Someone drove into me and now it puts £300 on my policy

Parking_Trouble

DUBSTEP wrote: »

Hi all first post so sorry if im doing anything wrong

At the start of the year i went to tesco just to pick up a bag of yorkshire puds for the sunday roast, but it turned into an absolute nightmare, as i was driving out of the car park a woman decided to not look INFRONT of her before pulling out of her space and planted herself into the side of my car, i'd only been driving 4 months and i was well and truely shaken up.
Claim went through fairly quickly, i got a courtesy car for two weeks while the fixed £1000 worth of damage to my Fiesta (was only bought for £750) and i thought everything was sorted, but no.

My renewal is oming up and went through some quotes for a Clio and because of this useless driver my policy has gone up £300, how is this possible when it was entirely her fault, she said to the insurers it was, and its not just the fact that prices have gone up, i did a quote with and without the accident details.

Is there anything i can do because this is beyond a joke now, colossal insurance the first year and now this when its nothing to do with me.

Please help me out

So. To return to the OP's problem that they wanted to share.
I note they have only posted twice and I suspect totally bemused by the discussions in this thread.

The question is: How can a non-fault accident adversely affect my new premium?

There appear to be two schools of opinion, poles apart.

The Insurance defenders will have us believe that if you are involved in an accident that is not your fault you are statistically more likely to have another accident so therefore your premium is increased because you are a higher risk.

Unfortunately the risk calculations fall in to the same category as the recipe for KFC and Coca Cola. It cannot be divulged because they don't want to lose their competitive advantage. Now I can live without KFC and "The Real Thing" but I have to buy car insurance because I have to run a car.

The consumer defenders have said this is bonkers and unfair.

Insurance defenders say tough, insurers are there to make a profit and the secret sauce statistics have to stay secret.

Consumer defenders say "Lies, damned lies and statistics" and where is the transparency?

Insurance defenders say play with the quotes, put in non-fault scenarios and all will become clear and you can pick the best company and get an insight into the factors each company uses.
They also say don't drive at all, or move into a wilderness where it is difficult to be involved in a claim.

I say it's still wholly unsatisfactory. Consumers are being stiffed and things are only going to get worse.

Hopefully Dubstep that summarises the situation for you and hopefully it goes some way to answering your question.

lisyloo

I think that's a pretty good summary apart from this bit.

They also say don't drive at all, or move into a wilderness where it is difficult to be involved in a claim.

I don't think anyone has said anything so extreme.
Some people have just pointed out that there are many choices wrt transport.

I say it's still wholly unsatisfactory

So what is going to be done?
I would support some form of engagement in the polictical/media/democratic/regulatory process including non-violent protest provided the arguments are coherent.
I don't think lots of people spending hours in forums will acheive anything unless it's organsied into some form of action.

So Parking Trouble - what is going to be done? I may wish to support it.

mikey72

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

They also say don't drive at all, or move into a wilderness where it is difficult to be involved in a claim.

lisyloo wrote: »

I think that's a pretty good summary apart from this bit.

I don't think anyone has said anything so extreme...........

lisyloo wrote: »

Yes if there are more claims in my postcode, then the price should go up.

I (and all of us) have a choice of where I live.
If you want to be totally sheltered from accidents/risk/cost then you should probably go and live in the Shetland/Orkneys.
If you want to live in London and have access to great facilities then you have to accept a greater risk/cost associated with that choice.

Are you now saying postcode should be taken out of equation?
I'm quite happy to pay the cost associated with my choice.
At the moment my choice is no car so it's costs nowt, but I fully accept that I have to pay the cost assocaited with my area because I would be aprking and driving their a lot.

I think it's near enough exactly what you said.

lisyloo wrote: »

So Parking Trouble - what is going to be done? I may wish to support it.

I think it may have started without checking with you first.

mikey72 wrote: »

I guess some of us aren't alone in seeing the danger of corporate capitalism at any cost.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15610181


"........... that people felt "let down" by aspects of business, finance and politics which "seem in touch with the richest 1% - but badly out of touch with the reality facing the other 99%"

lisyloo

I think it may have started

Do you have a link?

I have found info on a potential ban on referral fees and an OFT probe, but nothing specifically about non-fault claims.
Can you let me (or rather the MSE community) know what's going on?
Thanks

Spiderham

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

(5) there are very few mutual insurers in the car insurance market, and the ones that exist are not particularly competitive.

On this point the only ones I know of that are mutual insurers (as opposed to mutually owned companies that do insurance like the Co-Op) and offer car insurance are (in alphabetical order):

LV
NFU Mutual
Royal London Mutual Insurance

(Did partially by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance#United_Kingdom.5B9.5D and trying the companies, other two are purely life insurance companies)

So there aren't many no, also don't know of any others off the top of my head. Can't comment on competitiveness of them in particular circumstances as they'll all have their areas they are good and bad for.

vaio

Well, I insure my DOD’s car for him, old bloke, bad area, low value car, low miles & price is main decider on insurance.

Last year I went with LV as they were cheapest, this year their renewal was less than last year and better than anything else I could find so maybe mutuals do have something going for them

olly300

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

(5) there are very few mutual insurers in the car insurance market, and the ones that exist are not particularly competitive.

Not true.

As you stated before car insurance is a competitive market so mutuals like other car insurers charge for the clients they want.

lisyloo

Are these mutuals generally on the comarison sites? or do you have to search for them seperately?

vaio

LV certainly is, don't know about generally.

olly300

vaio wrote: »

LV certainly is, don't know about generally.

NFU Mutual isn't. They have a website (google it) and can quote you over the phone if you contact them.

Royal London don't seem to do car insurance.

BTW I noticed with LV like other insurers, that the quotes I got were better if I didn't use the price comparison sites. It was the same last year but not the year before.