BEWARE Increased premium after NO FAULT accident

Spiderham

mikey72 wrote: »

They're called comparison sites.

No they really are programmed to display the rates of the insurers. I did actually half jokingly suggest the random number generator at some point, took a while for people to realise whether I was serious or not. We still haven't decided if it's a good idea, the theory works but it's a bit hard to check if it works.

lisyloo

Also on this, it seems to be that the cheaper car insurance providers are the ones more likely to charge extra for a non-fault accident. I wonder if the two are related?

Makes perfect sense to me.
If you think of the no-frills airlines e.g. RyanAir, then they are the cheapest because all the extras are stripped out, so they are the most likely to charge extra for things you would might normally expect to be covered.
Unfortunately most insurance seems to be becoming "no frills" these days with everything an extra.
The problem is that most people buy the cheap no frill products in droves as they only look at price, so it's likely to be becoming an ever more common business model because the consumers love it.

jonathon01

vaio wrote: »

If you have suffered a premium hike solely as a result of a non fault accident then the costs of that are recoverable from the at fault party just like all other consequential costs

Document the increase and stick a claim in

Can you actually claim for this? Have you successfully claimed and been paid for a premium increase because of a non-fault accident?

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

Makes perfect sense to me.
If you think of the no-frills airlines e.g. RyanAir, then they are the cheapest because all the extras are stripped out, so they are the most likely to charge extra for things you would might normally expect to be covered.
Unfortunately most insurance seems to be becoming "no frills" these days with everything an extra.
The problem is that most people buy the cheap no frill products in droves as they only look at price, so it's likely to be becoming an ever more common business model because the consumers love it.

Not in my experience.
I can't think of any of mine that have had excessive fees. I don't use the cheapest on the comparison sites, but they're in the top ten, which is only a few pounds.
That's why all the justifications don't ring true.
Some insurers can manage to offer a decent premium, coupled with decent fees, and a decent level of customer service. They're still here year after year, so they mustn't be losing hand over fist either.
Others can't, but they still have the same customer base, and the same market information.
Some transparency would be good, and maybe the mis-managed insurers would be forced to improve, rather than keep trotting out excuses others don't need to use.

malc_b

I too don't go automatically for the cheapest but weigh up the options. More so with travel insurance where the cheapest exclude so much it becomes pointless. With car insurance there isn't that much difference in products.

But the issue here to my mind is being distorted. If a car changes lanes without looking and causes an accident that car is at fault. I'd certainly want that accident to be knock for knock at the least. It's pointless thinking up odd accidents where the driver might get away with being at fault. How many times do such accidents occur? 1%? So if a no-fault increase a premium by £100 then the odd ball accidents account for £1 of that. Let's argue about the £99 then.

To my mind this is insurers being lazy. I trust insurers about as much as I trust politicians. It's easy to say the statistics say it is so therefore it must be so. Wikipedia on Insurance fraud says that it costs £1.5 billion or 5% on premiums. Crash for cash scams are well known (see Panorma's programme etc.). And when crooks do crash the cost is maxed. On Panorama the bill was £28k where as I would have thought a typical rear shunt at roundabout would 1/10 that.

So rather than lots of unusually accidents I reckon that it is just lazy insurers failing to sort out fraud and instead just loading the premium. As the OP says, buyer Beware, shop around.

lisyloo

Can you actually claim for this? Have you successfully claimed and been paid for a premium increase because of a non-fault accident?

I believe Vaio has, yes.

lisyloo

Some insurers can manage to offer a decent premium, coupled with decent fees, and a decent level of customer service. They're still here year after year, so they mustn't be losing hand over fist either.
Others can't, but they still have the same customer base, and the same market information.

It's the same in any line of business.
Personally I don't find insurance to be particualrly bad compared to other businesses e.g. plumbers, garages, airlines.
One of the great things about financial regulation is having a free and independent fall back which you don't have elsewhere in unregulated industries.

tyler80

If I'd known how much a non-fault accident was going to hike up my premiums over the past 5 years I would have claimed. As it was I naively thought it wouldn't be too much bother. Car runs into the back of me at speed whilst I'm queued on a dual carriageway (nowhere near where I live I might add so no risk from repeatedly driving on dangerous roads!), driver prosecuted for driving without due care and attention. I was driving a rental car so wasn't even driving under my own insurance policy (I didn't even have one at the time), the rental car company were completely sure it wasn't my fault so didn't charge me the 500 quid excess even though I hadn't waived it yet my premiums are still loaded five years later because of it.

moneybags1957

You are now cursed.
In future insure your car then place it somewhere safe,what ever you do DON'T drive it!

moneybags1957

I wonder if you are struck by a car as a pedestrian,you would be equally statistically cursed and so your life insurance should be loaded?
OMG what have I done,I BET they are now already working on it :- )