Free VW insurance can't protect NCD. Options?
Discussion
Yes, but apart from that?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Allowed you to drive with freedom, knowing that if you were to have an horrendous accident where you injured and killed people, you wouldn't lose your house and everything you've ever worked for.
Allowed you to drive with freedom, knowing that if someone hits and seriously injures you, you will receive compensation so you won't lose your house and everything you've ever worked for.
On house insurance, it allows you to go out, knowing that if your house burns down, you'll get it rebuilt, and won't lose everything you've ever worked for.
If it weren't for insurance, you'd live a pretty miserable existence, constantly worried that one stroke of bad luck or misjudgement by you or someone else could have catastrophic financial implications.
But apart from giving you the freedom to live the normal life you take for granted, absolutely nothing. It's a complete rip off.
Allowed you to drive with freedom, knowing that if someone hits and seriously injures you, you will receive compensation so you won't lose your house and everything you've ever worked for.
On house insurance, it allows you to go out, knowing that if your house burns down, you'll get it rebuilt, and won't lose everything you've ever worked for.
If it weren't for insurance, you'd live a pretty miserable existence, constantly worried that one stroke of bad luck or misjudgement by you or someone else could have catastrophic financial implications.
But apart from giving you the freedom to live the normal life you take for granted, absolutely nothing. It's a complete rip off.
emmaT2014 said:
MrsMiggins said:
The policy covering the UP will provide 0 ncd at renewal if a claim is made. The OP's OH will still have 10 years ncd from the other policy. She can have an accident a day while using the free cover and still buy her next policy with 10years ncd on it.
you're having a laugh. mybrainhurts said:
Some do...
None do. It's against ABI code of contact to jack up a base rate to counteract bonus to get to a pre determined rate.Of course they can increase the base rate following a claim, but not increase it more for someone with protected bonus than for someone with reduced bonus.
Don't believe everything the tin foil hat loonies on here tell you.
PorkInsider said:
I thought everyone knew that protecting NCD is a ripoff.
Even some people in the industry will tell you the same thing.
Well we all know that the industry employs plenty of idiots who don't understand the policies they are selling. One of those fools might tell you that, but no one in the industry who understands how prot bonus works will tell you that, because it's crap. Even some people in the industry will tell you the same thing.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
PorkInsider said:
I thought everyone knew that protecting NCD is a ripoff.
Even some people in the industry will tell you the same thing.
Well we all know that the industry employs plenty of idiots who don't understand the policies they are selling. One of those fools might tell you that, but no one in the industry who understands how prot bonus works will tell you that, because it's crap. Even some people in the industry will tell you the same thing.
Have a look at various press articles on the subject and perhaps your vehement assertion that you're right to pay for protecting your NCD might not look like such a sure bet.
http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/pro...
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-23...
https://www.lovemoney.com/news/20618/you-shouldnt-...
http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/news/should-you-...
Edited by PorkInsider on Sunday 7th December 17:04
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mybrainhurts said:
Some do...
None do. It's against ABI code of contact to jack up a base rate to counteract bonus to get to a pre determined rate.Of course they can increase the base rate following a claim, but not increase it more for someone with protected bonus than for someone with reduced bonus.
Don't believe everything the on here tell you.
But they do.
If you ask me to believe the insurance industry is squeaky clean and obeys the rules, I might just squeak out a little chuckle.
I see no guarantees of good conduct here.
"Tin foil hat loonies"...was that directed at me, or are you warning me not to listen to such loonies?
Whichever way, it's irrelevant, I'm talking from experience. An acquaintance made a claim. We were both with the same company. We both had protected NCB. We both drove Mini Coopers. Our cover renewal dates were fairly close together. Come renewal time, his increased, mine didn't. No other circumstances changed.
If I drew the wrong conclusion, tickle me with a feather until I expire.
mybrainhurts said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mybrainhurts said:
Some do...
None do. It's against ABI code of contact to jack up a base rate to counteract bonus to get to a pre determined rate.Of course they can increase the base rate following a claim, but not increase it more for someone with protected bonus than for someone with reduced bonus.
Don't believe everything the on here tell you.
But they do.
If you ask me to believe the insurance industry is squeaky clean and obeys the rules, I might just squeak out a little chuckle.
I see no guarantees of good conduct here.
"Tin foil hat loonies"...was that directed at me, or are you warning me not to listen to such loonies?
Whichever way, it's irrelevant, I'm talking from experience. An acquaintance made a claim. We were both with the same company. We both had protected NCB. We both drove Mini Coopers. Our cover renewal dates were fairly close together. Come renewal time, his increased, mine didn't. No other circumstances changed.
If I drew the wrong conclusion, tickle me with a feather until I expire.
In order for your assertion to make sense, one of you would have had to have had prot ncb, one of you not, you BOTH had claims and at renewal both premiums to have been the same, so the person with prot ncb was no better off than the person without it!!
As you clearly don't understand the point being made, I'm not sure how you can comment on it.
To summarise, a fault claim will often result in a higher premium at renewal, even if you have prot ncb, but it will still be lower than if you hadn't had prot ncb.
Base rate, plus claims loading minus unaffected bonus plus prot ncb charge will be lower than
Base rate plus claims loading minus reduced ncb.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mybrainhurts said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mybrainhurts said:
Some do...
None do. It's against ABI code of contact to jack up a base rate to counteract bonus to get to a pre determined rate.Of course they can increase the base rate following a claim, but not increase it more for someone with protected bonus than for someone with reduced bonus.
Don't believe everything the on here tell you.
But they do.
If you ask me to believe the insurance industry is squeaky clean and obeys the rules, I might just squeak out a little chuckle.
I see no guarantees of good conduct here.
"Tin foil hat loonies"...was that directed at me, or are you warning me not to listen to such loonies?
Whichever way, it's irrelevant, I'm talking from experience. An acquaintance made a claim. We were both with the same company. We both had protected NCB. We both drove Mini Coopers. Our cover renewal dates were fairly close together. Come renewal time, his increased, mine didn't. No other circumstances changed.
If I drew the wrong conclusion, tickle me with a feather until I expire.
In order for your assertion to make sense, one of you would have had to have had prot ncb, one of you not, you BOTH had claims and at renewal both premiums to have been the same, so the person with prot ncb was no better off than the person without it!!
As you clearly don't understand the point being made, I'm not sure how you can comment on it.
To summarise, a fault claim will often result in a higher premium at renewal, even if you have prot ncb, but it will still be lower than if you hadn't had prot ncb.
Base rate, plus claims loading minus unaffected bonus plus prot ncb charge will be lower than
Base rate plus claims loading minus reduced ncb.
mybrainhurts said:
Not quite what your average driver would expect, or think he's paying for. Therefore, a rip off. As I said.
Not at all. Being ripped off is being charged for something you shouldn't be charged for, not being charged correctly for something you don't understand, and therefore weren't expecting.But now I've kindly explained it to you, if you have a claim, you will be expecting it, so I've stopped you from being ripped off. No need to thank me!
PorkInsider said:
Have a look at various press articles on the subject and perhaps your vehement assertion that you're right to pay for protecting your NCD might not look like such a sure bet.
http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/pro...
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-23...
https://www.lovemoney.com/news/20618/you-shouldnt-...
http://www.moneysupermarket.com/c/news/should-you-...
Edited by PorkInsider on Sunday 7th December 17:04
The second link is amusing as it has an error where they've entered the figures in the wrong column which would make the difference between column three and column four to be a total of £62.50 instead of the £43.32. That means their figures are out by around 45% in this column.
As they've based their sums on this it throws their recommendation out.
For instance they say the extra premium increase from protected without a claim and protected with a claim is 8% when it should only be 5%.
Some of the other figures don't look correct but are not as obvious as the mistake I found, I would not entirely trust the rest of the figures they've used and the collection method.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mybrainhurts said:
Not quite what your average driver would expect, or think he's paying for. Therefore, a rip off. As I said.
Not at all. Being ripped off is being charged for something you shouldn't be charged for, not being charged correctly for something you don't understand, and therefore weren't expecting.But now I've kindly explained it to you, if you have a claim, you will be expecting it, so I've stopped you from being ripped off. No need to thank me!
mybrainhurts said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mybrainhurts said:
Not quite what your average driver would expect, or think he's paying for. Therefore, a rip off. As I said.
Not at all. Being ripped off is being charged for something you shouldn't be charged for, not being charged correctly for something you don't understand, and therefore weren't expecting.But now I've kindly explained it to you, if you have a claim, you will be expecting it, so I've stopped you from being ripped off. No need to thank me!
mybrainhurts said:
The rip off starts when you're selling something and not explaining its consequences to the customer.
I made a jokey point earlier about even the dullest of PH brains understanding how the NCD calcs are done, maybe I was wrong 
But is it not really well understood that there are normally two effects of an accident?
1 you are a higher risk, so the starting premium goes up
2 you lose some no claims discount so it's not discounted as much.
Protecting your no claims only affects item 2.
Bert
BertBert said:
But is it not really well understood that there are normally two effects of an accident?
1 you are a higher risk, so the starting premium goes up
2 you lose some no claims discount so it's not discounted as much.
Protecting your no claims only affects item 2.
Bert
Gggrrr....why do insurers have to make it all so complicated!1 you are a higher risk, so the starting premium goes up
2 you lose some no claims discount so it's not discounted as much.
Protecting your no claims only affects item 2.
Bert
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff