Stung by old claim - not sure where I stand

JJPA

Right, let me explain. I've had my car insurance with Direct Line for the last three or four years - it's not been particularly cheap but I've been a little bit blas! about finding a better deal.

Back in 2009, my car was vandalised whilst in a car park. Direct Line actively push the fact that, with them, you don't lose your no claims bonus as it's not your fault - a non-fault claim.

Naturally, given the fact that the damage done was to cost around £800 to fix and my excess was only £500, I claimed. What did I have to lose? As it transpires, potentially thousands.

I renewed the following year with Direct Line - the price of my policy was unaffected other than the typical year-on-year price hike. It's now that the problems begin.

I've just bought a new car which I pick up on 1st March. As it's in insurance group 18, and I'm in my mid-twenties, I can no longer afford to be blas! as the difference between a competetive quote and an expensive one is now massive. Direct Line quoted me over £3,500 for the year - no chance, can't do it.

Having done some homework, I've managed to find a number of quotes (based on comparable policies) from other major insurers which are much cheaper. The best deal was, apparently, around the £1,500 mark.

I called them to confirm the details, however herein lies the rub. Although the claim made back in 2009 was not my fault and did not affect my no claims, because the costs were not reclaimed from a third party (what third party!?) it does affect the price of my policy. Significantly in fact. By around £600.

Firstly, I'd like to understand if this sounds about right. If anyone knows the score, any thoughts would be appreciated.

Secondly, why wasn't I told about the potential impact on future quotes by Direct Line when I made the claim? At the time it saved me about £300. Presumably this could affect me for the next three or four years. At £600 year, and with increasing insurance prices that figure could well get worse, that's almost £2,500! I ain't happy.

Direct Line market on the back of this supposed policy feature, and give the distinct impression that, other than the excess, making a claim won't cost you. The following quote is taken from their own web site.

These days it's almost impossible to protect your car from being vandalised. If you're a victim, our vandalism cover comes as standard and now preserves your no claims discount. And we won't just repair the damage; if you go to one of our recommended garages, we'll clean your car inside and out too. After all, it's not your fault if you're a victim - so why should you suffer twice?

Anyone know where I stand on this? Any advice would be gratefully recieved.

Cheers!

vaio

Not much help but there is nothing you can do apart from shopping around

As you've spotted, it is a marketing ploy and like all marketing ploys has to be paid for somehow, in this case by having hopelessly uncompetitive premiums.

Shop around is the way to go, the main site has a good guide and repeat every year because you'll almost always fine that renewal prices are way more than new customer prices

property.advert

I got shot down when I painted a picture of financial loss for a claim which extends out perhaps 5 or 6 years afterwards but it is a fact. I stated that it was a consequential loss and should form part of a settlement even when there is a 3rd party. However, this case highlights the problem.

However, you cannot totally blame the insurance company. You didn't have to buy such a car nor did you have to claim. You should have done your homework beforehand on both of these.

But, it perhaps focuses our minds on the growing fact that if we are scared to claim then why do we have all singing and dancing insurance ? If we put excesses so high that it makes us think about a claim then why ? I don't know where we are heading really except into uninsurability.

vaio

property.advert wrote: »

I got shot down when I painted a picture of financial loss for a claim which extends out perhaps 5 or 6 years afterwards but it is a fact. I stated that it was a consequential loss and should form part of a settlement even when there is a 3rd party......

Much as I’m not inclined to defend the pirates we have masquerading as insurance companies I can’t see anything unreasonable about loading premiums/cutting NCB if they pay out on a claim by an untraced third party so can’t recover what they pay out.

Similarly if their actuarial numbers show that people who have a non fault where the costs are recovered from a TP are more likely to have another incident, then again, it’s not unreasonable to load future premiums.

What I do have an issue with is quite a few knowledgeable posters on here, (including some insurance insiders) asserting that the future loading should be treated differently from other consequential cost and not be recoverable from the at fault party.

I’ve recovered it, you’ve recovered it and yet the majority opinion across multiple threads says it’s not recoverable which is dangerous as it tends to discourage people from recovering costs they are entitled to. This is despite no-one coming up with any logical argument as to why such a loading should be treated any differently from a bent wing or broken arm.

The best that’s been offered so far is “you were just lucky” and “a claims handler nodded it through because she was feeling kind”

JJPA

To clarify, my main frustration is not that this has impacted my future quotes but the fact that I was led to believe that it wouldn't. If I'd been advised of the future impact it would have influenced my decision to make the claim or not.

It saved me about £400 at the time. It's going to cost me several times that over the next few years. If I'd have known that I wouldn't have made the claim - but I was given the distinct impression otherwise.

vaio

Makes no difference, you’d have had to declare the incident anyway which would still have affected future premiums whether you claimed or not

The only way to avoid this is not to notify which risks your insurance being cancelled just when you need it most

JJPA

vaio wrote: »

Makes no difference, you’d have had to declare the incident anyway which would still have affected future premiums whether you claimed or not

Even when it's non-fault?

dacouch

JJPA wrote: »

Even when it's non-fault?

A vandalism claim is regarded as a fault claim to an Insurer as there is (Normally) no one they can recover their costs from

vaio

yep, non fault means different things in the world of insurance, if they paid out and couldn't get the money back from a third party then it counts as a fault claim.

Sticking to non fault (where either no money was paid out or it was recovered from the third party) a lot of companies will load future premiums and, in my experience, the ones that don't aren't competitive in the first place.

When I was recovering the non fault loadings from Direct Line they argued that they didn't load for non faults and then quoted me a figure that was way more than my own insurance even with the loading

In round terms......

Elephant with no accidents £150
Elephant with a non fault £250
Direct Line with or without a non fault £350