Premium raised through not fault of our own

[MAC ATTAK 40]

Hi,

Long time browser, first time poster...

Looking for a little help if possible? Here's what has happened so far..

So, the missus parked up opposite a local superstore (the car park was full) in a legal parking bay on the roadside. One of the stores delivery trucks arrived for a drop off and when turning in to side road to get to the store caught the back of our voyager. The back of the truck dragged the car in to the middle of road (damage pic attached). Anyway the store has admitted full liability and have made their report to there Insurers. This all happened on the 13th of the month, insurance was being renewed on the 18th of the month for the year.

The issue we have is our insurers have now increased our monthly premium by £40 a month saying this is due to her being in an accident.

I'm confused as we weren't in the car at the time as we were shopping and it parked legally, also with the store taking full liability, should we have our premium increased? It seems strange to me that through no fault our own we are now paying an additional £480 per year..

If anyone can shed any light it would be great..

Thanks in advance..

Mark

[HorneyMX5]

Taking out insurance with an ongoing claim is always expensive. Did you try shopping around?

Sadly insurance can go up even with a non fault claim.

[TooMany2cvs]

MAC ATTAK 40 said:

This all happened on the 13th of the month, insurance was being renewed on the 18th of the month for the year.

I'm guessing this is the key. Because the claim's still ongoing, it's not regarded as not-at-fault yet. Once it's settled, then you should get a big chunk of that back.

[helidan]

From what I've been reading recently any non-fault claim could push your premiums up. Even if there is 100% no way you could be held at fault for the incident you might still get a premium loading. Apparently there is logic in there somewhere.

[Clivey]

helidan said:

From what I've been reading recently any non-fault claim could push your premiums up. Even if there is 100% no way you could be held at fault for the incident you might still get a premium loading. Apparently there is logic in there somewhere.

They say that you're statistically more likely to make more claims / be involved in more incidents in future. I had this when one of my cars was reversed into on a petrol station forecourt but luckily the claim was settled long before renewal and by shopping around I ended-up with cheaper & better cover anyway.

[trickywoo]

helidan said:

Apparently there is logic in there somewhere.

The logic being that the insurance industry can take a wedge off you because all the companies do the same.

The whole NCD thing is a racket too. Say you wanted to cancel you policy 10 months through, why should you lose those 10 months no claims?

Its a bit of a cartel.

[Palmers]

A short story:

I was getting insurance on my fiesta daily and my S55 AMG, multicar policy.

It cost X amount to have me as a main driver my mum and my step dad too as additional. The price rose greatly if i took either parent off.

I rang up, got through the quote. A problem - forgot my stepdad had a no fault claim last year in which someone drove into the back whilst he was stationary. He got a new bumper tow bar etc.

The guy on the phone done the old "ohh im gonna have to recalculate with that, even though its a no fault claim"

Alarm bells went off in my head, and sure is sure he came back with a massive increase.

I said "Im not sure i want it for that price now...."

He suggested to calculate without him as a named driver, so out of curiosity i did, and lo and behold there was only a marginal difference.

[MAC ATTAK 40]

I'm guessing this is the key. Because the claim's still ongoing, it's not regarded as not-at-fault yet. Once it's settled, then you should get a big chunk of that back.
[/quote]

This would be a good outcome...

Thanks for the replies, it seems like we may have to lump it, but it wont stop me trying to get the decision reversed.. The other thing is that we (she) renewed on the 18th, regretting that now..

[Impasse]

The logic being that you have parked your car in such a place that it has received damage. This time, you're able to trace the driver and subsequently recover any losses. Next time you park your car somewhere (and remember you have form for being in the wrong place at the wrong time), maybe not.

[RobM77]

Impasse said:

The logic being that you have parked your car in such a place that it has received damage. This time, you're able to trace the driver and subsequently recover any losses. Next time you park your car somewhere (and remember you have form for being in the wrong place at the wrong time), maybe not.

A few years ago my now wife (then fiancee) and I went away to Borneo for a couple of weeks, and she suggested leaving my car outside her flat in Reading so we could get the rail-air coach link to Heathrow. I was very reluctant as she lived in a tight double parked street, but did anyway. We returned two weeks later to find that a drunk lady had bounced off my car and loads of others going up the street, and then again on the way back. This happened at midnight on my birthday in Reading whilst I was the other side of the world in Singapore celebrating, so obviously non-fault. My insurance premiums are still higher than they were because of it. That's just life really - insurance works on statistics. I also get about a call per week from accident claims helpines, which is pretty annoying - more annoying than the £40 extra on the insurance actually!

