Insurance rise following a non-fault accident

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Armitage.Shanks said:

Aty the end of the day the insurer is seeing you as a 'risk' even though it wasn't your fault. Any opportunity to get more money out of you they will.

Strange then, that there are millions of people in this country paying very little for car insurance. Just had my renewal thru, £30K Merc GLC based in London 'burbs, £350!!! It's laughably cheap. A new wing mirror is about £800.

Seems me and most people I know seem to be immune from being ripped off by insurers.

[dibblecorse]

adam quantrill said:

There you have it then. You have not made any claim. The hire company have made the claim.

Seems like you are adding someone else's claim to your quote?

Question is 'have you had any accidents, claims or losses' answer is yes, he had an accident.

As for recompense for premium adjustments, he has no chance and none of the free bundled legal covers will take it on.

[martinbiz]

It is definitely age based £325 for a focus RS with a no fault claim!, but I’m and old b****d

[Ascayman]

321boost said:

martinbiz said:

That’s a good call, commit a fraud to cover your extra expense

Insurance companies use a loophole to make more money.

Interesting! can you show me where please?

[B4M]

Thank you for all of the replies, it's been an interesting read.

I had always suspected the insurance statistics would produce a value showing repeat occurrences would occur following a non-fault.
From a personal view, it's a shame many (not all) companies see it that way. As I do not feel it's impacted my style of driving, in terms of changing how I behave in queues, I've always been conscious of leaving plenty of room for braking for traffic (just a shame the 3rd part didn't!).

For completeness of this topic, someone suggested the legal cover on my own insurance. As I expected, having confirmed with them, they only provide that if the incident occurred whilst in the vehicle insured on the poilcy.

I guess, naively, I thought the hire companie's legal team would have been able to pursue it for me. C'est la vie.

For some good news:
My current insurers are a broker and have spoken with the underwriter, who have agreed not to load the premium for the renewal. Taking into account the situation described, the value of the claim (which was not on my policy) and my up-to-now clean driving history over the last 5 years.
It has decreased compared to the soon-to-expire policy. Though, due to other companies loading for the non fault, it has ruled them out on price. Which might not have been the case if this accident had not occurred.

I will say, I am glad this did not occur when I was younger (currently 34). As I feel this could have easily made certain cars I've insured rather expensive!

[321boost]

BertBert said:

Intriguing, what loophole would that be?

Motoring convictions (e.g speeding) are only valid for 3 years after the offence and can be removed after 4 years yet the insurance companies ask if you have had any convictions within the past 5 years due to the rehabilitation act where you’ve paid a fine.

That is using a loophole to charge extra in my opinion.

[martinbiz]

321boost said:

martinbiz said:

Oh....so that’s makes it ok then, don’t be so clueless

I wouldn’t call it cluelessness.

Well I was going to say stupid, but I thought that was rather rude, clearly I was misguided!

[321boost]

ZeroGroundZero said:

And of course the insurance company's reasoning is total BS.
Because as a total polar opposite angle of reasoning, my work colleague sitting on desk to next me was trying to reduce his insurance premium renewal quote just recently, having no claim history at all, and over 15 years no claims bonus. Yet they were trying to reason that because he has spent so long without an accident, statistically he is due one soon, and therefore this "risk" has been reflected on his premium increase for this year.

In this case he laughed at them, told them don't bother to renew the policy and hung up.

Either the insurance representative had no idea what he/she was talking about or this is a clear example of how statistics can be manipulated to suit a certain side.

[Graveworm]

321boost said:

Motoring convictions (e.g speeding) are only valid for 3 years after the offence and can be removed after 4 years yet the insurance companies ask if you have had any convictions within the past 5 years due to the rehabilitation act where you’ve paid a fine.

That is using a loophole to charge extra in my opinion.

The fine is the first to be spent. The conviction is valid forever unless successfully overturned but can be ignored for most (Not all) purposes once spent. Rehabilitation of Offenders means the fine is spent after 1 year the points after 3 but the endorsement/FPN is 5. It's not a loophole it's what the act intended.

[EU_Foreigner]

Graveworm said:

321boost said:

Motoring convictions (e.g speeding) are only valid for 3 years after the offence and can be removed after 4 years yet the insurance companies ask if you have had any convictions within the past 5 years due to the rehabilitation act where you’ve paid a fine.

That is using a loophole to charge extra in my opinion.

The fine is the first to be spent. The conviction is valid forever unless successfully overturned but can be ignored for most (Not all) purposes once spent. Rehabilitation of Offenders means the fine is spent after 1 year the points after 3 but the endorsement/FPN is 5. It's not a loophole it's what the act intended.

Interesting that only in the UK this has an impact on insurance costs, which does very much seem like a means to extract additional funds.

[ninepoint2]

adam quantrill said:

There you have it then. You have not made any claim. The hire company have made the claim.

Seems like you are adding someone else's claim to your quote?

Seems to be the answer, you have not made any claims

[Graveworm]

EU_Foreigner said:

Interesting that only in the UK this has an impact on insurance costs, which does very much seem like a means to extract additional funds.

If that is the case then conversely UK practices may reduce costs for others. As I said above Motor insurance is not very profitable, of itself so it others pay more then some pay less?

[martinbiz]

321boost said:

BertBert said:

Intriguing, what loophole would that be?

Motoring convictions (e.g speeding) are only valid for 3 years after the offence and can be removed after 4 years yet the insurance companies ask if you have had any convictions within the past 5 years due to the rehabilitation act where you’ve paid a fine.

That is using a loophole to charge extra in my opinion.

Honestly WTF are you on about, a loophole is getting round something on a point of law, this is nothing to do with the law. They can say, do or charge what they like and you as the customer have the option to tell them to do one and spend your money somewhere else

[TwigtheWonderkid]

321boost said:

BertBert said:

Intriguing, what loophole would that be?

Motoring convictions (e.g speeding) are only valid for 3 years after the offence and can be removed after 4 years yet the insurance companies ask if you have had any convictions within the past 5 years due to the rehabilitation act where you’ve paid a fine.

That is using a loophole to charge extra in my opinion.

You are confusing "valid under the totting up system" with "valid after the offence", a common mistake made by people who know nothing about the law and who really don't understand the topic they are talking about.

[V8fan]

Most comparison websites ask about claims / accidents in the last 5 years because most companies ask the same. But some specific companies only ask about the last 3 years, Direct Line for example.

Just shop around, and don't leave it until too close to the renewal date. I've recently changed insurance companies and was able to give 3 weeks notice of cover starting; the premium was 20% less than if I wanted it to start 'tomorrow.'

The OP said a claim in 2004 affected his premium. I very much doubt it.

[martinbiz]

Just checked an email quote from direct line I had in October and it asks for 5 years

[B4M]

V8fan said:

Most comparison websites ask about claims / accidents in the last 5 years because most companies ask the same. But some specific companies only ask about the last 3 years, Direct Line for example.

Just shop around, and don't leave it until too close to the renewal date. I've recently changed insurance companies and was able to give 3 weeks notice of cover starting; the premium was 20% less than if I wanted it to start 'tomorrow.'

The OP said a claim in 2004 affected his premium. I very much doubt it.

I was not implying the 2004 incident had any impact on my renewal. It was more to highlight that I have not dealt with a motoring insurance claim since then.

Cheers

[Sheepshanks]

I wonder where you draw the line with these things - there's a small kink on the edge of the door opening / rear quarter panel of wife's car where I caught it on a wooden fence in the dark. I don't intend to have it repaired, will take the hit at PX.

Would people report that?

[B4M]

ninepoint2 said:

adam quantrill said:

There you have it then. You have not made any claim. The hire company have made the claim.

Seems like you are adding someone else's claim to your quote?

Seems to be the answer, you have not made any claims

This has already been covered. The question asked is about accidents as well, which is what I have been involved in.

Thanks

[Eyersey1234]

One of the YouTube channels I subscribe to had their insurance go down after an accident. Although no claim was made as there was so little damage it wasn't worth claiming for, their insurance was on the point of renewal and because the bump happened on a Friday night, the brokers said they would have to ring back Monday morning, this they did to find a new insurance company had joined that broker that morning and the quote of the new company was cheaper even with the no fault accident.