Windscreen Claims WILL Affect Your NCD
Discussion
Glassman said:
Yes, and you also got into a bit of a faff when you were asked if some insurers load premiums on renewal following a glass claim.
No. I didn't "get into a bit of a faff", you chose to ignore my sensible and logical answer. Here it is again. An insurance epremium is made up of many hundreds of risk factors. Some people who've made a glass claim may see their premium rise, but linking the two as absolute proof of it affecting premiums is fundamentally flawed. Premiums rise sometimes when nothing has changed for people, just as they fall sometimes when the risk has arguably got worse. That's becuase something in the myriad of risk factors has offset that increase in risk.
We have people on here who've posted today as proof that a windscreen claim has had zero adverse impact on their premium.
Having said that, I have no idea about whether a premium will rise for each and every single insurer out there. Just as you have no idea either.
Glassman said:
I get countless emails and have many conversations with people who say they have seen increases following a glass claim. I have also spoken to many people who have also had their NCD affected in some way because some insurers/policies do/did impact on it. Yes, it's my business and that is why I get so much involvement in the subject.
Countless? Really, I can count pretty high so it must be billion sand billions that you get. People can say lots of things, but as I've explained above someone may see their premium rise and attribute it exclusively to the windscreen claim they made amd not understand that the market has hardened and premiums as a whole have risen, or that they now do more miles, or that they carry their kids in the car now, or they've moved, or they've bought a new car and so on ad infinitum. Glassman said:
Con? Interesting choice of word.
And oh yeah, it's all so they take up my retail offer, and click on the flashing advert I have running in conjunction with this thread. Get real.
Ignore the thread; unsubscribe. You're clearly getting far too worked up over it.
Not really that interesting a choice. After all, you're happily throwing false accusations around about NCD impact. I'm merely pointing out that you're wrong and proving it too. Alongside this, I'm wondering why you're continuing to argue a losing point. Obviously the fact you have a commercial interest in this topic does lead me down a specific route. And oh yeah, it's all so they take up my retail offer, and click on the flashing advert I have running in conjunction with this thread. Get real.
Ignore the thread; unsubscribe. You're clearly getting far too worked up over it.
You forgot the bit about a glass claim is also a "perceived risk".
When this thread was started in 2010, there were some changes to some policies which meant that making a glass claim would affect NCD. You cannot deny this. Since then, there have been more changes and most policies have reverted those affects (although one or two haven't).
At the time of starting the thread, the title was correct. Since then, some people have stated they have seen a rise in their premium and have attributed to a previous glass claim.
As for the commercial interest, a lot of my customers are still using their insurance cover to pay for glass and windscreen damage (which I also help them with). It's their choice. Some choose not to, but in the main, most still are. My interest remains as using the thread as a sounding board to see what experience people have had or are having with their insurance NCD - or premium - subsequent to making a glass claim.
Your input is interesting and a valuable insight. Please stop trying to turn this thread into an argument. There is a public interest and there have been countless - as in, I have lost count - people who have referenced this thread and suggested their premium was affected (in some cases NCD) after a glass claim.
Commercial interest.
When this thread was started in 2010, there were some changes to some policies which meant that making a glass claim would affect NCD. You cannot deny this. Since then, there have been more changes and most policies have reverted those affects (although one or two haven't).
At the time of starting the thread, the title was correct. Since then, some people have stated they have seen a rise in their premium and have attributed to a previous glass claim.
As for the commercial interest, a lot of my customers are still using their insurance cover to pay for glass and windscreen damage (which I also help them with). It's their choice. Some choose not to, but in the main, most still are. My interest remains as using the thread as a sounding board to see what experience people have had or are having with their insurance NCD - or premium - subsequent to making a glass claim.
Your input is interesting and a valuable insight. Please stop trying to turn this thread into an argument. There is a public interest and there have been countless - as in, I have lost count - people who have referenced this thread and suggested their premium was affected (in some cases NCD) after a glass claim.
Commercial interest.
