Insurance goes up for a non-fault claim

[illmonkey]

My insurance is due soon, through a complex renewal and price matching process, its come out to be an accident I was involved in, which was not my fault (rear ended), has upped my insurance £101.

Now, I explained this was not my fault and requested it be the same price. Apparently they won't, they say statistically I'm more likely to claim after someone else hits me! Mental.

Anyway, I'm sure I read on here someone successfully claiming the additional premium from the other insurance company. Which I am currently trying to get details of, from my current insurer.

How can they get away with painting everyone with the same brush? IF I am more likely to claim after a NON-fault accident how the feck can they decide I'm going to claim soon? EVEN if I did, why not chuck the extra £100 on my excess, which would be far more sensible.

This shouldn't be allowed, some bks survey on 8 people means every other bugger has to suffer.

[thinfourth2]

Hello this is your insurance company here

We have read this post and we are increasing your premium by another 100

as we have decided people posting on the internet are morely likely to be claim


And to the rest of you

Your premimums are going up by 200 as we have discovered people who have accidents were breathing at the time so we are increasing the premium of anyone that breaths

[kambites]

Of course it does. It seems entirely likely that someone who's been involved in a non-fault claim in the past is statistically more likely to be involved in accidents in the future.

As for "how can they get away with painting everyone with the same brush", well they don't, they have a limited number of brushes with which to paint people, one of which is labelled "someone who's had an accident in the last few years". Would you prefer to pay the several hundred thousand pounds to employ a private detective to research every little facet of your driving history, your car and the area you live in?


If it's a significant amount of money, claim it off the insurer of the person who hit you. It's a loss incurred as a result of the accident, so it's their responsibility to pay it.

Edited by kambites on Friday 28th October 09:50

[DanielC4GP]

Depends on the company I think. I had an non-fault accident a year ago where someone pulled out in front of me and I had no chance of stopping. Quite nasty really and I'm sure if it wasn't for modern crash protection and I was in an older car it would have been much worse.

Anyway my insurance is due for renewal and I got 2 quotes one declaring the accident and another not and it was the same price in both cases.

[Pannywagon]

I had two non-fault claims last year and my insurance renewal's just come through.

Fully comp, protected no-claims, 40,000 miles a year and business use. Surprisingly it was identical to last year's quote, to the penny.

£571.83

[Nick3point2]

Statistically you are more likely to claim, and so you are a higher risk.


Why does nobody understand this? Regardless of how silly it may seem, if you are classed as being statistically a higher risk you will be charged more. If you moved house to a higher risk area you wouldn't mind paying an extra £101 but because it's a different reason that you are a higher risk you aren't happy with the increase?

[Marf]

Mine didn't go up after a non fault claim which wrote my car off

[kambites]

In my experience it's not actually much to do with a claim anyway; it's having had an accident that they take into account.

Either way, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[Zebrs]

My wife's car got reversed into in a car park by a woman who wasn't looking where she was going. OH happened to be returning to the car at the time so saw what happened. Driver held her hand up, and insisted on swapping details as the damage to her car was more than ours so was likely to claim on her own insurance. OH had no intention of claiming as car battered anyway but duly complied.

She then received notice from the insurers relating to the incident - same insurance co as hers, and a text from the driver to state she wasnt claiming after all, but had told the insurance all about it. Result of this is both her insurance (and mine since she is on my policy) will be going up at renewal time. Boils my p*ss does this, legalised theft.

[Rob Crutch]

Had the same issue a couple of years ago, premium rose after a non-fault accident and was told it was because statistically I was more likely to be invovled in a fault accident now!

[illmonkey]

So, some of you are siding with the insurance company. You clearly haven't read the original post.

Someone else went into the back on my stopped car, then claimed for the damage to HER car.

How does that mean I'm more likely to claim in the next year? I'm not. Why would I? I have the right to claim for an accident if it happens, but how could they ever possibly think I MAY claim? Its total tosh.

[kambites]

illmonkey said:

So, some of you are siding with the insurance company. You clearly haven't read the original post.

Someone else went into the back on my stopped car, then claimed for the damage to HER car.

How does that mean I'm more likely to claim in the next year? I'm not. Why would I? I have the right to claim for an accident if it happens, but how could they ever possibly think I MAY claim? Its total tosh.

I did read the original post, and I still side with the insurance company.

I can't believe that you really don't understand why it increases the chance of you claiming? It would statistically increase the chances of you claiming even if neither of you had claimed. The insurance companies generate their quotes based on massive pools of historical statistical data. You can't just say they're wrong. It is a simple fact that people who've been involved in one accident are more likely to be involved in a second one.

[Ozzie Osmond]

It's not a "no fault" discount - it's a "no claims" discount.

[R300will]

Nick3point2 said:

Statistically you are more likely to claim, and so you are a higher risk.


