Don't EVER notify your car insurance of an 'incident' if you don;t intend to claim!!!

MoscowFlyer

LouBlue wrote: »

Thanks. When this claim is over, I will give them a ring and see what charges I may incur.

If you're cancelling in the same policy year as the claim then you have to pay the full years premium up in full, regardless of when you cancel.

Edit: This of course only applies if you don't make 100% recovery or the insurers don't settle the claim as complete non-fault.

LouBlue

MoscowFlyer wrote: »

If you're cancelling in the same policy year as the claim then you have to pay the full years premium up in full, regardless of when you cancel.

Its not me that is claiming. I had an accident, other driver's fault, no witnesses. Neither of us claimed. Two months later, he is now claiming off my insurance company. He can't prove it, neither can I. I have spoken to my insurance company and they said, as I am not claiming, and I have Protected No Claims, I will not have to pay anything. So if I want to cancel, after this claim from the third party has been settled, will I still be charged anything?

MoscowFlyer

LouBlue wrote: »

Its not me that is claiming. I had an accident, other driver's fault, no witnesses. Neither of us claimed. Two months later, he is now claiming off my insurance company. He can't prove it, neither can I. I have spoken to my insurance company and they said, as I am not claiming, and I have Protected No Claims, I will not have to pay anything. So if I want to cancel, after this claim from the third party has been settled, will I still be charged anything?

Depends how the insurers play it, if he's claiming and there are no witnesses it could well go down as 50-50 as the 3rd party insurers will look for some sort of payment from yours. If your insurers have to pay anything at all it will go down as a partial fault claim, but technically it means fault (he'll also have a 'fault' claim against him)

Your bonus will remain untocuhed but it will be a loss of a protected life, leaving you with one left.

If this happens, you'd be liable for the full yearly premium to be paid upon cancelling.

LouBlue

MoscowFlyer wrote: »

Depends how the insurers play it, if he's claiming and there are no witnesses it could well go down as 50-50 as the 3rd party insurers will look for some sort of payment from yours. If your insurers have to pay anything at all it will go down as a partial fault claim, but technically it means fault (he'll also have a 'fault' claim against him)

Your bonus will remain untocuhed but it will be a loss of a protected life, leaving you with one left.

If this happens, you'd be liable for the full yearly premium to be paid upon cancelling.

I'm confused now. I categorically asked the bloke at Privilege, would I be liable for anything, regardless of the outcome, and he said no.

Makes me wonder why I bother with car insurance....lol yes I know why I bother with car insurance, but its at times like this, when it wasn't my fault and I am not even claiming off anyone, that I could still be liable to pay something or lose a protected life!!!

MoscowFlyer

LouBlue wrote: »

I'm confused now. I categorically asked the bloke at Privilege, would I be liable for anything, regardless of the outcome, and he said no.

Makes me wonder why I bother with car insurance....lol yes I know why I bother with car insurance, but its at times like this, when it wasn't my fault and I am not even claiming off anyone, that I could still be liable to pay something or lose a protected life!!!

Always try to get something in writing, but I have not come across an insurer yet who does not penalise you in ANY way when they have paid out to a third party insurer, regardless of the amount.

You have to be careful with what you're asking them, in terms of will it affect your bonus, the answer is of course no because it's protected, but I find it strange for him to say you won't be liable for anything even regardless of the outcome.

Gemmzie

Car insurance is too complicated with too many loopholes same as all the other crappy "services" we have to endevour.

raskazz

fimonkey wrote: »

Agree, No one insurer can ARTIFICIALLY load a premium BUT collectively they can load premiums based on 'statistics' and as far as car insurance goes it is not possible to withdraw your business as insurance is a legal requirement.

Insurers set premium ratings individually, not collectively, so I'm a bit lost on what point you are trying to make here to be honest. It is perfectly possible to withdraw your business to another insurer at renewal or mid-term (albeit with short-term cancellation rates mid-term) and this is key.

I mean, just think about it - if one insurer loaded premiums by 20%, say, for a non-fault claim when the actual increase in claims payouts for those individuals with a non-fault claims was 10%, it would very quickly lose business. This is because another insurer would load their premiums for those with a non-fault claim by less than 20% to lower premiums and draw in business, until enventually the loading is equal to the true increase in risk. This is what happens in competitive markets. Supernormal loading is not a sustainable proposition, no matter what you may personally believe.

fimonkey wrote: »

Before you come back with "take your business elsewhere" when I DID take my business elsewhere I still had to pay an increased premium as ALL insurance companies feed into a central database, which is a good idea in principal to prevent fraud, but a bad idea when it's used to their own advantage, ie when they decide that a NOTIFICATION is really a CLAIM so they can increase premiums based on that.

You paid a higher premium because statistically you present an increased risk. Again, whether you claim for the damage sustained or not, there is still an increase in the proposed risk. You clearly have closed your mind on the issue, but the facts are that on average an insurer pays out more in claims for those policyholders who incur a non-fault claim. Nothing you might want to assert will change this fact. It's the same principle as every other material fact that you have to provide insurers with - for example, your gender is totally out of your control (well, up to a point these days, but you get my drift!) but there is a clear differential in the risk between genders.

fimonkey wrote: »

I think it's been said here that people have been charged extra by changing their address, even through their risk has not increased (similar street/similar profil etc etc) I certainly in the past had to pay an increase in the middle of my policy to change my address to a house 3 doors away!!