Glassman said:
You forgot the bit about a glass claim is also a "perceived risk".
When this thread was started in 2010, there were some changes to some policies which meant that making a glass claim would affect NCD. You cannot deny this. Since then, there have been more changes and most policies have reverted those affects (although one or two haven't).
At the time of starting the thread, the title was correct. Since then, some people have stated they have seen a rise in their premium and have attributed to a previous glass claim.
As for the commercial interest, a lot of my customers are still using their insurance cover to pay for glass and windscreen damage (which I also help them with). It's their choice. Some choose not to, but in the main, most still are. My interest remains as using the thread as a sounding board to see what experience people have had or are having with their insurance NCD - or premium - subsequent to making a glass claim.
Your input is interesting and a valuable insight. Please stop trying to turn this thread into an argument. There is a public interest and there have been countless - as in, I have lost count - people who have referenced this thread and suggested their premium was affected (in some cases NCD) after a glass claim.
Commercial interest.
How is it a perceived risk? Few on here are concerned about it, I doubt many even consider it as part of their buying or claiming process. When this thread was started in 2010, there were some changes to some policies which meant that making a glass claim would affect NCD. You cannot deny this. Since then, there have been more changes and most policies have reverted those affects (although one or two haven't).
At the time of starting the thread, the title was correct. Since then, some people have stated they have seen a rise in their premium and have attributed to a previous glass claim.
As for the commercial interest, a lot of my customers are still using their insurance cover to pay for glass and windscreen damage (which I also help them with). It's their choice. Some choose not to, but in the main, most still are. My interest remains as using the thread as a sounding board to see what experience people have had or are having with their insurance NCD - or premium - subsequent to making a glass claim.
Your input is interesting and a valuable insight. Please stop trying to turn this thread into an argument. There is a public interest and there have been countless - as in, I have lost count - people who have referenced this thread and suggested their premium was affected (in some cases NCD) after a glass claim.
Commercial interest.
When you started the thread one insurer was about to launch a very down market, budget brand with pretty well every normal value added benefit removed. That was the only product being affected. No other insurer made a move to change their mainstream policy. Anyway, we've had this discussion before and you're clearly not open to this discussion.
Suffice to say, if the Cheap Crap co Ltd launched a brand of windscreen known as "Cheap Crap Windscreens" amd made them out of the most basic plastic and marketed it as "a cheap, crap product that just does the basic job. Just. Amd just meets the legal minimum. Just" how would you react to someone like me saying that all windscreen manufacturers and vendors are now only selling cheap crap?
The inference is that insurers share information, and if they (or some) are asking for disclosure of previous glass claims, it kind of ties them all with this one rope. I think it's interesting to see how different insurers handle this part of their indemnity, especially in an ever-evolving/competitive/regulated/etc market.
Change is never too far away.
With the cost of an average windscreen being the highest it has ever been (and looks like it will continue to rise) do you see 'inclusive' glass and windscreen cover being around long term?
Change is never too far away.
With the cost of an average windscreen being the highest it has ever been (and looks like it will continue to rise) do you see 'inclusive' glass and windscreen cover being around long term?
Edited by Glassman on Wednesday 8th April 20:19
Autoglass got the seal for my car wrong 3 times, despite me sending the part diagram and number for the correct seal and them promising me they had ordered it and would fit it...no each time the job was 'done sir' with a generic seal that caused wind noise above 40 mph.
They broke three screens each time they removed them.
Admiral have put autoglass's incompetence down as three claims on my policy...a Twitter rant on my part ensued to no avail.
I did finally get te correct seal fitted at the cost of my no claims and rise in insurance policy.
They broke three screens each time they removed them.
Admiral have put autoglass's incompetence down as three claims on my policy...a Twitter rant on my part ensued to no avail.
I did finally get te correct seal fitted at the cost of my no claims and rise in insurance policy.
Glassman said:
The inference is that insurers share information, and if they (or some) are asking for disclosure of previous glass claims, it kind of ties them all with this one rope. I think it's interesting to see how different insurers handle this part of their indemnity, especially in an ever-evolving/competitive/regulated/etc market.