Why does nobody understand this? Regardless of how silly it may seem, if you are classed as being statistically a higher risk you will be charged more. If you moved house to a higher risk area you wouldn't mind paying an extra £101 but because it's a different reason that you are a higher risk you aren't happy with the increase?

right, so statistically speaking if someone crashes into the back of my car because they werent paying attention i am at more of a risk to have another crash? no sorry but that it stupid. In that situation i had nothing to do with it the car may as well have been parked up it was the other drivers lack of observation which i could never have had an effect on. why should the premium go up for me in that case?

On a related note the OH had a non fault accident and after explaining this to another insurance company when it was time for renewal he spoke to his manager and got her a deal in which the price was exactly the same as last years premium so it can be fiddled with if you try.

[kambites]

R300will said:

right, so statistically speaking if someone crashes into the back of my car because they werent paying attention i am at more of a risk to have another crash? no sorry but that it stupid. In that situation i had nothing to do with it the car may as well have been parked up it was the other drivers lack of observation which i could never have had an effect on. why should the premium go up for me in that case?

Even if you were parked, it would still increase the risk because it shows that you park in a place where people drive into parked cars. If one of those people who crashes into parked cars crashed into you then drove off without leaving a note, you'd presumably try to claim off your own insurance?

Come on guys, this is basic elementary statistics... it's bloody obvious.

[R300will]

kambites said:

illmonkey said:

So, some of you are siding with the insurance company. You clearly haven't read the original post.

Someone else went into the back on my stopped car, then claimed for the damage to HER car.

How does that mean I'm more likely to claim in the next year? I'm not. Why would I? I have the right to claim for an accident if it happens, but how could they ever possibly think I MAY claim? Its total tosh.

I did read the original post, and I still side with the insurance company.

I can't believe that you really don't understand why it increases the chance of you claiming? It would statistically increase the chances of you claiming even if neither of you had claimed. The insurance companies generate their quotes based on massive pools of historical statistical data. You can't just say they're wrong. It is a simple fact that people who've been involved in one accident are more likely to be involved in a second one.

Again that seems utter tosh to me. if his car was stopped he may aswell have been at home and the prick driven into it when it was parked on the bloody road, how would that mean he is more likely to have an accident then? for someone elses cock up with observation it makes him a worse driver? no, just no.

[R300will]

kambites said:

R300will said:

right, so statistically speaking if someone crashes into the back of my car because they werent paying attention i am at more of a risk to have another crash? no sorry but that it stupid. In that situation i had nothing to do with it the car may as well have been parked up it was the other drivers lack of observation which i could never have had an effect on. why should the premium go up for me in that case?

Even if you were parked, it would still increase the risk because it shows that you park in a place where people drive into parked cars. If one of those people who crashes into parked cars crashed into you then drove off without leaving a note, you'd presumably try to claim off your own insurance?

but people don't drive into parked cars in CERTAIN AREAS they do it when they arent paying attention regardless of location. I just don't get how someones cock up makes you more at risk of doing the same?

[illmonkey]

kambites said:

illmonkey said:

So, some of you are siding with the insurance company. You clearly haven't read the original post.

Someone else went into the back on my stopped car, then claimed for the damage to HER car.

How does that mean I'm more likely to claim in the next year? I'm not. Why would I? I have the right to claim for an accident if it happens, but how could they ever possibly think I MAY claim? Its total tosh.

I did read the original post, and I still side with the insurance company.

I can't believe that you really don't understand why it increases the chance of you claiming? It would statistically increase the chances of you claiming even if neither of you had claimed. The insurance companies generate their quotes based on massive pools of historical statistical data. You can't just say they're wrong. It is a simple fact that people who've been involved in one accident are more likely to be involved in a second one.

For the other person, who hit me, maybe. But why me? I could have been out of the car. I didnt claim, she did. Why does that mean I'm going to claim?

Surely I'm only going to claim if I hit someone/something. Which I didn't do.

Her premium would have gone up to satisfy the 'statistics pool', mine, the innocent partys, should not.

I don't want to pay because of some other dosey twunt.

[mph999]

kambites said:

I did read the original post, and I still side with the insurance company.

I can't believe that you really don't understand why it increases the chance of you claiming? It would statistically increase the chances of you claiming even if neither of you had claimed. The insurance companies generate their quotes based on massive pools of historical statistical data. You can't just say they're wrong.

OK, answer this :

If someone runs into the backup of me when I am stationary, that is 'random' - it could happen on any road, to any person - how does someone else's accident affect the chances of me having another, if I was stationary when hit) ???

If the person (who was hit) was moving, I could perhaps understand it, for example, they could have a habit of breaking late and hard, perhaps catching out the person behind - but not if they were stationary.

M

[kambites]

R300will said:

but people don't drive into parked cars in CERTAIN AREAS they do it when they arent paying attention regardless of location. I just don't get how someones cock up makes you more at risk of doing the same?

Sorry but that's complete bks. You really think there's no statistical skew between areas or even between roads in the same area, or the likelihood of someone hitting a parked car?