk of having an accident then people with no accidents. They would then increase their customer base and profit.
This is not how it tends to be, the vast majority of Insurers apply a relatively small loading to customers with a non fault accident as their own data shows them overall the group of drivers with non fault accidents is a slightly higher risk than drivers without a non fault accident.
The market has to act individually eg the Insurers have to price their products using their own data as they cannot act as a cartel otherwise they would fall fowl of the FCA and competition authorities and receive huge fines. This is something Loon frequently explains on PH.
Stottyevo said:
Admiral load you premium exactly the same if the accident is non-fault not resulting in a claim or a fault accident causing £100,000 damage.
The statistics may show if you've had a crash you're more likely to have another, but the statistics aren't very specific. Which I'm presuming is what is so irksome.
If they were more specific, I'd assume a non-fault accident would hit you premium less than an at fault, at which point the OP has a meaningful gripe.
Do you have an opinion on this? Although it may have changed now as I tested it two years ago.The statistics may show if you've had a crash you're more likely to have another, but the statistics aren't very specific. Which I'm presuming is what is so irksome.
If they were more specific, I'd assume a non-fault accident would hit you premium less than an at fault, at which point the OP has a meaningful gripe.
I ran a quote, the price came back at lets say £1000. I put a non fault accident on, not resulting in a claim. The price rose to £2200. I then removed the accident and it went back down to £1000. I then added an at fault accident resulting in £100,000 damage and the quote went to £2200.
Admiral didn't differentiate between a fault and non fault accident, their algorithms must have simply taken into account that there was some sort of accident.
who sells nil excess policies? TwigtheWonderkid said:
You haven't really read this thread, have you?
Nobody would disagree that the sneezing incident is a one off. Just like the careful 17 year old who sticks to the speed limit and never puts a foot wrong is a one off. But we're taking about people who have non fault accidents as a whole group. Within that group there will be people for whom the non fault claim clearly isn't a one off, for all the reasons explained in previous posts. Therefore, as a group, they represent a higher risk.
Of course, there is a way for individuals to extract themselves from the group and be judged as an individual, and that is with the black box policy. However many people, despite despising being lumped in with the mob, don't seem to be keen on that alternative!
The point of my post was to demonstrate the absurdity of grouping together everyone who has had a non-fault accident in any five year period. There must be more thought given to it than simply an analogue "yes or no". Nobody would disagree that the sneezing incident is a one off. Just like the careful 17 year old who sticks to the speed limit and never puts a foot wrong is a one off. But we're taking about people who have non fault accidents as a whole group. Within that group there will be people for whom the non fault claim clearly isn't a one off, for all the reasons explained in previous posts. Therefore, as a group, they represent a higher risk.
Of course, there is a way for individuals to extract themselves from the group and be judged as an individual, and that is with the black box policy. However many people, despite despising being lumped in with the mob, don't seem to be keen on that alternative!
You say that one non-fault for some is not a one-off, then fine, start clobbering people when they have their second or third. Once they've proven that it's almost certainly not a freak. Leave alone those of us who are merely unfortunate enough to experience that once-in-a-lifetime event through no fault of our own.
StottyEvo said:
dacouch said:
People forget that the UK car Insurance market is one of the most mature and also competitive in the world.
If people with a non fault accident were genuinely no greater risk of having an accident, one or two of the very competitive Insurers eg Admiral would simply apply no loading for customers with non fault accidents. They would then attract all of these customers who people are saying are n greater risk of having an accident then people with no accidents. They would then increase their customer base and profit.
This is not how it tends to be, the vast majority of Insurers apply a relatively small loading to customers with a non fault accident as their own data shows them overall the group of drivers with non fault accidents is a slightly higher risk than drivers without a non fault accident.
The market has to act individually eg the Insurers have to price their products using their own data as they cannot act as a cartel otherwise they would fall fowl of the FCA and competition authorities and receive huge fines. This is something Loon frequently explains on PH.
I said this early on page 1 and it was completely ignored.If people with a non fault accident were genuinely no greater risk of having an accident, one or two of the very competitive Insurers eg Admiral would simply apply no loading for customers with non fault accidents. They would then attract all of these customers who people are saying are n greater risk of having an accident then people with no accidents. They would then increase their customer base and profit.
This is not how it tends to be, the vast majority of Insurers apply a relatively small loading to customers with a non fault accident as their own data shows them overall the group of drivers with non fault accidents is a slightly higher risk than drivers without a non fault accident.
The market has to act individually eg the Insurers have to price their products using their own data as they cannot act as a cartel otherwise they would fall fowl of the FCA and competition authorities and receive huge fines. This is something Loon frequently explains on PH.
