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

fimonkey

raskazz wrote: »

So, for example, if you did not inform the insurer of a minor motoring conviction, then the insurer will generally be able to void the policy for this alone. They will recalculate the premium that would have been charged had the conviction been disclosed, and charge the policyholder the difference between this and the lower premium that was actually paid, before they proceed with the claim.

In practice I bet they only do this IF there's pressure on them to do so (i.e a HUGE TP claim as in Gary Hart's case). But for mere Joe Bloggs, insured fully comp, who has a scratch on his car but didn't notify the insurance company, then has an accident and tries to claim for his own injuries, he'd be told to go whistle!

To make things worse, Insurance companies put untrained numpties on their call lines, it's refreshing on the rare occasions you DO get to speak to someone who actually understands and knows what they're doing. ..."computer says no" .... very very true!

fimonkey

raskazz wrote: »

This is because claims data that shows that policyholders who suffer a non-fault/no payout claim are statistically more likely to submit a fault claim.

Claims data.... once more the world is run by computers and those with half a brain are not encouraged to use it!

Statistically speaking the average person has less than two legs! FACTOID! But we all know it's rubbish in reality. Stats can be used and manipulated to prove/disprove anything, so saying a RISK has increased (based on stats) is merely the insurance co's using stats for their own gain.

(Not getting at you personally raskazz, but car insurance is one big rip off in this country! It's NOT linked to a sensible assessment of risk, it's linked to computer databases intended to rob money of ppl who have no choice).

raskazz

fimonkey wrote: »

In practice I bet they only do this IF there's pressure on them to do so

No, it is done as a matter of course.

Mostly the process is that after the non-disclosure is discovered then a letter is sent to the insured asking for an explanation. If the response to the letter shows that the non-disclosure is a genuine oversight and not deception then the policy will normally be re-written (as long as there are no other problems).

fimonkey wrote: »

But for mere Joe Bloggs, insured fully comp, who has a scratch on his car but didn't notify the insurance company, then has an accident and tries to claim for his own injuries, he'd be told to go whistle!

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If he was injured and the accident was his fault he cannot claim for injuries anyway; if it was not his fault then he claims for injuries from the third party who was at fault, not his own policy.

raskazz

fimonkey wrote: »

Claims data.... once more the world is run by computers and those with half a brain are not encouraged to use it!

No. Insurance ratings are calculated by actuaries - highly skilled individuals - not 'run by computers'.

fimonkey wrote: »

Statistically speaking the average person has less than two legs! FACTOID! But we all know it's rubbish in reality. Stats can be used and manipulated to prove/disprove anything, so saying a RISK has increased (based on stats) is merely the insurance co's using stats for their own gain.

So, let me get this straight - if you were an insurer and your claims statistics show that on average you paid out, say, 10% more in claims to those with a non-fault claim on record would you increase premiums for those with a non-fault claim by 10% or not?

fimonkey wrote: »

(Not getting at you personally raskazz, but car insurance is one big rip off in this country! It's NOT linked to a sensible assessment of risk, it's linked to computer databases intended to rob money of ppl who have no choice).

It is assessed purely on risk. All insurers have to balance charging a high enough premium to cover the risk with charging a low enough premium to attract and retain business. It is a highly competitive market; and for the average policyholder premiums have been low in real terms for the last few years.

calisto

raskazz wrote: »

It is assessed purely on risk. All insurers have to balance charging a high enough premium to cover the risk with charging a low enough premium to attract and retain business. It is a highly competitive market; and for the average policyholder premiums have been low in real terms for the last few years.

All true - however, the problem is the grey area is if someone is "dishonest" when insuring (ie. Barry Boy Chav with 1.0 Saxo kitted out Halfords galore), and someone who happens to have a manufacturers optional extra, or a minor addition (£20 parking sensor, £5 car mats, £5 door bump strips from Wilko).

What about another safety control that is often an optional from manufacturers base model, such as a "speed control" / "cruise control"? Is this considered an engine performance mod? Its clearly mechanical and is attached to the throttle body. But is hardly a performance mod. Quite the opposite.

raskazz

calisto wrote: »

All true - however, the problem is the grey area is if someone is "dishonest" when insuring (ie. Barry Boy Chav with 1.0 Saxo kitted out Halfords galore), and someone who happens to have a manufacturers optional extra, or a minor addition (£20 parking sensor, £5 car mats, £5 door bump strips from Wilko).

What about another safety control that is often an optional from manufacturers base model, such as a "speed control" / "cruise control"? Is this considered an engine performance mod? Its clearly mechanical and is attached to the throttle body. But is hardly a performance mod. Quite the opposite.

