Is No Claim Bonus Protection worth it?

mikey72

Would I be right then in saying based on all the information above, the best way to take out insurance is to pay the least excess, and protect the NCD?
Then if you have a number of claims, your (most expensive option) premium will increase the least?
I would suggest comparing the figures with taking out unprotected NCB, and altering the excess to the point where it is reasonable, without affecting the premium by more than a few pounds.
Then put in a few imaginary claims, and less NCD, and see the result.
As Raskazz syas, it's purely mathematical, and over a period of time, the insurance company will make the same profit on average. The model only works if you assume you will make a claim if you have protected no claims though. If for any reason you decide to stand the loss yourself, such as the few hundred pound scratch in a car park, you have wasted the money you have paid.
At the end of the day, the house always wins.
(Question for Quote though, what insurance company actually does TPF&T cheaper than fully comp nowadays?)

property.advert

You cannot just simplify the maths and say it would cost more at renewal if you lost your NCD. Leaving aside the question of whether your base premium would rise, you have to factor in two additional elements.

Firstly, you have to work out the potential additional discounts you would have received going forward if you were not already on maximum NCD. Secondly, you have to add the extra cost over the years in building the NCD back up to where you are now. Finally, you have to understand that neither of these calculations is a one year summation but rather a multi year one covering all the time until you would be back to where you would be, not only where you are now, assuming you did not have maximum NCD.

Simply thinking about next year's premium is to woefully underestimate the cost of losing NCD.

baggie08

I am in a similar position to the first poster.

I now have 4 years no claims and churchill have offered to protect them for an extra £120 on top of my £534 premium.

I can get covered by £460 by First Direct, but they won't protect my no claims as i am 22.

I have two questions:
1)Can you insure/ protect your no claims bonus separately to your policy
2)Are there any other cheaper insurers out there as i am regularly quoted £750+!

mikey72

baggie08 wrote: »

I am in a similar position to the first poster.

I now have 4 years no claims and churchill have offered to protect them for an extra £120 on top of my £534 premium.

I can get covered by £460 by First Direct, but they won't protect my no claims as i am 22.

I have two questions:
1)Can you insure/ protect your no claims bonus separately to your policy
2)Are there any other cheaper insurers out there as i am regularly quoted £750+!

If you do the maths, it'll cost you nearly 50% extra to protect your no claims based on what you could pay. As quote posted earlier, losing your no claims could also cost you 50%.
So either way, you have to be 100% sure what will happen, otherwise it is a gamble.
I agree the loss of no claims affects subsequent years, so does protecting it year on year if you don't make a claim.

vaio

and to further complicate it, the 50% to protect will be 50% of your current fault free premium whereas the 50% you lose if you don't protect will be 50% of the increased fault premium.

Basically, you are bug gered if you do and bug gered if you don't, insurers have a captive market which in the best traditions of capitalism they will exploit till the pips squeak whilst continuing to provide ever decreasing standards of service.

baggie08

Thanks both,

I have just run similar quotes with first direct assuming i had been at fault for an accident this year and lost my no claims, yet the quote went up by just 7p!

What a complete con, though i know i cannot guarantee the prices to be that similar if the worst did happen

geordie_ben

baggie08 wrote: »

Thanks both,

I have just run similar quotes with first direct assuming i had been at fault for an accident this year and lost my no claims, yet the quote went up by just 7p!

What a complete con, though i know i cannot guarantee the prices to be that similar if the worst did happen

i have six years no claims, got a quote of 513, did one with no years claims as if i had lost them and it shot up to £770

it will only cost me £573 to insure and protect my no claims.... i'm thinking it might be worth it.

mikey72

geordie_ben wrote: »

i have six years no claims, got a quote of 513, did one with no years claims as if i had lost them and it shot up to £770

it will only cost me £573 to insure and protect my no claims.... i'm thinking it might be worth it.

What was it like with 2 years no claims, as if you had had one accident in the year?

geordie_ben

mikey72 wrote: »

What was it like with 2 years no claims, as if you had had one accident in the year?

I didnt check. i just went on the basis of if i had an accident at fault i'd loose all my no claims. is that right?

how would i ever get to 2 years no claims having an accident? would that not mean I had no years no claims as I'd be claiming for the accident?

StephenMarsh

geordie_ben wrote: »

i have six years no claims, got a quote of 513, did one with no years claims as if i had lost them and it shot up to £770

it will only cost me £573 to insure and protect my no claims.... i'm thinking it might be worth it.

The £770 isnt accurate anyway because if you just quote with 0 NCD you will likeley receive an introductory bonus where as if you are reduced to 0 NCD following claims you probably wouldnt be eligable for an introductory bonus.