According to an article in the DT you can pay more even if the claim is not UR fault!
Telegraph:
* Had a car accident, genuinely believed it wasn't your fault and therefore thought that your insurance company would not punish you financially? Then think again.
It seems that some providers increase prices for innocent victims almost as much as they do for drivers who are guilty.
"Admiral is the worst offender for upping its prices, regardless of blame," says Auto Express.
In response, Admiral claims: "If you have been in an accident, regardless of fault, you're more likely to be in another one. That means you are a higher risk, and so we have to charge more." I have written to Admiral asking for evidence to back up this assertion.
Edited by Pugugly on 27/07/2009 at 09:28
|
Why do you find it so surprising? Intellectually it makes sense. You have put yourself into a position where somebody else can hit you you. Hence you have exposed yourself to greater risk. Therefor a greater premium.
I do not doubt that they have good statistical evidence to back it up.
|
Yep! Admiral did this to me. Other car hit my stationary car and they put my premiums up!
They gave me some story that a car that has been damaged in an accident is more likely to have another accident.....Yeah...right.
|
I wouldn't be surprised if all of the insurance companies do this sort of thing.
So being the innocent party in an accident increases premiums so therefore your guilty !
Either way in this country the motorist is already guilty of one thing or another.
Britain, the country of guilt !
|
You could also say that someone that has had no claims for 10 years and therefore a good NCB would be more likely to have an accident because they haven't had one for so long.
So with my theory if you have an accident you are less likely to have another one for some years. So risk to insurer should be less.
|
So with my theory if you have an accident you are less likely to have another one for some years.
I've always thought that! Crashes average out at one per driver every 5yrs, so if you have a crash then the insurance company should be OK for the next 5 years.
|
|
|
|
wouldn't be surprised if all of the insurance companies do this sort of thing.
Of course they do. If you are statistically a greater risk as evidenced by you claims history you will pay more regardless of "fault". That is how insurance works. Its exactly the same if you insure a car, house, ship or plane. I am suprised that anyone thinks otherwise
|
|
|
|
|
Then tell them about it, and swap insurers.
|
|
|
|
Why do you find it so surprising? Intellectually it makes sense. You have put yourself into a position where somebody else can hit you you. Hence you have exposed yourself to greater risk. Therefor a greater premium.
Sorry, pmh, but to me that makes no sense at all - 'intellectually' or otherwise.
"You have put yourself into a position where somebody else can hit you you" - what, like being on the road??
|
"You have put yourself into a position where somebody else can hit you you" - what, like being on the road?? >>
like being on the road [or even a car park where you are not even driving your car when it is pranged] where you are at greater risk of being pranged, as has been proved by your no-fault claim.
BTW, protected no-claims does not stop your base premium being loaded. You will still get your max no claims bonus, but it will be a discount from a higher "loaded" base.
|
jbif - you seem to be applying the same statistical nonsense applied to emerging Lottery balls:
"Number 17!! - that's the second week in a row it's been drawn - obviously it will be drawn again next week".
Rubbish.
|
jbif - you seem to be applying the same statistical nonsense applied to emerging Lottery balls: >>
Not me. That is how the insurance industry works, based on the stats they collect.
[The reference to the car park is to my own experience from several years ago, when my car was damaged by a careless driver who reversed in to it while parking in the bay next to mine. I was told by my insurer that it would go on my record as a no-fault claim, and I would have to declare it to any other insurer when seeking quotations for the next five years. So I claimed the extra from the 3rd party and got paid the estimated hike in my future premiums].
Obviously, it pays to shop around and change your insurer every year regardless of claims. But, most important of all, you now have "official" confirmation of the amount by which your premiums will be loaded for a no-fault prang, so make sure your claim from the 3rd party includes an allowance for the next 5 years of increased premiums you will be paying.
|
|
|
|
OS
>>>Sorry, pmh, but to me that makes no sense at all - 'intellectually' or otherwise.
"You have put yourself into a position where somebody else can hit you you" - what, like being on the road??<<<<
Exactly - you have taken your car out of the garage, hence an increased risk of being hit.
Similarly you may drive in higher risk areas, populated by boy racers without brakes or insurance cover, drive at times of day when mothers on the school run (and distracted by their charges) make a habit of running into the back of other cars......
need I go on, what is it you do not understand about increased risk?
|
|
|
|
|
"It seems that some providers increase prices for innocent victims almost as much as they do for drivers who are guilty. ............"
