Penalty

barvid

Posted this in the Insurance board but got no replies so I'm replicated it here - can anyone comment or advise? Maybe if you've had a similar experience? Otherwise take it as a rant against Admiral...!!

==

I wonder if anyone here with any knowledge of the insurance industry can offer an insight...

Last August, my car was hit by a police van. The claim was eventually settled with the police accepting 100% liability, and all costs were recovered. However, in the interim my insurance was up for renewal and I took out a policy with a new insurer.

Since the claim wasn't settled at the start of the policy, the accident was recorded as a fault claim. This is fine - I understand and accept the reasons for this. Once the claim was settled, my new insurer restored my No Claims Bonus from 3 years to 5 years and also adjusted my claims history to show that it was a non fault accident. My records are therefore up to date.

However, the insurer will not make any adjustment to my premium to reflect how things have changed.

This puzzles me. I would have thought that the premium I was quoted at the start of the year would be inflated by the fact that there was a fault claim on my history, as that would make me statistically more likely to claim again. Surely if it is subsequently proven that the other party was 100% to blame my premium should be adjusted downwards?

Admiral claim that it is a fair policy because if my licence were endorsed during the policy term I would not pay anything extra until the next year, but I disagree. I've changed my car today, for example, and I've been asked to pay an increased premium immediately, not next year. Similarly, when I've changed address in the past then my premium changed for the rest of the year. Why then is it that something as significant as my claims history changing doesn't result in the premium being adjusted?

As far as I can see, Admiral is profiting by penalising me for causing an accident I didn't cause! The claim was reasonably large - £3,500 plus legal fees - so my premium reflects this. I'm being charged for being a careless driver who causes accidents and claims on his insurance when the opposite is true.

As an aside, I did query at the time of getting the quote whether the premium would be adjusted if the accident were subsequently proven to be the other party's fault and I was assured it would be, so I'm of the opinion that Admiral's refusal to do anything places them in breach of contract, but that's another matter.

What I'm actually interested in is whether this is an industry standard, and whether anyone can offer any defence for the insurer carrying on like this.

Thanks!

RadoJo

As I understand it, insurance companies consider (probably based on statistical evidence) that a person who has been the victim of a no-fault claim is more likely to be the cause of a claim where they are at fault.

That aside though, it is a morally unfair practice, but then insurance companies aren't there to be fair, just to line their pockets. If somebody did tell you that your premiums would be adjusted following a judgement, and that was the only reason that you took out the policy with them, then I think you might have a case, but only if you can prove that this information was incorrectly given, which may be difficult. I bet they have a cancellation charge as well don't they, so they can charge you if you decide not to continue with this policy?

andyrules

As an aside, I did query at the time of getting the quote whether the premium would be adjusted if the accident were subsequently proven to be the other party's fault and I was assured it would be, so I'm of the opinion that Admiral's refusal to do anything places them in breach of contract, but that's another matter.

Then they may have a record of this - companies tape many conversations now and you could ask for this. I think you have to pay £10 under DP, but I might be wrong. I was in an insurance dispute last year, and I pursued it until they obtained the recording and admitted I was right, they also agreed to waive the fee.

pinkshoes

When filling in forms for car insurance, alot of them seem to ask the question:

"have you ever been involved in an accident, regardless of whether it was your fault?"

They DO seem to think that those involved in accidents (even though someone ran into you) are more likely to be involved in an insurance claim again. I suppose you could see it as if someone ran into the back of you, although its their insurance that will pay for damage, potentially you could have slammed your brakes on unneccessarily...

vikingaero

It is perverse, but being a party in a non-fault claim, statistically raises the risk of further claims. I'm glad I left the insurance industry!

brazilianwax

I used to work for Admiral - if there was a note made at the time that you had 3 yrs ncb with a claim pending, they should have honoured your max ncb once the claim was settled.

I haven't worked there for some years, but i'll check this policy with a friend tomorrow.

brazilianwax

pinkshoes wrote: »

When filling in forms for car insurance, alot of them seem to ask the question:

"have you ever been involved in an accident, regardless of whether it was your fault?"

They DO seem to think that those involved in accidents (even though someone ran into you) are more likely to be involved in an insurance claim again. I suppose you could see it as if someone ran into the back of you, although its their insurance that will pay for damage, potentially you could have slammed your brakes on unneccessarily...

It's not the accident, it's the fact that you show a willingness to claim so are more likely to claim from your own company.

ab7167

who wouldn't claim for damage to their car? I have had 2 accidents where someone has run into the back of me. On both occasions I was stationary, in one I even had a police officer as a witness! So tell me how being willing to claim for my written off car which I needed to work means that I will be at a higher risk of claiming in the future?

The mind boggles, it really does.

brazilianwax

ab7167 wrote: »

who wouldn't claim for damage to their car? I have had 2 accidents where someone has run into the back of me. On both occasions I was stationary, in one I even had a police officer as a witness! So tell me how being willing to claim for my written off car which I needed to work means that I will be at a higher risk of claiming in the future?

The mind boggles, it really does.

Ah, you're talking about large accidents.

If someone scrapped your paintwork accidentally with their car, would you claim from them (assuming minor paint damage). I assume from the above that the answer would be 'yes'.

What if someone dinged your paintwork with a trolley in a supermarket car park, would you think about claiming off your own insurers? Again, minor damage, and you'd have an excess to pay, but you might. That's a potential cost for the insurance company, which they then need to factor in.

Not really that unbelieveable, is it? Wouldn't you factor the cost of a new boiler into your budget if you thought it was likely to fail?

asea

it's just statistics, they don't explain why, they just show the numbers that correlate to real life!

maxfactor_3

Wow you must be really angry!.My friend was involved in an accident not his fault!.It took a year till the other party paid up and only then would the insurance company agree to pay back the difference in the premium.We knew it would be a bad idea to change insurance company,s till it had all been sorted despite being messed around so much he decided to see it through.If they,ve now adusted your no claims bonus accordingly they should give you the difference.Maybe your previous insurer would be worth contacting to explain whats happening.Well Im no expert but its pretty damn annoying I hope you get your mony back.