'Fault' insurance claim resulting in loss of annual premium

K-Lye

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But you didn't get "one month use" you got "one total loss use".

On your thinking I could be asking if it's fair that I have to keep paying my premium every year without ever geting any "use" out of it because I've never had to claim on my own (or anyone else's) policy.

I've had to shell out for 12 months cover every year for the past 27 years and none of it's been of any use to me whatsoever - at least you've got your money's worth out of this policy!

Joe. Please don't make the mistake the others are making here of interpreting my issue between claiming or not. I fully accept that you need to pay your dues. The issue is between the disproportionate way it affects drivers depending on where they are in their payment period.

As illustrated.. Driver A is penalised way heavier than Driver B. Put yourself in Driver A's position. Now assume you meet Driver B. Would you be Happy he didn't have to fork out as much for exactly the same circumstances?

Joe_Horner

I'm not making that mistake. The question isn't about time - on that basis I'm incredibly hard done by because I've had zero value from my policies for the past 27 years. In fact, on that basis I could even start getting upset about all these other drivers who put my premiums up by having accidents because the money to settle any claim bigger than the premium comes from other premiums that aren't claimed against that year (including mine). That's the nature of insurance as a business.

On the other hand, you've had full value out of this years premium because they've paid out the cost of your accident which was (presumably) considerably more than you've paid them.

K-Lye

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I'm not making that mistake. The question isn't about time - on that basis I'm incredibly hard done by because I've had zero value from my policies for the past 27 years. In fact, on that basis I could even start getting upset about all these other drivers who put my premiums up by having accidents because the money to settle any claim bigger than the premium comes from other premiums that aren't claimed against that year (including mine). That's the nature of insurance as a business.

On the other hand, you've had full value out of this years premium because they've paid out the cost of your accident which was (presumably) considerably more than you've paid them.

You are making that mistake because you are comparing my position to yours and NOT Driver A to Driver B as illustrated. It is about the impact of Time - that is what I've posted this thread about.

Joe_Horner

And that's what I'm addressing by pointing out that, no matter how much you'd like it to be, time isn't relevant to the risk calculation which premiums are based on. The relevant factor is "payout" or "no payout".

It's a bit like a guarantee that runs for 3 years or 30k miles. If I use up my 30k miles in the first 6 months then I have no grounds to complain that my neighbour is still benefitting from his guarantee 2 years later!

K-Lye

Joe_Horner wrote: »

And that's what I'm addressing by pointing out that, no matter how much you'd like it to be, time isn't relevant to the risk calculation which premiums are based on. The relevant factor is "payout" or "no payout".

It's a bit like a guarantee that runs for 3 years or 30k miles. If I use up my 30k miles in the first 6 months then I have no grounds to complain that my neighbour is still benefitting from his guarantee 2 years later!

But this is where your point is fundamentally flawed. In your neighbours example.. there is a difference in driving distance or style.. these are all things you have control over. You have no control over 'when' you're going to have an accident (unless you do it on purpose of course) so again why should one driver be penalised over another by something they cannot influence?

Imagine if HMRC decided one day it was going to tax you based on when you were born. The closer to April you were born the less tax you had to pay. As you suggest - it's not about 'when' you pay tax but purely about if you pay tax or you don't. That's OK right?

And let's not get into a discussion about what is right or wrong for Insurers.. again that's a separate topic altogether.

mattyprice4004

You do have control over accidents - defensive driving, driving aggressively etc.

You had a fault claim, I'm sure you could have done something to avoid the accident as it was deemed your fault.

K-Lye

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

You do have control over accidents - defensive driving, driving aggressively etc.

You had a fault claim, I'm sure you could have done something to avoid the accident as it was deemed your fault.

You are presuming a hell of a lot with your flippant statement and not responding to the question I asked. Why are you trolling my thread?

K-Lye

Utterly amazed at how almost everyone who's posted is completely fixated on the wrong issue here and just cannot see how drivers are being abused. Clearly the insurance industry has been highly effective in casting the wool over the eyes of the average punter. Is it any wonder they're laughing all the way to the bank?

cte1111

You need to cancel the cancellation, on the grounds that the call handler did not give you the correct information. Then when you get a new car, you transfer the insurance to your new vehicle. There is likely to be an admin charge plus possibly a higher premium if you buy a more powerful / expensive car but it is likely to be cheaper than a second policy.

K-Lye

cte1111 wrote: »

You need to cancel the cancellation, on the grounds that the call handler did not give you the correct information. Then when you get a new car, you transfer the insurance to your new vehicle. There is likely to be an admin charge plus possibly a higher premium if you buy a more powerful / expensive car but it is likely to be cheaper than a second policy.

Thanks cte1111. That is pretty much what I am trying to do at present. Fingers crossed they'll reinstate without too much of a fight.