Recording of NCD

[PurpleMoonlight]

Why can't insurers have a common system?

Some seem to record only up to 9 years, whereas others record up to 20 years.

How are customers expected to prove say 14 years when their current insurer only records a maximum of 9?

I did a quote comparison on Esure and there is no difference in the premium whether it's 9 or 14 years, so why ask for NCD up to 20 years in their quotation system?

The NCD is for the benefit of customers and insurers alike so it seem crazy they do not all operate the same system.

[KingNothing]

Just another crooked aspect of the insurance industry. Won't change anytime soon, and I agree it's a stupid system.

What happens if you're on 14 years no claims, have an accident, they want to take 2 years off of you for it? But their maximum is only 9 years, so instead of dropping to 12 years, you drop to 7?

[johnnyBv8]

It's a really annoying system. With Admiral, I noticed that the years of NCB were still making a difference to the premium at 14+ and 15+. I've put 14 years, and I have at least that, but I would have to painstakingly go through all my old files from when I was 17 years old, to find the evidence of each.

I also have proof of NCB saying 6 years, because I joined them with 9 years, they said they only recognised 5, and then added one on to their self-imposed limit at the end of the year!

[saaby93]

Data protection
How far back do you want your data to be held on someones computer?
Think how they managed the system 40(?) years ago
Does it need to be 100% or is 95% enough?

[johnnyBv8]

saaby93 said:

Data protection
How far back do you want your data to be held on someones computer?
Think how they managed the system 40(?) years ago
Does it need to be 100% or is 95% enough?

I think what's reasonable is that given there's no consistency in the insurance market (some recognise max 5y, some recognise max 9y, some still giving additional discounts beyond this), is that all insurers record the true number of years. So, if you go to an insurer with valid proof of 12 years no claims, they may only give you a discount based on 5 years, but when you leave they still acknowledge 13 years proof. The next insurer can make their own decision as to how much discount they give. There shouldn't be any issue with whether each year can be re-validated, given that insurers accept the NCB proof at face value.

I'm not sure what the industry norm is in terms of retaining records though.

[Nedzilla]

I am currently looking for insurance quotes online as mine is up for renewal in a few weeks. I can only prove (hopefully) 12 years at present despite now having 19 years ncd. It is annoying as on the comparrison sites when i enter 12 years my best quote is around £40 more than when i enter 19 yrs so it does make a difference yet i have no way of proving it.

[J4CKO]

Keep your own record with dates, change of insurers etc, you can get them to send you proof so keep those letters together, be better at keeping track than they are.

[swisstoni]

There are a couple of databases that they all use and could easily check your record. But they leave it up to you to 'prove it' in case you have lost some poxy letter from one of them and can't.

[PurpleMoonlight]

swisstoni said:

There are a couple of databases that they all use and could easily check your record. But they leave it up to you to 'prove it' in case you have lost some poxy letter from one of them and can't.

Agree, they seem willing enough to share data when it's to the benefit of the insurer but not so when the benefit is for the customer.

[saaby93]

johnnyBv8 said:

saaby93 said:

Data protection
How far back do you want your data to be held on someones computer?
Think how they managed the system 40(?) years ago
Does it need to be 100% or is 95% enough?

I think what's reasonable is that given there's no consistency in the insurance market (some recognise max 5y, some recognise max 9y, some still giving additional discounts beyond this), is that all insurers record the true number of years. So, if you go to an insurer with valid proof of 12 years no claims, they may only give you a discount based on 5 years, but when you leave they still acknowledge 13 years proof. The next insurer can make their own decision as to how much discount they give. There shouldn't be any issue with whether each year can be re-validated, given that insurers accept the NCB proof at face value.

Which begs the question is there really that much difference in risk after 5 years?
After 5 years is it more a matter of luck (or not)

[johnnyBv8]

saaby93 said:

johnnyBv8 said:

saaby93 said:

Data protection
How far back do you want your data to be held on someones computer?
Think how they managed the system 40(?) years ago
Does it need to be 100% or is 95% enough?

