BEWARE Increased premium after NO FAULT accident

G51shopaholic

Same thing happened to me with Sheila Wheels - car hit my car when we were parked in a Supermarket Carpark.
Fathers Day 2009.
Went to switch insurer in 2010. They loaded £30 onto the premiums I'd been quoted for on a comparison website.
Said it didn't matter that is was a no fault claim!

I reported them to Insurance Ombusiman but heard nothing.

It should not be allowed!

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

It's actually nothing at all like that question.

Fair dice have no memory hence the outcome of roll x is independent of the outcome of roll y.

However, the outcome of a policy year for risk A who has had a recent non-fault claim is materially more risky than the outcome of a policy year for risk B who is otherwise identical but has been involved in no fault claims whatsoever. The causation of this greater risk is a matter for debate but the insurer is, rightly, not concerned with what the particular causation may be, only that the correlation exists, thus a greater premium is charged for a greater risk. It's nothing do do with any assumption of "accidents coming in 3s" or any other such guff.

I wish people who know nothing about insurance would cease clogging the board up with supposition and ill-informed opinion. God knows why we haven't got a sticky for these topics that are repeated ad infinitum. Any moderators or board guides to shed any light on this?

I suppose it balances all the ones that "do" know all about insurance, but never have any proof to back it up.
What's next, correlation exists that premiums are loaded for Mondays, it's known to be a greater risk, and insurers have stats to prove it, so stop clogging up the board by questioning it?

dunstonh

I reported them to Insurance Ombusiman but heard nothing.

That is because its not within the remit of the FOS.

It should not be allowed!

Why not? Insurance is about sharing the risk as much as possible whilst those that are greater risk pay more than those with lower risk. As someone who has an accident (fault or non fault) is statistically more likely to have another claim in the near future, that makes them higher risk. its not rocket science and quite normal risk assessment.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

I suppose it balances all the ones that "do" know all about insurance, but never have any proof to back it up.
What's next, correlation exists that premiums are loaded for Mondays, it's known to be a greater risk, and insurers have stats to prove it, so stop clogging up the board by questioning it?

1) I have seen the proof but cannot post it here as, if you have an iota of common sense, you will understand that is it commercially sensitive data and so I am not going to get fired for the sake of remedying your ignorance.

2) If there were no correlation between non-fault claims and risk then other insurers would undercut these loads to take business in profitable segments from those that impose loads. As you would understand if you knew how a competitive market works.

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

1) I have seen the proof but cannot post it here as, if you have an iota of common sense, you will understand that is it commercially sensitive data and so I am not going to get fired for the sake of remedying your ignorance.

2) If there were no correlation between non-fault claims and risk then other insurers would undercut these loads to take business in profitable segments from those that impose loads. As you would understand if you knew how a competitive market works.

I suppose that's the problem.

Either you know the facts no-one else could ever see, so we treat you as an oracle, as you as keen to keep telling us we should,
or
you're talking complete rubbish.

I suppose on a public forum, members will make up their own minds, no matter how ignorant, without any common sense, or unaware of a competitive market they are.

highhorse_2

Although its madness it happens, and always will happen sadly.

GOOD insurance underwriters (and there are more than a few that are AWFUL) look at all the information available to them and price their policies accordingly.

If they have identified that people with a non fault claim are more likely to make an at fault claim in the near future then they are going to protect themselves and increase the premiums.

The good thing about all this is that its a free market. In as much as all insurers are free to price their policies the way they want to, you, as a consumer, are free to accept that price or reject it.

There are plenty of insurance providers out there, and more being added most months, so if you get service that you dont like or cover that you dont appreciate then switch.

Insurance providers live and die by their policy book. If you leave them and go to someone who treats you in a fairer way then sooner or later they will all get the message and change their ways.

The problem with insurance is that there is too much complacency in the market - if these guys are "ripping you off" then dump them and move to a better provider

mikey72

highhorse wrote: »

Although its madness it happens, and always will happen sadly.

GOOD insurance underwriters (and there are more than a few that are AWFUL) look at all the information available to them and price their policies accordingly.

If they have identified that people with a non fault claim are more likely to make an at fault claim in the near future then they are going to protect themselves and increase the premiums.

The good thing about all this is that its a free market. In as much as all insurers are free to price their policies the way they want to, you, as a consumer, are free to accept that price or reject it.

There are plenty of insurance providers out there, and more being added most months, so if you get service that you dont like or cover that you dont appreciate then switch.

Insurance providers live and die by their policy book. If you leave them and go to someone who treats you in a fairer way then sooner or later they will all get the message and change their ways.

The problem with insurance is that there is too much complacency in the market - if these guys are "ripping you off" then dump them and move to a better provider

I quite agree.
Always get alternative quotes at renewals, always use decent companies (defining decent is hard though)
A lot of the time I run the quote, then run it again with a no fault claim.
(Never with my own details though, or there is a good chance the claim stays with you)
A lot don't charge, some do. So I guess the correlation they alledge depends on whether you're a new customer, mid term, or renewing with some as well.

skipsmum

Happened to us...our van was hit whilst parked on our drive by a lorry who "misjudged" where he was parking. No fault, lorry company dealt with everything, ncb not affected (it was protected as well), but extra £90 on renewal because our van was now more likely to be involved in an accident. Duh.

malc_b

About the only sensible information to come out of this thread is the suggestion to compare quotes for fault and non fault with false names (and emails and addresses I'd suggest).

Perhaps the Oracle is correct and for reasons the underwriters do not understand if A has a no-fault claim then another claim is more likely. So why do insurers not wonder why this is the case?

I can think of a very good reason for this to occur, it's called fraud! A car pulls in front of you and slams on the brakes. You hit him and he claims for the damage and his whiplash and the the whiplash of all his passengers. It's a well know scam. The scammer is the one who has the no fault claim and since that's how he makes his living he presumably keeps doing it, nicely distorting the figures.

thenudeone

Some insurers include no-fault claims, some don't.
I got two quotes from Aviva at renewal, 1 with and 1 without last year's no-fault claim, and it didn't make any difference to the cost.
(I have good claim and driving record).