Car insurance - NCB ransom

marcozzi

Is it true that an NCB year counts only if you stay with a specific insurer for the whole period?

Last year I moved to a different address and my insurer suddenly told me they cannot insure me at the new place. At that time I had 4 months into my 3rd year NCB and then switched to Admiral.

Recently I noticed that prices have gone down a lot and Admiral is ripping me off. I called them to discuss amendments due to parking the car in a safer place and they claimed that not only they will charge admin fees for the changes, but the premium might go up instead of down (total jokes).

They also claimed that if I move to another insurer I will lose my 3rd year NCB. This is going to be about 10 months plus 4 months from the previous insurance.

So to sum it up, insurance companies have all the means to manipulate their clients at will and there is no legal framework to prevent this?

I have no claims for longer than a year but I am not entitled to my NCB because I was forced to switch insurance companies?

Quentin

You only get awarded another year's NCD after completing the full year (without any claims) with the same policy.

rs65

marcozzi wrote: »

So to sum it up, insurance companies have all the means to manipulate their clients at will and there is no legal framework to prevent this?

They are not manipulating anything. Just wait 2 months.

forgotmyname

If you cancelled 1 day early they probably dont have to award you another years no claims because you didnt complete a full year.

If you want to build it up then you need to keep the policy for the full year.

Its not a ransom. You joined with 2 years. Dont complete the full year then you leave wioth 2 years.
If they dont give you the 2 years back for some reason then thatsbeing held at ransom.

marcozzi

Thanks for explaining the NCD policy. I would almost be tempted to say some people work for insurance judging from their replies:)

I'll pass.

rs65

marcozzi wrote: »

Thanks for explaining the NCD policy. I would almost be tempted to say some people work for insurance judging from their replies:)

I'll pass.

I'm pretty sure you are right.

Wouldn't you prefer informed responses?

custardy

marcozzi wrote: »

Thanks for explaining the NCD policy. I would almost be tempted to say some people work for insurance judging from their replies:)

I'll pass.

would you prefer wrong answers, that follow your train of thought?

vaio

although I suppose if you can get letters from your previous insurers confirming that you had 4 & 10 months claim free cover respectively then you can justifiably apply the third year on future insurance policies

marcozzi

rs65 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you are right.

Wouldn't you prefer informed responses?

A well informed response (which is not the case in your reply) is different to critisising someone's point of view,

"They are not manipulating anything."

Yes, insurers who are ripping us off every year with out of thin-air-formula-premiums and place their "hard" earnings into off shore based companies would love to have more customers with such views

marcozzi

custardy wrote: »

would you prefer wrong answers, that follow your train of thought?

This was not what I was trying to convey. I just find it very strange that people accept a de facto policy imposed by all insurers and no argument is made to suggest someone could gain NCD based on their no claim months.

I am trying to find out if there is a legal framework over this or insurers are just arbitrarily coming up with the rules.

This policy is holding customers at ransom for a whole year because they never have the opportunity to move to a more competitive product. A series of bad luck events could lead someone losing one or two years NCD, which is totally unfair as they technically have no claims.

marcozzi

vaio wrote: »

although I suppose if you can get letters from your previous insurers confirming that you had 4 & 10 months claim free cover respectively then you can justifiably apply the third year on future insurance policies

This would be interesting provided the new insurer would accept the proof as such