No fault insurance claim

[ChrisMadge]

In June this year my elderly neighbour accidently reversed his car at full speed across his drive, over my garden and drive into my Golf pushing it sideways into my wife's Focus. No-one was in our cars, and thankfully our neighbour was not hurt.

He admitted liability, and it was all dealt through his insurance. Courtesy cars, agreed settlement for my car that was a W/O, and repairs to my wife's car. The claim on my insurance policy was closed as a no fault claim, with nothing claimed on my insurance.

I'm now in the process of insuring two other cars I own via a car insurance comparison site. One has been insured without problem. The other company initially offered me a policy at a good price, but then refused insurance because there was this claim still outstanding on my insurance on the Golf. I got my insurers for the Golf to close the claim, and went back to the other insurer. The new insurer now wants to increase my premium by around 25% because of the no fault claim. Their explanation was statistically the risk of damage to my car has increased due to my neighbour's mistake.

Am I now stuck with increased premiums through no fault of my own? Can I do anything about this, other than find a different insurer?

[Mandat]

ChrisMadge said:

In June this year my elderly neighbour accidently reversed his car at full speed across his drive, over my garden and drive into my Golf pushing it sideways into my wife's Focus. No-one was in our cars, and thankfully our neighbour was not hurt.

He admitted liability, and it was all dealt through his insurance. Courtesy cars, agreed settlement for my car that was a W/O, and repairs to my wife's car. The claim on my insurance policy was closed as a no fault claim, with nothing claimed on my insurance.

I'm now in the process of insuring two other cars I own via a car insurance comparison site. One has been insured without problem. The other company initially offered me a policy at a good price, but then refused insurance because there was this claim still outstanding on my insurance on the Golf. I got my insurers for the Golf to close the claim, and went back to the other insurer. The new insurer now wants to increase my premium by around 25% because of the no fault claim. Their explanation was statistically the risk of damage to my car has increased due to my neighbour's mistake.

Am I now stuck with increased premiums through no fault of my own? Can I do anything about this, other than find a different insurer?

Essentially yes.

You'll need to shop around different insurers, as some will add a loading due to your claims history, whilst others won't.

[kestral]

As above.

Just shop around.

I have had this daft idea about "you are a greater risk because this happened to you" tripe.

[Wildfire]

Mandat said:

Essentially yes.

You'll need to shop around different insurers, as some will add a loading due to your claims history, whilst others won't.

As above, shop around. I have the same, we came back from holiday to find our shed of a Civic (my wife's car) bent at right angles with a note left. Initially our insurance company said we would actually owe them as they valued the car lower than the excess, but as the person had left a note (his son's car had failed and been destroyed) we found out we had the same insurer and suddenly we got market value.

Come next year and my motorbike insurance was "affected because there is a chance that you would be more at risk from someone else hitting your bike, now it has happened to your car." It wasn't even my car.

So I moved on.

[Cold]

kestral said:

As above.

Just shop around.

I have had this daft idea about "you are a greater risk because this happened to you" tripe.

My car was recently damaged while it was parked. Both passenger side doors and a bit of plastic trim. I had to go via the cctv route to track down the perpetrator.

The car was repaired via their insurance and came back to me all lovely and shiny and was parked back in its spot.
Less than 24 hours later someone else scuffed the front bumper.

[PorkInsider]

kestral said:

As above.

Just shop around.

I have had this daft idea about "you are a greater risk because this happened to you" tripe.

I don't see what's daft about it, to be honest.

If your parked car gets crashed into, is it because you have a habit of parking in places where it's more likely to get hit?

If it gets stolen, is it because you regularly visit a high-crime area?

[Uncle Meat]

PorkInsider said:

kestral said:

As above.

Just shop around.

I have had this daft idea about "you are a greater risk because this happened to you" tripe.

I don't see what's daft about it, to be honest.

If your parked car gets crashed into, is it because you have a habit of parking in places where it's more likely to get hit?

If it gets stolen, is it because you regularly visit a high-crime area?

I get what you're saying but the OP hasn't presented any extra risk to his insurance company in terms of payout. The silly sod who probably couldn't work out the difference between an accelerator and brake pedal had paid out in full from his policy and will see his premiums rise handsomely, and rightly so. Even if it does happen again the OPs insurers won't have to pay out. They've invented a scenario which hasn't happened in that someone hits him and does a runner.

