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

mikey72

SteveFromAccounts wrote: »

My own meandering experience isn't going to prove or disprove anything. And that's the point, really.

I'm not sure what you are seeking to prove? That insurance companies are ripping you off? Or that you are disappointed you are paying too much? You talk of insurance 'advocates' but I don't see how this makes any difference to the point. Insurance, particularly car insurance, is an extremely competitive market and I fail to see how insurers could get away with hiking premiums for non fault accidents unless they had reason to. Perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary? Or are we both debating with no actual statistical evidence?

I'm not debating, you stated it was a fact in your previous post.

SteveFromAccounts wrote: »

...........If you are involved in an accident, your fault or not, you are statistically more likely to be involved in another.............

I was just wondering how you were happy to inform the rest of us with such certainty.
Now you admit you have no proof, and appear to be repeating something you may have heard elsewhere.
So just an another opinion in the end, which by your own experience of not having a no fault accident, but still having a fault claim, doesn't even reflect your own experience.

raskazz

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

it only comes into play when a consumer files a complaint.

raskazz wrote: »

WRONG! The FOS will give out advice to insurers who wish to clarify certain points of interpretation and so on. It publishes case studies which are often referred to by insurers in order to avoid future complaints arising.

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

You got a little overexcited about this one but clearly don't know what regulation means in terms of rules and compliance and penalties for non-compliance.

Dishing out advice, providing clarity and publishing case studies is not regulation.

If you don't understand regulation versus advice then I'm afraid any shred of credibility you may have had has evaporated.

There is nothing of substance or fact in what you actually say. Your intransigence shows what a narrowed minded WUM you are.

Er, no. You have (deliberately?) misread my post.

I was not claiming that the FOS is a regulator. I was responding to your assertion that the OFS "only come into play when a consumer files a complaint". :rotfl:

I have left in the relevant emboldened text of your original post, plus my reply, for your convenience.

It is noted that you have not responded to any of the other points in my post, preferring to throw "WUM" labels around like a child.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

And where was the bus route?

I'm not sure into which particular dead-end of this discussion you want to head by asking this, but FWIW it was rural Midlands.

raskazz

brownie4583 wrote: »

In reply to all the above posts,i am still not a bigger risk to any insurance company,and my premium should not increase if i have a non fault claim,and nothing will change my view on that!!
If a driver skids on my road and there are say 10 cars parked at the side of the road,he could hit any 1 of those 10 cars,so if i was really unlucky and it was mine,my insurance is then increased even though i am in my house,sat on my sofa watching football,and it has nothing to do with me??
Total rubbish!!!!How can there be any statistics on that?
My point is,this is a new policy,which did not exist in the past,along with the other ridiculous policies mentioned previously,which all increase our premiums!!

It is quite simple. This is all that insurers do:

Take a big data set of all your customers who have had a non-fault claim (pool A)

Take a big data set of all your customers who have had no incidents at all (pool

Run an actuarial process to see what the difference in risk (combination of claim frequency and claim severity) is between pool A and pool B, taking into account any variation betwen the pools in terms of other rating factors.

You find that pool A is riskier than pool B. Why? Who knows. But what matters to an insurer is not why this is but merely to account for it in their premium rating.

This is exactly the same process that is followed for all other rating factors, including other ones that are outside the driver's control such as age, gender, etc and factors that are largely inflexible to the driver such as address, occupation etc.

I'm not sure why people have such an issue with this.

brownie4583 wrote: »

My point is,this is a new policy,which did not exist in the past,along with the other ridiculous policies mentioned previously,which all increase our premiums!!

Er, I'll make this point once again, not that I expect you to understand any more than you did last time: Increased granularity of rating does not increase premiums. It just means there are more increments in between.

Parking_Trouble

@Raskazz (For the very last time)

Your selective responses are indeed the actions of a WUM.

I said.

I am new to this game but looks to me as though FOS is about complaints not regulation. Although it clearly lays down some guidelines and rulings which keep insurers on their toes it only comes into play when a consumer files a complaint.

your response

WRONG! The FOS will give out advice to insurers who wish to clarify certain points of interpretation and so on. It publishes case studies which are often referred to by insurers in order to avoid future complaints arising.

You cannot defend yourself by selecting words that suit you.

If you operate like this at work you won't get very far.

raskazz

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

@Raskazz (For the very last time)

Your selective responses are indeed the actions of a WUM.

I said.



your response



You cannot defend yourself by selecting words that suit you.

If you operate like this at work you won't get very far.

It is once again noted that the other points have been abandoned in favour of some semantic wriggling.

mikey72

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

@Raskazz ..............You cannot defend yourself by selecting words that suit you.

If you operate like this at work you won't get very far.

He's apparently an underwriter, or works for them.
That would be exactly what he does with statistics.

raskazz

mikey72 wrote: »

He's apparently an underwriter, or works for them.
That would be exactly what he does with statistics.

Don't be such a prat.

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

Don't be such a prat.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt your role as board prat.
You do so well normally.
Please carry on.

System

I think many people know that statistics can be manipulated to prove any case that you wish, i.e. the same figures can be manipulated to go in favour of an argument or against the argument depending which side you want the result to fall. So, I would say that using the statistics argument is mute.

There could be a number or reasons that would justify an increase to a premium after a non-fault incident, one would be to recoup the insurer's expenses in processing the claim, another would be when the insurer learns new information about the area the car is kept such as higher incidents of damage to parked cars due to bad road layout or bad lighting or bad neighbours. (There are no doubt other justifiable reasons)

If insurers used these actual facts as their reason for loading premiums, then there would be little anyone could argue, but to say "statistics show your risk has increased" is a generic statement that causes the issue for some people.