Advice on insurance increases after non-fault accident?

vaio

malkie76 wrote: »

I'm really not following you here. Do you keep your car on private land at all times and never take onto the public highway ? Otherwise you and I are exactly the same risk.

Overnight I'm on my private driveway, during work it's in a secure car park with plenty of space.

My car was scratched in a public car park while at the cinema.

My circumstances have not changed so why would I be a higher risk next year compared to this year? (ie what factual evidence actually is there to support this assertion ?)

At risk of over simplifying, (actually simplifying to a stupid extent) what she is saying is that people who never use cinema car parks are less of a risk than those that do.

When you take out your policy they don’t really know whether you use cinema car parks or not so they base your premium on an “average” figure so your premium includes say half the premium amount allocated to users of cinema car parks.

Once you have reported an incident in a cinema car park then they know for sure you sometimes use them and can charge you the full amount rather than an average figure.

Other possibilities include anyone who has an claim of any sort is more likely to have another one and therefore riskier, what colour car you drive, what day you were born on etc etc.

Practically, as I said above, how your company arrives at your premium is a commercial matter for them & probably shrouded in secrecy so don’t expect any sort of meaningful discussion on an individual basis.

It generally comes down to “If you are happy with the price quoted than accept, if not then go elsewhere.”

lisyloo

ie what factual evidence actually is there to support this assertion ?

It doesn't actually matter whether it's true or not.
They can choose to charge you what they like (as long as there is no illegal discrimination on the grouds of race, colour, religion etc.).

but I believe the answer is claims statistics (no I don't have them, no you can't see them).

malkie76

Of course it matters if it's true or not. Why let them charge you more without having grounds to do so?

I totally agree they can choose any premium they like, and I'm free to change provider. However if all major companies will charge more for a non fault accident then I'm still getting done over.

They will claim I'm a higher risk based on statistics of a second accident, but I want to see that data before conceding.

I can't be the only person to challenge this assertion.

raskazz

malkie76 wrote: »

Of course it matters if it's true or not. Why let them charge you more without having grounds to do so?

Why do you say that they "haven't the grounds to do so"? Do you have any evidence to contradict their risk assessment and pricing models?

malkie76 wrote: »

They will claim I'm a higher risk based on statistics of a second accident, but I want to see that data before conceding.

I can't be the only person to challenge this assertion.

You won't see the data. An insurer's risk and pricing data is commercially sensitive (apart from your own personal data which is subject to the rights enshrined in the Data Protection Acts) and they have no obligation whatsoever to disclose it to you.

malkie76

I see the burden of proof is on them if they state I am more likely to be involved in a future accident based on their statistics. Pricing policy and risk management is irrelevant to my question - they must know the actual number of people who have accidents after a non-fault accident.

You folk seem happy to blindly accept the word of an insurer without questioning it - that seems slightly strange.

Would you happily accept a hike in the price of milk without questioning it? The answer is a simple increase in the cost of the milk, and the cost of transport of milk to the shop. You ask the question and get a sensible answer. Why shouldn't I ask my insurer the same question and have them support it with evidence.

Otherwise insurers can do whatever they like to you - while you could move company you'll get exactly the same fundamental treatment.

Why are you folks so comfortable to hand over your hard earners without evidence supporting their claim?

It does sound like I'm going to get no where if my insurer does increase my premium, but like I said above I've already caught them fibbing about reasons for premium increases.

raskazz

malkie76 wrote: »

I see the burden of proof is on them if they state I am more likely to be involved in a future accident based on their statistics.

There is no "burden" of proof as they are under no obligation to disclose the data which you are requesting, nor for them to justify this pricing decision.

malkie76 wrote: »

Pricing policy and risk management is irrelevant to my question - they must know the actual number of people who have accidents after a non-fault accident.

Pricing and risk management are entirely central to the issue which you are attempting to research. Data on total number of people who have accidents after a non-fault accident, in isolation, sheds no light on the matter whatsoever. Firstly because it is not sheer numbers that matter - it is more a question of proportionalisty; secondly you would need to compare tehnical rates for the basket of those people who have no claims versus those who have non-fault claims (which includes claim severity in addition to basic claim frequency); lastly the insurer would have to disclose whether it has made any commercial decision to rate differently from the technical rate which will encompass all sorts of things from price elasticity, lifetime value of the policyholder, lifestyle profiling and so on.

malkie76 wrote: »

You folk seem happy to blindly accept the word of an insurer without questioning it - that seems slightly strange.

No. I am a motor insurance underwriter so I have seen the technical rating models which support loading policies for non-fault claims incurred. This is why I am questioning you as to whether you have data with which to argue against the insurer's pricing - which you clearly don't.

malkie76 wrote: »

Would you happily accept a hike in the price of milk without questioning it? The answer is a simple increase in the cost of the milk, and the cost of transport of milk to the shop. You ask the question and get a sensible answer. Why shouldn't I ask my insurer the same question and have them support it with evidence.

I think your logic is becoming quite fuzzy here. Firstly if I found the price of milk was too much in shop A I would take my business to shop B. If I could not source milk at a price that I was willing to pay then I would not buy milk. I would not waste time demanding that they provide statistics to support things like the cost of transporting milk to the shop - which is what you are asking of the insurer.

malkie76 wrote: »

Otherwise insurers can do whatever they like to you - while you could move company you'll get exactly the same fundamental treatment.

