How does NCD work
Discussion
desolate said:
InitialDave said:
popeyewhite said:
The plethora of whiplash claims needs to be nipped in the bud by legislation
Hang on, did they not just do something about that? https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/cost-of-motor...
popeyewhite said:
"Car insurance prices have gone up £132 over the past year – a rise of 18%, with a £66, or 8%, increase seen over the past three months alone."
https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/cost-of-motor...
What do you think of the other factors?https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/cost-of-motor...
have you seen the results for the major motor underwriters?
popeyewhite said:
There was me thinking the whole idea is you purchase insurance and sometimes you win by claiming and sometimes you lose. More often than not you lose,
That's because you do not understand insurance.You shouldn't ever win or lose. You're buying peace of mind. If you insure your house, you can go out and leave it unattended. Because if it burns down, you will not have lost your life's savings and everything you worked for. So if you don't claim, you haven't lost. You've paid to have a life not worrying about losing everything. Without it, you'd never leave your house.
If your house does burn down, that's hardly a win. You don't celebrate the fact that you've beaten your insurer, running around the smouldering remains with party poppers. The insurance will put you back to where you were before it happened, not make you better off. Not much of a win.
KingNothing said:
desolate said:
CoolHands said:
your answer shows why the industry is as shady as a shady thing. I'm sure in some world 9 equates to 6, just not this one.
You still have your 9 years or whatever - what have you lost?Would you use an insurer that didn't used no claims discount but was still cheapest?
The point is that they stop increasing the discount after 7 years, but still displayed that I had 9 years without making a claim.
When I then changed again this year, with 10 years no claims, they sent a NCD form which simply said "NCD Discount: Maximum" - and my new insurers were happy to accept that as proof of my 10 years.
On the protection side of things I always thought it was worth having as it protected the discount. For example:
Your premium is X based on your risk profile. The insurance provider then deduct Y (no claims discount) and you pay Z.
If you dont have protected NCD and have a claim then X goes up as you are a higher risk and Y is smaller as you have lost some years so (in theory) Z is higher.
If you have protected NCD and have a claim then X goes up as you are a higher risk but Y stays the same as the discount is protected. Z would still be higher but less so than the non protected NCD example above as your discount is maintained.
If I am missing something then please fill in the blanks as I have always pays the bit extra for protected NCD based on the above. If this is not the case then why bother paying for it?
Your premium is X based on your risk profile. The insurance provider then deduct Y (no claims discount) and you pay Z.
If you dont have protected NCD and have a claim then X goes up as you are a higher risk and Y is smaller as you have lost some years so (in theory) Z is higher.
If you have protected NCD and have a claim then X goes up as you are a higher risk but Y stays the same as the discount is protected. Z would still be higher but less so than the non protected NCD example above as your discount is maintained.
If I am missing something then please fill in the blanks as I have always pays the bit extra for protected NCD based on the above. If this is not the case then why bother paying for it?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
popeyewhite said:
There was me thinking the whole idea is you purchase insurance and sometimes you win by claiming and sometimes you lose. More often than not you lose,
That's because you do not understand insurance.You shouldn't ever win or lose. You're buying peace of mind. If you insure your house, you can go out and leave it unattended. Because if it burns down, you will not have lost your life's savings and everything you worked for. So if you don't claim, you haven't lost. You've paid to have a life not worrying about losing everything. Without it, you'd never leave your house.
If your house does burn down, that's hardly a win. You don't celebrate the fact that you've beaten your insurer, running around the smouldering remains with party poppers. The insurance will put you back to where you were before it happened, not make you better off. Not much of a win.
You've taken the thread off-topic by discussing non-compulsory insurances. And whilst they do offer peace of mind, for the more mentally adept such policies can be seen for what they are: a bet. No different to challenging the bookies over the odds of a horse winning a race.
So when it comes to home contents insurance, for example, I consider a range of threats in order to come up with a notional risk of losing all or some of my home contents. The insurer does the same. We'll use some of the same data, postcode crime stats, for example, but I have a level of understanding of my risk profile which he doesn't: a thorough understanding of the possible points of entry and the difficulty therein, the various materials used throughout the house which may, or may not, accelerate a fire, the location of my wife's jewellery etc.
And that means that that I can set aside the (subjective) notion of how worried I might be about losing my possessions - perceptions are terrible for calculating risk - and take a more objective view, thereby reducing the size of the wager (the amount I 'lose').
Where British insurers (for I have no experience of buying insurance elsewhere in the world) start to stink, is by having a long list of add-ons to the premium, each ramping up the 'scared' factor on the one before, trying to shift utterly pointless additional features into a policy. That's the bit that is truly criminal.
V8mate said:
Where British insurers (for I have no experience of buying insurance elsewhere in the world) start to stink, is by having a long list of add-ons to the premium, each ramping up the 'scared' factor on the one before, trying to shift utterly pointless additional features into a policy. That's the bit that is truly criminal.
Can you give an example?(It's a genuine question, I am always looking for decent new ideas to try out )
desolate said:
V8mate said:
Where British insurers (for I have no experience of buying insurance elsewhere in the world) start to stink, is by having a long list of add-ons to the premium, each ramping up the 'scared' factor on the one before, trying to shift utterly pointless additional features into a policy. That's the bit that is truly criminal.
Can you give an example?(It's a genuine question, I am always looking for decent new ideas to try out )
swisstoni said:
To veer slightly back on topic - why is NCD still a thing that needs a good old fashioned paper filing system (as operated by about 5% of the population) ?
Why does the customer have to faff around finding paper 'proof' when the info is all online and available to the insurer?
There is a database online now but it's still not perfect as not all the necessary people sign up to it.Why does the customer have to faff around finding paper 'proof' when the info is all online and available to the insurer?
One of the scams I fell for a few years ago was the insurance company saying they never received the proof of NCD and canceling the policy trying to charge a very large sum for the privilege. This happened to a couple of mates round about the same time as well who were with different companies. Must have been a scam of the month they were trying.
KTF said:
On the protection side of things I always thought it was worth having as it protected the discount. For example:
Your premium is X based on your risk profile. The insurance provider then deduct Y (no claims discount) and you pay Z.
If you dont have protected NCD and have a claim then X goes up as you are a higher risk and Y is smaller as you have lost some years so (in theory) Z is higher.
If you have protected NCD and have a claim then X goes up as you are a higher risk but Y stays the same as the discount is protected. Z would still be higher but less so than the non protected NCD example above as your discount is maintained.
If I am missing something then please fill in the blanks as I have always pays the bit extra for protected NCD based on the above. If this is not the case then why bother paying for it?
Well in some respects I am wondering if it is worth paying for it - nowadays you pay for NCD protection but insurers just let you keep full NCD and then load the premium for a fault claim! Your premium is X based on your risk profile. The insurance provider then deduct Y (no claims discount) and you pay Z.
If you dont have protected NCD and have a claim then X goes up as you are a higher risk and Y is smaller as you have lost some years so (in theory) Z is higher.
If you have protected NCD and have a claim then X goes up as you are a higher risk but Y stays the same as the discount is protected. Z would still be higher but less so than the non protected NCD example above as your discount is maintained.
If I am missing something then please fill in the blanks as I have always pays the bit extra for protected NCD based on the above. If this is not the case then why bother paying for it?
Paying for protection may cost as much as losing some NCD - but then you'd probably get a premium loading too!
It's all a con these days - unlike when protected NCD was first introduced (see my earlier post).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff