Minimising impact of non-fault claims

[TooMany2cvs]

Artey said:

Well, if you get penalised for someone elses's mistake you share the cost of their mistake. If it wasn't for their stupidity you wouldn't be affected. How the fk isn't this what's happening and how isn't this a racket. If you get robbed do you go to jail for a couple of days sharing the cell with the criminal that robbed you as a reminder and deterrent to avoid being robbed in the future? How come we are one of few countries that allow st like that with car insurance (using statistics as an excuse but forgetting one of basics of statistics - i.e. correlation does not imply causation).

I'm glad you now seem to agree that the post in question was complete bks, and that the actuarial decisions of underwriters in cases like these are absolutely sweet FA to do with human rights. Great.

The post above is still utter fruitbat conspiracy-theory bks, but that's another issue entirely.

[Artey]

TooMany2cvs said:

Artey said:

Well, if you get penalised for someone elses's mistake you share the cost of their mistake. If it wasn't for their stupidity you wouldn't be affected. How the fk isn't this what's happening and how isn't this a racket. If you get robbed do you go to jail for a couple of days sharing the cell with the criminal that robbed you as a reminder and deterrent to avoid being robbed in the future? How come we are one of few countries that allow st like that with car insurance (using statistics as an excuse but forgetting one of basics of statistics - i.e. correlation does not imply causation).

I'm glad you now seem to agree that the post in question was complete bks, and that the actuarial decisions of underwriters in cases like these are absolutely sweet FA to do with human rights. Great.

The post above is still utter fruitbat conspiracy-theory bks, but that's another issue entirely.

Lol statistics are an excuse not the reason. You've conveniently ignored the robbery example which perfectly explains the ridiculousness of what's going on. How surprising.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Artey said:

Well, if you get penalised for someone elses's mistake you share the cost of their mistake. If it wasn't for their stupidity you wouldn't be affected.

Oh ffs. You are not being penalised for someone else's mistake. You are being penalised because insurers now have more information about you that they never had before.

In the OP's case, his would have told his insurers, quite rightly, his car was kept on the drive. For this he may have received a discount. But as a result of the claim, they now know he has a shared drive, which is a higher risk than a non shared drive. So they are reassessing his premium.

The non fault claim has shown he's a higher risk going forward. But he always was, the only difference is that now they know.

That's different from being penalised for someone else's mistake.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Artey said:

If you get robbed do you go to jail for a couple of days sharing the cell with the criminal that robbed you as a reminder and deterrent to avoid being robbed in the future?

No, but your insurance might go up. If you get hit by a drink driver, your insurance might go up, but you wouldn't share a cell with the drink driver either. So no difference between car and house insurance.

You really aren't making much sense.

[Artey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Artey said:

Well, if you get penalised for someone elses's mistake you share the cost of their mistake. If it wasn't for their stupidity you wouldn't be affected.

Oh ffs. You are not being penalised for someone else's mistake. You are being penalised because insurers now have more information about you that they never had before.

The non fault claim has shown he's a higher risk going forward. But he always was, the only difference is that now they know.

That's different from being penalised for someone else's mistake.

Forget the shared drive. The subject of this topic refers to all non fault claims and parties not at fault paying the price of someone else's mistake. Who do you think should be taken of the road someone who drives into somebody elses arse or the one who gets driven into. You're drinking too much of this

and come across a bit brainwashed.

I need you to focus and read this over and over again until it clicks - statistics are a tool and are used to fit certain agendas. And also this - correlation doesn't imply causation.

[Artey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

No, but your insurance might go up. If you get hit by a drink driver, your insurance might go up, but you wouldn't share a cell with the drink driver either. So no difference between car and house insurance.

You really aren't making much sense.

I'm not making much sense? That's funny.

If I get robbed and get a payout does the insurance get to recoup the cost off of the criminal? NO.
Is my insurance company losing money on me. YES
Does this justify premium increase. YES

If I get driven into and the 3rd party admits liability does my insurance get to recoup the cost? YES
Is my insurance company losing money on me. NO
Does this justify premium increase. fk NO.

[fourspoons]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But as a result of the claim, they now know he has a shared drive, which is a higher risk than a non shared drive. So they are reassessing his premium.
The non fault claim has shown he's a higher risk going forward. But he always was, the only difference is that now they know.
That's different from being penalised for someone else's mistake.

Sorry mate that's nonsense. They know nothing of the sort. No information about the exact layout of mine and my neighbours driveways have been declared or requested. For all they know, the third party could have been visiting my house and using my private driveway legitimately. Or maybe it was the UPS guy. Does that make me a justifiably higher risk because they now know I buy things off ebay?

I think everyone that's done GCSE maths knows that you can manipulate statistics to prove virtually any hypothesis you like. So insurance companies will use just about anything they can think of to take our premiums for a hike.

[Mercky]

Artey said:

I'm not making much sense? That's funny.

If I get robbed and get a payout does the insurance get to recoup the cost off of the criminal? NO.
Is my insurance company losing money on me. YES
Does this justify premium increase. YES

If I get driven into and the 3rd party admits liability does my insurance get to recoup the cost? YES
Is my insurance company losing money on me. NO
Does this justify premium increase. fk NO.

Explained perfectly for those who don't seem to understand that car insurance is a racket.

[Roo]

It's like groundhog day in here.

[Howard-]

Artey said:

Forget the shared drive. The subject of this topic refers to all non fault claims and parties not at fault paying the price of someone else's mistake. Who do you think should be taken of the road someone who drives into somebody elses arse or the one who gets driven into.
...

I need you to focus and read this over and over again until it clicks - statistics are a tool and are used to fit certain agendas. And also this - correlation doesn't imply causation.

You do realise that someone's premium will get loaded more for a fault claim than a non-fault claim?

The shared drive bit IS important.

I don't think you understand how statistics work.

Statistically someone who parks badly or in a vulnerable / high traffic location is more likely to have their car crashed into. Ergo, they are more likely to claim on their insurance. Ergo, it's going to cost the insurance companies more money. Ergo, they are a higher risk.

Same with many (not all, I agree, but that's what statistics are all about) non-fault claims.

fourspoons said:

Sorry mate that's nonsense. They know nothing of the sort. No information about the exact layout of mine and my neighbours driveways have been declared or requested. For all they know, the third party could have been visiting my house and using my private driveway legitimately. .

Many insurance companies ask for this sort of information about your parking arrangement at home.

[TooMany2cvs]

Roo said:

It's like groundhog day in here.

Groundhogs have a firmer grip on reality.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Artey said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

No, but your insurance might go up. If you get hit by a drink driver, your insurance might go up, but you wouldn't share a cell with the drink driver either. So no difference between car and house insurance.

You really aren't making much sense.

I'm not making much sense? That's funny.

If I get robbed and get a payout does the insurance get to recoup the cost off of the criminal? NO.
Is my insurance company losing money on me. YES
Does this justify premium increase. YES

If I get driven into and the 3rd party admits liability does my insurance get to recoup the cost? YES
Is my insurance company losing money on me. NO
Does this justify premium increase. fk NO.

Well is a robbery and a non fault claim are entirely different on their effect on your insurers, why the hell did you compare them, you fool!

You said if you got robbed, you wouldn't expect to have to share a cell with the robber. Well if you got hit by a drink driver, you wouldn't have to share a cell with them either.

So what exactly is your point in comparing the two. All you've done is convolute the argument with a daft comparison that means nothing.

[V8RX7]

I was hit, three times in 18mths, when queuing in stationary traffic, when parked in a car park, when reversed into in a car park despite me sounding my horn.

Each one I dealt with myself, received circa £500-1500 for the damage and didn't notify my insurer as it hadn't cost them any time nor money so why should it matter.

Whilst the insurers may believe it's statistically linked I haven't had any more idiots hit me for 20+ years.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

V8RX7 said:

I was hit, three times in 18mths, when queuing in stationary traffic, when parked in a car park, when reversed into in a car park despite me sounding my horn.

Each one I dealt with myself, received circa £500-1500 for the damage and didn't notify my insurer as it hadn't cost them any time nor money so why should it matter.

Whilst the insurers may believe it's statistically linked I haven't had any more idiots hit me for 20+ years.

Well I haven't been hit at all in 35+ years. That doesn't make me a better driver than you, but maybe it shows that my lifestyle means I spend less time in car parks and queuing traffic than you do. So perhaps I'm a better risk going forward?

[fourspoons]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So perhaps I'm a better risk going forward?

A better risk at not getting hit by a third party perhaps yes. But the point is why should that affect the premium. Neither your nor the previous poster's insurers have incurred any loss whatsoever in either case.

What you seem to be saying is that the fact you've not had a non-fault claim would make you less likely to make an at fault claim, which is a stretch of logic at best.

[jamiebae]

fourspoons said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So perhaps I'm a better risk going forward?

A better risk at not getting hit by a third party perhaps yes. But the point is why should that affect the premium. Neither your nor the previous poster's insurers have incurred any loss whatsoever in either case.

What you seem to be saying is that the fact you've not had a non-fault claim would make you less likely to make an at fault claim, which is a stretch of logic at best.

