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

raskazz

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

So where are these statistics?

Where do you think they are? Like all other rating factors, they are hald in insurer's technical pricing models based on their claim and risk data.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

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?

Technically they say that if you have a non-fault accident you are a higher risk than someone who has been involved in no incidents at all. Risk is a combination of claim frequency and claim severity so it could be either or both factors that drive the higher risk - don't ask me which as I am an underwriter rather than an actuary.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Show me the source please.

I would love to but I ma sure you will understand that an insurer's technical pricing model is commercially sensitive and is the main source of any competitive advantage that they have - so it is not likely to be posted up on the internet for all to see!

I would comment that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Consider how a competitive insurance market - which UK motor insurance is - operates: if there genuinely was no increased risk then insuers would not load for non-fault claims, as other insurers would quickly pick up on this and undercut them to acquire more profitable business.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

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?

That's a bit of a silly comment if I may say so. Insurance is based on using data and trends to assess future risk. Then a pool is formed of policyholders who each contribute a premium commensurate with the risk that they bring to that pool.

If you say everyone is innocent until proven guilty then there is no pool as everyone would be innocent until they had a claim!

lisyloo

Good post Raskazz, but I think what also has to be added to your technical insight is that insurers can do what they want.
They don't have to prove you are higher risk, they can charge you more if they want to (excepting illegal disrimination on ground of race, colour, religion or sexual orientation).
I think they would claim they were justified but those complaining also need to understand that they don't need a justification, they can charge what they want to.

I'm not saying I agree with this or it's fair, but I do understand their rights and mine.

Spiderham

lisyloo wrote: »

Good post Raskazz, but I think what also has to be added to your technical insight is that insurers can do what they want.
They don't have to prove you are higher risk, they can charge you more if they want to (excepting illegal disrimination on ground of race, colour, religion or sexual orientation).
I think they would claim they were justified but those complaining also need to understand that they don't need a justification, they can charge what they want to.

I'm not saying I agree with this or it's fair, but I do understand their rights and mine.

Pretty much this. If you don't like the price they are offering, you are perfectly at liberty to go elsewhere, just like they are at liberty to ask for a premium that they see is commensurate with your level of risk.

Spiderham

raskazz wrote: »

I would comment that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Consider how a competitive insurance market - which UK motor insurance is - operates: if there genuinely was no increased risk then insuers would not load for non-fault claims, as other insurers would quickly pick up on this and undercut them to acquire more profitable business.

Oh naive raskazz, don't you know all insurers work in a cartel and none are greedy enough to try to operate and increase their own profit at the expense of others. There's the annual meeting where they all get together and agree prices for the next year divide up the cake and fix profits.

Please note: Above comment may contain some levels of facetiousness.

But yeah, what raskazz says is pretty much the reason, inusrance companies will make the most profit by setting premiums relative to risk, ie charging twice as risky customers twice as much. This means they can just alter base price to increase profit/reduce losses.

Parking_Trouble

lisyloo wrote: »

Good post Raskazz, but I think what also has to be added to your technical insight is that insurers can do what they want.
They don't have to prove you are higher risk, they can charge you more if they want to (excepting illegal disrimination on ground of race, colour, religion or sexual orientation).
I think they would claim they were justified but those complaining also need to understand that they don't need a justification, they can charge what they want to.

I'm not saying I agree with this or it's fair, but I do understand their rights and mine.

Lisyloo, at last we are in agreement on something.

The customer deserves some transparency and a clear explanation of how they are being fleeced, I mean charged.

Hiding behind the excuse that the information cannot be disclosed because of IP or competitive advantage is not acceptable.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Who fights back foe the motorist against the cartel of powerful insurance companies?

lisyloo

The customer deserves some transparency and a clear explanation of how they are being fleeced, I mean charged.

Legally you are not entitled to full facts and figures. The explanation has already been given - just because you don't understand or like it doesn't mean it's wrong.
Do you expect Sainsburys to give you full facts and figures on what they charge for their products?

Hiding behind the excuse that the information cannot be disclosed because of IP or competitive advantage is not acceptable.

Well every company will say that - not just insurers.
You wouldn't get that level of information from Tescos or Asda or any other company.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Where is YOUR proof of that?
Please provide it as clearly you think I am morally entitled to a FULL explanation of your allegation - I want full facts and figures please :-)

raskazz

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

The customer deserves some transparency and a clear explanation of how they are being fleeced, I mean charged.

Why does the customer deserve "transparency", any more so than buying some food from a supermarket or buying a new TV?

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Hiding behind the excuse that the information cannot be disclosed because of IP or competitive advantage is not acceptable.

Why is it not acceptable?

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Who fights back foe the motorist against the cartel of powerful insurance companies?

Please provide some evidence to support your allegation of a "cartel".

I also see that my point above re: what happens in a competitive market has either been disingenuously ignored or has gone over your head.

mikey72

It's good to come back to the usual insurer demanding proof of everything as normal, but using the "trust me, I'm an insurer" arguement to prove his opinion.
You'll forgive those of us that remember every other dodgy salesman from double glazing to bankers hanging onto the same excuse.
I'm sure there's a statistic somewhere that'll tell you the answer to who actually believes that line.

lisyloo

It's good to come back to the usual insurer demanding proof of everything as normal

That's their criteria for you doing business with them.

but using the "trust me, I'm an insurer" arguement to prove his opinion.

Set you own criteria for doing business.
If I don't trust a particular company I simply won't do business with them.
Give your money to decent companies you trust.

Those who don't want to do business with those who load for non-fault claims should simply chose an insurer that doesn't.
If I feel someone is giving me excuses I don't deal with them.
If no-onw supported this practice it wouldn't be there, so that's the best way to take action - don't support them.

mikey72

I must have missed a few threads.

You're now backing uninsured drivers, if they don't find a company they like?