[Speed Badger]

Because most insurance companies are thieving, money-grabbing who only need half an excuse to exorbitantly ramp up your payments.

[Soov535]

MAC ATTAK 40 said:

Hi,

Long time browser, first time poster...

Looking for a little help if possible? Here's what has happened so far..

So, the missus parked up opposite a local superstore (the car park was full) in a legal parking bay on the roadside. One of the stores delivery trucks arrived for a drop off and when turning in to side road to get to the store caught the back of our voyager. The back of the truck dragged the car in to the middle of road (damage pic attached). Anyway the store has admitted full liability and have made their report to there Insurers. This all happened on the 13th of the month, insurance was being renewed on the 18th of the month for the year.

The issue we have is our insurers have now increased our monthly premium by £40 a month saying this is due to her being in an accident.

I'm confused as we weren't in the car at the time as we were shopping and it parked legally, also with the store taking full liability, should we have our premium increased? It seems strange to me that through no fault our own we are now paying an additional £480 per year..

If anyone can shed any light it would be great..

Thanks in advance..

Mark

They are assuming that you park in places where cars get tw atted. So they've bumped it.

Not really fair but that's life.

[8bit]

Speed Badger said:

Because most insurance companies are thieving, money-grabbing who only need half an excuse to exorbitantly ramp up your payments.

This, effectively. I was in a non-fault accident a few years ago, another driver hit the rear of my car while I was stationary awaiting traffic lights to change. He admitted fault, I reported to my insurance company and they settled in full against the other guy's insurance but I still had to declare it for however many years after that (that number seemed to keep going up too, go figure) which meant higher premiums for me.

Bottom line, because it's the law that we have to have insurance to drive on public roads, and because there is precious little legal regulation on pricing structures around that, the car insurance companies effectively have a licence to print money.

[xRIEx]

As already mentioned, the outstanding claim will have prejudiced your NCB - when the claim is settled that should be reinstated and a full refund (backdated to renewal) for the overpayment should be issued.

Some insurers have been known to still allow full NCB when liability wasn't in question, obviously not your insurer.

[TooMany2cvs]

Soov535 said:

They are assuming that you park in places where cars get tw atted. So they've bumped it.

Not really fair but that's life.

I had cars nudged four or five times parked outside our old house. One went through insurance. My premium went up. TBH, it was probably fair...

[Gavin0478]

When insured with an insurance company that deals with this site I was shopping in Tescos, my old car in the car park when some old bloke decided to drive down the side of it..... nearly a 6k claim but thankfully there were witnesses, he accepted full responsibility and it was dealt with between his insurers and a management company. Come renewal time the quote was half again as much as I had been paying, when I contacted f*** they said I was a higher risk....... even though it was a non fault claim.

[A900ss]

xRIEx said:

As already mentioned, the outstanding claim will have prejudiced your NCB - when the claim is settled that should be reinstated and a full refund (backdated to renewal) for the overpayment should be issued.

Some insurers have been known to still allow full NCB when liability wasn't in question, obviously not your insurer.

This is just it.

It's a no CLAIMS bonus not a no blame bonus.

Your insurance company will repair your car at their cost and until they get their money back, you've made a claim. Even if you don't claim on your own insurance, they are protecting themselves in case the Third Party makes a successful claim against you.

As stated above, you will get the incremental payment you are making for the current situation of having 2 years fewer NCB than you should have once the claim is settled.

Good luck.

Edited by A900ss on Friday 20th February 07:46

[HertsBiker]

About time cars were made less fragile, and insurance was sorted.

[StottyEvo]

£40/month is light compared to how much my insurance rose when my perfectly parked car was hit by an lovely old women who was blinded by the morning sun.

I did a test, I ran a quote, lets say the premium came out at £1200. I then added a non-fault accident that did not result in a claim (zero value) and the price rose to £2200. I then removed the non-fault accident and added a at fault accident with the damage value at £100,000. The price was still £2200

The insurance company saw that an accident was an accident, they didn't differentiate between fault or non fault accidents when calculating their prices Nor did they care if the accident resulted in a claim or not.

[MAC ATTAK 40]

Good news... All's well, that ends well. Now that our insurers have received all of the info from the supermarkets insurers taking full liability they have said that monthly premiums will not be going up moving forward...

Thanks for all advice, came in handy