I think what's reasonable is that given there's no consistency in the insurance market (some recognise max 5y, some recognise max 9y, some still giving additional discounts beyond this), is that all insurers record the true number of years. So, if you go to an insurer with valid proof of 12 years no claims, they may only give you a discount based on 5 years, but when you leave they still acknowledge 13 years proof. The next insurer can make their own decision as to how much discount they give. There shouldn't be any issue with whether each year can be re-validated, given that insurers accept the NCB proof at face value.

Which begs the question is there really that much difference in risk after 5 years?
After 5 years is it more a matter of luck (or not)

I would say that anyone getting to 5 years NCB is partly due to driving awareness and partly due to luck. Someone with 15 years NCB may well have more of both!

Of course there are lots of other factors, such as number of miles driven per year, but if I was asked to risk my own money insuring someone with 5 years NCB or someone with 15 years NCB, I know which I'd choose!

[saaby93]

johnnyBv8 said:

I would say that anyone getting to 5 years NCB is partly due to driving awareness and partly due to luck. Someone with 15 years NCB may well have more of both!

Of course there are lots of other factors, such as number of miles driven per year, but if I was asked to risk my own money insuring someone with 5 years NCB or someone with 15 years NCB, I know which I'd choose!

ah but after 15 years are they now at an age where other factors come into play?
If you already have age as one factor and no claims in the last 3 years is that enough to give a good prediction of risk, without building up life time computer records?

[AlexRS2782]

Last year I took out a policy with a broker that put the policy through Aviva - I supplied them with proof of 13 years NCD, which I've been building up since I was 17, no accidents in that time, etc.

Imagine my surprise, when 1 year on and renewal was cheaper elsewhere, when my proof of NCB was submitted back to me, rather than showing 14 years it came back as showing only 6 Mentioned this to the broker who said this is evidently down to Aviva only allowing a maximum of 5 years now, so they added the 1 year on to make it 6 before issuing the documentation Spoke to my new insurer who said unless I could provide proof of the 14 years I claimed I had, they'd either cancel the policy or have to amend it £££ wise based on significantly lower NCD

Thankfully they agreed to accept the proof of NCD i had from the previous year showing 13 years, otherwise i'd have been rather stuffed

[Charlie Foxtrot]

KingNothing said:

What happens if you're on 14 years no claims, have an accident, they want to take 2 years off of you for it? But their maximum is only 9 years, so instead of dropping to 12 years, you drop to 7?

Nope. You'll go down to 3 years NCD

[Thehandshake]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Why can't insurers have a common system?

You are being unreasonable. They provide service to society (like e.g. charity shops, or homeless shelters) so please cut the nonsense ok?

[johnnyBv8]

saaby93 said:

johnnyBv8 said:

I would say that anyone getting to 5 years NCB is partly due to driving awareness and partly due to luck. Someone with 15 years NCB may well have more of both!

Of course there are lots of other factors, such as number of miles driven per year, but if I was asked to risk my own money insuring someone with 5 years NCB or someone with 15 years NCB, I know which I'd choose!

ah but after 15 years are they now at an age where other factors come into play?
If you already have age as one factor and no claims in the last 3 years is that enough to give a good prediction of risk, without building up life time computer records?

No, not always - you can have 5 years NCB at any age...it just depends how recently you crashed!

I agree that there probably isnt that much variation in the risk profile, but there is presumably some difference (evidenced by a couple of people on here saying there is still an incremental decrease at high years NCB.

[mike9009]

The next thing will be that due to age discrimination, you cannot have more than 1 years NCB anyway.

I have nearly 18 years NCB, but have absolutely no way of proving this. However I have never been asked to prove it when I have got my insurance. I just simply give the evidence from last insurer which states nine years or whatever.... Got me worried now.....

Mike