Car insurance increase - but not at fault - Why?

iolanthe07

It is a no claim bonus, not a no blame bonus.

anotheruser

Richard53 wrote: »

Say you park your car legally on a public road outside your house every night. You live 50 yards from a pub, and 4-5 times a year some drunk on his way home keys your paintwork, costing your insurance company £200 a time. Not your fault at all, but they see you as a risk to their profits, and they are justified in altering your premiums to reflect this.

Yes but that should be location based.

I don't agree that if someone hits me in their vehicle, then I am penalised. That's like saying if someone hurts me, then I would be required to pay for care for the rest of my life. Not my fault they took their anger out on me - so why should I pay?

I understand what no-claims discount is, but I'm not talking about that here.
Maybe there should be no such discount, then nobody will get into this confusion.

facade

anotheruser wrote: »

That's like saying if someone hurts me, then I would be required to pay for care for the rest of my life. Not my fault they took their anger out on me - so why should I pay?

If you cannot identify who did it, so that they can pay, then yes you would have to pay yourself. You might get a basic treatment on the NHS, but care has to be funded, if you have any assets, you would be required to pay.

In the OPs case, the insurance will have to pay out, and cannot recover their costs from a third party, so it counts as a fault claim.

Then the insurance company needs to get their money back, so they charge the OP more to start recovering their losses.

sheramber

Avii wrote: »

what is the reason for the insurance company increasing my car insurance.
in March a car hit me and drove off - i informed my insurance like i should, its still in pending form my understanding - yet when i can to renew it this week it increased by almost £100.. i do not understand why it increased when i was not at fault. This seems very unfair.

i was told it did not matter as i was still involved in an accident.

why are insurance company allowed do do this?

thanks

Insurace companies statisitcs show that someone wha has made a claim - regardless of fault- is more likely to make another claim.

Hence the increase in risk and therefore increase in premium the following year.

facade

And statistics defy logic & common sense.

If I parked my car somewhere where it got damaged, I would be far less likely to park in similar circumstances again. (But I would be seen as an increased risk, when in reality I'm a decreased one)

Same with a speed awareness course, it ought to make you a safer driver, but Admiral will ask you if you have attended one, and increase (not decrease due to your extra training) your premium if you have.

robatwork

Aretnap wrote: »

If you're in an age group which tends to have relatively many accidents (whether the young and reckless or the old and doddery) that's not your fault, but it will still affect your insurance premium.

Cat Stevens would beg to differ.

I quote: "You're still young, that's your fault"

InsideInsurance

shortchanged wrote: »

Probably not as many as you think/admit (looking at your user name).

How many of these insurance quotes you see when you do a comparison are actually under the same parent company?

For example elephant is actually admiral. How many different guises does aegas go under?

Hence why I said insurance groups not companies.

The reality is actually much more complex because of the existence of MGAs, large brokers (who basically are MGAs) and large affinity relationships which are often done on a joint venture basis. For example the end underwriter may be Axa but Towergate Underwriting is the one actually setting the terms and pricing under their MGA (and with them they are willing to manipulate the situation to ensure they dont need Axa's approval) so do you count that as an Axa policy or a Towergate one? Likewise Towergate Underwriting have other MGAs with a consortium of end insurers taking ~20% each, so is this Towergate to you or some weird mix of RSA, Axa, Allianz, Pinnacle and Aviva or whoever else makes up their consortium these days?

I do agree insurance is complex and that not all consumers understand the difference between broker, mga, insurer etc but that doesnt mean that there isnt competition in the market even if the same companies have different distribution methods and multiple brands etc

Caroline_a

Question following from the OP - would a premium go up following a no-fault claim while the insurers (and police) are still investigating? The other party drove off, but according to both police and insurers is insured. He (so far) has refused to respond to any correspondance. There are 2 witnesses and CCTV to show that it was his fault (he hit a car that was going round a roundabout)

Nodding_Donkey

It will go up until the claim is settled either way. They will then refund any overpayment. As far as the insurance company are concerned it is a fault claim until they make a full recovery but even a non-fault claim will result in a premium increase albeit a small one.

OnanTheBarbarian

Yes, generally until the issue of liability is decided, it remains a pending claim and therefore remains a "fault" matter until your insurer can be certain no third party claim can materialise/ succeed and also that they have recovered any outlay this have incurred due to the incident.