X% of drivers are uninsured and Y% will be hit-and-run, therefore in X+Y% of accidents your insurer will be out of pocket to some extent if you are involved in a non-fault collision.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

jamiebae said:

fourspoons said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So perhaps I'm a better risk going forward?

A better risk at not getting hit by a third party perhaps yes. But the point is why should that affect the premium. Neither your nor the previous poster's insurers have incurred any loss whatsoever in either case.

What you seem to be saying is that the fact you've not had a non-fault claim would make you less likely to make an at fault claim, which is a stretch of logic at best.

X% of drivers are uninsured and Y% will be hit-and-run, therefore in X+Y% of accidents your insurer will be out of pocket to some extent if you are involved in a non-fault collision.

Yes, plus admin costs, plus next time there may be a dispute over the circumstances. Maybe you get hit whilst parked next time and they just drive off, so a claim on your insurance.

[Artey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

jamiebae said:

fourspoons said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So perhaps I'm a better risk going forward?

A better risk at not getting hit by a third party perhaps yes. But the point is why should that affect the premium. Neither your nor the previous poster's insurers have incurred any loss whatsoever in either case.

What you seem to be saying is that the fact you've not had a non-fault claim would make you less likely to make an at fault claim, which is a stretch of logic at best.

X% of drivers are uninsured and Y% will be hit-and-run, therefore in X+Y% of accidents your insurer will be out of pocket to some extent if you are involved in a non-fault collision.

Yes, plus admin costs, plus next time there may be a dispute over the circumstances. Maybe you get hit whilst parked next time and they just drive off, so a claim on your insurance.

Yes and the cost of the office refurbishment because if you call your insurance up they need to lift up the receiver which introduces wear and tear and some customer service assistants might be eating while they speak to you and they might spit and that introduces further wear. And so on and so fking on.

The line is clear ANY and ALL costs that arise due to someones fk up are that persons problem not yours. That's why there's no reason other than keeping premiums flat (agenda) to share these costs, which is presented to the sheep as "it's statistics bruv, innit".

Aren't you involved with private parking enforcement by any chance? The way your brain works it seems to me that you might be.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well I haven't been hit at all in 35+ years. That doesn't make me a better driver than you, but maybe it shows that my lifestyle means I spend less time in car parks and queuing traffic than you do. So perhaps I'm a better risk going forward?

If during your whole life you only get driven into by careless drivers HOW THE fk ARE YOU THE RISK. How do we as society mitigate that risk, by not having you on the road or pricing out the careless tts?

Read it out loud again and again and again and again and again:
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation

[jamiebae]

Artey said:

If during your whole life you only get driven into by careless drivers HOW THE fk ARE YOU THE RISK. How do we as society mitigate that risk, by not having you on the road or pricing out the careless tts?

Read it out loud again and again and again and again and again:
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation
Correlation does not imply causation

Wow, you're very angry!

If you are involved in one non-fault claim you are statistically more likely to be involved in another one. This is not up for debate. This is because you are in a position where you are liable to be involved in an accident more than someone who has never had one, for example parking on a busy road, driving along roads in urban areas during school-run time etc.

There are a huge number of hit-and-run incidents, and accidents caused by uninsured drivers in the UK, in these cases irrespective of fault, your insurer is going to end up out of pocket. Combine this with the above point and I think it's fairly clear why in pure actuarial terms a non-fault claim increases the risk for the insurer. Yes, it's annoying and yes, it feels unfair, but it's no different to how all 18 year olds pay a fortune because a proportion of them are horrendously bad drivers. The risk is priced across the whole pool of customers because the rating factors show them to be the same.

[Artey]

jamiebae said:

Wow, you're very angry!

I do get somewhat irate when I talk with brainwashed morons. Like in your instance you're trying to prove me wrong by saying that:

jamiebae said:

If you are involved in one non-fault claim you are statistically more likely to be involved in another one. This is not up for debate.

Really. Some people see their premiums drop after a non fault accident. Nobody knows for certain what the rules are as there are no clear rules that would be transparent enough giving us confidence that the compulsory car insurance that we are forced to be taking part in (if we want to drive) is anything else than a racket. For the future I'd suggest you avoid making such strong know it all statements as those who make such statements usually end up looking like idiots.

jamiebae said:

There are a huge number of hit-and-run incidents, and accidents caused by uninsured drivers in the UK, in these cases irrespective of fault, your insurer is going to end up out of pocket.

Of course and since such cases would end up treated as my fault I'm more than ok with subsequent premium increase AFTER incident that loses money on my account.

jamiebae said:

but it's no different to how all 18 year olds pay a fortune because a proportion of them are horrendously bad drivers.

You're trying hard to come across like a person who gets it but you have no clue what you're talking about.