Insurance rise following a non-fault accident

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Sheepshanks said:

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?

A builder with a pick up truck causes scratching and small dents to the vehicle every time he lobs stuff in the back. They'd have to report a few accidents a day. Or maybe, as he knows he's going to cause damage, and doesn't care, it's not an accident, it's deliberate!

[321boost]

Graveworm said:

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.

Ah I see, you seem to be right s.58 of RTOA 1988 says something dealt by s.57 RTOA 1988 (as I understand the bit giving you the endorsement) shall be treated as convicted of an offence and be subject to ROA 1974.

Two questions;

Question.1 - In ROA 1974, for the England and Wales section(section/number 5), there are two tables, one of them doesn’t seem to be marked (I will call it Table 1) and says what you said earlier I.e. the fine is spent after 1 year but the text right before this table 1 says ‘For the purpose of act (ROA) AND subsections 3 and 4, the rehabilitation period is the period ... ending period is as listed in the table below (Table 1)

But ‘For the purpose of this act (ROA)’ Table A must be used.

So, does this mean that the speeding offence is subject to ROA act and not ROA, 5, subsection 3&4 therefore the correct table to use is table A in section/number 5 for England and Wales? This would mean that a speeding offence is spent after 5 years?

Question.2 - s58 of RTOA also states that this offence is subject to section 45 which says the endorsement stays effective until four years have elapsed. So what’s the difference between effective and spent? If it’s not effective after four years why is it not spent?

[321boost]

martinbiz said:

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

Calm down dear

[321boost]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/how-long-endorsements-stay-on-your-driving-licence

Perhaps but note ‘valid’.

[Graveworm]

321boost said:

Ah I see, you seem to be right s.58 of RTOA 1988 says something dealt by s.57 RTOA 1988 (as I understand the bit giving you the endorsement) shall be treated as convicted of an offence and be subject to ROA 1974.

Two questions;

Question.1 - In ROA 1974, for the England and Wales section(section/number 5), there are two tables, one of them doesn’t seem to be marked (I will call it Table 1) and says what you said earlier I.e. the fine is spent after 1 year but the text right before this table 1 says ‘For the purpose of act (ROA) AND subsections 3 and 4, the rehabilitation period is the period ... ending period is as listed in the table below (Table 1)

But ‘For the purpose of this act (ROA)’ Table A must be used.

So, does this mean that the speeding offence is subject to ROA act and not ROA, 5, subsection 3&4 therefore the correct table to use is table A in section/number 5 for England and Wales? This would mean that a speeding offence is spent after 5 years?

Question.2 - s58 of RTOA also states that this offence is subject to section 45 which says the endorsement stays effective until four years have elapsed. So what’s the difference between effective and spent? If it’s not effective after four years why is it not spent?

Not sure which table you mean, it's the punishment that counts. but as I said the fine is 1 year, points 3 but endorsement is 5.
This is spent
Effective means the endorsement can be removed from the licence. Spent means you no longer need to disclose the convicion/acceptance of the fixed penalty.
This is not bad

[adam quantrill]

vonhosen said:

adam quantrill said:

B4M said:

The other driver admitted full liability and the hire company have submitted their claim for the damage repair. It's considered 'settled' for the sum of ~£520 to the hire company.

Edited by B4M on Wednesday 15th January 15:15

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?

It's not a claim he has to declare, it is an accident that he has to declare on the quote.

dibblecorse said:

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

Ahh but it's not an "accident" it's a "Road Traffic Collision". And the OP might be of the opinion that the other driver did it deliberately (I have had experience of this - recently).

So - no accident, and no claim.

Edited by adam quantrill on Thursday 16th January 18:40

[Graveworm]

adam quantrill said:

Ahh but it's not an "accident" it's a "Road Traffic Collision". And the OP might be of the opinion that the other driver did it deliberately (I have had experience of this - recently).

So - no accident, and no claim.

Chief Constable of Staffordshire vs Lees put that one to bed. A deliberate collision is an "Accident" in most circumstances.

[BertBert]

Eyersey1234 said:

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.

now this is a pivotal story on this thread. No sorry, my mistake. What a load of bks this is.
Bert

[wack]

I had my haulage insurance with Admiral

2017 I was hit from behind, settled no loss of ncb
2019 same again, settled no loss of ncb

At renewal I told admiral about the 2nd incident , ok let me put that in the computer

It has increased your premium

Ok, how much

It's gone from £1100 to £1750

Which i think is the fk off price , shopped elsewhere and got it for £1070

Admiral want drivers with full ncb, clean licences and no crashes of any kind.

A guy on one of the facebook mustang groups said they wanted £200 extra to add wheel spacers because they were a dangerous modification which again is fk off if you want to modify it

[bad company]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

bad company said:

I’m in a similar and probably worse situation. I’d not had any sort of claim for over 10 years and still have 15 years + no claims bonus. This insurance year I’ve twice claimed from another drivers insurance company. For one of them I wasn’t even driving, my car was hit in a supermarket car park.

Not everyone parks in supermarket car parks. They are high risk places. You clearly do, and next time you get hit, you might not know who was responsible, and need to claim on your policy. Now your insurance company know you park in supermarket car parks, they are entitled to charge you extra at renewal. That is not the fault of the person who hit you.

O)f course, at renewal, you will be entitled to move to another insurance company.

I’d say that just about everyone uses supermarket car parks sometimes.

My other non fault accident happened when I was leaving motorway services and a woman drove out of the petrol station into the side of my car. So are motorway services also dangerous places? I also drive on country lanes, in cities and on dual carriageways. I must be a very high risk then.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

bad company said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

bad company said:

I’m in a similar and probably worse situation. I’d not had any sort of claim for over 10 years and still have 15 years + no claims bonus. This insurance year I’ve twice claimed from another drivers insurance company. For one of them I wasn’t even driving, my car was hit in a supermarket car park.

Not everyone parks in supermarket car parks. They are high risk places. You clearly do, and next time you get hit, you might not know who was responsible, and need to claim on your policy. Now your insurance company know you park in supermarket car parks, they are entitled to charge you extra at renewal. That is not the fault of the person who hit you.

O)f course, at renewal, you will be entitled to move to another insurance company.

I’d say that just about everyone uses supermarket car parks sometimes.

My other non fault accident happened when I was leaving motorway services and a woman drove out of the petrol station into the side of my car. So are motorway services also dangerous places? I also drive on country lanes, in cities and on dual carriageways. I must be a very high risk then.

Not everyone uses supermarket car parks. And some people use them more than others. You'd be really unlucky to get hit in one if you only go there once a year. If you get hit in a supermarket car park, probability tells you that you are more than likely a regular visitor.

As for service station car parks, I don't know anyone who has been hit in one. But off the top of my head, I know about half a dozen people who have been hit in a supermarket car park, including me!

[Graveworm]

bad company said:

I’d say that just about everyone uses supermarket car parks sometimes.

My other non fault accident happened when I was leaving motorway services and a woman drove out of the petrol station into the side of my car. So are motorway services also dangerous places? I also drive on country lanes, in cities and on dual carriageways. I must be a very high risk then.

Does almost everyone use them in the same way? Do they avoid them and try to park in less risky spots?
As for the services most non fault moving accidents are still avoidable; as the dash cam videos show only too well. Insurance companies seem to deal with the statistics, so even if a driver could have done nothing, they join the had a third party liability accident with everyone else.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

For those who say non fault accidents are no reflection on the driver, if that's true, then the same must apply for 2 non fault accidents, or 3, or 5. Surely there comes a point where you think "hang on, no one is that unlucky." Would you be happy being a passenger in a car with someone who has been hit in the rear 10 times in the last couple of years? Or someone borrowing your car who has been hit whilst parked 6 times.

If someone who has multiple non fault accidents is a higher risk, then they must've been a time when they'd only had the 1. And they were still higher risk.