There are two elements to a change of address - the risk premium and the administration fee. In terms of the risk premium, you mention "similar street/similar profil etc etc" - no matter how similar a street may look to another street with the naked eye, the actual risk can only be assessed by the claims history for that location. Most motor insurers assess the risk of an address by full postcode analysis on claims data for the past 30 years. It is a very accurate system. If the address is a higher risk, of course a higher premium is charged.

The admin fees issue has been done to death elsewhere already so we needn't go into that as well.

fimonkey wrote: »

Insurance companiyes have a duty to shareholders (fair enough, as do a lot of businesses), it is in their interest to make money wherever possible (while of course maintaining competetiveness), how better to do this than hit wee Joe Bloggs in the pocket now and then. After all they can't get away with ripping off commercial isurance as the cannot fight against the bigger financial directors and legal depts of the bigger commercial interest they insure. They may not make much money frmo wee Joe Bloggs, but they certainly are not on his side.

No matter what you might personally think, motor insurers make money in this day and age by providing (or trying to provide!) quality service at a low price. It has never been so easy to compare premiums in the market. No insurer can 'hit anyone in the pocket' on a whim for the reasons I explained above.

fimonkey wrote: »

OK I take your point and if I could I would change the title of my thread to read "This is what happened to me when I was HONEST with my insurance company" and then I would let others make their own decision. I do not intend for anyone to commit fraud, but I do intend that people are informed of the consequences of their actions

Ok, we're in total agreement on this point then!

fimonkey wrote: »

Someone who prangs their car is in a different league to someone who innocently parks their car adn comes out the next day to find it pranged..... answer your own question please but with the latter scenario. Is someone who parks their car in a normal well lit street, who then has part of a garage roof fall on their car from a windy evening, and is then honest with their insurance company but decides not to claim (cos the damage isn't great and they decide to save the insurance company money and themselves hassle of form filling)... are they higher risk than the person who was parked ni front of them, same street, same night, but though luck alone did not have part of a garage roof fall on their car?

This may be so but what you have to understand that it is impossible to run an underwriting system that takes into account all the the individual circumstances and minutiae of every claim. The only factors an insurer can really consider are the date of the incident; whether fault or non-fault; the section of cover it falls under (eg accidental damage, glass, fire, theft); and the amount of the settlement, if any. The costs of implementing a more complex underwriting process would far outweigh the benefits. That is unfortunate for you as your incident will be assessed in terms of averages for non-fault incidents. But there is no realistic alternative.

fimonkey

raskazz wrote: »

Insurers set premium ratings individually, not collectively, so I'm a bit lost on what point you are trying to make here to be honest. It is perfectly possible to withdraw your business to another insurer at renewal or mid-term (albeit with short-term cancellation rates mid-term) and this is key..

ALL the other insurance comapnies I tried to renew with online increased their premium by about £80 when I couldn't complete online because of this so called CLAIM (which was actually a NOTIFICATION). I know I can't argue with insurance companies interpretations, but if they made it clear in their blurb that a NOTIFICATION would also be recorded as a NO FAULT CLAIM it would make things a little clearer (and in my case stopped me from notifying them about such superficial damge). That was my point, that insurance companies all COLLECTIVELY said my premuim would increase beacuse of this CLAIM. ..........Now that said, I have had a private message from another member of this board who had a similar incident, though their premium did not increase and it was not recorded as a claim or notification. - perhaps I drew the short straw that day and ended up speaking to a "computer-says-no-therefore-I-have-no-autonomy-or-freedom-to-make-a-decision" call centre operative...

raskazz wrote: »

You paid a higher premium because statistically you present an increased risk. Again, whether you claim for the damage sustained or not, there is still an increase in the proposed risk. ..

Except later on you imply that I personally am NOT an increased risk based on my personal situation, but I fall victim to a "complex underwriting process" that means I get lumped with everyone else. I don't agree that computers and programmes cannot be written to take circumstances into account, or even that the 'call centre operative' (what on earth is their real job title?) cannot be trained to make an informed decision.

raskazz wrote: »

You clearly have closed your mind on the issue,..

and I could say the same to you, you're defending insurance companies (and once again thanks for your informative replies) and I'm stating that in this instance my honesty and good intention ended up costing me an extra £80.

raskazz wrote: »

This may be so but what you have to understand that it is impossible to run an underwriting system that takes into account all the the individual circumstances and minutiae of every claim. The only factors an insurer can really consider are the date of the incident; whether fault or non-fault; the section of cover it falls under (eg accidental damage, glass, fire, theft); and the amount of the settlement, if any. The costs of implementing a more complex underwriting process would far outweigh the benefits. That is unfortunate for you as your incident will be assessed in terms of averages for non-fault incidents. But there is no realistic alternative.

