Premium increase by how much after no fault car accident? (NCD protected)

JonBoy_SCFC

it's a con because the majority of the customer base believes that protecting your NCB will protect you from premium increases in the event of a claim. It doesn't do this, insurers know full well the situation, but don't exactly rush to explain this to you when you buy the product, they prefer to hide it away somewhere in the small print etc

What a lot of contributors to this website fail to appreciate is that the public at large don't understand insurance products as well as the rest of us.

Reading this thread suggests to me that Oscar the Grouch didn't realise that NCB protection had nothing to do with protecting against increased premiums. If Oscar was under the wrong impression, then what hope do the rest of us have?

(apologies Oscar if i got that wrong)

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

It's a con because the majority of the customer base believes that protecting your NCB will protect you from premium increases in the event of a claim.

It does protect you from premium increase, albeit not absolutely. It means that you won't pay a higher premium than you would otherwise have to because you will retain the same level of discount that you previously enjoyed.

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

It doesn't do this, insurers know full well the situation, but don't exactly rush to explain this to you when you buy the product, they prefer to hide it away somewhere in the small print etc

Care to produce any evidence to back up this assertion? If the product was called 'Protected premium' then you might have a point; but it's not, it's called 'Protected no claims discount'.

At every firm I've worked for the benefits of protected NCD are explained quite explicitly during the quotation/inception process. Indeed, for phone quotations the adviser had to explain the allowance (i.e. 2 claims in 3 years or whatever) and also the fact that the premium can still rise if a claim is submitted.

JonBoy_SCFC

all i'm saying is if you asked the averge guy on the street, then 90%+ would be under the impression that protecting NCB means you won't get an increase in premoium in respect of a claim, should one occur

If you think i'm wrong then maybe you could care to explain how a fuinancially astute consumer like Oscar got it wrong

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

all i'm saying is if you asked the averge guy on the street, then 90%+ would be under the impression that protecting NCB means you won't get an increase in premoium in respect of a claim, should one occur

If you think i'm wrong then maybe you could care to explain how a fuinancially astute consumer like Oscar got it wrong

I'm not saying that you are wrong to suggest that a large proportion of the public at large are quite ignorant. What I am saying is that this is not the fault of insurers, nor is protected NCD 'a con'.

JonBoy_SCFC

i'm saying that the insurers know full well the situation, but approach the problem with a "sell first, explain at claims stage" approach which doesn't in my view reflect well on the insurance industry

JonBoy_SCFC

plus i think your choice of the word "ignorant" is rather misguided

raskazz

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

i'm saying that the insurers know full well the situation, but approach the problem with a "sell first, explain at claims stage" approach which doesn't in my view reflect well on the insurance industry

But that's not what actually happens JonBoy, as I explained in a previous post.

Quentin

JonBoy_SCFC wrote: »

If you think i'm wrong then maybe you could care to explain how a fuinancially astute consumer like Oscar got it wrong

You seem to be suggesting that "financially astute consumer" knows it all, but this has been shown not to be the case!

From the number of repeated basic queries people make here, it seems many don't attempt to read their docs, or understand the insurance contracts they enter into each year until a problem arises.