ESure Increase Renewal Premium

Graci_2

I recently received my renewal premium for my car from Admiral so I decided to shop around, receive a favouable quote from ESure via CompareTheMarket. I contacted them by telephone just to check all the details and when I mentioned that someone bumped into the back of me in a carpark last year they increased my quote by over £40. Even though the guy who ran into me agreed to pay for the small amount of damage directly (less than £100) - the very fact that I let my insurance company know penalises me? Surely this canno be the case as I did not make a claim?

lisyloo

You are higher risk because you had an accident in which you sustained a loss.
No-one is saying it's your fault, but you clearly visit busy car parks so are statistically more likely to make a claim in future, so you are higher risk.
Providing the insurer has statistics to back up the fact that you are higher risk then they are legally allowed to charge you more.

dunstonh

the very fact that I let my insurance company know penalises me?

Correct. By not committing insurance fraud and being honest as you are meant to be.

Surely this canno be the case as I did not make a claim?

Read the words on the application. Claims or accidents is the usual wording and will say whether you claimed or not. Statistically, people who have recently been in an accident are more likely to have another claim in a short period afterwards. Doesnt mean you will when you look at the pool of people who have had a recent claim, the odds increase for another claim.

Heliflyguy

lisyloo wrote: »

No-one is saying it's your fault, but you clearly visit busy car parks so are statistically more likely to make a claim in future, so you are higher risk.
Providing the insurer has statistics to back up the fact that you are higher risk then they are legally allowed to charge you more.

If true then they should add a box that says "do you visit busy car parks" or "is there is a large Tesco (etc) within 5 miles" or do you shop only on Saturdays or Sundays when car parks are more busy.

Sorry I think your talking tosh there.

Statistically there must be people who have no fault accidents who do not claim via their insurance and who do not go on to have another accident in whatever the amount of years required before it no longer has to be declared.

Can these people then go back and reclaim the overpayments then?

Come on what is it 51% of people go on to have another accident (statistically more likely) 61%, 75% were can we find out all these statistics that get bandied about on here ????

lisyloo

If true then they should add a box that says "do you visit busy car parks" or "is there is a large Tesco (etc) within 5 miles" or do you shop only on Saturdays or Sundays when car parks are more busy.

I don't think it's possible to cover every single scenario with questions (where you work, type of car park, public? private? CCTV?).
Hence they use postcode and claims experience.
They are at liberty to chose their own criteria so long as they can relate it to risk and it's not illegal discrimination (as gender will be after December 2012).

Statistically there must be people who have no fault accidents who do not claim via their insurance and who do not go on to have another accident in whatever the amount of years required before it no longer has to be declared.

Yes of course.

Can these people then go back and reclaim the overpayments then?

No, sorry but you get "grouped" statistically, whether it's by postcode, gender (currently), age etc.
That is not tosh, it's a fact.
No, you cannot claim back for being a better than average individual.
Prices are based on statistical assumptions.
You might not like it but it's a fact and it's legal.
As you may know the gender part will not be legal after December 2012, but in general the statistical grouping will still continue.

In answer to the original question yes they CAN penalise you for a non-fault claim, it's quite common across the industry.
Not all companies do it.
You may find companies that don't but of course those companies may well not be the cheapest, so they could be £40 or more on top anyway.

dunstonh

Statistically there must be people who have no fault accidents who do not claim via their insurance and who do not go on to have another accident in whatever the amount of years required before it no longer has to be declared.

Of course there are. However, insurance is about covering a group and not the individual. Statistically, the group that has an accident is more likely to have another one than the group that does not. So, all those in that group get penalised even though many will not have another accident. Just as everyone in a high risk postcode will not suffer a claim. Or that every 17 year old male is going to suffer a claim.

Can these people then go back and reclaim the overpayments then?

That would not be logical as insurance is about sharing the load. If you could claim money back then the premiums for everyone would increase and ultimately insurance wouldnt work as you would no longer be sharing the load.

mikey72

Will the next question be, "have you seen an accident" or "have you parked in car parks where accidents happen" if statistically the car park user is a greater risk now?

lisyloo

if statistically the car park user is a greater risk now?