I'm pleased the article was selective in its comments, and didn't tar all insurers with the same brush. My experience of Co-operative Insurance is that they don't increase your premium at the next renewal when the other party admits being at fault. And they certainly haven't with me during the period that I've had a protected NCD.
|
I'm pleased the article was selective in its comments, and didn't tar all insurers with the same brush. My experience of Co-operative Insurance is that they don't increase your premium >>
With respect, L'escargot, you do not know the base premium and the loading applied. For all you know, your renewal premium might have been even lower had you not made a no-fault claim.
Did you do "mystery shopper" exercise and ask them to quote the price as if you had not made a no-fault claim?
|
With respect L'escargot you do not know the base premium and the loading applied.
I don't know whether it still applies, but at one time you could work out what your Co-operative premium was going to be yourself. You filled in all the questions in their prospectus and ended up with a points rating. You then looked in a table which gave you the premium for your points total and relevant % NCD. All open and above board. I still have a copy of their 1994 prospectus.
|
|
|
|
According to an article in the DT you can pay more even if the claim is not UR fault! >>
HJ news section has had this story since Friday.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/item.htm?id=6566
It has always been the case AFAIK. The "news" bit to me in the article is the table published which shows how much extra loading is applied by the different Insurance companies.
"If you have been in an accident, regardless of fault, you're more likely to be in another one. That means you are a higher risk, and so we have to charge more." >>
Copy and save the details from HJ's news. The next time you have a no-fault claim, make sure that the 3rd party you are claiming from, or their Insurers listed in the article, pay you compensation to cover the extra premiums you will be charged for the following 5 years from your no-fault claim.
|
I don't see why there is any surprise here. This is well known, and is an additional cost for which to claim from the third party, like jbif says.
|
|
|
It has always been the case AFAIK.
I insured via Hastings a few years ago. When my big red car was written off by a lorry, they paid a) a satisfactory price, and b) did not "up" the premium. I was happy with their arrangements.
|
When my big red car was written off by a lorry, they paid a) a satisfactory price, and b) did not "up" the premium. >>
How do you know? You might have got a lower premium if your big red car had not been written off.
|
|
It went down the next year (perhaps it did not go down by as much as it could have, though), and my NCD was not affected.
|
|
....and what happened to Hastings ?
|
|
|
|
No increase in premium - I didn't claim - but last year someone bumped into my car in a car park. Nice bloke left his name, address and phone number in a note on the screen.
I told my company but his paid for the repair. My company would have been told anyway.
Come renewal last autumn, I'm astonished to see a note on the renewal info that says I've been involved in an "incident".
I phone the company and ask how this works. They tell me that this is what they do. It still bugs me because if you're in a building and your car is outside, it's hard to see how you can be involved in an "incident" with the car, and harder to see how since there's neither fault nor claim on your part it should be a matter of record.
|
Suprisingly, you lot seem to think that insurance companies are a public service. They are there *only* to make profit. no other reason.
It really doesent take much sense to see how, if your car is in a place where it was involved in an incident, Its been PROVEN to be at risk. you cant argue the fact, it happened.
The insurance company has to make a judgement on risk. And they will balance out the risk againt your premium.
|
Cars are "at risk" all the time. That's why we have insurance.
But the "incident" is on my insurance record and I was half a mile away from my car in a large building.
Have you ever made a claim on your house insurance? Does that make you or your house a greater risk to cover?
I thought that one of the greatest influences on our premiums was all the low-lifes who drive around uninsured.
|
Have you ever made a claim on your house insurance? Does that make you or your house a greater risk to cover?
You are statistically more at risk of burglary after you have already been burgled.
|
|
|
Have you ever made a claim on your house insurance? Does that make you or your house a greater risk to cover? >>
Yes, once only, due to a few roof tiles lost in the 1987 "great storm". Three out of twenty houses nearby lost a few tiles each. Our premiums went up due to the claim, and all the other properties sharing the post code had their premiums raised due to "increased risk", although not by as much as the three who had made claims.
|
|
|
Optimist >>But the "incident" is on my insurance record and I was half a mile away from my car in a large building.
Indeed. You parked in a place that was risky. End of. If you had been standing by your car - rather than neglecting it by being half a mile away - the accident probably would not have happened. Other drivers tend to be more careful when the owner is around...
Optimist>>Have you ever made a claim on your house insurance? Does that make you or your house a greater risk to cover?
Indeed it does. In fact Jeff Howell covered just this point in yesterday's Telegraph: houses which have ever been underpinned in the past cost more to insure.