I admit I do not know the insurance system classification, but from what you say if there are only 4 points to consider when a NOTIFICATION is made, then it appears to not be a particulary complex system at all. As I asked earlier, why can't the call centre ppl be trained to make their own decisions/ or even another factor added into the "computer-that-rules-the-world" that states the NOTIFICATION is not a CLAIM so should not stay on your record for 5years! At teh very least, a NO Fault, No Payout notification should NOT increase your premium. (And please don't quote stats back at me, I'm sure you can tell by now I have as much disdain for stats as I do insurance companies - ...... Joke by the way)!

Rigtio, been great talking to you (and others). I'm away on my jollies for some sunshine now, and I don't intend wasting anymore of my (employers) time on this thread. I feel that my aim, which was to warn others of how my honesty ended up costing me, has been acheived. Debating about insurance databases/underwriters/risk management or statistsics is not going to achieve anything more.

Of course I do not advocate fraud and I would change the title of this thread if I could. However I assume the majority (if not all) of those who read this thread are intelligent adults capable of making up their own minds.

Thank you once again.

shelly

I agree with you fimonkey (If its any consolation) When I had my total-fault-no-one-else-involved prang we worked out the cost to get parts and got a rough quote from a local Nissan garage for the labour. It was quite a few thousand £'s so we decided to claim for the first time ever as hubby's NCB is protected. Had it been more affordable we would have repaired it ourselves and certainly wouldn't have told the insurance co. If that makes me a bad person then so be it.
Thankfully though when shopping around for insurance for both cars at renewal our quotes keep getting cheaper. We just renewed and paid less than we did last year before the claim.

I'm sorry it worked out badly for you after you had been honest.

raskazz

fimonkey wrote: »

ALL the other insurance comapnies I tried to renew with online increased their premium by about £80 when I couldn't complete online because of this so called CLAIM (which was actually a NOTIFICATION). I know I can't argue with insurance companies interpretations, but if they made it clear in their blurb that a NOTIFICATION would also be recorded as a NO FAULT CLAIM it would make things a little clearer (and in my case stopped me from notifying them about such superficial damge). That was my point, that insurance companies all COLLECTIVELY said my premuim would increase beacuse of this CLAIM.

That's because every insurer knows that on average they pay more in claims for those who have had a non-fault incident than they do for those who have not... so we are really going around in circles here.

fimonkey wrote: »

..........Now that said, I have had a private message from another member of this board who had a similar incident, though their premium did not increase and it was not recorded as a claim or notification. - perhaps I drew the short straw that day and ended up speaking to a "computer-says-no-therefore-I-have-no-autonomy-or-freedom-to-make-a-decision" call centre operative...

No, its more likely that either the incident was not recorded in the case of the other party because it was damage that fell outside of the policy cover or simply an error or omission by the advisor concerned.

fimonkey wrote: »

Except later on you imply that I personally am NOT an increased risk based on my personal situation, but I fall victim to a "complex underwriting process" that means I get lumped with everyone else. I don't agree that computers and programmes cannot be written to take circumstances into account, or even that the 'call centre operative' (what on earth is their real job title?) cannot be trained to make an informed decision.

You get lumped in with everyone else because that's how insurance works! If insurers pay out 10% more in claims for men, then men's premiums are higher by 10%. If they pay out 20% more in claims for people with a fault claim then those peoples' premiums increase by 20%. If they pay out x% more in claims for those with a non-fault, no-payout claim then those people pay x% more.

Whilst I agree that some call centre staff are poorly trained, this scenario is nothing to do with them. The underwriting process is determined much further up the chain. I never said that computer programmes could not be written to take more complex claims info into account - they can, but the costs of doing so would outweigh the benefits. Partially because of sheer complexity, partially because of a lack of the required complexity in their historical claims data.

As an analogy, in theory if you wanted a perfect risk assessment every insurer could do a face-to-face interview of each applicant and pore over their life history - but the cost would be more than the gain and would add £100s to everyone's premium!

fimonkey wrote: »

I admit I do not know the insurance system classification, but from what you say if there are only 4 points to consider when a NOTIFICATION is made, then it appears to not be a particulary complex system at all. As I asked earlier, why can't the call centre ppl be trained to make their own decisions/ or even another factor added into the "computer-that-rules-the-world" that states the NOTIFICATION is not a CLAIM so should not stay on your record for 5years!

Er, again, I stated that the underwriting system is not as complex as it could (ignoring cost/benefit reality) be. 'Training' call centre staff to make a 'judgement' is a non-starter - the judgement on the underwriting process has already been made by much more highly skilled individuals.

fimonkey wrote: »

At teh very least, a NO Fault, No Payout notification should NOT increase your premium. (And please don't quote stats back at me, I'm sure you can tell by now I have as much disdain for stats as I do insurance companies - ...... Joke by the way)!

But we go round in circles again! If insurers pay out x% more in claims payments to those with a non-fault, no payout incident on record then they pay for those who do not, then premiums will increase by x%. We are talking about insurance fundamentals here - they will never change, no matter how 'unfair' it may seem. Again, there are several other factors that are totally outside your control that affect premiums - your gender, the area in which you live, your age, and so on. Using incidents to adjust premiums is no more or less fair than any of those other factors.