insurance after car accident

tinmachine

my daughter was involved in a recent car accident in which she was not to blame. The other party admitted fault and my daughter claimed off their insurance. Her car insurance is due and she as been told that it as gone up £200 because she was involved in an accident. She told them that she was not at fault and claimed off the other partys insurance. Surely if she was not at fault why as her insurance gone up when they have had to pay nothing out. Is this right.

PNPSUKNET

it does Im afraid, another way for them to scam money

Oscar_The_Grouch

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

it does Im afraid, another way for them to scam money

Ah; another moron that doesn't understand basic statistics.

Tinmachine, there are 3 factors working against your daughter here:

1. Claim then claim again
Statistics show that if you have one accident, you are more likely to have another one soon after. As a result, the insurers view you as a higher risk, regardless of whether the accident was your daughter's fault or not.

2. Cost of dealing with a claim
When someone has an accident, they often claim off their own insurers even if the accident was not their fault. This means that the insurer has the expense of employing staff to deal with the claim, arrange repairs, provide replacement cars and then claim the money back from the other side. There used to be various agreements in place, such as the old "knock for knock" that reduced costs (one letter and the claim was closed) but they went out the window when Direct Line refused to sign up.

3. Economics
The downturn in the global economy has affected investment returns. Insurers, contrary to popular belief, do not make vast sums of money from customers; they make comparatively small amounts of money from investments. Insurers have been affected by the downturn in the economy like everyone else. Insurers have had to increase their solvency margins, partly because of regulation and partly out of general good practice, so have had lower returns and less money to invest. As a result, the price of their policies has to go up and they target those that they consider will be the greater risks to their claim costs.

Now when Insures are setting rates, they have to come up with a workable way of doing this so they are going to attract the policyholders they want and get the premiums they need to, from a money in/money out point of view before investments, break even at worst. As such, they will tend to pull everyone together to even out the costs. So even if your daughter goes on to make a 2nd claim, as she is statistically likely to do, she is only subject to the same increase as someone who doesn't.

So when someone with the IQ of your average fish comes along and tells you it's so they can "scam money", you know where you can tell them to poke it.

McKneff

Ah; another moron that doesn't understand basic statistics.

There was absolutely no need for that.
The rest of your post made absolute sense and very helpful but
what a nasty, nasty thing to say about anybody. Why didnt you just leave that particular sentence out.

raskazz

McKneff wrote: »

Ah; another moron that doesn't understand basic statistics.

There was absolutely no need for that.
The rest of your post made absolute sense and very helpful but
what a nasty, nasty thing to say about anybody. Why didnt you just leave that particular sentence out.

IMO if you are so ignorant that you label something a 'scam' without understanding the basic mechanics behind it then you are certainly halfway to being a moron, if not a fully blown moron.

iamana1ias

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

Tinmachine, there are 3 factors working against your daughter here:

1. Claim then claim again
Statistics show that if you have one accident, you are more likely to have another one soon after. As a result, the insurers view you as a higher risk, regardless of whether the accident was your daughter's fault or not.

2. Cost of dealing with a claim
When someone has an accident, they often claim off their own insurers even if the accident was not their fault. This means that the insurer has the expense of employing staff to deal with the claim, arrange repairs, provide replacement cars and then claim the money back from the other side. There used to be various agreements in place, such as the old "knock for knock" that reduced costs (one letter and the claim was closed) but they went out the window when Direct Line refused to sign up.

3. Economics
The downturn in the global economy has affected investment returns. Insurers, contrary to popular belief, do not make vast sums of money from customers; they make comparatively small amounts of money from investments. Insurers have been affected by the downturn in the economy like everyone else. Insurers have had to increase their solvency margins, partly because of regulation and partly out of general good practice, so have had lower returns and less money to invest. As a result, the price of their policies has to go up and they target those that they consider will be the greater risks to their claim costs.

Now when Insures are setting rates, they have to come up with a workable way of doing this so they are going to attract the policyholders they want and get the premiums they need to, from a money in/money out point of view before investments, break even at worst. As such, they will tend to pull everyone together to even out the costs. So even if your daughter goes on to make a 2nd claim, as she is statistically likely to do, she is only subject to the same increase as someone who doesn't.

So when someone with the IQ of your average fish comes along and tells you it's so they can "scam money", you know where you can tell them to poke it.

This forum is seriously in need of some stickies covering these questions (which are asked frequently). This should be one of them. :T

Oscar_The_Grouch

McKneff wrote: »

Ah; another moron that doesn't understand basic statistics.

There was absolutely no need for that.

I think there was. If someone has an opinion, they should be allowed to share it. The moron gave their opinion and I gave my opinion of their comment.

If someone doesn't want to appear stupid, they shouldn't make statements that are untrue, offensive to the industry, poorly phrased, lacking basic punctuation and if we are honest, rather dense.

If the moron had said something along the lines of "It seems unfair to me too", I would have responded accordingly. As it is, they got the appropriate level of response, in my opinion, to the level of their comment.

Quentin

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

Ah; another moron that doesn't understand basic statistics.

Totally uncalled for, and does nothing to enhance your reputation, or your profession's!

Why sink to such personal abuse?

Oscar_The_Grouch

Quentin wrote: »

Totally uncalled for, and does nothing to enhance your reputation.

Why sink to such personal abuse?

You posted at the same time as I responded to this. Please see my response above.

sunnygal

Insurance does seem so unfair when an accident was not your f ault and you are still hit with additional costs.

My sons friend who is 19 had an accident in his car, the car was written off. As insurance is so high for youngsters he got another car, and got a new insurance quote saying he had not had insurance before therefore the premium was not including the accident he had had.

Now my son has had an accident in his car and his car is a write off (makes you understand why premiums are so high for youngsters doesn't it) anyway he wants to do what his friend did. I am trying to deter him from this action.

Does anyone know is if he did go ahead, is this legal and how would the new insurers ever find out?

iamana1ias

sunnygal wrote: »

Insurance does seem so unfair when an accident was not your f ault and you are still hit with additional costs.

My sons friend who is 19 had an accident in his car, the car was written off. As insurance is so high for youngsters he got another car, and got a new insurance quote saying he had not had insurance before therefore the premium was not including the accident he had had.

Now my son has had an accident in his car and his car is a write off (makes you understand why premiums are so high for youngsters doesn't it) anyway he wants to do what his friend did. I am trying to deter him from this action.

Does anyone know is if he did go ahead, is this legal and how would the new insurers ever find out?

It's a brilliant idea............. If you want to pay hundreds of pounds for a worthless policy. It's fraud, plain and simple, and insurers share a lot of information to circumvent such harebrained schemes.

As the information he would be deliberately lying about is so significant I believe he could be prosecuted for fraud, pretty much stopping him gaining insurance ever again.

Clever lad, isn't he?