I can see why you call yourself "Optimist"...
Edited by Mapmaker on 27/07/2009 at 11:45
|
We have at least 4 of us singing from the same hymn sheet (AE Mm pmh jbif).
What is that other people cannot understand when it has been explained by 4 different people?
|
What is that other people cannot understand when it has been explained by 4 different people?
But are the explanations authoratitive?
|
|
|
|
Cars are "at risk" all the time.
Indeed they are. except your car parked on a road is at MORE risk than the one parked on your drive.
>>That's why we have insurance.
Indeed, and that why you pay more if your car is parked on the road.
If Risk was just Risk, then no-one would insure you. You deal with risk in three ways.
You accept Risk or Not (its perfectly acceptble not to, just walk away from it)
Then you have to grade it by probability of occurence, and severity if it hits.
And you mitigate it by planning for it and pricing it in.
Even by pricing you out of the market if need be, (see your average 17 year old boy)
|
|
|
|
Lots of heat and not much background. What we need are stats and an insurance actuary to crunch the numbers and tell us if this is the case or not. Maybe those who have a no-fault accident are more likely to go on and have another one- or maybe they are not. I don't know- but the numbers and their interpretation hold the key.
tt
|
|
|
|
They're all at risk. The issue is whether being involved in a no-fault accident proves the risk will be at an increased level afterwards. Unless other parameters have changed, I doubt it. The risk will be the same. Seems more likely to be a ploy - an excuse to raise premiums.
|
You are statistically more at risk of burglary after you have already been burgled. >>
Is that "you" or the address of the burglary?
jbif has answered my question above and it endorses my point about my record with the car insurance company: the damage to my car was no mre to do with me than the damage to jbif's house.
Edited by Optimist on 27/07/2009 at 11:42
|
Is that "you" or the address of the burglary? >>
Both. Assuming that the burglars had a choice of which property to target, you have been a target either because your appearance of wealth has made it attractive, or because your property is less well protected than equally wealthy neighbours. So even if you move house, you may be considered a high risk as the Insurer may think you are likely to attract burglars due to wealth or lack of security.
Answer to any more questions - just think from the insurance company's point of view! I am off now to make sure my car and property are safe.
|
|
|
|
|
it's hard to see how you can be involved in an "incident" with the car, and harder to see how since there's neither fault nor claim on your part it should be a matter of record. >>
I agree that there will be cases where you will have taken every precaution possible and yet have an incident that goes on your file. Insurers use a very crude database to record whether you had an incident, if it was your fault, if it cost them megabucks or not. However, they do not record details of how "innocent" you were in a no-fault claim. Until they do and/or take a reasonable approach with you at renewal time, your only option is to vote with your feet, following the moneysavingexpert method tog et quotes from 99% of the market. They all compete to get "new" clients on their books by discounting heavily.
As Altea Ego says, they are in business. Customer loyalty and service is not their top priority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It wouldn't surprise me with admiral. I've heard some shocking tales about their behaviour. Table also clearly shows that Direct Line is much, much cheaper than anyone else.
NB other insurance companies may be just as bad!
|
You parked in a place that was risky. End of. If you had been standing by your car - rather than neglecting it by being half a mile away - the accident probably would not have happened. Other drivers tend to be more careful when the owner is around...>>
Very true, mapmaker. But standing by your car does rather tend to defeat the object of parking it. If I could stand by my car in a car park rather than going inside the building, I wouldn't need to have driven ther in the first place, would I?
And since when does leaving your car in a car park constitute "neglect"? That's harsh even by the standards of insurance companies. Who are you insured with? The Taliban?
|
Motor Insurance premiums appear far from logical.
Sure there's an element of risk in the calculation, but there's also an element of which groups you belong to: age/profession/area etc etc. If you're in a group that's considered 'desirable' then you can pretty much claim what you want and your premiums will remain low.
When I made a claim on my insurance - a named driver had written may car off - then my premiums hardly changed. My motorcycle premium dropped.
It's always worth shopping around - but my main concern is the service following a claim
|
|
|
>>And since when does leaving your car in a car park constitute "neglect"?
Who said anything about "neglect". The key fact is that you had parked it in a riskier place than the corner of an otherwise empty field.
|
I last claimed just over 5 years ago when my stationary vintage car was bumped at a roundabout. My premium was not raised. Moderately normal type policy as well. So I don't think one can say all do.
I did have to declare it at renewal to five years, but a few inches of ink is not that expensive.
|
|
So does this mean that if I have a claim against another driver then I should add the cost of future increases in premiums to my claim?
|
Who said anything about "neglect". >>
You did, mapmaker, in your post when you said I was "neglecting" my car by being half a mile away from where I'd parked it.
And the idea of factoring in future increases in premiums as part of a claim seems sound and mentioned earlier in the thread. It's essentially what people do when they sue for constructive dismissal or somesuch: they claim the loss of future earnings.
|
Some years ago, my sons bike was stolen from the railway station. I used to have bycicles covered, but I hadnt included it in the last premium. At least I couldnt remember if I had.
I phoned to check, and indeed I had no cover for theft of bycles. My next years premium went up because I had mentioned to them there had been a theft in the family for an item I wasnt insured for and didnt even have covered.
due to information availble to them my risk had increased.
|
Not car related, but a reference to House Insurance.
After my father's house was broken in to, the police warned him that he would be at greater risk of another break in. This was because the people who did the original deed (who were not caught) new the layout of the house and having stolen goodies like the TV, radios, dvd etc there would very probably be brand new replacements after a few weeks.
|
Some people are better defensive drivers than others - some people will therefore have more no-fault accidents than others.
The insurance company has to spend more time dealing with "others" claims, hence they need to cover their costs by charging more.
There's no emotion in insurance, it's pure mathematics
MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
rise in premium for non-fault claims >>
tinyurl.com/kn96pz [Telegraph article from a year ago, covering many points raised in this thread]
Do insurance companies offer a fair deal?
By Emma Simon
Published: 10:15AM BST 06 Aug 2008
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=110...7
discussion from nearly one year ago, again covering similar points.
|
This is only really a problem for those drivers who don't shop around at renewal time. If you wish to show disapproval towards an insurance company then don't renew with them and send a letter to the top dog in the company explaining why you are taking your custom elsewhere. Kick them where it hurts.
You have to play these people at their own game. I had some fun with an insurance company last year. Same old story, they offered a good price in year one to entice me to swap. Year two they play the part of comedian by jacking the premium up by some extraordinary amount. Well they might get away with it in some households but they picked the wrong bloke to screw. After trawling several internet comparison sites I knew that I could get the equivalent policy for £50 less (£199 v £249 approx) so I phoned them up to suggest that they might want to try a bit harder. The girl asked what quote I had got so far (why do they ask such a stupid question....?), so said £148. Girl asked if she could phone me back in ten minutes after she'd had another look at the policy. She called back very apologetically saying that the best she could do was £185 and hence would be sorry to lose my custom. Not so fast luv, that will do nicely... :-)
|
|
|
|
|
They do, and it happened to me.
This is why we should all sign this petition... at least to bring more knowledge about the matter!
www.change.org/p/notifications-and-non-fault-claim...n
|
|
Caution!
Anyone know whether a link looking like this is likely to be safe?
Don't click on it unless you're sure.
Edited by Avant on 19/05/2017 at 18:49
|
|
Have you never come across change.org, Avant?
|
|
Another Lazarus thread.
Would insurance companies be justified in raising the premium if their experience is that people with no fault claims or notifications are more likely to claim in future than those without?
I suspect that is what hey would say is the case - they are adjusting for risk.
|
|
|
|
They do, and it happened to me.
This is why we should all sign this petition... at least to bring more knowledge about the matter!
www.change.org/p/notifications-and-non-fault-claim...n
Done!
|
|
I have 3 car multi policy with these, I notice that you have to pay the policy excess if you claim fault OR no fault! Also renewal gives me what I paid last year as Total for all 3 cars not individually per vehicle. It also gives last years total paid higher than what was paid and therefore the renewal figure looks like a much smaller increase,£180 on the 3cars. When you consider that all 3 cars have also depreciated over the year how do they justify the increase,2% on ins tax is about £25 tops. Compare the merecat saves £130 on one car alone! SHOP AROUND!
|
I have 3 car multi policy with these, I notice that you have to pay the policy excess if you claim fault OR no fault!
The excess has nothing to do with fault. You agree to bear the first £x of ANY claim in exchange for a reduction in premium.
In a no fault scenario though you can reclaim the excess from the at fault party.
|
|
|
|
Admiral have made a mess of their data file and renewal letters so any figure for what was paid last year is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have to have insurance by law. Therefore the insurance companies can dream up myriad ways of getting more money from you. The up your premiums when it wasn't your fault is a good example. The companies will keep an eye on other companies and impelement any premium increasing scheme they can get away with.
|
|
|
