Is no claims protection a con?

daveyjp

r3neagdeuk - your analysis assumes you stay with the same insurer.

I had five years NCB, had to claim, dropped to three, exisiting insurer quoted me silly money, shopped around and found insurance cheaper with 3 than I had paid the year before with 5 years NCB! It's a buyers market so use it to your advantage.

R3negadeuk

daveyjp wrote: »

r3neagdeuk - your analysis assumes you stay with the same insurer.

I had five years NCB, had to claim, dropped to three, exisiting insurer quoted me silly money, shopped around and found insurance cheaper with 3 than I had paid the year before with 5 years NCB! It's a buyers market so use it to your advantage.

Absolutely davey,

Always shop around for your insurance. The cover is always what it is comp=comp, tpft =tpft. Just a few bells and whistles with some companies that you probably never need.

if companies don't lower their prices to compete, then it will be them that suffer in the long term.

mikey72

R3negadeuk wrote: »

AA do not broker their insurance policies. This was not the cause of the increase of your premium.

The insurance is handled by Acromas whom own AA. Acromas underwrite their own policies.

I will explain what happened, make of it what you will.

Lets say you have a full protected NCD. During the policy period, you have an accident which is classed as your fault.

When your premium is calculated for the renewal term, you will still have a full protected no claims bonus, however, you will be classed as a risk. The increase in premium is due to the risk classification.

If you did not have a protected NCD, you would have had at least 20%(NCD reduction due to a claim) on the previous premium, and you would still be classed as a risk, so no protection would have cost more money.

Based on your figures, your premium was £321 and you approximate that £20 was for the protection. That would leave a net premium of £301. I am guessing that you have a 70% NCD, meaning pre-deduction, your premium is approx £1070 pa.

If you had lost your NCD, you would lose 20% of your NCD taking you to 50%, giving a premium of £535 pa. There would also be the "risk" weighting for the accident, which on your figures is between £40 and £60, we will call it £40 to be conservative.

So, no protection would have worked out your new premium to be £575 pa. So it works out that the extra £20 did in fact save you £211.

Whether or not this is worth it, I don't know. However, in the short term, it does seemed to have saved money in this instance.

I hope this makes sense?

Not according to what the op stated.

henryscat wrote: »

If I hadn't have had no claims protection, apparently my renewal would have been £372.

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

At the end of the day as you say, pay your money.
Protected no claims is just more insurance.
Overall, insurance companies are always going to make money selling it. They won't sell protected no claims if it runs at a loss. So as a customer, throughout your life, it will always cost more overall to pay for protected no claims.
I'm sure anyone that has a claim, would wish they had insured against it. If you want to feel better if you didn't though, go on a comparision site and get a quote with and without.

Mikey72 - please bear in mind that insurance is about the concept of 'the claims of the few being paid by the premiums of the many'. Without this concept, insurance would not exist. Everyone would have to self-insure.

Indeed, if you take your commentary as the rule, it would mean that insurance is pretty pointless, becuase - as you say - the insurance companies would not want to make a loss.

As such, I presume that you must only have Third Party Only insurance (minimum allowed by law), and I presume that you dont carry any life insurance, household insurance etc.

On the basis of what you are saying, no-one really needs insurance because they can simply put their premiums to one side, which will pay for the loss.

I wouldnt give up your day job, if I was you

Dangermac

daveyjp wrote: »

r3neagdeuk - your analysis assumes you stay with the same insurer.

I had five years NCB, had to claim, dropped to three, exisiting insurer quoted me silly money, shopped around and found insurance cheaper with 3 than I had paid the year before with 5 years NCB! It's a buyers market so use it to your advantage.

You say that, but have you seen how much motor insurance premiums are going up?

As I say, you pays you money and you takes your chances.

However, dont take Protected No Claims Discount at your peril. You'll soon see what I mean if you ever have to make a claim against your policy, and your NCD is reduced.

dm

mikey72

Dangermac wrote: »

Mikey72 - please bear in mind that insurance is about the concept of 'the claims of the few being paid by the premiums of the many'. Without this concept, insurance would not exist. Everyone would have to self-insure.

Indeed, if you take your commentary as the rule, it would mean that insurance is pretty pointless, becuase - as you say - the insurance companies would not want to make a loss.

As such, I presume that you must only have Third Party Only insurance (minimum allowed by law), and I presume that you dont carry any life insurance, household insurance etc.

On the basis of what you are saying, no-one really needs insurance because they can simply put their premiums to one side, which will pay for the loss.

I wouldnt give up your day job, if I was you

I've not seen your pointless insults for a while now.
Welcome back.
I'll stand corrected then, as a broker, you're obviously placed to advise me insurance companies are there to make losses then!
Maybe that's where the industries business plan has gone a bit astray.
Please, keep your day job as well, at least we know where you are.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

I've not seen your pointless insults for a while now.
Welcome back.
I'll stand corrected then, as a broker, you're obviously placed to advise me insurance companies are there to make losses then!
Maybe that's where the industries business plan has gone a bit astray.
Please, keep your day job as well, at least we know where you are.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

No. Listen very carefully.

THE PREMIUMS OF THE MANY PAY FOR THE LOSSES OF THE FEW. This is the concept of insurance generally.

How else do you think that an insurance company can afford to pay £250,000 for a Household fire claim, when someone is paying £400-£500 a year.

This concept applies, whether you are taking about:

- Protected NCD
- Car Insurance generally
- Household Insurance
- Business Insurance

For the hard of learning, let's give you another example:

- You pay £30 a month to go to the gym. Do you really think that covers the cost of the staff, equipment, overheads etc? It is the collective membership that pays the total costs - some people use the gym every day, some once a week, some never. If everyone used the gym every day, the membership concept wouldnt work.

If you now dont understand this concept, I think that you are probably too thick to be advising/guiding people on this board.

mikey72

Dangermac wrote: »

No. Listen very carefully.

THE PREMIUMS OF THE MANY PAY FOR THE LOSSES OF THE FEW. This is the concept of insurance generally.

How else do you think that an insurance company can afford to pay £250,000 for a Household fire claim, when someone is paying £400-£500 a year.

This concept applies, whether you are taking about:

- Protected NCD
- Car Insurance generally
- Household Insurance
- Business Insurance

For the hard of learning, let's give you another example:

- You pay £30 a month to go to the gym. Do you really think that covers the cost of the staff, equipment, overheads etc? It is the collective membership that pays the total costs - some people use the gym every day, some once a week, some never. If everyone used the gym every day, the membership concept wouldnt work.

If you now dont understand this concept, I think that you are probably too thick to be advising/guiding people on this board.

The shouting is a good touch on top of the insults, with that sort of persuasive power you'll soon convince me.
What's next, a few **** words maybe.
Advising/guiding? get over yourself, it's an internet forum.
Didn't your paper come this morning or something?

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

The shouting is a good touch on top of the insults, with that sort of persuasive power you'll soon convince me.
What's next, a few **** words maybe.
Advising/guiding? get over yourself, it's an internet forum.
Didn't your paper come this morning or something?

My old dad used to say - never argue with an idiot - people might not be able to tell who is who.

On that basis, I will stop responding on this thread.

Bon chance Mikey72

mikey72

Dangermac wrote: »

My old dad used to say - never argue with an idiot - people might not be able to tell who is who.

On that basis, I will stop responding on this thread.

Bon chance Mikey72

Good man, but you should give people more credit, they normally can tell.
(It should be "bonne" by the way, not "bon", "chance" is feminine)