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

System

I agree, some insurers do load for no-fault incidents. Without being too pedantic and without writing a tomb on the subject it is impossible to mention every possible scenario of how different insurance companies deal with these cases, lets just say I think the main points have been covered.

krlyr

A few people are suggesting it's because of a different car/price rises but OP does say this

DUBSTEP wrote: »

and its not just the fact that prices have gone up, i did a quote with and without the accident details.

which suggests they've done quotes with the only difference being mentioning the accident and found that mentioning it is what adds £300

DUBSTEP

property.advert wrote: »

I guess the first wrong thing you did was telephone your insurance company rather than hers. It may well be that your company paid for your repairs and car hire and then got some or all the money back from the other party. In any case, you have made a claim.

If you look at Direct Line's website, they do not load for a claim where there was full recovery. I know as I've checked.

Hi, i didnt phone my insurance company first, the other driver contacted their insurance who then rang me to say that the other driver had accepted all liability and they then contacted my insurance.

And ive actually changed cars since the accident, i went from a fiesta to my current clio and now want another

lisyloo

I'm afraid that (most) insurers do now load for non-fault accidents.
Those that don't might not necessarily be the cheapest anyway.

Some of us think you have a case for charging the at fault party for this loss as part of the cost of the accident, because you are entitled to be put back in the same situation as if the accident had not occured.
As far as I know the posistion on this is that one person is reported to have claimed it back. Other says he got lucky and that on the whole this loss is not considered an "uninsured loss".
Personally I would try to claim it on the basis of the fundamental principle that you are entitled to be compensated for any losses as a result of the accident.
If you have already signed something in "full & final settlement" then you might have difficulty with this.

Have you tried adding on other named drivers e.g. mum, dad - this can get the premium down.

If neither of those suggestions work then I think you are stuck with it because this is entirely legal although I agree it's unfair.

brownie4583

I think this is totally ridiculous,penalising someone through no fault of their own!Around 4 years ago someone in a van reversed into me while i was stationary,i had 2 witnesses and the driver admitted liability,i had a courtesy car for 2-3 weeks,had my vehicle repaired for £1200,and my excess was paid.When my new quote arrived i actually got my insurance cheaper for the following year with the same company,so this idea of bumping up a person's quote by like £200-£300 when they are not at fault is obviously a new money making scam introduced by the insurance companies,basically taking the pi** !!!!!!!
They need sorting as it's just becoming ridiculous now!All that rubbish about you are a bigger risk if someone hits you and you are not at fault!!!Total rubbish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:
I have been insured for around 30 years now,and i have seen all the extra premium rises introduced by the insurance companies,purely to make more money!
In the late 80's/early 90's,all the uk,apart from Central London and certain parts of Bradford,were the same premiums,then this changed to your personal postcode,so if vehicles get stolen now in my area,but mine doesn't,i still suffer and pay more!!!
Also,there were 10 groups of car insurance,now it is 20 and is there some talk of changing this to 30??
Also,i have 15 years no cliams,no accidents and no points,and my premium is £330,but if i buy a 2nd car exactly the same as the 1 i've got,i would then have no no claims,have to start from scratch and probably be paying £1000+ for the year!!
How can this be??It's just a joke,they need sorting!!!!

raskazz

brownie4583 wrote: »

I think this is totally ridiculous,penalising someone through no fault of their own!

"Penalising" is an emotive word that isn't really applicable here. There are several factors outside an insured's control (or largely outside their control - ie. it would not be realistic to change that factor) that affect a premium:

Gender (until December 2012)
Age
Occupation
Postcode

There are clear and substantial actuarial links between these factors and risk. Non-fault claims are no different.

brownie4583 wrote: »

Around 4 years ago someone in a van reversed into me while i was stationary,i had 2 witnesses and the driver admitted liability,i had a courtesy car for 2-3 weeks,had my vehicle repaired for £1200,and my excess was paid.When my new quote arrived i actually got my insurance cheaper for the following year with the same company,so this idea of bumping up a person's quote by like £200-£300 when they are not at fault is obviously a new money making scam introduced by the insurance companies,basically taking the pi** !!!!!!!

The logic here is wrong. The fact that your insurance was cheaper than the prior year does not mean that there was no load for the non-fault claim. It could just as easily be the case that they did load for the non-fault claim, i.e. your premium would have reduced by a greater amount in the absence of the non-fault claim.

brownie4583 wrote: »

They need sorting as it's just becoming ridiculous now!All that rubbish about you are a bigger risk if someone hits you and you are not at fault!!!Total rubbish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

So pricing according to risk is "ridiculous"? Insurance cannot function without it. Have you any evidence with which to back up your assertion that loading for a non-fault claim is "rubbish"?

brownie4583 wrote: »

I have been insured for around 30 years now,and i have seen all the extra premium rises introduced by the insurance companies,purely to make more money!

Hold the front page. Businesses in "wanting to make a profit" shocker!

brownie4583 wrote: »

In the late 80's/early 90's,all the uk,apart from Central London and certain parts of Bradford,were the same premiums,then this changed to your personal postcode,so if vehicles get stolen now in my area,but mine doesn't,i still suffer and pay more!!!

Er, insurance works on the basis of pooled risks. If you lived in an area where the whole street had had their car stolen in the last year, but by some twist of fate yours hadn't, if you put yourself in the insurer's shoes who would you rather insure: You or another person who has not had their car stolen either but who lives in a street with no thefts in the last 10 years?

BTW, postcode rating is far more complex than just theft. The overwhelming cost to an insurer is third party damage and injury claims, the risks of which are also highly correlated with postcode.

brownie4583 wrote: »

Also,there were 10 groups of car insurance,now it is 20 and is there some talk of changing this to 30??

