Non-fault claim.

reck_uk

So it appears most insurers will actually increase your premiums if you're involved in an accident that is not your fault, that stinks. I can't see how they can justify increasing premiums in these circumstances.


The underwriters are supposed to base the premium on the likelihood of you claiming. If you crash into someone then in their eyes you are a riskier person to insure and therefore it will cost you more to get the insurance. In my case, when my car was scratched in a car park, I wasn’t even in the car at the time. So how have they come to the conclusion that I am now a greater risk than I was before my car was scratched?

They struggled to answer this question on the phone when I asked them and I never got a proper answer. Apparently the underwriters have a formula they use to arrive at a certain price and they can’t tell me how, it’s also not possible to talk to anyone in the underwriters department “because they are an internal department and they can’t be contacted”. What a scam.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

mikey72

reck_uk wrote: »

So it appears most insurers will actually increase your premiums if you're involved in an accident that is not your fault, that stinks. I can't see how they can justify increasing premiums in these circumstances.


The underwriters are supposed to base the premium on the likelihood of you claiming. If you crash into someone then in their eyes you are a riskier person to insure and therefore it will cost you more to get the insurance. In my case, when my car was scratched in a car park, I wasn’t even in the car at the time. So how have they come to the conclusion that I am now a greater risk than I was before my car was scratched?

They struggled to answer this question on the phone when I asked them and I never got a proper answer. Apparently the underwriters have a formula they use to arrive at a certain price and they can’t tell me how, it’s also not possible to talk to anyone in the underwriters department “because they are an internal department and they can’t be contacted”. What a scam.

Can anyone shed some light on this?

You'll get the usual run of insurance advocates who'll tell you it's a secret formula, but you'll just have to trust them.

No-one has ever provided any figures to back up the claim, or why some insurers charge, while others don't, so either they don't all have the same figures that prove you're a risk, or maybe some just want to make more at each renewal.

reck_uk

I said to the guy on the phone that’s it’s very convenient for these underwriters to come up with any figures the like without having to explain where the figure’s come from and that they are not “allowed” to be spoken to. When companies are not transparent like this it casts suspicions on their methods.

AndrewSmith

The harsh reality is that as we have now become a claim culture with infinite numbers of bogus personal injury claims on the most minor of impacts (the where there's blame there's a claim philosophy) and ridiculously high hire car bills costing double or even treble the repair costs of the car, the insurers now look for any reason to increase premiums to cover such claim costs.

Despite many people not accepting this, where there are now a disproportionate number of PI claims and everyone looking for their slice of the pie on each claim the costs of this have to be paid by someone and, guess who, yes it will be the policyholders as that is the income source for the insurers.

Premiums will continue to rise and will increase for such silly reasons as a scratch on a bumper all the time that these injury claims continue, of which the vast majority are bogus anyway. Yes there are some genuinely injured people, I've dealt with many myself previously, but in my experience most claimants of PI are opportunist moneygrabbers who are costing the rest of us money by rising premiums.

vaio

Nice rant, but do you actually have evidence for “but in my experience most claimants of PI are opportunist moneygrabbers”?

I’d have thought if it was the case then maybe the insurance companies should be employing you to sift the bogus claims.

Similarly on the credit hire side (which apparently adds £80 to each policy) the obvious solution is for at fault companies to be proactive and provide the innocent party with an equivalent car immediately. If they did that it would kill the credit hire business overnight. Whilst companies continue to drag out, delay claims and avoid giving replacement cars then credit hire is going to continue to flourish.

Hell, I’m sure that for less than the £80 figure everybody’s policy could be extended to automatically provide a replacement car but then there would be no nice fat referral fees moving from the credit hire companies into the coffers of the insurance companies

AndrewSmith

vaio wrote: »

Nice rant, but do you actually have evidence for “but in my experience most claimants of PI are opportunist moneygrabbers”?

I’d have thought if it was the case then maybe the insurance companies should be employing you to sift the bogus claims.

Yes to your first point answered by the secon point you raise being the exact job I used to do.

vaio

is this evidence of the sort that you can provide links or references too or is it the normal "secret & commercially sensitive" sort that you'd have to kill me if you revealed it?

What sort of % of bogus claims did you manage to sift out and how many of those were prosecuted for fraud?

AndrewSmith

Well it was all done on a case by case basis using specialist forensic engineers and evidence to prove whether injuries were possible to have occurred from the resulting damage.

For a forensic engineer it is very easy to establish the 'delta velocity' which is key in establishing whether the resultant movent felt inside each vehicle would have been sufficient to result in any sudden movements or impacts that are more severe than would be felt by going about ones normal daily tasks. This in conjunction with the physical evidence on the vehicles and type of impact / circumstances makes it completely possible to build an accurate picture of impact severity.

Obviously each case is individual but there are no 'secrets' involved merely investigative research and conclusive evidence from highly specialised sources.

I cannot comment on the number of bogus injury claims that went on to prosecution as that was not my job and is the choice of the insurer.

In every case without exception where it was proven that the impact was not severe enough to cause injury, this evidence would be provided to the claimants solicitors for comment and in approx 90% of cases the solicitors would close their file and withdraw the claim.

That's the best answer I can give you but given the majority of RTCs are low speed ie under 10 mph, I will leave you to conclude what percentage would be revealed as not severe enough to cause injury. Whether the insurer decides to pay out after this Or prosecute is their concern not mine.

vaio

so if I cut through all the self obvious jargon and address the actual questions then we have no accessible evidence to support your earlier assertion that "most claimants of PI are opportunist moneygrabbers" and no answers to the fairly simple questions "What sort of % of bogus claims did you manage to sift out and how many of those were prosecuted for fraud?"

AndrewSmith

Well that's your opinion to which you are entitled however I feel there is no need for comments such as "self obvious jargon" which do nothing but portray an image of you as an argumentative type.

I have given what I consider to be a valid response, if you don't like it well that's your problem but there is no need for rudeness or personal attack. This is a public forum after all so I am hardly likely to give specific details now am I?