Non Fault Insurance Claim Ripoff

Curvybiker

My apologies if this has been covered before:

Not sure if anyone saw 'Rip Off Britain' this morning, but they had a great story (well not so great really) on Non Fault claims with insurers.
So, someone knocked my motorbike over in a car park the other week. I wasn't even there but there were witnesses and the person admitted liability so I put it in the hands of my insurers to deal with - as that's what we pay insurance for isn't it?

Now according to 'Rip Off Britain', apparently if you make a non fault claim your policy is more than likely to go up and if you make 2 non fault claims then 95% of all insurance companies will definitely put your premium up. (Heaven knows what will happen if you go for a third!) This is because, if you make non fault claims then you are more likely to eventually make a fault claim (eh?) and are more of a risk. (n.b this is not just for motor policies, house ins too I'm afraid!) There are a few companies that apparently don't do this but you should ask before taking out the policy. My insurers (Hastings) did say this probably wouldn't happen, but hah we shall see I guess when my policy is up for renewal. (Oh and the premium can be put up by as much as 50% extra!!!!)
Also, if you do not go through the ins company and sort it between you, you still MUST tell your insurers otherwise this can make your policy null and void and your premiums will still go up.
On top of this, I am without a motorbike for approx. 2 weeks!! Yay me, not!

I was not aware of this before the accident and was wondering if anyone else had come across this? I would very much like MSE to run with this as it is a complete rip off by the insurance companies for sure. It was not my fault in the slightest, the other insurance company and policyholder will cover all costs, but I fear I will still be penalised at sometime in the future over it. :mad:

rs65

Curvybiker wrote: »

I was not aware of this before the accident and was wondering if anyone else had come across this?

It comes up frequently on this forum.

As you say some insurers don't load for a non-fault claim. The TV show did mention 50% but you haven't mentioned that the guy featured was charged 3 or 4% extra.

Aretnap

All sorts of things aren't your fault but can still have an effect on your insurance premium. The fact that you had your car stolen last year. The fact that the area you live in has a high crime or accident rate generally. The fact that you're young and inexperienced or old and doddery. Are all those things rip offs as well, or is it just this one?

Your premium isn't supposed to be based on a moral judgement of you as an individual or about punishing you for bad behaviour. It's down to a cold hearted analysis of the risks, which means that if insurers find that people who've had non-fault* accidents in the past are more likely to make claims in future (and there are a number of reasons why that might be true) then they'll facctor that into their pricing.

*Or at least accidents which were recorded as non-fault. That doesn't always mean that there wasn't more the driver could have done to prevent the accident, as with my own "non-fault" accident which occurred when I cut into a line of queuing traffic at speed and slammed the brakes on... and the guy behind didn't brake as hard as I did. Perhaps that's one clue as to why people who've had "non-fault" accidents might make more claims than people who've had no accidents at all.

Curvybiker

rs65 wrote: »

It comes up frequently on this forum.

As you say some insurers don't load for a non-fault claim. The TV show did mention 50% but you haven't mentioned that the guy featured was charged 3 or 4% extra.

Absolutely, but my point was that insurers can put the premium up by as much as 50% after the first non fault claim, although I think that 10% is more likely the norm as was also mentioned.
And to repeat after the first non fault claim 95% of all insurance companies WILL put the premium up.

In my circle of friends most people were not aware of this, hence my post to highlight it, apologies to all again for repetition.

Quentin

The important thing to realise about all this is that when you have a non fault claim to remember to disclose it when getting new quotes.


There are many threads from those that didn't, then got found out when their history was checked up on leading to issues with their insurer suspecting this was deliberately omitted.

forgotmyname

They can increase your premium 5000% or even refuse to insure you.

Nothing stopping you moving to a company that will insure you and for less money.

Is it a ripoff or just the fact you park your bike in a risky area?

Curvybiker

forgotmyname wrote: »

They can increase your premium 5000% or even refuse to insure you.

Nothing stopping you moving to a company that will insure you and for less money.

Is it a ripoff or just the fact you park your bike in a risky area?

Because the new company will eventually realise that they can charge more just like the other companies and then ALL will be at it. It should be regulated, updated, investigated or whatever, as I am likely to be penalised for just doing the honest thing and reporting it.

