Non-fault claim.

vaio

Hey, certainly no personal attack meant but you started off with "most claimants of PI are opportunist moneygrabbers" but can't provide any verifiable evidence to support it (and I suspect if there was any such evidence the insurance companies would be shouting it from the roof tops to "discourage the others")

The "self obvious jargon" is to do with your discussion of what I guess is the "low velocity impact" rules where, as you rightly say, if the velocities involved are obviously below that needed to cause injury then the case will be defended but without you saying what % of total claims fall into this low velocity category it doesn't tell us anything.

If 75% of claims are discovered to be low velocity that is a cause for concern (either in terms of the claims or in terms of the assessment) whereas if only 1% of claims are classified as low velocity then that puts an entirely different slant on things.

zenmaster

reck_uk wrote: »

The underwriters are supposed to base the premium on the likelihood of you claiming.

And, indeed, you have made a claim so the likelihood is proven.

reck_uk

Well I had no choice, I called up again yesterday and paid the increase to my premium. Despite two calls I’m still none the wiser why my premium has gone up though so I thought I’d try a third time. The girl said that as I was involved in an incident I was statistically more likely to be involved in another one in the future. When I explained that I wasn’t actually involved in “the incident”, in fact I wasn’t even around when the car was scratched, she said that the car park I use might have caused my premium to go up. I explained that the car was scratched on a day out when we were on holiday last year and not in a car part I use often and she stumbled and just repeated that I’m statistically more likely to be involved in an accident.

To be fair to the girl she obviously couldn’t understand either and was just reading out what she had been told, she said she had to be careful how she phrased the response. When the insurance company can’t even explain why my premium has gone up what hope is there.

Is it any wonder that insurance, especially car insurance, have such a bad name?

scheming_gypsy

not sure why it's the girls fault that you didn't understand.

Regardless of you being in the car or not; their rules claim that once you have a claim (accident) you're statistically more likely to have another claim (accident).

reck_uk

It wasn't the girls fault, in fact she seemed as confused as myself.

The question still stands though. Why, due to the actions of someone else, am I now considered a higher risk than before? Or to put it another way, why do they think I'm more likely to be in an accident now because someone scratched my car in a car park last year?

System

reck_uk wrote: »

It wasn't the girls fault, in fact she seemed as confused as myself.

The question still stands though. Why, due to the actions of someone else, am I now considered a higher risk than before? Or to put it another way, why do they think I'm more likely to be in an accident now because someone scratched my car in a car park last year?

The problem is you are trying to assign logic to the reason for the perceived increase in risk.

Statistics show that people who have had one accident can have another accident. - That is all the insurance industry need to use to base their decision on.

reck_uk

BAA1 wrote: »

The problem is you are trying to assign logic to the reason for the perceived increase in risk.

Indeed, I think that's where i'm going wrong

Oh well next time I come to renew i'll make sure I pick one that doesn't charge for non-fault claims.

vaio

Yep, but when I was in your position I found that Elephant (who do load non faults) were still cheaper (including the loading) than Direct Line (who don’t load non faults)

If you can document and mitigate the premium loading then you could consider reclaiming it as a consequential cost from the at fault party

StuieUK34

reck_uk wrote: »

The question still stands though. Why, due to the actions of someone else, am I now considered a higher risk than before? ?

Your not, but the way policy and law are written means that if you want to drive, you have to be insured. To be insured, the insurer has to make money. If something changes from a 100% record, they have the option to screw you and theres nothing you can do about it....
No jargon, no tech terms, just plain and simple "your allowed to be ripped off" because its the law...

So rewind time before the big rise in claims.... accident - claim - cash... then price hike, so accident - claim - cash....
Now 'commonality' comes along, which is: minor accident - insurers are gonna do me anyway - claim - cash....
insurers price hike..
then more people make claims for things they probably would'nt have.., etc etc...

Although thats the making of higher premuims, the fact is, accident or not, because your required by law to have insurance, a firm taking the risk of insuring you can charge as much as your prepared to pay... sucks
and come March, my wife will find that out with 2 non faults and 1 fault within the space of 5 months......