Okay, how does that work then?
Discussion
Here's a good one that I can't work out. Any help gratefully recieved.
I had a frankly laughable insurance renewal quote from my old insurers last year which was previous year +70%. The reason for this, other than inflation etc, was down to the fact that some careless cow had reversed into my car and was claiming she didn't do it so it was in dispute. I declared this to the companies that I called around for a quote and the one with the sailor quoted me a nice price for what I needed. Now being the sneaky sort, I declared everything except the disputed claim and when they priced it up I then went, "Oh yeah, and this, I forgot. My bad." and then explained the disputed claim. So I know that the final quote with the disputed claim was £90 over the original 'accidently' non-declared one.
Any way, 7 months later, (don't ask! (The police were involved as she drove off after hitting the car - it didn't help)), a letter comes through from the old insurers stating that the 3rd party insurers have now admitted liability and all's good and I'm in the clear so I send off a copy of the letter to my new insurers along with a nicely worded email telling them where to send the refund of premium to. Their response?
I owe them an extra £56.92.
Does anyone have any idea how they get to this figure? 'Cos I bloody well don't!
I had a frankly laughable insurance renewal quote from my old insurers last year which was previous year +70%. The reason for this, other than inflation etc, was down to the fact that some careless cow had reversed into my car and was claiming she didn't do it so it was in dispute. I declared this to the companies that I called around for a quote and the one with the sailor quoted me a nice price for what I needed. Now being the sneaky sort, I declared everything except the disputed claim and when they priced it up I then went, "Oh yeah, and this, I forgot. My bad." and then explained the disputed claim. So I know that the final quote with the disputed claim was £90 over the original 'accidently' non-declared one.
Any way, 7 months later, (don't ask! (The police were involved as she drove off after hitting the car - it didn't help)), a letter comes through from the old insurers stating that the 3rd party insurers have now admitted liability and all's good and I'm in the clear so I send off a copy of the letter to my new insurers along with a nicely worded email telling them where to send the refund of premium to. Their response?
I owe them an extra £56.92.
Does anyone have any idea how they get to this figure? 'Cos I bloody well don't!
Edited by Fireblade69 on Tuesday 22 February 17:59
"You are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident"
Apparently, I am now more likely to be reversed into by careless drivers whilst I am asleep in bed!?!
Next time I'm involved in an accident where there is just a bit of car damage, I'm going to sort it out with the driver. f
k the insurers, you prove otherwise!
Apparently, I am now more likely to be reversed into by careless drivers whilst I am asleep in bed!?!
Next time I'm involved in an accident where there is just a bit of car damage, I'm going to sort it out with the driver. f
k the insurers, you prove otherwise!Fireblade69 said:
"You are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident"
Apparently, I am now more likely to be reversed into by careless drivers whilst I am asleep in bed!?!
Next time I'm involved in an accident where there is just a bit of car damage, I'm going to sort it out with the driver. fk the insurers, you prove otherwise!
They're correct, you ARE more likely to be involved in another claim, you have a tendency to leave your car lying around where others crash into it.Apparently, I am now more likely to be reversed into by careless drivers whilst I am asleep in bed!?!
Next time I'm involved in an accident where there is just a bit of car damage, I'm going to sort it out with the driver. f
k the insurers, you prove otherwise!But if you've already declared it at the start of the policy they cannot then add more on... OMBUDSMAN.
Fireblade69 said:
Anyway, aren't I statistically LESS likely to be reversed into seeing as it's actually already happened? It's been a few years since school but I'm pretty sure that's right.
Yes, if the likelihood of you being crashed into was based on random events. But it isn't. It's based on where you leave your car, you've already proven you leave your car in places where it is likely to be crashed into. That's now been told to you at least twice in his thread. 
Papa Hotel said:
Yes, if the likelihood of you being crashed into was based on random events. But it isn't. It's based on where you leave your car, you've already proven you leave your car in places where it is likely to be crashed into. That's now been told to you at least twice in his thread.
Oh, right. So it's my fault then? Hit once in 10 years of parking it in the same place? And now I've built a hardstand and park it off the road - discount on the premium? Erm...no.Fireblade69 said:
Oh, right. So it's my fault then? Hit once in 10 years of parking it in the same place? And now I've built a hardstand and park it off the road - discount on the premium? Erm...no.
They've said it isn't your fault, but even though it isn't you are in a group that are statistically more likely to be involved in a claim this year than people who weren't involved in a claim last year. I got clobbered a few years back after my motor was written off whilst parked, a year later I get a second vehicle hit parked in the same place, straight wide road, 30mph limit, good visibility, no parking restriction, as far as is known only two incidents at this place in living memory! Both claims settled by third parties insurers but for 3 years it put my insurance up. Only 2 claims I have had in last 20 years, sometimes life just isn't fair.
vonhosen said:
They've said it isn't your fault, but even though it isn't you are in a group that are statistically more likely to be involved in a claim this year than people who weren't involved in a claim last year.
But surely this isnt the point - they loaded the premium when it was "open", and now it is closed in his favour it shouldnt be more of a risk, right?This isnt a case of adding a no fault claim and it going up - which while pants we understand; this is a case of a pending claim moving to no fault putting his premium up. I could just about reluctantly grasp it staying the same - but MORE?
edo said:
But surely this isnt the point - they loaded the premium when it was "open", and now it is closed in his favour it shouldnt be more of a risk, right?
This isnt a case of adding a no fault claim and it going up - which while pants we understand; this is a case of a pending claim moving to no fault putting his premium up. I could just about reluctantly grasp it staying the same - but MORE?
Premiums aren't a punishment, they are based on the statistical risk you represent for the next year based on the groups you belong to.This isnt a case of adding a no fault claim and it going up - which while pants we understand; this is a case of a pending claim moving to no fault putting his premium up. I could just about reluctantly grasp it staying the same - but MORE?
Sounds like a simlar case to when my insurer told me that in my renewal that for the previous year I still owed them £30-£40 for "changes they had been advised of in the last year" and it was going to be put on my card same day as renewal.
Phone call to ask what the changes were and they disappeared...
Phone call to ask what the changes were and they disappeared...
This is the type of situation where I'd be asking to be transferred to a senior manager in my most serious (but polite) voice.
Usually once you get far enough up the chain common sense *often* prevails (but not always.
There's no way that it can be justified based on what you've described - and even if they persist I'd make it known that you are going to refer to the ombudsman (which costs the company well more than the £50 they're screwing you for). Given the stupidity of the extra charge they'll likely back down.
Usually once you get far enough up the chain common sense *often* prevails (but not always.
There's no way that it can be justified based on what you've described - and even if they persist I'd make it known that you are going to refer to the ombudsman (which costs the company well more than the £50 they're screwing you for). Given the stupidity of the extra charge they'll likely back down.
Fireblade69 said:
"You are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident"
Apparently, I am now more likely to be reversed into by careless drivers whilst I am asleep in bed!?!
Next time I'm involved in an accident where there is just a bit of car damage, I'm going to sort it out with the driver. fk the insurers, you prove otherwise!
Mindbending isn't it... Apparently, I am now more likely to be reversed into by careless drivers whilst I am asleep in bed!?!
Next time I'm involved in an accident where there is just a bit of car damage, I'm going to sort it out with the driver. f
k the insurers, you prove otherwise!Motor Insurance...the only thing you're forced to buy but daren't use
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff