Car Insurance - How Long Do I Have to Declare Non-Fault Accidents?

EKEA

I have three accidents on my car insurance record now.
One is from December 2009, another from April 2010 and the third is from July 2013 - this latter "accident" was more driving off from the scene of an accident, but the perpetrator has admitted it was him through the courts.

I know it is good to add as much information as possible and as they are non-fault then it shouldn't affect anything but can anyone tell me if I should be adding the 2009 claim?

Also, the last claim, should I put it down to an accident or something else, like malicious damage? All claims have a £0.00 liability from my end.

ilikewatch

EKEA wrote: »

as they are non-fault then it shouldn't affect anything

I wouldn't be so sure about that - my wife has 3 non-fault claims over the last couple of years and her premiums have tripled.

EKEA wrote: »

can anyone tell me if I should be adding the 2009 claim?

Depends on the insurance company - some require details of any incidents in the last 5 years, some ask for 4, some for 3.

InsideInsurance

Multiple none fault claims certainly will impact you. Some will load even for just one.

As you've come close to proving, its only a matter of time before another none fault claim becomes fault because the third party doesnt stop or isnt insured etc.

Answer the questions asked, most ask about last 3 or 5 years

EKEA

Thank you. I have looked at a couple, Aviva ask for any at any point. Admiral ask for any in the last 3. After getting quotes though, Admiral was twice as expensive, despite having one less claim.

Aretnap

I'm afraid three accidents in five years certainly makes you look "accident prone" even if they weren't settled as being your fault. Off the top of my head Admiral and Direct Line only ask about accidents and claims in the last 3 years, and Aviva only ask about them for 4 years, so those insurers are worth trying if you find that having to declare your 5 year history is causing you problems.

If the most recent claim was for a collision between two cars then put it down as an accident - it wouldn't be malicious damage unless it was deliberate, and doing something illegal after the accident like driving off doesn't retrospectively make the collision become malicious or deliberate.

rs65

EKEA wrote: »

Thank you. I have looked at a couple, Aviva ask for any at any point. Admiral ask for any in the last 3. After getting quotes though, Admiral was twice as expensive, despite having one less claim.

Aviva ask for 4 years. I think direct line ask for 3.

anotheruser

That's just bad luck for three within three years!
Give it another three years and you'll be seeing "normal" prices for insurance.

It's a shame insurance companies count those that are non-fault to the driver. If they get their cost back, they shouldn't have to be declared at all, in my opinion.

Spiderham

anotheruser wrote: »

That's just bad luck for three within three years!
Give it another three years and you'll be seeing "normal" prices for insurance.

It's a shame insurance companies count those that are non-fault to the driver. If they get their cost back, they shouldn't have to be declared at all, in my opinion.

Why?

Insurance pricing is based on correlation with number of claims. If an insurer's analysis of its claims shows that those who have had non-fault claims on average cost more than those who haven't had them why shouldn't they charge more for the former and less for the latter?

To answer OP, as has been said different insurers ask different questions so you just need to answer the question asked. Of course one that asks for more years meaning you have to declare them could be cheaper than one you don't have to declare them to.

anotheruser

Spiderham wrote: »

Why?

Insurance pricing is based on correlation with number of claims. If an insurer's analysis of its claims shows that those who have had non-fault claims on average cost more than those who haven't had them why shouldn't they charge more for the former and less for the latter?

Because it wasn't the driver's fault? In this case the OP has been hit three times, none of which are their fault yet they are paying over the odds.
If there was some dispute or it wasn't a straightforward claim then yes, but if it's completely open-shut and not the 1st party fault then why should they have to pay more? It's not like they asked to be hit

That's like saying if someone spilt your coffee, over you because they were rushing, then you should pay for a new coffee. Yes, that happens quite a lot but it doesn't make it right!

But then I don't agree with protecting a NCB.
What's the point in having a NO CLAIMS BONUS if you can make a claim and still keep the bonus?

Spiderham

Fair enough it's an opinion but similarly you could ask whether it is fair to price based on age, where someone lives or whether they've had a motoring conviction by a similar token. As it isn't their fault people who fall into the same bracket have more claims.