Stottyevo said:
Admiral load you premium exactly the same if the accident is non-fault not resulting in a claim or a fault accident causing £100,000 damage.
The statistics may show if you've had a crash you're more likely to have another, but the statistics aren't very specific. Which I'm presuming is what is so irksome.
If they were more specific, I'd assume a non-fault accident would hit you premium less than an at fault, at which point the OP has a meaningful gripe.
Do you have an opinion on this? Although it may have changed now as I tested it two years ago.The statistics may show if you've had a crash you're more likely to have another, but the statistics aren't very specific. Which I'm presuming is what is so irksome.
If they were more specific, I'd assume a non-fault accident would hit you premium less than an at fault, at which point the OP has a meaningful gripe.
I ran a quote, the price came back at lets say £1000. I put a non fault accident on, not resulting in a claim. The price rose to £2200. I then removed the accident and it went back down to £1000. I then added an at fault accident resulting in £100,000 damage and the quote went to £2200.
Admiral didn't differentiate between a fault and non fault accident, their algorithms must have simply taken into account that there was some sort of accident.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's true, just as you should report every incident. So every time you kerb a wheel you should report it. If you have an old pick up and your renovating your house, every time you chuck something in the back and scratch or dent the floor, you should report it.
But you won't, and if an incident is settled out of insurance and no claim is ever made thru insurance, no one will ever know the difference.
Pretty sure that the pick up scenario would be wear and tear.But you won't, and if an incident is settled out of insurance and no claim is ever made thru insurance, no one will ever know the difference.
I wouldn't care if the OP reported an accident that they settled independently to his insurer but to chastise someone for using a service that they've paid for because he deems them too poor to fork out £900 is stupid. Especially when if he answered the have you had any claims questions correctly it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
StottyEvo said:
Do you have an opinion on this? Although it may have changed now as I tested it two years ago.
I ran a quote, the price came back at lets say £1000. I put a non fault accident on, not resulting in a claim. The price rose to £2200. I then removed the accident and it went back down to £1000. I then added an at fault accident resulting in £100,000 damage and the quote went to £2200.
Admiral didn't differentiate between a fault and non fault accident, their algorithms must have simply taken into account that there was some sort of accident.
You have to understand how Admiral work, they came to Insurance very late so have an advantage over the traditional Insurers in that they used the power of IT to ensure they had the best data and were able to target their premiums very accurately. The best way to describe Admiral is they're the Ryan Air of Car Insurance, both sell their products on price alone and use their computers to ensure they have an advantage over the rest of the market.I ran a quote, the price came back at lets say £1000. I put a non fault accident on, not resulting in a claim. The price rose to £2200. I then removed the accident and it went back down to £1000. I then added an at fault accident resulting in £100,000 damage and the quote went to £2200.
Admiral didn't differentiate between a fault and non fault accident, their algorithms must have simply taken into account that there was some sort of accident.
Admiral are one of the few Insurers who make a reasonable profit on the premiums they charge less claims paid.
I'm not an expert on Admiral's pricing but your example is either due to Admiral's own data indicating you're as likely to make a claim with a non fault accident as with a fault accident so they charge a premium to reflect it.
Or that their computers are programmed to recognise customers who are massaging the quote to see if declaring the correct information (Or incorrect information) has a major effect on the premium. If this is the case they may program their quote system to quote the same price for the claim so they collect the correct premium for your accident.
Alternatively many Insurers alter their premiums daily or even a number of times a day (As would Ryan Air) in response to the type and / or amount of business they're receiving. Insurers are similar to bookmakers in that to ensure they make money and do not carry to much risk one outcome they need to balance their book of business so they do not have to much money riding on one outcome (Horse). If they're premiums mean at that time they're receiving a lot of customers with non fault claims or fault claims they may want to adjust their prices to attract or dissuade a certain type of business.
On the same vein, if they're taking a lot more business than normal on that day they can afford to be picky on the type of business they're accepting by altering their prices so they're more competitive on customers with no accidents whatsoever. It's an obvious response for any business to alter their prices to attract the type of customers they make more money on and the result of having sophisticated IT systems that enable them to do this.
It could be the combination of your personal details, location and type of vehicle which Admiral find make you far more likely to make a claim than someone without a claim
Their may well be other reasons that Admiral have quoted you these prices, I'm not an expert on this, Insurers pay huge sums to employ highly qualified staff with sophisticated IT and comprehensive data to enable them to try and price their premiums at a level that remains competitive but also at a level that they can make money.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff