Motor insurance history help

Motor insurance history help

Author
Discussion

Camaro

Original Poster:

1,419 posts

176 months

Tuesday 2nd April
quotequote all
Hello all,

Last year I had a lady pull out and hit me while I was driving in my shed, I came to a stop and she didn't. I did the dutiful thing of notifying my insurance company and also the police, the latter almost immediately closed the issue as there wasn't any evidence to hand. My insurance company wanted photos etc of the damage, but I specifically said I am not interested in claiming, it's not worth it for the minor panel damage. They said they would leave the case open for 3 months on the off chance the other driver did want to claim and it was on file as such. In October I was notified nobody had come forward and the case was now closed and recorded as a notification only. I have this as an email.

I've come to renew my insurance and have found a policy just a smidge cheaper elsewhere. Now two weeks before the policy renews I've been sent an email stating I the driver hit a third party and that I was at fault. This is all been recorded on the Motor Insurance Database apparently. It says in the email if I want to challenge this I need to contact my previous insurer which I do and they say they have it marked as not a claim and just a notification.

Has anyone get any experience with getting a record corrected on the database? I have about three other cars that are all coming up for renewal and I really can't face having to deal with more hanging on phone lines trying to get this sorted out.


martinbiz

3,096 posts

146 months

Tuesday 2nd April
quotequote all
Camaro said:
Hello all,

Last year I had a lady pull out and hit me while I was driving in my shed, I came to a stop and she didn't. I did the dutiful thing of notifying my insurance company and also the police, the latter almost immediately closed the issue as there wasn't any evidence to hand. My insurance company wanted photos etc of the damage, but I specifically said I am not interested in claiming, it's not worth it for the minor panel damage. They said they would leave the case open for 3 months on the off chance the other driver did want to claim and it was on file as such. In October I was notified nobody had come forward and the case was now closed and recorded as a notification only. I have this as an email.

I've come to renew my insurance and have found a policy just a smidge cheaper elsewhere. Now two weeks before the policy renews I've been sent an email stating I the driver hit a third party and that I was at fault. This is all been recorded on the Motor Insurance Database apparently. It says in the email if I want to challenge this I need to contact my previous insurer which I do and they say they have it marked as not a claim and just a notification.

Has anyone get any experience with getting a record corrected on the database? I have about three other cars that are all coming up for renewal and I really can't face having to deal with more hanging on phone lines trying to get this sorted out.
Where did the latest email come, your ins co? If so contact them and refer them to their previous email. Most likely just an admin error

Camaro

Original Poster:

1,419 posts

176 months

Tuesday 2nd April
quotequote all
Latest email came from the new insurance company stating they checked the database and the claim was on there.


Camaro

Original Poster:

1,419 posts

176 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
So as an update to you all,

Complained to the new insurance company about bumping up my premium. It turns out that no matter whether a claim was made or not, whether you were at fault or not, the moment you register it with a provider it goes on your record and can't be scrubbed for 5 years.

So thanks to some ones else who left the scene, I now have to notify the insurance companies that I was involved in someone hitting me, it wasn't my fault and I didn't make a claim, because of this all my premiums are expected to rise by circa £40~

Sometimes I really do wonder who polices this stuff as this just isn't fair, being honest.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,402 posts

151 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
Camaro said:
Sometimes I really do wonder who polices this stuff as this just isn't fair, being honest.
Insurance isn't about fairness, but about statistics. Which is how it should be. There are people paying a hell of a lot more than you because of things they can't do anything about, like their age. It's not fair that a teenager pays more for car insurance than a 50 year old. The teenager had done nothing wrong. Or that the 50 y/o pays more for life insurance. Or that the bloke with cancer can't buy life insurance at all. None of it is fair. Welcome to life, it's not fair.

FMOB

889 posts

13 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Camaro said:
Sometimes I really do wonder who polices this stuff as this just isn't fair, being honest.
Insurance isn't about fairness, but about statistics. Which is how it should be. There are people paying a hell of a lot more than you because of things they can't do anything about, like their age. It's not fair that a teenager pays more for car insurance than a 50 year old. The teenager had done nothing wrong. Or that the 50 y/o pays more for life insurance. Or that the bloke with cancer can't buy life insurance at all. None of it is fair. Welcome to life, it's not fair.
I would say the OP isn't being treated fairly and is being materially disadvantaged by the new insurer because the statistics aren't giving a full picture of what actually happened.

RGG

259 posts

18 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
This happened to me.

Virtually the same.

I didn't complain just telephoned and pressed the actuality.

The insurance company removed any negative marker on the database.

Company was John Lewis / Provident.

Dingu

3,793 posts

31 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
FMOB said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Camaro said:
Sometimes I really do wonder who polices this stuff as this just isn't fair, being honest.
Insurance isn't about fairness, but about statistics. Which is how it should be. There are people paying a hell of a lot more than you because of things they can't do anything about, like their age. It's not fair that a teenager pays more for car insurance than a 50 year old. The teenager had done nothing wrong. Or that the 50 y/o pays more for life insurance. Or that the bloke with cancer can't buy life insurance at all. None of it is fair. Welcome to life, it's not fair.
I would say the OP isn't being treated fairly and is being materially disadvantaged by the new insurer because the statistics aren't giving a full picture of what actually happened.
And you would be incorrect.

VSKeith

757 posts

48 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
I had a similar reaction when it happened to me, OP.

The main thing was the surprise as, like you, I wasn't aware that that's how it worked.

There wasn't a significant effect on my premiums, ~£20-30 for a couple of years. Even though you have to declare it for 5 years it only seems to affect the first 2-3 years for most people, if at all (as long as nothing else happens of course). For some there is no effect at all.

I do understand why they do it though - in the cold hard world of statistics, the likelihood of it happening again has gone up slightly.

Sad fact of life/insurance

VSKeith

757 posts

48 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
RGG said:
This happened to me.

Virtually the same.

I didn't complain just telephoned and pressed the actuality.

The insurance company removed any negative marker on the database.

Company was John Lewis / Provident.
I think you got lucky there. I would be doing a DSAR (Date Subject Access Request - give me all the data you hold on me) on CUE, to make sure they'd actually taken it off.

essayer

9,080 posts

195 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
£40 ? You got off lightly

FMOB

889 posts

13 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
Dingu said:
FMOB said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Camaro said:
Sometimes I really do wonder who polices this stuff as this just isn't fair, being honest.
Insurance isn't about fairness, but about statistics. Which is how it should be. There are people paying a hell of a lot more than you because of things they can't do anything about, like their age. It's not fair that a teenager pays more for car insurance than a 50 year old. The teenager had done nothing wrong. Or that the 50 y/o pays more for life insurance. Or that the bloke with cancer can't buy life insurance at all. None of it is fair. Welcome to life, it's not fair.
I would say the OP isn't being treated fairly and is being materially disadvantaged by the new insurer because the statistics aren't giving a full picture of what actually happened.
And you would be incorrect.
Care to explain but bear in mind you can use statistics to justify just about anything which is exactly what the insurance does.

Sebring440

2,021 posts

97 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
FMOB said:
I would say the OP isn't being treated fairly and is being materially disadvantaged by the new insurer because the statistics aren't giving a full picture of what actually happened.
And what would you advise the OP does, after that magnificent statement?

FMOB

889 posts

13 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
Sebring440 said:
FMOB said:
I would say the OP isn't being treated fairly and is being materially disadvantaged by the new insurer because the statistics aren't giving a full picture of what actually happened.
And what would you advise the OP does, after that magnificent statement?
Exactly what they have already done.

The insurance industry relies on sets of statistics that are justified by other sets of statistics which are justified again by another set that create an insular and incestuous industry that is opaque and a mystery to most consumers who are forced to become customers.

Sebring440

2,021 posts

97 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
FMOB said:
Sebring440 said:
FMOB said:
I would say the OP isn't being treated fairly and is being materially disadvantaged by the new insurer because the statistics aren't giving a full picture of what actually happened.
And what would you advise the OP does, after that magnificent statement?
Exactly what they have already done.

The insurance industry relies on sets of statistics that are justified by other sets of statistics which are justified again by another set that create an insular and incestuous industry that is opaque and a mystery to most consumers who are forced to become customers.
You keep coming up with all this verbosity, but what should the OP do to resolve the situation?


Flumpo

3,762 posts

74 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
Camaro said:
So as an update to you all,

Complained to the new insurance company about bumping up my premium. It turns out that no matter whether a claim was made or not, whether you were at fault or not, the moment you register it with a provider it goes on your record and can't be scrubbed for 5 years.

So thanks to some ones else who left the scene, I now have to notify the insurance companies that I was involved in someone hitting me, it wasn't my fault and I didn't make a claim, because of this all my premiums are expected to rise by circa £40~

Sometimes I really do wonder who polices this stuff as this just isn't fair, being honest.
You might find that it doesn’t make much difference if you use some of the comparison websites. While some insurance companies will want a significant premium others won’t be bothered.

My wife learnt to drive fairly late. In her first year she wrote her car off her fault, second year she wrote my car off not at fault, third year 3 points for speeding, year 5 she got 6 points for not declaring who was driving through red light camera.

Guess what, every year her insurance came down significantly and reduced mine by a fair bit adding her.

Each year was a different insurer through the meerkats.

This week I did a quote through Adrian flux, for my daily diesel the quote was £1050ish. Out of curiosity I wondered how much it would go up if I had it remapped. They then quoted £650ish, so someone’s algorithm thinks I’m less of a risk in a remapped car.

bowtie

Don’t try to figure it out, don’t try to fight it, just shop around and make sure the cover is right for you.

curvature

390 posts

75 months

Friday 5th April
quotequote all
RGG said:
This happened to me.

Virtually the same.

I didn't complain just telephoned and pressed the actuality.

The insurance company removed any negative marker on the database.

Company was John Lewis / Provident.
As above call them and get it removed.

When I tried to renew my Z4 insurance this year I got some crazy quotes which I couldn't understand why.

It turned out that I had two claims registered for the same claim. Two phone calls and it was all sorted.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,402 posts

151 months

Friday 5th April
quotequote all
FMOB said:
Dingu said:
FMOB said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Camaro said:
Sometimes I really do wonder who polices this stuff as this just isn't fair, being honest.
Insurance isn't about fairness, but about statistics. Which is how it should be. There are people paying a hell of a lot more than you because of things they can't do anything about, like their age. It's not fair that a teenager pays more for car insurance than a 50 year old. The teenager had done nothing wrong. Or that the 50 y/o pays more for life insurance. Or that the bloke with cancer can't buy life insurance at all. None of it is fair. Welcome to life, it's not fair.
I would say the OP isn't being treated fairly and is being materially disadvantaged by the new insurer because the statistics aren't giving a full picture of what actually happened.
And you would be incorrect.
Care to explain but bear in mind you can use statistics to justify just about anything which is exactly what the insurance does.
That particular insurer's stats show that punters with a non fault claim go on to cost them more than punters with no claims. In the same way their stats show teenagers cost them a fortune, so get charged a fortune. There will be conscientious low risk teenagers who won't claim, so on them it's unfair, but it's not unfair to charge them on the basis that their risk is much higher.

GasEngineer

953 posts

63 months

Friday 5th April
quotequote all
if the new policy was only going to be a smidge cheaper, why not just stay with your current insurer and save the £40 hike?

LF5335

5,982 posts

44 months

Friday 5th April
quotequote all
GasEngineer said:
if the new policy was only going to be a smidge cheaper, why not just stay with your current insurer and save the £40 hike?
Because in PH terms a smidge is defined as “around the average salary of a UK worker” wink