Insurers cannot "do whatever they like to you". They are regulated by the FSA, they have to abide by statutory limits on certain rating factors (eg disability, spent convictions), and the FOS is a free and impartial adjudicator to the consumer. The consumer may also take the alternative of legal action.

malkie76 wrote: »

It does sound like I'm going to get no where if my insurer does increase my premium, but like I said above I've already caught them fibbing about reasons for premium increases.

They will not provide the data. They will also not remove any applicable load for the non-fault claim. The only certain outcome is that you will waste a lot of your own time peeing in the wind on this.

malkie76

Like I said above I'm surprised you are blindly willing to accept the word of an insurance company. You may have seen models, but that's not the same otherwise you would have answered my query with a straight answer on the facts.

I'm also surprised as a consumer that you wouldn't question the cost of something you buy to ensure you are getting the absolute best value for money. Seems extremely strange for a poster on this website.

lisyloo

Why let them charge you more without having grounds to do so?

You can walk away from individual companies as we have already said.
However you can't walk away from the industry (unless you are planning on driving illegally).
You have no choice but to accept one of the policies on offer.

They will claim I'm a higher risk based on statistics of a second accident, but I want to see that data before conceding.

Wouldn't we all, but it's tough, you aren't entitled to see it.

You folk seem happy to blindly accept the word of an insurer without questioning it - that seems slightly strange.

I accept the reality of my rights.

Why are you folks so comfortable to hand over your hard earners without evidence supporting their claim?

We don't have a choice.
What do you want us to do. Phone them up and keep answering questions they won't answer?

What is it you want us to actually do?
Give you answers that aren't true but what you want to hear?
I'm afraid you are being told the reality.
As it happens I don't agree with the practice but I don't run an insurance company and have no influence over the policy.

malkie76

But this is exactly how change is achieved. If sufficient members of the public question the practice and raise the issue with the regulating bodies then questions will need to be answered.

The actual number of repeat accidents is a simple figure which at the top level is not financially sensitive.
Something along the lines of; within 3 years of a claim X% of customers were involved in a second claim. If the X% is reasonably high then the insurance companies have a point and premiums should go up accordingly.

If X% is not significantly different from those without a previous accident then (IMO) insurance companies cannot claim an increase in premium is needed to match the increased risk. In fact, stats might suggest that you have a decreased chance of an accident due to increased care when driving, or where you leave your car.

As far as I'm concerned its a scam by insurance companies where they hide behind a false assertion. They already have with the increase in uninsured drivers false claim. The suggestion on Watchdog was that the real increase in premiums is to cover the claims that they themselves advocate for false injuries.

Don't you agree it would be nice to know the actual stats behind this assertion ?

raskazz

malkie76 wrote: »

But this is exactly how change is achieved. If sufficient members of the public question the practice and raise the issue with the regulating bodies then questions will need to be answered.

Why would the regulating body be interested in this matter - there are no regulations which prohibit rating on non-fault incidents? This statement is also predicated on the fact that change is necessary. As someone who has seen the stats myself, I know that change is not in fact necessary on this front, and is indeed undesirable, because pricing according to risk is a central pillar of how insurance works at a fundamental level. I would not, as an incident-free risk, want my premiums to subsidise higher risks - which is what would happen if insurers were not allowed to rate on non-fault claims.

malkie76 wrote: »

The actual number of repeat accidents is a simple figure which at the top level is not financially sensitive.
Something along the lines of; within 3 years of a claim X% of customers were involved in a second claim. If the X% is reasonably high then the insurance companies have a point and premiums should go up accordingly.

For the reasons which I explained above, nominal figures such as this are meaningless.

malkie76 wrote: »

If X% is not significantly different from those without a previous accident then (IMO) insurance companies cannot claim an increase in premium is needed to match the increased risk.

You clearly don't understand risk. This statement is simply not logically correct. Risk is the combination of frequency and severity, not just frequency alone.

malkie76 wrote: »

In fact, stats might suggest that you have a decreased chance of an accident due to increased care when driving, or where you leave your car.

Well, firstly the stats do not suggest this (and I have seen them). Secondly, if we assume for a moment that this is the case then the insurers who did load for non-fault claims would quickly find themselves selected against as other insurers spotted the gap in the market and started to discount instead of load. Clearly that this doesn't happen in a competitive market is quite robust evidence that the risk posed to an insurer by someone who has had one or more non-fault claims is greater than someone who has not been involved in any incidents at all.

malkie76 wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned its a scam

I think to use the emotive word "scam" is ridiculous bearing in mind you have absolutely zero evidence to contradict the insurer's position.

malkie76 wrote: »

by insurance companies where they hide behind a false assertion.

Can you please provide some actual evidence that this is a "false assertion"?

malkie76 wrote: »

They already have with the increase in uninsured drivers false claim. The suggestion on Watchdog was that the real increase in premiums is to cover the claims that they themselves advocate for false injuries.

The reasons for premium increases have been well documented on this site and others.

malkie76 wrote: »

Don't you agree it would be nice to know the actual stats behind this assertion ?

Well, I do know the stats. Do you have any right to see them? No. May I ask what industry you work in and would your business release commercially sensitive data to the market in order to "justify" legitimate pricing amendments?