Non Fault Insurance Claim Ripoff

Curvybiker

Aretnap wrote: »

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.

The Rip Off I am trying to refer to is the whole scheme of 'tell the ins. companies of any mishaps because it gives them a justification to increase premiums' not just my personal situation, but it has come to light because of my situation.

Yep I have indeed led a fortunate life, I acknowledge that and yes my premium being increased by a few pounds or so is not a hardship for me luckily, but my 17 year old daughter has not had that privilege yet (only 17 years fortunate so far). So, when some doofus damages her little Nissan Micra that she worked her butt off at Tescos to buy (in between her school work) and she tells the Insurance company of this non fault, her premium will I fear substantially increase, and you can imagine how much she is paying already. This is where the unfairness of it all comes in to being; no wrong doing on my/her part but eventually penalised for it and it is irrelevant of the %age of the increase - no fault should mean no fault! Not, well we have pushed a little button and now the computer says you are a risk to us for just telling us the truth. No wonder people do not insure themselves and just take a chance on not being discovered. I am incredulous that you or indeed anyone feels this is acceptable and part of the 'well we have to just put up with it because that's what the insurers do' culture, 'it's their policies so hey ho'! We are forced to procure insurance and yet not be allowed a say in how this is carried out or supplied to us?

The system should be more regulated, if it is at all. Just saying 'well if you don't like it go elsewhere', should not be a cop out for them, we shouldn't have to resort to that as it should be fair to start with.

Quentin

"No fault" doesn't mean no blame. It means that the insurer was able to get full recompense from the other side.


So a driver with a "clean" record does normally pay less than a driver with no fault claim(s).


Someone who hasn't troubled their insurer at all deserves recognition.

rs65

Curvybiker wrote: »

The system should be more regulated, if it is at all.

The insurance industry is quite heavily regulated. I wouldn't want pricing more regulated - I prefer a competitive market.

James_B.

Curvybiker wrote: »

Because the new company will eventually realise that they can charge more just like the other companies and then ALL will be at it.

And then the one company who decides not to penalise you as much will get all of the business, and everyone else will have to lower their prices to compete...

The law is not (generally) brought in to play when a company decides how much to charge for a service, and insurance companies do not seem to make vast profits from motor or bike insurance nowadays. If insurance companies thought that the market would accept them doubling all premiums then they'd probably already have done it. There are still a decent number of companies commpeting for business, so it makes no sense to think that they'll all just move in lockstep, especially in these days when everyone uses price comparison sites and goes with the lowest quote.

James_B.

Curvybiker wrote: »

Who controls the statistics?.

Customers who have claims, and those who don't. That's what the statistics are, just the net figures for who is most likely to be in each class, and how likely they are to claim various amounts in the next year.

James_B.

Curvybiker wrote: »

So, when some doofus damages her little Nissan Micra that she worked her butt off at Tescos to buy (in between her school work) and she tells the Insurance company of this non fault, her premium will I fear substantially increase

What a miserabilist view!

You could just as well turn this around, and be grateful that until it happened, she's unfairly paying less than she should be.

As above, the companies are not making large profits, and it's quite a competitive business, so the only way to not load extra for non-fault claims would be to charge you, and her, in advance, even when you've not made a claim. Given your record, you'd have been paying more every year since you started driving under your preferred scheme.

Curvybiker

Quentin wrote: »

"No fault" doesn't mean no blame. It means that the insurer was able to get full recompense from the other side.


So a driver with a "clean" record does normally pay less than a driver with no fault claim(s).


Someone who hasn't troubled their insurer at all deserves recognition.

You must inform your insurer of any accident, therefore you have to contact them or in your words 'trouble them', (even if both parties do not go through their insurers and settle it themselves) and you are then potentially damned for this action. It is unbelievable to hear that someone who is made to comply with this rule and completely faultless in the incident is then not deserved of recognition as a driver with a 'clean' record.

Curvybiker

rs65 wrote: »

The insurance industry is quite heavily regulated. I wouldn't want pricing more regulated - I prefer a competitive market.

I have no idea if the insurance industry is heavily regulated and I am not asking for a price regulation. A competitive market is always the best option, but if there are unfair or ambiguous rules then maybe someone should be keeping a closer eye on it. (As I recall, the FSA was supposedly heavily regulated a while back and that blew up in everyone's faces.)

TSx

The insurance industry is competitive (which doesn't necessarily equal affordable). The same arguments come up when charges are mentioned. Each company will have it's own view on none-fault claims likely to be backed up by their own statistics. The pricing model used by British insurers is very sophisticated and will be geared around providing the lowest possible premium to individuals as cost is the number one factor which motor insurance is purchased on.

However you price things, the total income will still need to be the same to provide a profit. You could either have (a very simplified example) a driver with a none-fault claim paying an average of £150 and a driver with no incidents at all paying an average of £100, or you could have all drivers paying an average of £125.

If the statistics back this up (and each company will have their own confidential statistics to draw a conclusion from) then is it really a rip off to adjust the premiums accordingly?

Curvybiker

James_B. wrote: »

What a miserabilist view!

You could just as well turn this around, and be grateful that until it happened, she's unfairly paying less than she should be.

As above, the companies are not making large profits, and it's quite a competitive business, so the only way to not load extra for non-fault claims would be to charge you, and her, in advance, even when you've not made a claim. Given your record, you'd have been paying more every year since you started driving under your preferred scheme.

James, I do not agree that by fearing my daughter's policy may increase is a 'miserabilists' view when it has been proven to be the case on the program 'Rip Off Britain'.
And I can only assume that you must own an insurance company when you can state 'the companies are not making large profits' to know such a fact. So congratulations to you, as companies do not hang around long that are not making substantial profits in my opinion, and most insurers that I have dealt with have been in business for many, many years.
Also, as an insurance company owner you would be well aware of the huge sum that a 17year old is expected to pay; so 'unfairly paying less and being grateful for it' is, if you don't mind me saying, somewhat laughable.
And why on earth would anyone load a policy because their client may possibly declare a non-fault claim? Why does there need to be a charge at all, this is my point? The person at fault pays everything required of him/her, the insurance company has taken the upfront fee in the hope that a claim isn't made but lost the bet and stumps up the remainder. Apart from the person at fault being penalised in some way in the future, that should be it.

A non fault claim (or disclosure) should be a non fault claim (or disclosure) with no penalties attached. A fault claim on the other hand - yes.