ESure Increase Renewal Premium

Arg

lisyloo wrote: »

You are higher risk because you had an accident in which you sustained a loss.

He didn't have an accident though.

dunstonh

Arg wrote: »

He didn't have an accident though.

yes he did.
in post #1 : "when I mentioned that someone bumped into the back of me in a carpark"

TSx

Heliflyguy wrote: »

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 ????

That's not right

If 10% of policyholders make claims in an average year, but 10.1% of policyholders who have had a non-fault accident make a claim in an average year, then then it is accurate to say that those who have a non-fault accident are statistically more likely to claim.

50% doesn't come in to it

Arg

dunstonh wrote: »

yes he did.
in post #1 : "when I mentioned that someone bumped into the back of me in a carpark"

The person doing the bumpnig had the accident.

mikey72

TSx wrote: »

That's not right

If 10% of policyholders make claims in an average year, but 10.1% of policyholders who have had a non-fault accident make a claim in an average year, then it is accurate to say that those who have a non-fault accident are statistically more likely to claim.

50% doesn't come in to it

If you just look at the number of people who have insurance, of which I have no idea.
Out that that huge number, a percentage will make fault claims.

A percentage I'm sure someone could tell us.

If you look inside that group, at who has had a no fault claim, as that group is a magnitude of size smaller, statistically, any sub group inside it must be a large number, as they are already excluded from the main group.


If there were a thousand people insured, and 10 have a fault claim, that's 1% claim rate.
If 1 out of those 10 had a no fault claim previously, 10% of people who have a fault claim had a non fault claim previously, so load them up.

Or 0.9% of people with a good record go on to have a claim,
whereas only 0.1% of people with a previous non fault claim go on to have a fault claim, so give them a discount.


The big question is,

who has more claims in the sub group?
Those who have a no previous fault claim, or those making a first claim?
That's where the more or less than 50% comes in.

Anything else is spin again.

That's why I hate it being mindlessly regurgitated without any thought as to how the statistics are worked.

dunstonh

Arg wrote: »

The person doing the bumpnig had the accident.

The person doing the bumping may have been the cause but the op was still involved in it.

scotsblood

I think there is one very simple point that has been missed somewhat in the whole thread, car insurance costs are increasing because the cost of claims is rising, insurers will use anyway they can to increase income!

Any accident that results in a damage claim is these days chased by companies offering to assist you in claiming "compensation" for any injury, everyone expects a "courtesy" car when repairs are undertaken, cars are more sophisticated in their methods of protecting occupants with airbags, 'crumple zones' and structural elements designed to collapse on impact.

It takes a lot of £400 premiums to pay for a single £5000 damage incident, many many more where there is an injury claim for £8-10K on top.

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

[/FONT][/COLOR]

If you just look at the number of people who have insurance, of which I have no idea.
Out that that huge number, a percentage will make fault claims.

A percentage I'm sure someone could tell us.

If you look inside that group, at who has had a no fault claim, as that group is a magnitude of size smaller, statistically, any sub group inside it must be a large number, as they are already excluded from the main group.


If there were a thousand people insured, and 10 have a fault claim, that's 1% claim rate.
If 1 out of those 10 had a no fault claim previously, 10% of people who have a fault claim had a non fault claim previously, so load them up.

Or 0.9% of people with a good record go on to have a claim,
whereas only 0.1% of people with a previous non fault claim go on to have a fault claim, so give them a discount.


The big question is,

who has more claims in the sub group?
Those who have a no previous fault claim, or those making a first claim?
That's where the more or less than 50% comes in.

Anything else is spin again.

That's why I hate it being mindlessly regurgitated without any thought as to how the statistics are worked.

This whole issue is a complete red herring.

Look, it is fairly simple. Whether you agree or disagree with the insurer's calculation of the price, is completely irrelevant.

The price is the price. Pay it or shop around.

By the nature of the competitiveness of the insurance market (yes it is Mikey72 - before you say it's not), there is no cartel, therefore, if you dont like the price, shop around. Vote with your feet.

It is no different to agreeing or disagreeing that certain factors alter the risk: for example age/sex/car garaging/convictions/advanced driving abilities/post code.

The problem is that the consumer has demanded cheap premiums - and they won the battle. Insurers have fine-tuned risk calculation within an inch of it's life. Therefore, any minor changes to the risk criteria, could make a difference to the pricing.

Do I like the position that the insurance industry finds itself in? No - definately not. I would rewind the clock 15 years without any hesitation. Trouble is, the consumer demanded change, and change it got.

Interesting times, that's for sure.

At least Mikey72 is completely balanced with his opinions. He has a chip on both shoulders.

DM

mikey72

Dangermac wrote: »

if you dont like the price, shop around. Vote with your feet.

You won't get any disagreement from me on that one.

dunstonh

Do I like the position that the insurance industry finds itself in? No - definately not. I would rewind the clock 15 years without any hesitation. Trouble is, the consumer demanded change, and change it got.

I agree. Its a bit chicken and egg nowadays. Consumers want cheap and want to use comparison sites that focus on price and that is what they are getting. To get the premiums at a level that makes them come out top, they have to cut back somewhere or make money elsewhere. So, you get charges in other areas or things not covered that were before or you get cherry picking or heavy year 1 discounting etc.

Not at all ideal but there is no way this is going to change without some regulatory action taking place.