Change is never too far away.
With the cost of and average windscreen being the highest it has ever been (and looks like it will continue to rise) do you see 'inclusive' glass and windscreen cover being around long term?
Insurers share very little information. Change is never too far away.
With the cost of and average windscreen being the highest it has ever been (and looks like it will continue to rise) do you see 'inclusive' glass and windscreen cover being around long term?
All insurers have always asked for glass claims to be declared.
Glass claims costs are peanuts to insurers. The market in general increased the excess from the £50 it's been for deades to around £70-£100 a few years back. They're unlikely to do it again.
Whilst glass costs matter to you insurers have huge volume discounts to play with and as such can really push for massively favourable pricing. Even if a glass provider only makes 10p per fit, they have such huge volume that it could make it viable. I don't know how much they make btw, but I do know that the volumes provided by insurers means 1 or 2 national fitters can negotiate huge volume price discounts.
We pay £100millions a year in Injury claims or Credit Hire. A few million on glass is almost irrelevant as long as we know we've got a decent enough deal.
projectgt said:
Autoglass got the seal for my car wrong 3 times, despite me sending the part diagram and number for the correct seal and them promising me they had ordered it and would fit it...no each time the job was 'done sir' with a generic seal that caused wind noise above 40 mph.
They broke three screens each time they removed them.
Admiral have put autoglass's incompetence down as three claims on my policy...a Twitter rant on my part ensued to no avail.
I did finally get te correct seal fitted at the cost of my no claims and rise in insurance policy.
Wow - what car was this on?They broke three screens each time they removed them.
Admiral have put autoglass's incompetence down as three claims on my policy...a Twitter rant on my part ensued to no avail.
I did finally get te correct seal fitted at the cost of my no claims and rise in insurance policy.
Are you saying your NCD was affected, as well as the premium? With Admiral?
LoonR1 said:
Insurers share very little information.
All insurers have always asked for glass claims to be declared.
Glass claims costs are peanuts to insurers. The market in general increased the excess from the £50 it's been for deades to around £70-£100 a few years back. They're unlikely to do it again.
Whilst glass costs matter to you insurers have huge volume discounts to play with and as such can really push for massively favourable pricing. Even if a glass provider only makes 10p per fit, they have such huge volume that it could make it viable. I don't know how much they make btw, but I do know that the volumes provided by insurers means 1 or 2 national fitters can negotiate huge volume price discounts.
We pay £100millions a year in Injury claims or Credit Hire. A few million on glass is almost irrelevant as long as we know we've got a decent enough deal.
I once asked a broker (Autonet IIRC) to remove the glass cover off the quote. Computer said no. All insurers have always asked for glass claims to be declared.
Glass claims costs are peanuts to insurers. The market in general increased the excess from the £50 it's been for deades to around £70-£100 a few years back. They're unlikely to do it again.
Whilst glass costs matter to you insurers have huge volume discounts to play with and as such can really push for massively favourable pricing. Even if a glass provider only makes 10p per fit, they have such huge volume that it could make it viable. I don't know how much they make btw, but I do know that the volumes provided by insurers means 1 or 2 national fitters can negotiate huge volume price discounts.
We pay £100millions a year in Injury claims or Credit Hire. A few million on glass is almost irrelevant as long as we know we've got a decent enough deal.
Would you say whatever the amount (which forms part of a FC premium) is viable business? I can't see it. Even with an extremely low Average Invoice Value (which I know the likes of Admiral and Hastings are on) I still can't see why insurers would keep windscreen cover as an inclusive feature. Some insurers, having said that, have dropped glass cover from comprehensive policies.
Glassman said:
projectgt said:
Autoglass got the seal for my car wrong 3 times, despite me sending the part diagram and number for the correct seal and them promising me they had ordered it and would fit it...no each time the job was 'done sir' with a generic seal that caused wind noise above 40 mph.
They broke three screens each time they removed them.