The ABI system has already been amended to a 1-50 scale to cope with the sheer variety of vehicles available in the market. I'm not sure why you think this is an issue?

brownie4583 wrote: »

Also,i have 15 years no cliams,no accidents and no points,and my premium is £330,but if i buy a 2nd car exactly the same as the 1 i've got,i would then have no no claims,have to start from scratch and probably be paying £1000+ for the year!!

Not necessarily. You just have to be more streetwise about how you get your quotes.

brownie4583

Thanks for your comments,but i have a couple of points for you.
Why should i,or anyone else for that matter,get penalised because of a non fault claim?If someone hits my vehicle and it is their fault,or the car is outside my house stationary say,why should my premium be loaded when the accident is nothing to do with me and not my fault?Why does that make me a bigger risk?It does not!!!!Money making???
Why are premiums now calculated on your postcode,when previously they were not??Money making??
You know as well as i do that in recent years car insurance premiums have gone up every year,and when i had a non fault claim my insurance didn't go up and in fact was slightly cheaper the following year,but if the same thing happened now,it would go up by probably £100-£200 i would imagine!!
Lastly,my insurance is £330 for the year,if i buy a 2nd car,exactly the same as my present one,my insurance will not be £330 on that car,more like £700/£800 maybe!I am still the same person driving it,the one with 15 years no claims,no points,30 years driving experience,over 40 etc etc,so why is that??Money making???
My point is,when i first passed my test in 1982,the premium was calculated only on the car and your driving record basically,probably not even so much your age,as my premium was only £75 for the year on a Mini at 17 years old!Nowadays a 17 year old would be struggling to get it under £1000 on any car,however small!
Nowadays,it is calculated on the car,more groups,driving record,postcode,mileage for the year,age,if you have a previous claim and you were not at fault and the list goes on!All these extra things add more and more money to our premiums,and not forgetting the tax that is now added as well!
Finally,i cannot believe how any insurance company can class me as a bigger risk if someone hits me and it is their fault!!Ridiculous!!

property.advert

DUBSTEP wrote: »

Hi, i didnt phone my insurance company first, the other driver contacted their insurance who then rang me to say that the other driver had accepted all liability and they then contacted my insurance.

And ive actually changed cars since the accident, i went from a fiesta to my current clio and now want another

If they admit all blame, why on earth would your insurance need to be involved ? In my case, I didn't give the other party any insurance details, nor did I tell them any other details above those required to pay out.

Did your insurance company give you the hire car and instigate a claims management service, which will probably include selling your details to spiv lawyers and accident claims companies ?

Or did you just tell the other side to pay for a car hire today and pay your choice of garage direct for your repairs ?

raskazz

brownie4583 wrote: »

Thanks for your comments,but i have a couple of points for you.
Why should i,or anyone else for that matter,get penalised because of a non fault claim?If someone hits my vehicle and it is their fault,or the car is outside my house stationary say,why should my premium be loaded when the accident is nothing to do with me and not my fault?Why does that make me a bigger risk?

The simple answer is because statistics say that you now present a greater risk than someone who has incurred no incidents whatsoever. Higher risk means a higher premium - that is quite a basic insurance principle.

brownie4583 wrote: »

It does not!!!!

That stats say otherwise, unless you have some evidence to contradict this?

brownie4583 wrote: »

Why are premiums now calculated on your postcode,when previously they were not??Money making??

Because there are marked and statistically significant differences in risk between postcodes. Increased granularity of rating is a result of a competitive market and ensures that higher risks pay higher premiums. I do not see why this is unfair.

brownie4583 wrote: »

You know as well as i do that in recent years car insurance premiums have gone up every year,and when i had a non fault claim my insurance didn't go up and in fact was slightly cheaper the following year,but if the same thing happened now,it would go up by probably £100-£200 i would imagine!!

Well, let's leave out the "imagining" and stick to reality, shall we?

brownie4583 wrote: »

Lastly,my insurance is £330 for the year,if i buy a 2nd car,exactly the same as my present one,my insurance will not be £330 on that car,more like £700/£800 maybe!I am still the same person driving it,the one with 15 years no claims,no points,30 years driving experience,over 40 etc etc,so why is that??Money making???

You said it would be £1000 earlier in the thread, now you say it would be £700/£800? Make your mind up. Have you actually got any real evidence for this?

brownie4583 wrote: »

My point is,when i first passed my test in 1982,the premium was calculated only on the car and your driving record basically,probably not even so much your age,as my premium was only £75 for the year on a Mini at 17 years old!Nowadays a 17 year old would be struggling to get it under £1000 on any car,however small!
Nowadays,it is calculated on the car,more groups,driving record,postcode,mileage for the year,age,if you have a previous claim and you were not at fault and the list goes on!All these extra things add more and more money to our premiums,and not forgetting the tax that is now added as well!

No, you are labouring under totally incorrect logic here. Granularity of rating in itself does not increase premiums. It just means that there are more increments between the highest premium and the lowest.

brownie4583 wrote: »

Finally,i cannot believe how any insurance company can class me as a bigger risk if someone hits me and it is their fault!!Ridiculous!!

Because statistics show that you are a greater risk. You may not agree with this or even understand this, but you cannot argue with the numbers.

Parking_Trouble

raskazz wrote: »

Because statistics show that you are a greater risk. You may not agree with this or even understand this, but you cannot argue with the numbers.

So where are these statistics?

Do they say that if you have a non-fault accident then you are statistically more likely to have an accident that is your fault?

Show me the source please.

This is along the lines of (for instance) people who live in your postcode are statistically are likely to commit a crime so let's lock them up in advance of any offence. Because statistically they are likely to commit an offence.

What happened to innocent until proved guilty?