My bike was parked in a hotel car park in a parking bay - didn't think that was particularly risky. Bikers get told off for parking on pavements but I can understand why they do it now, better to get told off than have a damaged bike. Maybe I just shouldn't go out and keep it in my garage.

Curvybiker

Aretnap wrote: »

All sorts of things aren't your fault but can still have an effect on your insurance premium......... Are all those things rip offs as well, or is it just this one?

Your premium isn't supposed to be based on a moral judgement of you as an individual or about punishing you for bad behaviour. It's down to a cold hearted analysis of the risks, which means that if insurers find that people who've had non-fault* accidents in the past are more likely to make claims in future (and there are a number of reasons why that might be true) then they'll facctor that into their pricing..................

Insurers should not be able to have 'Carte Blanche' on premiums. Who is to say that 'insurers find that people who've had non-fault* accidents in the past are more likely to make claims in future'? Maybe it just them grasping the opportunity to make more money. And equally should we all be tarred with the same brush if this is proved to be the case?
I have been extremely fortunate in that in all my 37 years of driving, I have never made a claim on my motor insurance; although I did make a claim on my house insurance 7 years ago as I was burgled. This, therefore is my only contact with a motor insurance company and none of the accident was my fault - I wasn't even present at the time.
They are prejudging me and then expecting me to pay more for something that may never happen again. A ripoff in no uncertain terms.

tberry6686

Insurance risk is calculated on statistics. Statistically if you have a non fault accident then you are more likely to have another claim therefore risk is increased and so premium increases. Seems simple enough to me

Curvybiker

tberry6686 wrote: »

Insurance risk is calculated on statistics. Statistically if you have a non fault accident then you are more likely to have another claim therefore risk is increased and so premium increases. Seems simple enough to me

Who controls the statistics?
And the point is that even if you do not claim (Non Fault or Fault) you have to report it to your Insurance company and they can then put your premium up? If you do not make a claim why do you have to tell them, how can your risk be increased if you have not claimed? Maybe not so simple just a ripoff.

Aretnap

Curvybiker wrote: »

Who is to say that 'insurers find that people who've had non-fault* accidents in the past are more likely to make claims in future'?

Nobody, other than insurers themselves, and the marketplace. Any more than anybody is checking that drivers with speeding convictions are more likely to claim than those without them, or that drivers in central Brimingham really do make more claims than those in rural Devon. The market is quite competitive on price though, more so than ever now most people buy insurance through price comparison websites, and if an insurer is overcharging a certain section of the population it just means that that section of the population will insure with someone else instead.

Maybe it just them grasping the opportunity to make more money.

Ah, the old canard of "it's just an excuse to put up your premium". Which makes no sense at all, actually. Hastings don't need an excuse to put up your premium, and if they wanted to put it up by 100% they could do so for any reason or no reason at all. But why would they? All it would achieve is that they'd have one less customer and Admiral (or someone) would have one more. That's no advantage to them at all, unless they do think that you're particularly likely to make a claim.

And equally should we all be tarred with the same brush if this is proved to be the case?

Because that's how it works. Mainstream insurers ask a limited number of questions, and make their best estimate of risk based on that rather limited amount of information that you give them. If you'd prefer a more bespoke approach you could go to someone like Lloyds of London, sit down with your underwriter over tea and biscuits, chat in detail about your driving history and the circumstances of your accident and see if he thinks it marks you out as a higher risk. but you would obviously pay a premium for that level of personalised service - a lot more than the extra tenner that Hastings' computer might want to charge you because you ticked the "no fault accident" box.

I have been extremely fortunate in that in all my 37 years of driving, I have never made a claim on my motor insurance; although I did make a claim on my house insurance 7 years ago as I was burgled. This, therefore is my only contact with a motor insurance company and none of the accident was my fault - I wasn't even present at the time.
They are prejudging me and then expecting me to pay more for something that may never happen again. A ripoff in no uncertain terms.

If you've been driving for 37 years without making a claim then you're probably paying substantially less than the average motorist pays for car insurance. And if your premium does go up by a few percent as a result of this, you'll still be paying substantially less than most motorists. If that's your idea of being ripped off, you must have led a fortunate life.