Insurance rise following a non-fault accident

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BertBert said:

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?

What I don't get is this. If insurance companies are always trying it on / fleecing us/ charging extra because they can/ ripping us off and all the other stuff that gets posted on PH almost daily......why is my insurance, and most people I know......so fking cheap?

I'm about to pay around £350 for renewal. I can get it for about £320 elsewhere but I'm quite happy with the policy I have. If it was £850, I'd think that was about right. Friends in Germany pay about €1200 for very similar circumstances/ vehicle to mine, except they live in a far more rural area???

[321boost]

Graveworm said:

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

My question was basically what gives an endorsement the 5 year rehabilitation period? There are two tables in section 5 for England and Wales and one of them says a fine has a rehabilitation period of 12 months and the other table says it’s 5 years. Is it because the endorsement is a sentence or because the second table applies to the speeding fine/endorsement because it doesn’t comply with subsection 3 or 4?

[321boost]

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.

Charging extra for 3, 4...10 non fault accidents in a short period where there’s a pattern makes sense and seems fair. Charging extra for 1 non fault accident in 10 years doesn’t.

[donkmeister]

I'm not au fait with these declarations so apologies if this seems like a dumb question, but how does the OPs situation work when:
- he is driving a hirecar rented through his company when he crashes/is crashed into
AND
- his insurance for that journey is under a company-wide policy (on which he is not specifically named) at the time?

Is the declaration to state that *he was driving* when a collision resulting in a claim?
Or is the declaration to say that *he was involved with* a claim?

Not trying to be clever, I am often insured under the same circumstances.

[Jimmy Recard]

It's annoying. A couple of years ago I was driving along and a Ford Kuga just ran out of a side road, into the side of my car and drove away. I stopped and got out to see it disappearing down the road. My car was a 13 year old Vauxhall Astra and both side doors and the rear wing were pretty bent.

I noted the plate and a helpful bystander came over to check I was ok and offered me his details as a witness. He had seen everything and the plate. The claim was settled very, very quickly and I retained my no-claims bonus and it was noted that I was not at fault


My insurance costs more than it would without that claim, but I've had to accept it. Some consolation for me was that the insurance company gave me more money than my car was realistically worth. It was a shame because it was quite a rare model and I really liked it, but sometimes things happen in life and you just have to suck them up.

My theory is that the driver of the Ford was drunk and didn't want to be caught for that, otherwise he would have stopped at the scene. It was a fairly hefty impact that shunted me a couple of feet (right over the centre line of the road), so he couldn't really have failed to notice it. No idea what happened to him, but I got a cheque from his insurance company very quickly which covered my excess.

ETA: I did have a mildly stiff and achy shoulder for a week or two and a lot of people said I should have made an injury claim, but it wasn't really severe and disappeared quickly so I didn't see the need

Edited by Jimmy Recard on Friday 17th January 14:03

[TwigtheWonderkid]

321boost said:

Charging extra for 3, 4...10 non fault accidents in a short period where there’s a pattern makes sense and seems fair.

That would suggest you accept that it's possible that even with non fault accidents, it is possible that there is some element of the driver's behaviour that could make them more likely to have further claims. Something that most people posting on this subject completely deny.

If a non fault accident where the other party's insurers pay in full really are nothing to do with the victim, it shouldn't matter how many times it's happened, there's no reason to charge them extra!

[Sheepshanks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That would suggest you accept that it's possible that even with non fault accidents, it is possible that there is some element of the driver's behaviour that could make them more likely to have further claims. Something that most people posting on this subject completely deny.

I think we all know know someone who is forever having things happen to them, and, knowing that person, we're probably not surprised.

I suppose insurance companies can look at this in a detached way - although they'd probably prefer to avoid the above people if they could get a 'heads up'!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Sheepshanks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That would suggest you accept that it's possible that even with non fault accidents, it is possible that there is some element of the driver's behaviour that could make them more likely to have further claims. Something that most people posting on this subject completely deny.

I think we all know know someone who is forever having things happen to them, and, knowing that person, we're probably not surprised.

I suppose insurance companies can look at this in a detached way - although they'd probably prefer to avoid the above people if they could get a 'heads up'!

The "heads up" you refer to is the non fault accident. That's an indication this person might be "one of those people", so a small increase is put on. 2 non fault claims, a slightly bigger increase, 3 and you're getting worried etc etc.

[321boost]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

That would suggest you accept that it's possible that even with non fault accidents, it is possible that there is some element of the driver's behaviour that could make them more likely to have further claims. Something that most people posting on this subject completely deny.

If a non fault accident where the other party's insurers pay in full really are nothing to do with the victim, it shouldn't matter how many times it's happened, there's no reason to charge them extra!

I never not accepted it. The NUMBER of times matters, I believe it’s fair to take into account multiple non fault accidents in a short period of time as you can drive in such a manner to avoid some accidents which might be due to another person’s fault. But i think it is unfair to ramp up someone’s premium based on one non fault claim in a long history of clean driving.

[321boost]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The "heads up" you refer to is the non fault accident. That's an indication this person might be "one of those people", so a small increase is put on. 2 non fault claims, a slightly bigger increase, 3 and you're getting worried etc etc.

You realise or get a heads up that this person might be “one of those people” when you hear about incidents with them again and again. You don’t say this person is “one of those people” because they had one accident or is that what you do?

[Graveworm]

321boost said:

You realise or get a heads up that this person might be “one of those people” when you hear about incidents with them again and again. You don’t say this person is “one of those people” because they had one accident or is that what you do?

This isn't about a person, they don't think I wonder what the chances of 321boost having an accident are? . They crunch the numbers and have found certain drivers, who have a non fault accident after 10 years, are an increased risk, than they were when they hadn't had it. That's not because they have read anything into it, they just have the stats for millions of motorists so it's there. They join the group of drivers who have had a non fault accident last year, after 5 or more years accident free.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th January 20:17

[wack]

vonhosen said:

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.

My car insurance went up £30 when I declared the second crash at renewal with a different insurer, an increase of £650 means fk off , not the same at all , if all insurers applied that increase nobody would be driving at all after any kind of bump.

[ceesvdelst]

"Trying it on"

When I was looking at renewing during the time when Speed courses were being touted on SOME insurance company quotes, that to me is trying it on, because if oit was generally allowed or used by everyone, as most things are, like security, alarms, mods etc, it would be on EVERY quote form but it wasn't.

That is surely opportunism?

I have no issue with the cost of my premiums, they are about 250 quid, i drive a bog average car as I ahve no interest whatsoever in driving somehting nice on our awful, traffic stacked roads.

My point was about the actions of some insurance companies.

[BertBert]

You've lost me there. Insurance companies are allowed to use any criteria they like to draw up the risk groups they use. They don't need to be the same as each other. So if admiral decided to ask (which they did), they are perfectly at liberty to do so. If you liked the service offered at the price, then good. If not, then go and choose another company. It's not like it's hard to do.
Bert
PS obviously not literally any criteria as some things are illegal such as differentiating on sex or ethical veganism

[bad company]

321boost said:

I never not accepted it. The NUMBER of times matters, I believe it’s fair to take into account multiple non fault accidents in a short period of time as you can drive in such a manner to avoid some accidents which might be due to another person’s fault. But i think it is unfair to ramp up someone’s premium based on one non fault claim in a long history of clean driving.

In my case over 10 years without a claim of any kind then 2 non faults in the same policy year.

[Roger Irrelevant]

bad company said:

321boost said:

I never not accepted it. The NUMBER of times matters, I believe it’s fair to take into account multiple non fault accidents in a short period of time as you can drive in such a manner to avoid some accidents which might be due to another person’s fault. But i think it is unfair to ramp up someone’s premium based on one non fault claim in a long history of clean driving.