Admiral have put autoglass's incompetence down as three claims on my policy...a Twitter rant on my part ensued to no avail.
I did finally get te correct seal fitted at the cost of my no claims and rise in insurance policy.
Wow - what car was this on?They broke three screens each time they removed them.
Admiral have put autoglass's incompetence down as three claims on my policy...a Twitter rant on my part ensued to no avail.
I did finally get te correct seal fitted at the cost of my no claims and rise in insurance policy.
Are you saying your NCD was affected, as well as the premium? With Admiral?
http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD-003-002-Singl...
Section 4 Windscreen Damage. Page 25.
"claims under this section will not affect your No Claims Bonus"
Pretty clear.
Edited by LoonR1 on Wednesday 8th April 21:00
LoonR1 said:
If he is he's wrong
"claims under this section will not affect your No Claims Bonus"
Pretty clear.
Is that subject to a condition of using their "approved repairer"? I have seen this on other policy documents in the past. If this is the case is it fare that a customer is forced into accepting this standard of service?"claims under this section will not affect your No Claims Bonus"
Pretty clear.
Edited by LoonR1 on Wednesday 8th April 21:00
I'm well out of it now, thank god.
crossy67 said:
Is that subject to a condition of using their "approved repairer"? I have seen this on other policy documents in the past. If this is the case is it fare that a customer is forced into accepting this standard of service?
I'm well out of it now, thank god.
It gives you a number to call. That would be their preferred supplier amd fitter. If you choose not to use it then they won't cover you at all and you won't have made any claim at all, as you'll be paying for it out of your own pocket. I'm well out of it now, thank god.
Of course it's fair that they can say who repairs it. it's what you agree to when you take out the policy. If you don't like it then buy a different policy that suits your needs more appropriately. As for the comment "standard of service" then no idea what you mean. I had a car repaired by pan Audi franchised dealer four years ago. It took them three attempts to get it right.
Glassman said:
LoonR1 said:
It gives you a number to call. That would be their preferred supplier amd fitter. If you choose not to use it then they won't cover you at all
Slightly O/T, should this be made clear before the policy is incepted? The 'we will be using our own guys' bit. Thing is that most people buy on price, then expect a mega service when they need to claim. Guess what? It doesn't always work that way. You're not necessarily buying rubbish, but much like the supermarket set up, buying form Lidl is unlikely to deliver the same quality of product that you'd find in Fortnum &Mason.
LoonR1 said:
What makes you think it isn't? It seems to me that everyone wants everything to be made clear. It is made clear in the policy booklet, but nobody bothers to read it, then pretends it's "small print". I found the policy booklet online in no time. It's there to read and digest before buying for each and every insurer. It's also sent to every new buyer and you have up to 14 days to cancel the policy if you don't like it, after you've bought.
Thing is that most people buy on price, then expect a mega service when they need to claim. Guess what? It doesn't always work that way. You're not necessarily buying rubbish, but much like the supermarket set up, buying form Lidl is unlikely to deliver the same quality of product that you'd find in Fortnum &Mason.
Agree with that. A very common question comes when some people find they're snookered behind the insurer-nominated supplier relationship. Ultimately, it is a price driven market and as much as a lot of people are to blame for not reading the terms, or not asking the right questions, I do feel that many insurers aren't doing enough. To you and I it may seem obvious what the Key Facts mean, or that some of it might need clarifying, but to many it is vague and, well, easy: "windscreen cover is unlimited" or 'simply call the glass claims number below' etc. Thing is that most people buy on price, then expect a mega service when they need to claim. Guess what? It doesn't always work that way. You're not necessarily buying rubbish, but much like the supermarket set up, buying form Lidl is unlikely to deliver the same quality of product that you'd find in Fortnum &Mason.
