why am i being penalised?

thelawnet

Ihatecameron wrote: »

I dunno, you sound like an insurance man to me One accident in 25 years, not my fault. Hows that for data.

I don't think they really care. They just say 'people recently involved in accident are statistically more likely to get in another one'.

That's simple mathematics, and if they apply this across their customer base, on average the premiums paid will fairly reflect their risk.

If you want a man to come round to your house, interview you, find out your life history, then say 'he's a nice chap, give him a discount', you're going to end up paying more for that anyway.

StrongWork

Ihatecameron wrote: »

No I did not, when I was asked if I had claimed off my insurance in the last 5 years, the answer was no.

The other question i whether you have been involved in any accidents (regardless of fault) in the last 5 years.

If you have (as you stated above) and answered no (as you stated above), your insurance is invalid.

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

Nonsense and dangerous nonsense at that, deliberate lies will result in them not paying out for the damage to your car.

It's an interesting situation, as you have a very good understanding of the non disclosure rules what would your take be on it.

There is a very outside chance it could be classed as innocent or inadvertent but could also be classed as deliberate or even possibly clearly reckless.

Ihatecameron

StrongWork wrote: »

The other question i whether you have been involved in any accidents (regardless of fault) in the last 5 years.

If you have (as you stated above) and answered no (as you stated above), your insurance is invalid.

It was over 5 years ago and if memory serves me correct, they did not mention "regardless of fault". Some companies are not as strict as others, they are happy enough if you have never claimed off your insurance.

vaio

dacouch wrote: »

It's an interesting situation, as you have a very good understanding of the non disclosure rules what would your take be on it.

There is a very outside chance it could be classed as innocent or inadvertent but could also be classed as deliberate or even possibly clearly reckless.

Don't know about "......you have a very good understanding of the non disclosure rules......" I'd go for "I know where the FOS site is and have reasonable reading and comprehension skills (thanks to a 60's & 70's education )."

On your question, it's hard to say, particularly as the story seems to change. On the first version....

Ihatecameron wrote: »

……I simply changed my insurers and when asked if I was involved in any accidents, I said no. Because I was not involved in any accidents……...

I’d go for deliberate maybe reckless, if you claim £1200 from a TP insurer I can’t see how you could subsequently claim you hadn’t been involved in an accident.

On the second version.......

Ihatecameron wrote: »

No I did not, when I was asked if I had claimed off my insurance in the last 5 years, the answer was no.

It’s harder to say, certainly 10 years ago my insurers were asking questions that required me to declare a non fault accident and I’d have thought most (all?) other companies were doing the same and so would have required disclosure particularly where it appears that the claim was settled 50/50........

Ihatecameron wrote: »

A few years back I was involved in an accident, the other driver admitted liability, only when he realised the accident was caught on CCTV. So his insurance company had to pay, not my insurance, HIS insurance.

The bill for the repair was 1260.00, that was the lowest estimate.

The insurance company dragged its heels for a full 3 months only agreeing to pay at the 11th hour to avoid being sued. And even then they would only agree to pay half of the 1260.00 so I ended up with 630.00 …….

Really, too many inconsistencies to be sure, but the general advice I'd give is to be honest when you answer questions and (at risk of being contentious) if you are landed with a non fault loading then mitigate, document and recover from the at fault driver

Ihatecameron

One thing we have established is you will end up paying more on your renewal even if you are completely faultless.

In that case, should we factor in an amount for compensation on top of the cost of repairs? If your insurance is going to cost more then it is only fair that you should be compensated for this.

Ihatecameron

Suddenly it has gone quiet when there is a question mark over insurance companies defrauding innocent drivers, there must be some recourse for 100% faultless drivers. Having to pay higher premiums by default for someone elses bad driving is not acceptable.

vaio

Ihatecameron wrote: »

Suddenly it has gone quiet when there is a question mark over insurance companies defrauding innocent drivers, there must be some recourse for 100% faultless drivers. Having to pay higher premiums by default for someone elses bad driving is not acceptable.

I think it's more likely this thread has come to the end of it's useful life, as for non fault loadings, it's not defrauding, it's business, some companies charge, others don't.

If you get hit with one the answer is as I posted earlier......

vaio wrote: »

......if you are landed with a non fault loading then mitigate, document and recover from the at fault driver

Ihatecameron

That presents another problem, who knows for sure what insurance costs. It is not like they display a price list for all to see, and back when I had my accident they would not admit why they were charging me extra.

vaio

It’s not a problem, when I recovered mine I did it on the basis of my insurance company giving me a letter confirming the amount of the non fault loading.

You can also get the figure by doing on line quotes, one with the accident and one without