No scheme that I have ever seen has charged extra for factory cruise control.

fimonkey

raskazz wrote: »

No. Insurance ratings are calculated by actuaries - highly skilled individuals - not 'run by computers'.
So, let me get this straight - if you were an insurer and your claims statistics show that on average you paid out, say, 10% more in claims to those with a non-fault claim on record would you increase premiums for those with a non-fault claim by 10% or not?
.

My point is that the "highly skilled actuaries" use statistics to prove what they WANT to prove, given their own bias. Stats really can be highly manipulated, as I've already said, stats can prove that the average person has less than two legs!

Given that insurance companies are business, they need to make money, they manipulate statistics to show that every time Joe Bloggs calls his insurance company, (even for a change of address) then he's more likley to make a claim so his premium MUST increase! And they can justify the increase in premiums because the stats prove so!

I'm saying that the stats are rubbish. Yes insurance is about risk, but the stats behind the risk are manipulated to ensure the insurance company can command the highest premiums, and increase these premiums on a 'statistical' whim. .. My point, which I maintain, is that if you are involved in an incident where NO THIRD PARTY is involved, and you don't intend to claim from your insurance, then don't bother to notify them because they'll use it against you in the future. THAT point doesn't need stats to prove it because it is FACT 100%

LouBlue

Mmm, I am worried now.

Had a car accident 2 months ago, it was the other driver's fault but there were no witnesses. My car is only worth about £600 so it wasn't worth claiming for me. By the time I pay my excess and the work being done, it just wouldn't be worth it and I would lose my no claims. He said he wasn't claiming either. So I did nothing.

But a couple of days ago, I get a call from his insurers who say he is claiming and I must inform my insurance company even though I am not claiming. So I rang my insurance company and they said I won't be charged anything as I have Protected No Claims and I am not claiming. But I bet when my renewal comes up, it will show on there.

raskazz

fimonkey wrote: »

My point is that the "highly skilled actuaries" use statistics to prove what they WANT to prove, given their own bias. Stats really can be highly manipulated, as I've already said, stats can prove that the average person has less than two legs!

Why exactly would an actuary be 'biased'? Their job is to eliminate 'bias' as much as possible so that an insurer can assess risk most accurately. You're really barking up the wrong tree here.

fimonkey wrote: »

Given that insurance companies are business, they need to make money, they manipulate statistics to show that every time Joe Bloggs calls his insurance company, (even for a change of address) then he's more likley to make a claim so his premium MUST increase! And they can justify the increase in premiums because the stats prove so!

Again, this is plain wrong and belies a lack of understanding of basic business reality. Insurance is a (very) competitive market. No insurer can artifically load a premium as the customer is perfectly free to withdraw their business. Thus the premium rates are structured to assess risk as accurately as possible, not to overestimate it.

I'm not sure what relevance a change of address has to the issue of non-fault claims either.

fimonkey wrote: »

I'm saying that the stats are rubbish.

Thanks for that technical and reasoned opinion.

fimonkey wrote: »

Yes insurance is about risk, but the stats behind the risk are manipulated to ensure the insurance company can command the highest premiums, and increase these premiums on a 'statistical' whim.

Again, you are either ignorant of or disingenuously choose to ignore, the realities of a competitive market. Your prejudice against insurers is overriding logic. I mean, why would an insurer want to command the highest premiums? They would very quickly find they had no policyholders in the age of confused.com, MSE and so on...

fimonkey wrote: »

.. My point, which I maintain, is that if you are involved in an incident where NO THIRD PARTY is involved, and you don't intend to claim from your insurance, then don't bother to notify them because they'll use it against you in the future. THAT point doesn't need stats to prove it because it is FACT 100%

If you wish to continue encouraging users to commit fraud then you can feel free to do so. I thought that encouraging such activity was against board rules. It is also nothing to do with 'using it against' anyone, only calculating the risk through a standard underwriting process.

Do you not think that someone who prangs their car but does not claim is a higher risk than someone with exactly the same details who has not had a bump? If not, why not?

maveli

I had an accident in last December, other driver's fault. Since I was not sure whether TP will honour the claim I informed Abbey my car insurer. Fortunately TP's insurer paid for the damage to my car. My insurance was due in Feb and I got a letter from Abbey informing me that they will not be renewing my insurance. I called them to find out whay and they mentioned the accident I had. I had a long discussion with them about this and finally they agreed to renew the premium provided I sent them a leeter saying I will not be claiming anything from them for the previous accident. The renewd premium is £30 less than the previuous year. So I think it all depend on the insurance company and the person there you deal with.