Should I inform my car insurance company?

jem16

raskazz wrote: »

Insurance is based on risk and whether or not they claim for this particular incident, the original poster is clearly at a higher risk of theft than the insurer would assume if they did not know of the latest incident.

I am not disagreeing - you are correct.

However what I do have concerns about is the time when someone hits you and you are still penalised. In this instance I cannot see how you are more at risk.

raskazz

jem16 wrote: »

I am not disagreeing - you are correct.

However what I do have concerns about is the time when someone hits you and you are still penalised. In this instance I cannot see how you are more at risk.

Insurers do not pluck premiums out of thin air. Look at it from the insurers point of view and it becomes quite obvious.

If your claims statistics show that policyholders involved in a non-fault claim are more likely to be involved in a fault claim in the future (which they do), then of course you will increase premiums accordingly.

This is no more unfair and works in exactly the same way as using any other material fact to set premiums - gender, age etc.

shelly

raskazz wrote: »

You do have to inform them. It would be very foolish not to.

Ignore the above post.

I noticed raskazz that when you quoted my post you chose to delete the bit where I said "Alot of people on here will say that as per insurers terms and conditions you HAVE to inform them even if you don't want to make a claim, which is true." (quoted from my own post #2)

I didn't tell the OP not to inform the ins co, I just said that I personally wouldn't.

1jim

raskazz wrote: »

Until you are involved in an incident. It would go something like this:
Or like this

The engineers notice the repairs.

The insurers investigate and ask you why they were required.

You let slip that someone tried to steal your car.
Or you say that you have no idea but you have had the car x yrs and they must have been done before that or if in my case you have simply put a new radio in, or you lost your keys so changed the locks on the car to make sure it was safe,


The insurers check their records and note that you did not disclose it.
There would not need to be a record using the above scenario

The insurers void your policy.
Not with the red scenario they dont

etc

So many people follow this foolhardy route to save a few pounds a year. It is simply not worth it.
But its not just a "few punds" my insurance would have gone up by £100 a year if I had stayed with the same insurer despite making no claim, add that to the policy year on year its a lot more than a few pounds

Do you my any chance work in insurance?

raskazz

shelly wrote: »

I noticed raskazz that when you quoted my post you chose to delete the bit where I said "Alot of people on here will say that as per insurers terms and conditions you HAVE to inform them even if you don't want to make a claim, which is true." (quoted from my own post #2)

I didn't tell the OP not to inform the ins co, I just said that I personally wouldn't.

Yes but the substance of the post that I was actually responding to was the mention that NCD would be temporarily reduced - this would never be the case for a privately setttled attempted theft.

raskazz

1jim wrote: »

But its not just a "few punds" my insurance would have gone up by £100 a year if I had stayed with the same insurer despite making no claim, add that to the policy year on year its a lot more than a few pounds

I think the key thing here is "if I had stayed with the same insurer" - if they increase premiums like that then you are perfectly entitled to decline renewal and take your business elsewhere - that is the way to save money; not by putting your cover in jeopardy.

shelly

raskazz wrote: »

Yes but the substance of the post that I was actually responding to was the mention that NCD would be temporarily reduced - this would never be the case for a privately setttled attempted theft.

Please read my post again.

I said NCB could be frozen if the advisor marked down the non claim as a claim, which countless users of this site have reported happening.

raskazz

shelly wrote: »

Please read my post again.

I said NCB could be frozen if the advisor marked down the non claim as a claim, which countless users of this site have reported happening.

This sometimes occurs in accident incidents where there is a delay in receiving confirmation from a third party that they will not be claiming either.

However, I have not seen any reports of this occuring for an attempted theft claim where the insured has made it clear they are not claiming from the insurer.

Feel free to link me to any examples though.

shelly

raskazz wrote: »

I have not seen any reports of this occuring for an attempted theft claim where the insured has made it clear they are not claiming from the insurer.

Feel free to link me to any examples though.

I meant any kind of claim in general.Be it an accident, attempted theft or whatever.

raskazz

shelly wrote: »

I meant any kind of claim in general.Be it an accident, attempted theft or whatever.

But that's what I am getting at! It is a relatively frequent occurance in privately settled accident claims involving a third party - as the claim will not usually be closed (and therefore NCD not reinstated, if applicable) until the insurer receives confirmation from the third party that the claim can be closed and they will not be pursuing it.

However, in cases of theft/attempted theft there is no third party - so the claim can be listed purely as notification/non fault from the word go, without any impact on NCD.