Protected No Claims v Guaranteed No Claims

tilly78_2

Hi

I am getting the best car insurance deal from 'Aviva'; however unlike most insurers who just offer to 'protect no claims' they also offer 'guaranteed no claims'.

What is the difference? I read their desciption but it didn't make much sense.

Is it worth paying the extra?

Thanks

benjaminM

I think guaranteed no claims is worth having. With protected ncd you have bonus lives, for instance 2 claims in 5 years. Once you have had the 2 claims you lose your protection. With guaranteed you never lose your protection regardless of the amount of claims.

adamc260

we promise you won't see any increase in your premium as a result of any claims.

Sounds pretty good to me too!

lisyloo

regardless of the number of claims you make, we promise you won't see any increase in your premium as a result of any claims.

I can see two major differences.

1) Protected NCD has limits reharding the number of claims. This doesn't so if you are unlucky and have a few claims you won't be penalised.

2) Protected NCD only protects your discount, it does not stop them increasing your premium. This guaranteed version states that they will not increase your premium.

To give an example of what I mean. Let's say you have 50% protected NCD.
So base premium is £500, and after discount that's £250
If you have a claim, they can rasie your premium but keep your discount intact.
e.g. base premium £1000 and after discount that's £500.

With the guarantee, I read it that they are promising not to do this.

no.10

Perhaps it's just me and my cynical nature but this appears no more likely to prevent your premiums heading north following an accident than protecting your ncd does. 'We promise you won't see any increase in your premium as a result of any claims' (my bold) sounds fine on the face of it but as far as I'm aware no insurance companies publish how they calculate their premiums so they can give you any reason as to why it has gone up and will deny it is because of the claims you have made. How on earth can you disprove it?
Would NU or anyone else allow say 11 accidents in a year and pop out a renewal figure that was the same as someone who had made no claims? Of course not, but that is what the claim they are making suggests.

vaio

I suppose the way to check would be dummy quotes

Tygermoth

I will assume they will gain people who realising they are not going to suffer loss of NCD or adjusted premium are more likely to admit fault? meaning less work, sols fees and correspondence to wade through i.e. reduction in claims costs

Most of the expence and elongated claims process are people just not accepting fault for a claim and arguing until they are blue in the face the only reason he hit the other bloke in the rear was because.... *insert excuse here* as they don’t want their future premiums and NCD affected.

How’s that for a possible slant?

lisyloo

so they can give you any reason as to why it has gone up and will deny it is because of the claims you have made. How on earth can you disprove it?

That's very easy indeed.
You do a quote. Get prices.
Then you edit that quote with exactly the same information but increase the claims.
If the price goes up it HAS to be down to the claim as that was the only thing that changed (especially if you edit rather than re-enter).

I too am cynical but if that's what they promise and it's in writing then ultiamtely you could hold them to it in court.
Perhaps they think the business they will gain as a result will offset the costs.

lisyloo

How’s that for a possible slant?

Doesn't work for me.
Insurers do not spend loads of money and time arguing your case just because you say it's not your fault.
In fact the opposite is true.
They settle 50/50 (or any other figure) very quickly at the drop of a hat to save money.

So it doesn't work for me.