This does feel like double-dipping when this happens.

[carboy2017]

I had a no fault claim back few years ago and all the comparison sites wanted any accidents or claims to be listed for the last 5 years when renewing

the 1st one or two years i saw few big names refusing,but the increase was not too much maybe £10 a month,after the 2nd year ended it was normal and all insurers agreed to insure it,but i still had to notify them about my accident till the 5 years were up

[98elise]

Uncle Meat said:

PorkInsider said:

kestral said:

As above.

Just shop around.

I have had this daft idea about "you are a greater risk because this happened to you" tripe.

I don't see what's daft about it, to be honest.

If your parked car gets crashed into, is it because you have a habit of parking in places where it's more likely to get hit?

If it gets stolen, is it because you regularly visit a high-crime area?

I get what you're saying but the OP hasn't presented any extra risk to his insurance company in terms of payout. The silly sod who probably couldn't work out the difference between an accelerator and brake pedal had paid out in full from his policy and will see his premiums rise handsomely, and rightly so. Even if it does happen again the OPs insurers won't have to pay out. They've invented a scenario which hasn't happened in that someone hits him and does a runner.

This does feel like double-dipping when this happens.

Its simply driven by data. If it didn't have an impact they wouldn't care.

It's a cut throat price driven market. If you're certain that it makes no difference then there is a gap in the market to start an insurer providing cheap insurance to people who have had recent accidents.

[GasEngineer]

As per the concurrent thread about no fault insurance; it seems that you could get your premium loaded even if there is no claim on either insurance policy. (Fixing any damage privately).

[Durzel]

kestral said:

I have had this daft idea about "you are a greater risk because this happened to you" tripe.

It's only daft if the statistics don't back it up. It seems to be the case that people who have had accidents, even when it wasn't their fault, are more likely to have another accident, or in broad terms they represent a greater risk than prior to the incident.

Since insurance is a highly competitive market the argument that insurers are "punishing" people or actively trying to avoid business makes no sense at all. Obviously everyone sits in a different place on the spectrum of risk for underwriters, so one person getting into an accident, or getting 3 points, or whatever, might tip the balance for them towards a higher premium than someone else.

Uncle Meat said:

I get what you're saying but the OP hasn't presented any extra risk to his insurance company in terms of payout. The silly sod who probably couldn't work out the difference between an accelerator and brake pedal had paid out in full from his policy and will see his premiums rise handsomely, and rightly so. Even if it does happen again the OPs insurers won't have to pay out. They've invented a scenario which hasn't happened in that someone hits him and does a runner.

This does feel like double-dipping when this happens.

Has OP moved house? If not, then the "is it because you have a habit of parking in places where it's more likely to get hit?" clearly applies, at the minimum.

It's also a big "if" that the circumstances of the next accident aren't so black and white. What if the old duffer grazes OP's car whilst reversing, or something, and OP doesn't even notice for a period of time? etc.. etc..

Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 3rd August 16:10

[jondude]

kestral said:

As above.

Just shop around.

I have had this daft idea about "you are a greater risk because this happened to you" tripe.

I never used to either but since someone ran into the back of my car at a roundabout, I can get them on this. For quite a while I found my self apprehensive when approaching roundabouts, checking my mirrors more than I needed to and rushing to get the hell outta there.

On this one it seems more unfair though as the OP was not involved at all but they no doubt feel it might also make him a bit more nervous when driving to and from the house - more worried where the neighbour is than the road ahead.

Hate to admit it but I think they are right on this, no doubt backed up by their data.

[ChrisMadge]

Thanks for the replies.

I realise it’s data driven and theoretically I’m more likely to have someone (my neighbour) drive into my car again! But you could argue he’s learnt his lesson and will take greater care when selecting his gear before driving off his drive? In which case the risk is lower than before.

And what happens if he dies, moves, stops driving? Do I have the opportunity to tell my insurance he’s no longer a risk? No, of course not.

It’s annoying to say the least.

[BertBert]

ChrisMadge said:

Thanks for the replies.

