No Fault accident claim

chriscroz

Some advise please, i had a "no fault accident " in my car on 6/8/08, the car is going to be repaired at no cost to myselft and my no claims bonus will not be effected - great.... However, hubby's car is now due for car insurance renewal and when he mentions me as an additonal driver who has just had a "no fault claim" his premium is automatically increase by £25 because i am now considered a RISK!!!!!!!!!!!! I am furious, how can we be penalised and have to pay more money for something that is not my fault and to which my own insurance company also agrees is not my fault. I am ranting here:mad: :mad: :mad: ....Has Anyone had any similar experience or any advice that would help

raskazz

Insurance is based on risk.

Young males are a higher risk than middle-aged males hence pay a higher premium to cover that risk.

Those who live in central London are a higher risk than those who live in rural Scotland.

There is also statistical evidence that those who have been involved in a non-fault claim are a slightly higher risk than those who have not been involved in any claims whatsoever. Hence they pay a slightly higher premium as well. This is no more unfair than using any of the other material facts like age or geographical location to rate the risk

chriscroz

I still think it is unfair, i was driving,well within the speed limits, driving correctly and because someone was not driving with due care and attention i am now a "insurance risk" because i was in the wrong place at the wrong time...... its incredible

greco_2

There is also statistical evidence that those who have been involved in a non-fault claim are a slightly higher risk than those who have not been involved in any claims whatsoever.

Is there? I'd like to see it if there is.

There seems to be no limit to the ruses that some insurers will devise to extract money from peoples' pockets. Try to find another insurer. that will deal with things sensibly.

lisyloo

When I recently had a claim my husband was the innocent party (I was the guilty party).
My insurance "lloyds TSB" said that his insurance would not be affected.
I argued with them at length that they should not give us that avice because theya re advising on what ALL insurance companies do.
I spoke to the agents manager and he was adamant that it is industry guidelines not to charge more if you are an innocent party.
He refused to accept my complaint about bad advice.
So I asked him what to do if they did turn out to be wrong and he said complain and go to the ombudsman.

So from what I have been told by a manager, you are being treated unfairly according to industry guidelines and you should put in a complaint.

Hope that helps.

N79

Greco there have been plenty of papers published on the subject. You should be able to find them from a number of online journals (Athens login required otherwise you will need to use a library with access to actuarial journals).

Why is someone who has had a non fault accident appears as a higher risk? The answer is:

If you take two identical people who live in an area with a low accident rate. One (driver A) drives every day to an area with a higher accident rate, the other (driver does not. The insurer does not know this so rates both drivers as low risk. The actual risks of them having an accident are not equal (A's risk is higer than B's).

When A has an accident the relative risks of A and B having the next accident do not change. A still has the higher risk. However, the insurance company can now assess that it is likely that A has a higher risk than B because A has had the accident. This is because if is more likely that A will have the first accident if they are higher risk. (Of course sometimes B may have the accident first but remember this is statistics. Statistics never predict individual outcomes, only the most likely outcome).

Of course, it is an assumption that A has the higher risk than B but given the facts (the accident) this assumption is more likely to be correct than the previous assumption that A and B have the same risk. This explains why a no fault accident raises the statistical risk of a driver being involved in another accident. It should further be noted that none of this is about the driving skills of A or B, the example I have given relates purely to the areas in which A and B are most likely to drive.

I hope this helps. I'm sorry if it is not a particularly good explaination.

buckster

chriscroz wrote: »

Some advise please, i had a "no fault accident " in my car on 6/8/08, the car is going to be repaired at no cost to myselft and my no claims bonus will not be effected - great.... However, hubby's car is now due for car insurance renewal and when he mentions me as an additonal driver who has just had a "no fault claim" his premium is automatically increase by £25 because i am now considered a RISK!!!!!!!!!!!! I am furious, how can we be penalised and have to pay more money for something that is not my fault and to which my own insurance company also agrees is not my fault. I am ranting here:mad: :mad: :mad: ....Has Anyone had any similar experience or any advice that would help

I had this from my insurance company but they said that once the claim had been processed and it was down on paper that it was a non fault accident they then refunded me the £25. My insurance was with Direct Line if that helps.

lisyloo

It's a great explanation.

Also I would add that when we have discussed this before (in relation to people feeling premiums are excessively high for young males), I have offered to start a company which assessed each person individually rather than using statistics.
It means a driving assesement and psycologist and a medical examination.
The cost to get a quote was £400.

Of course this was totally tongue in cheek and no-one took me up on the offer, but I think it demonstrates why we all have to put up with statistics if we want cheap quotes and minimum premiums.

MarkyMarkD

It is definitely a great explanation, N79.

Greco's comment

There seems to be no limit to the ruses that some insurers will devise to extract money from peoples' pockets. Try to find another insurer. that will deal with things sensibly.

is, honestly, very silly. Insurers are in a very competitive market. They set premiums at the level they believe is appropriate for the risk, using very sophisticated modelling on huge amounts of data. They aren't going to randomly increase a premium by £25 if there is no additional risk, because then they would lose a good customer for no reason.

Having said that, the point does apply to customers who are mid-term and, say, notify the insurers of convictions or other changes in circumstances. As such customers are effectively "over a barrel" (because they cannot economically cancel mid-term) I am sure that some insurers do take advantage. But that isn't the situation we are talking about here, as it relates to renewal and the customer is perfectly free to walk away.

lisyloo

But that isn't the situation we are talking about here, as it relates to renewal and the customer is perfectly free to walk away.

Very good point.
Do what we did and get your hubby to shop round for a better quote with a better company.
Their loss.

before_hollywood

lisyloo wrote: »

Very good point.
Do what we did and get your hubby to shop round for a better quote with a better company.
Their loss.

exactly what i did, i was in a similar position to you.

basically my renewal was hiked up £80 despite the fact that the only accident was someone elses fault and i had more ncb than previously :eek:

i went on a certain well known price comparison site, and they brought my quote up as £120 cheaper than my renewal with the same insurer, i phoned them up and said my renewal has gone up but i have more ncb than before and it was cheaper through a price comparison site, they went on the site and messed about with their figures, got it down to £409 from £530.

i am going through somewhere else instead, they are doing it for £340 :j :j :j :j :j

take THAT my former insurers