In my case over 10 years without a claim of any kind then 2 non faults in the same policy year.

But what would you do if you were the insurer? They're not motivated by an innate prejudice against people who make no-fault claims; they're just going off raw stats that show such people are more likely to make claims in future. Now it may be that somebody who has made a no-fault claim (or even two), is indeed purely the victim of circumstance, and shouldn't be lumped in with the 'more likely to claim again' cohort. But how is the insurer to know whether that is the case or not? To get any sort of idea you'd need to have a detailed assessment of the individual risk which would mean having somebody from the insurance company observing your driving (in far more detail than a mere 'black box' could do), for an extended period of time. The cost of doing that is going to add much more to any premium than just taking the statistical approach, and so is pointless. As the insurer would you just take your customer's word for it that they shouldn't be considered a higher risk? Well every person who's ever made a no-fault claim will say that (ref loads of post on PH for starters), yet your vast statistical database will show that overall they are a higher risk so you can't just ignore that if you want to stay in business.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Roger Irrelevant said:

bad company said:

321boost said:

I never not accepted it. The NUMBER of times matters, I believe it’s fair to take into account multiple non fault accidents in a short period of time as you can drive in such a manner to avoid some accidents which might be due to another person’s fault. But i think it is unfair to ramp up someone’s premium based on one non fault claim in a long history of clean driving.

In my case over 10 years without a claim of any kind then 2 non faults in the same policy year.

But what would you do if you were the insurer? They're not motivated by an innate prejudice against people who make no-fault claims; they're just going off raw stats that show such people are more likely to make claims in future. Now it may be that somebody who has made a no-fault claim (or even two), is indeed purely the victim of circumstance, and shouldn't be lumped in with the 'more likely to claim again' cohort. But how is the insurer to know whether that is the case or not? To get any sort of idea you'd need to have a detailed assessment of the individual risk which would mean having somebody from the insurance company observing your driving (in far more detail than a mere 'black box' could do), for an extended period of time. The cost of doing that is going to add much more to any premium than just taking the statistical approach, and so is pointless. As the insurer would you just take your customer's word for it that they shouldn't be considered a higher risk? Well every person who's ever made a no-fault claim will say that (ref loads of post on PH for starters), yet your vast statistical database will show that overall they are a higher risk so you can't just ignore that if you want to stay in business.

Nailed it.

[popeyewhite]

Roger Irrelevant said:

they're just going off raw stats that show such people are more likely to make claims in future..

No, they are not 'raw stats' - whatever that invented term means. Do you believe in statistical 'proof' that shows lucky heather works as well?

[Roger Irrelevant]

popeyewhite said:

Roger Irrelevant said:

they're just going off raw stats that show such people are more likely to make claims in future..

No, they are not 'raw stats' - whatever that invented term means. Do you believe in statistical 'proof' that shows lucky heather works as well?

If this 'proof' of which you speak is something like a properly conducted large scale peer reviewed double blind trial then yes, if it showed to a sufficient level of statistical significance that lucky heather worked then I'd believe it did. I can't be arsed to look but I strongly suspect there is no such evidence so it's over to you on that.

[popeyewhite]

Roger Irrelevant said:

popeyewhite said:

Roger Irrelevant said:

they're just going off raw stats that show such people are more likely to make claims in future..

No, they are not 'raw stats' - whatever that invented term means. Do you believe in statistical 'proof' that shows lucky heather works as well?

If this 'proof' of which you speak is something like a properly conducted large scale peer reviewed double blind trial then yes, if it showed to a sufficient level of statistical significance that lucky heather worked then I'd believe it did. I can't be arsed to look but I strongly suspect there is no such evidence so it's over to you on that.

Double blind isn't needed for calculating risk, and peer review is relevant to academic journals, not car insurance stats. I'll put it simply: Do you believe that the occurence of one entirely random event involving an individual means it's more or less likely that the same entirely random event will happen again?



Exactly.