It's having a claim or accident that is the triggering factor.

I agree it appears unfair, but I don't have the stats to say whether it is or not.
If anyone else does then please put them up, otherwise any opinions either way are just baseless.

Personally I believe I become more careful after a crash and learn something, but I realise it's also about other drivers as well.

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

It's having a claim or accident that is the triggering factor.

I agree it appears unfair, but I don't have the stats to say whether it is or not.
If anyone else does then please put them up, otherwise any opinions either way are just baseless.

Personally I believe I become more careful after a crash and learn something, but I realise it's also about other drivers as well.

You have no stats, you have no proof at all. It's a popular spin when your insurance is increased, you choose to believe it must be true, I don't.

Statistically you have been proven to be less careful after a crash, and as you will have a fault claim, it's nothing at all to do with other drivers. It's because you are going to run into someone else, and it will be your negligence.

lisyloo

You have no stats, you have no proof at all.

Correct, I'm not trying to prove it, just explain to someone what insurers do and their rationale.
It's the insurers that put up prices on that basis.
If you want to dispute it with them then I would encourage you to go ahead, but you will need to take it up with them not me :-)
Are any of you bothering to actually do anything about it?
If I passionately believed something was wrong like that then I would take action not just make lots of posts about it.

you choose to believe it must be true

Wrong, no I don't.
It's a fact that the statistics are the insurers premise for the increase. I believe that's true.

I never said I believed the insurers premise.
I was answering the question about how insurers do things and why.
Whether the stats are true I have no idea and neither frankly do you. If you do then please post your proof and it will be settled.
I don't choose to believe in things either way when I have no evidence.
You choose to be against something with NO evidence whatsoever (if you do have it then please post it and make it easier on everyone) and also it would be good if you could do a test case with the FOS and get the system changed. That would actually be useful and good.
I keep an open mind on things when I have no evidence one way or another.

Statistically you have been proven to be less careful after a crash, and as you will have a fault claim, it's nothing at all to do with other drivers. It's because you are going to run into someone else, and it will be your negligence.

The thread so far is about a NON-FAULT claim which is all to do with other drivers around you.
I totally agree that if you have a fault claim then it's about your own driving, but his particular one is non-fault.

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

Correct, I'm not trying to prove it, just explain to someone what insurers do and their rationale.
It's the insurers that put up prices on that basis.
If you want to dispute it with them then I would encourage you to go ahead, but you will need to take it up with them not me :-)
Are any of you bothering to actually do anything about it?
If I passionately believed something was wrong like that then I would take action not just make lots of posts about it.


Wrong, no I don't.
It's a fact that the statistics are the insurers premise for the increase. I believe that's true.

I never said I believed the insurers premise.
I was answering the question about how insurers do things and why.
Whether the stats are true I have no idea and neither frankly do you. If you do then please post your proof and it will be settled.
I don't choose to believe in things either way when I have no evidence.
You choose to be against something with NO evidence whatsoever (if you do have it then please post it and make it easier on everyone) and also it would be good if you could do a test case with the FOS and get the system changed. That would actually be useful and good.
I keep an open mind on things when I have no evidence one way or another.


The thread so far is about a NON-FAULT claim which is all to do with other drivers around you.
I totally agree that if you have a fault claim then it's about your own driving, but his particular one is non-fault.

Which you have explained that statistics show make you a higher risk, and that you will statistically then have a fault claim, hence the increase in premium
So although you obviouly claim you personally will be a better driver after a NON FAULT accident, the rationale you keep explaining on this forum is that you personally are now worse, and will be making further claims. So you believe they apply to everyone but you possibly?

If you don't believe the statistics apply to you personally, why are you so keen to keep repeating them as the insurers justification. It may be an open mind to you, but at some point it does start to sound like you where told it by "a man in a pub"