Insurance rant

[JuanGandini]

So... (deep breath)

Car insurance renewal time at the Gandini household and so off I trot to the compare the supermarket comparison sites to get some new quotes. This was all prompted by my current insurer kindly reminding me that my insurance is due for renewal next month.

To set the scene, last June a stupid bh crashed her car into my (parked and unoccupied) M135i and left the scene. Luckily a neighbour saw it and the police tracked her down. Unluckily the police took no further action and I had to claim through her insurers to fix the damage at a cool £900 for a new front wing.

This debacle now means that I have to declare a non-fault claim onto my insurance applications.

My current year's insurance cost me £304 with protected NCB. They quoted me £749 for next year! Comparison sites have quoted me the cheapest quote at £440. So either way I'm being punished for someone being a) st at driving and b) dishonest and c) too poor to pay for the damage they caused rather than go through their insurers.

Surely something's wrong with the system isn't it?

[JuanGandini]

It didn't happen outside my house. I was visiting a family member.

I've had no previous claims of any sort in 18 years of driving.

[JuanGandini]

xRIEx said:

If you can suggest a better one, go for it.


In all my years in broking (admittedly many of those in support services to broking) I've never heard of an insurer loading a premium due to a non-fault accident where all losses had been recovered - this seems to be the preserve of the aggregators/comparison sites.

Well that would seem like a rational thing (comparison sites stitching me up), but my current insurer quoted me £749! That shows they clearly are loading my premium due to a non-fault accident where all losses were recovered.

When I called them and reduced my annual mileage (work travel has changed since last year) and also to change my status to married they could still only reduce the cost to £567. Absolute drivel.

[JuanGandini]

Vaud said:

Was this in the first year of using this company? IF so maybe your 1st year prices was just to get your business, it was always going to go up in Y2/3?

It was my first year with them but I've not heard of that type of business model before for insurance - I pay for insurance one year at a time, not like phone or TV contracts for a 2-3 year contract where they often can subsidise the monthly price for the first few months or so. Needless to say, they've lost my business now!

[JuanGandini]

Soov535 said:

JuanGandini said:

It didn't happen outside my house. I was visiting a family member.

I've had no previous claims of any sort in 18 years of driving.

You are STATISTCALLY a person who parks their car in places where it gets hit.

Sorry.

No. I'm statistically a person who parked a car on a cul de sac in which another driver reversed out of a driveway into my parked car and then drove off.

Thanks for the sympathy though. It's gutting!

[JuanGandini]

xRIEx said:

McSam said:

Soov535 said:

You are STATISTCALLY a person who parks their car in places where it gets hit.

Sorry.

Exactly. This thread comes up at least once a week, and the answer is always the same. It wasn't your fault, you "shouldn't" suffer for it, it may not be completely fair in your situation and there could be a great reason that shows it should never happen again. But you are (quite reasonably) perceived as a higher risk, and therefore have to pay a larger premium.

It's as simple as that.

See, this is what I don't accept. Your risk profile doesn't change in respect to being hit (especially hit when parked). There is exactly the same statistical chance of being hit before the accident as after, because the risk is affected by the acting party, i.e. the driver at fault. Their risk to the insurance pool has already been accounted for by the premium they pay.

It's not like flowers attracting bees, where a different colour of flower might attract more insects (although a darker colour may be less visible so more at risk, it might be interesting to see; still the car doesn't change colour after an accident); being crashed into once does not suddenly make your car magnetic or somehow more likely to attract bad drivers.

If a particular area shows a high risk of being crashed into, say CW7, then sure, you could say that parking there represents a higher risk. However, if you live there you've already stated your postcode and that will already have been taken into account to calculate the premium; if you don't live there, the insurer isn't going to know that you're going to park there because they don't ask, "what postcodes are you going to park your car in during the forthcoming year?" or "where do your friends live that you regularly vist?"

Very well put xRIEx! I totally agree. Should the premiums not be loaded against the parties at fault for accidents rather than those who are not? Why should non-fault parties be punished because some algorithm determines they now statistically were involved in a claim regardless of fault?