Ridiculous push bike car insurance rule

MargD

My husband is a named driver on my car insurance policy. He was knocked off his pushbike and thankfully not too badly injured. However, his quite expensive bike was mangled and he put in a non fault claim on the driver's insurance (i.e. The driver who knocked him off and claimed full responsibility). MY car insurance policy has increased by £74 as a result! Surely this can't be right? My insurance firm said it is because he is a risk!! He was on a bike, was the victim and didn't intentionally end up on her bonnet after all!! Would love to hear if anyone else has experienced this or any suggestions. Thanks.

antrobus

MargD wrote: »

My husband is a named driver on my car insurance policy. He was knocked off his pushbike and thankfully not too badly injured. However, his quite expensive bike was mangled and he put in a non fault claim on the driver's insurance (i.e. The driver who knocked him off and claimed full responsibility). MY car insurance policy has increased by £74 as a result! Surely this can't be right? My insurance firm said it is because he is a risk!! He was on a bike, was the victim and didn't intentionally end up on her bonnet after all!! Would love to hear if anyone else has experienced this or any suggestions. Thanks.

Insurance companies act in the belief that someone who has already made one insurance claim on a motor policy is more likely to make another. Since insurance companies are in possession of oodles of data on claims histories, their belief may well be based on actual evidence.

Thus your husband is now seen as a higher risk. It is not a moral judgement on your husband's behaviour.

vaio

Sounds like a consequential cost of the accident and therefore can be recovered from the at fault insurer

dacouch

MargD wrote: »

My husband is a named driver on my car insurance policy. He was knocked off his pushbike and thankfully not too badly injured. However, his quite expensive bike was mangled and he put in a non fault claim on the driver's insurance (i.e. The driver who knocked him off and claimed full responsibility). MY car insurance policy has increased by £74 as a result! Surely this can't be right? My insurance firm said it is because he is a risk!! He was on a bike, was the victim and didn't intentionally end up on her bonnet after all!! Would love to hear if anyone else has experienced this or any suggestions. Thanks.

Which Insurer are you with?

MargD

I'm with Allianz. They contacted me as it would never have entered my head to report it. They obviously tracked his name back to me.

dacouch

That's very odd as they ask for "Motoring accidents"

"Please indicate if you had any motoring claims, accidents or losses, regardless of blame, in the last 5 years, or has anyone made a motoring claim against you"

Send them a letter headed "Official Complaint", keep it polite and concise, they're duty bound to properly investigate and report back to you

[Deleted User]

You need to switch insurance company when your renewal comes up. Some don't care if you bad no-fault accidents and won't put your premium up, some will.

One trick I found with Aviva is that the quoted me nearly double after I made two no-fault claims. I went round the comparison sites and found some sensible quotes, and then waited. A bit closer to renewal time Aviva sent me a competitive offer. In other words once they realize you are about to leave they will offer you a better deal rather than lose a customer.

It pays to compare every year. Even if you don't switch it reminds your insurer that they can't try to screw you with a rubbish renewal quote.

InsideInsurance

I would dispute the need to declare it, he was not in/on a motor vehicle at the time of the incident and therefore from him its not a motor accident. Similarly I would expect any pedestrians that have been run over to have to declare it on their car insurance.

Nebulous2

I'm not really sure how this was linked to you / him. Was the car driver insured with the same company as you are?

magpiecottage

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I would dispute the need to declare it, he was not in/on a motor vehicle at the time of the incident and therefore from him its not a motor accident. Similarly I would expect any pedestrians that have been run over to have to declare it on their car insurance.

Presumably you mean "not expect any pedestrians..."
But I agree.

Otherwise this would seem to be an accident for the householders to declare as well.

It should only be relevant if a claim was made in respect of a vehicle covered by your motor policy or as a result of you driving a motor vehicle.

In particular, the Second Data Protection Principle (in Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 says,

"Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes."

What Allianz seems to have done is taken data required for the third party claim and processed it in respect of something completely different - i.e. your insurance policy.

So I think you can complain that they are charging you on the basis of something that, had they complied with the law, would not have been known to their underwriters. Your OH can complain too, that they are using his personal data in a manner that they are not permitted to.

If the responses are not satisfactory, you complain to FOS, he complains to he information commissioner.

System

I'm not sure that logically you can divide the participants in an incident involving a motor vehicle into those who experienced it as a motoring accident and those who experienced it as a different kind of accident?