One of my own experiences with a broker: I asked what 'unlimited windscreen cover' meant, exactly and he jittered and stuttered some mumbo jumbo about taking the vehicle "anywhere" and it "will be covered". There were no other words to indicate capping, limits, restrictions or nominated suppliers. It was only after I persisted (and asked them to include in the policy what had just been said, in writing) that I got the floor manager who then explained that as long as the work was carried out by the prevailing nominated repairer, there would be no limit on the claim (otherwise, the payout would be limited to £100.00).
I asked for the glass cover element to be removed and they said they couldn't. So I jogged on.
Glassman said:
Agree with that. A very common question comes when some people find they're snookered behind the insurer-nominated supplier relationship. Ultimately, it is a price driven market and as much as a lot of people are to blame for not reading the terms, or not asking the right questions, I do feel that many insurers aren't doing enough. To you and I it may seem obvious what the Key Facts mean, or that some of it might need clarifying, but to many it is vague and, well, easy: "windscreen cover is unlimited" or 'simply call the glass claims number below' etc.
One of my own experiences with a broker: I asked what 'unlimited windscreen cover' meant, exactly and he jittered and stuttered some mumbo jumbo about taking the vehicle "anywhere" and it "will be covered". There were no other words to indicate capping, limits, restrictions or nominated suppliers. It was only after I persisted (and asked them to include in the policy what had just been said, in writing) that I got the floor manager who then explained that as long as the work was carried out by the prevailing nominated repairer, there would be no limit on the claim (otherwise, the payout would be limited to £100.00).
I asked for the glass cover element to be removed and they said they couldn't. So I jogged on.
The point remains that if people continue to buy predominantly on price then insurers will have to fifer these types of policy. There are many very, very good top end policies available but few buy these, despite them giving people exactly what they say they want. Why? Price. Simple as that. One of my own experiences with a broker: I asked what 'unlimited windscreen cover' meant, exactly and he jittered and stuttered some mumbo jumbo about taking the vehicle "anywhere" and it "will be covered". There were no other words to indicate capping, limits, restrictions or nominated suppliers. It was only after I persisted (and asked them to include in the policy what had just been said, in writing) that I got the floor manager who then explained that as long as the work was carried out by the prevailing nominated repairer, there would be no limit on the claim (otherwise, the payout would be limited to £100.00).
I asked for the glass cover element to be removed and they said they couldn't. So I jogged on.
LoonR1 said:
Glassman said:
projectgt said:
Autoglass got the seal for my car wrong 3 times, despite me sending the part diagram and number for the correct seal and them promising me they had ordered it and would fit it...no each time the job was 'done sir' with a generic seal that caused wind noise above 40 mph.
They broke three screens each time they removed them.
Admiral have put autoglass's incompetence down as three claims on my policy...a Twitter rant on my part ensued to no avail.
I did finally get te correct seal fitted at the cost of my no claims and rise in insurance policy.
Wow - what car was this on?They broke three screens each time they removed them.
Admiral have put autoglass's incompetence down as three claims on my policy...a Twitter rant on my part ensued to no avail.
I did finally get te correct seal fitted at the cost of my no claims and rise in insurance policy.
Are you saying your NCD was affected, as well as the premium? With Admiral?
http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD-003-002-Singl...
Section 4 Windscreen Damage. Page 25.
"claims under this section will not affect your No Claims Bonus"
Pretty clear.
Edited by LoonR1 on Wednesday 8th April 21:00
When my renewal came through, I was notified when I questioned the rise in premium that the "3 claims you maid sir" were the reason. This is when I said this is outrageous and the incompetency of the glass fitters to simply fit the correct seal lead to this situation and that the premium should not be affected. I threatened to leave and it was at this point I was told that my NCB would only be honoured by Admiral and other insurers would view these as claims - I was on confused.com whilst on the phone sharing competitor policy prices when the CSA asked me if I had disclosed the "3 claims" in the past 5 years!
They might not be able to vary the terms, but Admiral are quite prepared to increase the premium as a result of a windscreen claim. I've just been stung for £20 (about 8% of my policy cost) as I made a claim for a damaged windscreen. That's a mid-term increase. Pretty stingy if you ask me, they could just load that into the excess you have to pay instead.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff