Admiral charge for no fault claims

Walse

Please be aware that Admiral are one of a few insurers who weight their premiums for no fault claims. Whilst with Admiral, I was hit from behind. The other driver admitted full responsibility & his insurance paid out. The cost to Admiral was zero & my no claims bonus was intact. Despite all that, my renewal premium was increased by the "claim". A quick comparison site search to compare quotes with & without the claim revealed that Admiral is one of a few insurers who do this. I've written to them to explain my disgust to no avail. I now intend to share my thoughts with the regulator in the hope that I can effect change. Vote with your feet folks. Let's hope that this amoral practice will be perceived in a similar way to PPI in the future.

Quentin

The "regulator" cannot interfere with how insurers rate applicants, so don't waste your time.


Your research is tainted as you have fed in different details yet claimed them both to be accurate!


(Take care when playing with quotes online, and use dummy details otherwise you are seen as maybe fraudulently trying to manipulate which is the best profile to have irrespective of the truth.)


Just do as advised on MSE and never renew, always shop round if you are looking for the cheapest deal.

SeduLOUs

Walse wrote: »

The cost to Admiral was zero & my no claims bonus was intact. Despite all that, my renewal premium was increased by the "claim".

Did your renewal specifically state that the renewal was increased because of the 'claim'?

It's perfectly normal for the vast majority of insurers to massively bump up prices at renewal, so it probably would have jumped whether you'd had a claim or not. They make money out of apathy and the only way to avoid it is to shop around every year.

dunstonh

Please be aware that Admiral are one of a few insurers who weight their premiums for no fault claims.

Its not a few. Lots do.

I now intend to share my thoughts with the regulator in the hope that I can effect change.

1 - the regulator does not consider individual consumer issues.
2 - the regulator does not get involved in commercial pricing issues.

Let's hope that this amoral practice will be perceived in a similar way to PPI in the future.

its not amoral. It wont be viewed as PPI. Totally different.

Statistically, people involved in an accident, even no fault, are more likely to suffer another claim in the short term after.

stator

Most insurers consider that you are more likely to have another accident, even if the first one wasn't your fault. It's just a statistical thing.

Walse

Thanks for your replies everyone; all very sensible & duly noted.

I was initially alerted to Admiral's pricing policy when my wife addressed her insurance due to a new car & added me as a named driver. She was told that the information she had provided was incorrect as she had said I was claim free (a genuine error having assumed a zero-cost fault-free claim didn't count). When the quote was re-run, the premium had tangibly increased.

Thanks for the tip re. use of the comparison sites to understand how the industry perceives risk. I often "tweak" my quotes to see what difference variable voluntary excesses make for example. I presume that this is an accepted practice? It does often seem like you're haggling in a bazaar when phone sales people have the leeway to flex premiums. As several people have implied, there are no prizes for loyalty; shop around every year.

I realise the futility of involving the regulator in terms of changing the industry, but find it cathartic to vent. However, I also believe that market forces may have an effect if the public knows which insurers do load their premiums in this way (hence my post here); there are many who don't.

SeduLOUs

Walse wrote: »

Thanks for the tip re. use of the comparison sites to understand how the industry perceives risk. I often "tweak" my quotes to see what difference variable voluntary excesses make for example.

Yes that's absolutely fine, as it trying out different levels or cover, models of cars and different named drivers.

Playing around with different addresses or who might be the main driver will look suspicious though, and they'll think you're generally up to no good or possibly fronting.

McKneff

Did you deal directly with the third pary's insurance people.


Even if you did there still would have been some cost to your insurance company.
Taking your call, logging it, calculating your next premium. etc etc etc. There will have been some cost for this. Nothing is free these days.

Cornucopia

I had a very similar experience with Admiral a few years ago.

No fault claim, settled in full by the third party's insurers. But come renewal Admiral doubled my premium from just over £300 to over £600. Of course, the claim hadn't affected my NCD, so as soon as I hit the comparison sites, I was back to c. £300 premiums.

Parking_Trouble

Walse wrote: »

Thanks for your replies everyone; all very sensible & duly noted.

I was initially alerted to Admiral's pricing policy when my wife addressed her insurance due to a new car & added me as a named driver. She was told that the information she had provided was incorrect as she had said I was claim free (a genuine error having assumed a zero-cost fault-free claim didn't count). When the quote was re-run, the premium had tangibly increased.

Thanks for the tip re. use of the comparison sites to understand how the industry perceives risk. I often "tweak" my quotes to see what difference variable voluntary excesses make for example. I presume that this is an accepted practice? It does often seem like you're haggling in a bazaar when phone sales people have the leeway to flex premiums. As several people have implied, there are no prizes for loyalty; shop around every year.

I realise the futility of involving the regulator in terms of changing the industry, but find it cathartic to vent. However, I also believe that market forces may have an effect if the public knows which insurers do load their premiums in this way (hence my post here); there are many who don't.

They ask if you have had any claims or accidents in the past nn years. Fault and non-fault.

Bear in mind that car insurance in mandatory (consumers over a barrel) and there is lots of competition so the insurers (esp the "Pirate" Group) have to come up with ways to reel you in with "cheap" offers and then find ways to squeeze more money out of you.

The insurance boys on here will tell you that even with non-fault accident you are statistically at greater risk of causing an accident in the future. Therefore your premium goes up.

Something related to lies, damned lies and statistics.

Cornucopia

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

The insurance boys on here will tell you that even with non-fault accident you are statistically at greater risk of causing an accident in the future. Therefore your premium goes up.

You are missing the point.

It is that Admiral increases renewal premiums for non-fault accidents disproportionately to the general marketplace. That's their prerogative, but it's not directly about increased risk, because the other companies you could move your policy to don't seem bothered.

That means that all a driver needs to know is that they can potentially save money after a no-fault accident under an Admiral policy by shopping around. That's sound advice anyway, especially in the context of MSE.