Non fault accidents embrace a wide range of circumstances. All are non fault, some aren't avoidable by the innocent party, and some are, by a more careful driver.

[Graveworm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

For those who say non fault accidents are no reflection on the driver, if that's true, then the same must apply for 2 non fault accidents, or 3, or 5. Surely there comes a point where you think "hang on, no one is that unlucky." Would you be happy being a passenger in a car with someone who has been hit in the rear 10 times in the last couple of years? Or someone borrowing your car who has been hit whilst parked 6 times.

If someone who has multiple non fault accidents is a higher risk, then they must've been a time when they'd only had the 1. And they were still higher risk.

Non fault accidents embrace a wide range of circumstances. All are non fault, some aren't avoidable by the innocent party, and some are, by a more careful driver.

Probability is often counterintuitive: say the chances of having an accident during a year for a given demographic are 1 in 10 then logically the chances of having 2, are 1 in 100. But it is less than that as having the first accident, removed them from the original demographic. It's also a good test for how accurate the correlation is.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Graveworm said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

For those who say non fault accidents are no reflection on the driver, if that's true, then the same must apply for 2 non fault accidents, or 3, or 5. Surely there comes a point where you think "hang on, no one is that unlucky." Would you be happy being a passenger in a car with someone who has been hit in the rear 10 times in the last couple of years? Or someone borrowing your car who has been hit whilst parked 6 times.

If someone who has multiple non fault accidents is a higher risk, then they must've been a time when they'd only had the 1. And they were still higher risk.

Non fault accidents embrace a wide range of circumstances. All are non fault, some aren't avoidable by the innocent party, and some are, by a more careful driver.

Probability is often counterintuitive: say the chances of having an accident during a year for a given demographic are 1 in 10 then logically the chances of having 2, are 1 in 100. But it is less than that as having the first accident, removed them from the original demographic. It's also a good test for how accurate the correlation is.

If the chances of being hit in a supermarket car park are once every 100 visits, then someone who shops there weekly might expect to get hit once every couple of years. Someone who works there and parks daily might get hit once every 3 or 4 months. Someone who goes twice a year might never get hit, or maybe once in their lifetime.

The more often you engage in risky activity, where apparently skill plays little or no part, the higher the risk of a bad outcome.

[BertBert]

wack said:

Admiral want drivers with full ncb, clean licences and no crashes of any kind.

Well apart from the fact that they insured you after the first accident?

[vonhosen]

wack said:

Admiral want drivers with full ncb, clean licences and no crashes of any kind.

Insurers offer lower premiums to drivers with full ncb, clean licences & no crashes of any kind. They offer higher premiums to drivers without these.
Surely that's hardly surprising.

[BertBert]

vonhosen said:

Insurers offer lower premiums to drivers with full ncb, clean licences & no crashes of any kind. They offer higher premiums to drivers without these.
Surely that's hardly surprising.

And also different insurers make different decisions on how they rate risk and which they want to be competitive in and which they don't.
If only there was a lot of competition in the car insurance market so that you had plenty of choice and market forces were in place.
Bert

[ceesvdelst]

I rarely renew my car insurance with the same company each year so am well versed in filling out the forms.

And the SAC declaration was a thing about 5 years ago but seems to have disappeared now, completely, past few years I have seen no reference to it, so it was, as usual, insurance companies trying it on.

And I had a no fault claim, and simply went elsewhere when my quote came back in for renewal, it went up slightly, but I matched it easily, and this year it dropped by a decent amount. I think like a utility, you have to shop around, ERY renewal date, it's that simple.

Broadband, gas, electric, house insurance, pet, car, I found I was getting fleeced by the AA, my faulty I kept renewing without taking much notice, but what was originally a 40 quid a year policy ended up being 90, so again, you have to renew every few years or they gradually creep it up without much explanation as to why as the cover stays the same.

[BertBert]

ceesvdelst said:

And the SAC declaration was a thing about 5 years ago but seems to have disappeared now, completely, past few years I have seen no reference to it, so it was, as usual, insurance companies trying it on.

In what way, trying it on?