I realise it’s data driven and theoretically I’m more likely to have someone (my neighbour) drive into my car again! But you could argue he’s learnt his lesson and will take greater care when selecting his gear before driving off his drive? In which case the risk is lower than before.

And what happens if he dies, moves, stops driving? Do I have the opportunity to tell my insurance he’s no longer a risk? No, of course not.

It’s annoying to say the least.

Yes it's annoying, but very simple to understand. All you need to do is to stop thinking about one person's circumstances and think of the group of people who have had no fault claims versus no claims and it's very straightforward to understand.
Also avoid the "that's a group, I am an individual" thinking, all insurance ratings are based on cohorts. All the people in a certain postcode, all the people who drive insurance group n cars, all the people with one year's driving experience, all the people between 19 and 20, all the women...,
Bert
PS one of those is now illegal

[Draxindustries1]

piddy44 said:

If you still live next to that neighbour then you're definitely a higher risk!

This^
He's obviously a danger to himself and others, he could do it again..

[Aretnap]

ChrisMadge said:

Thanks for the replies.

I realise it’s data driven and theoretically I’m more likely to have someone (my neighbour) drive into my car again! But you could argue he’s learnt his lesson and will take greater care when selecting his gear before driving off his drive? In which case the risk is lower than before.

And what happens if he dies, moves, stops driving? Do I have the opportunity to tell my insurance he’s no longer a risk? No, of course not.

It's wrong to assume that the precise circumstances of your particular accident have something to do with your premium increase. They don't. There are many types of "no fault" accident, some of which involve more fault than others, and the pricing structure doesn't usually attempt to distinguish between them.

Case in point. Many years ago when I was young and foolish I slightly knobbishly overtook a line of traffic that was waiting to turn left, cut into the queue at speed, slammed my brakes on... and the guy I cut in front of didn't brake as hard as I did. His insurers admitted liability, and I was hardly going to argue, so it went down as a no fault claim for me. But it wasn't exactly my finest moment as a driver and I had no complaint about the fact that it out my premium up a little for a few years.

Or consider two drivers approaching a junction where a driver pulls out without looking properly. Driver A goes into the side of the emerging car and has a no fault insurance claim. Driver B reacts more quickly, or has slowed down in anticipation of the junction ahead, brakes just in time, and has a nasty shock but no claim at all. Which driver would you rather insure - A or B?

And there's the rub - the premium isn't a comment on your own circumstances or your own neighbour. The underwriting algorithm just sees that the no fault claim box is ticked, and lumps you in with people like me, and hypothetical Driver A, without trying to distinguish between the approximately 3 million different ways it's possible to have an accident

If you don't think that's fair and you'd prefer a more bespoke approach, the alternative is to go to Lloyds of London where you can sit down for tea and biscuits with your underwriter, chat to him about your neighbour and the circumstances of your accident, and see if he thinks it marks you down as a higher risk. But inevitably you would have to pay extra for that sort of personalised service - probably a lot more than the extra few quid that the computer wants to charge you for ticking the "claim, no fault" box.

[ChrisMadge]

Yes I understand the algorithm can’t possibly differentiate my personal circumstance. That’s life.

My insurance premium has gone up from £77 to £99 on the car I am insuring (classic car policy)

So only a ‘few’ quid but actually a 22% increase.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ChrisMadge said:

Yes I understand the algorithm can’t possibly differentiate my personal circumstance. That’s life.

My insurance premium has gone up from £77 to £99 on the car I am insuring (classic car policy)

So only a ‘few’ quid but actually a 22% increase.

You'll never get a job in insurance with maths like that, it's actually around 29%

[ChrisMadge]

And the irony of this situation is that my neighbour is an ex driving instructor !

[Seesure]

ChrisMadge said:

Yes I understand the algorithm can’t possibly differentiate my personal circumstance. That’s life.

My insurance premium has gone up from £77 to £99 on the car I am insuring (classic car policy)

So only a ‘few’ quid but actually a 22% increase.

But is that increase as a direct result of the claim or of other circumstances?

So many people associate an increase in their premium with a claim but it may just be inflation or an increase in the insurance company's costs which they are passing on.

My insurance has just gone up on my stbox C200 by about £20 for the year without any claims going through.

It's just "another one of those things".