Confusion about declaring incident

EdGasket

I have several cars and drivers on my policies. If one of the drivers has an incident on one policy and I am penalised on that policy, e.g. lose NCB, then do I also have to declare that incident on another policy where the same driver is also insured but on which I have made no claims, and presumably get penalised on there as well?

Also when the insurance questionaire asks about any 'incidents' in the last 5 years are they referring to the driver or the policy? So for instance do I declare the incident as a policyholder when entering my own details even though it was a named driver that had the incident, or do I only declare the incident when entering the named driver details? If the driver who had the incident is no longer on my policy, do I even have to declare it?

arcon5

Yes all incidents irrespective of fault and who paid out or why for a driver need to be declared to any insurer that asks about that insured person

Rolandtheroadie

Wife's just wrote off my car, she's a named driver on the policy.

From now on, my thoughts are I'll be declaring a claim on my policy, and an accident for her. Same incident but possibly hits the premium twice.

I'm also going to have to declare the claim on my policy to my 2 other insurers.

Not ran any dummy quotes to see what difference it makes yet.

Quentin

EdGasket wrote: »

I have several cars and drivers on my policies. If one of the drivers has an incident on one policy and I am penalised on that policy, e.g. lose NCB, then do I also have to declare that incident on another policy where the same driver is also insured but on which I have made no claims, and presumably get penalised on there as well?

Also when the insurance questionaire asks about any 'incidents' in the last 5 years are they referring to the driver or the policy? So for instance do I declare the incident as a policyholder when entering my own details even though it was a named driver that had the incident, or do I only declare the incident when entering the named driver details? If the driver who had the incident is no longer on my policy, do I even have to declare it?

Rolandtheroadie wrote: »

Wife's just wrote off my car, she's a named driver on the policy.

From now on, my thoughts are I'll be declaring a claim on my policy, and an accident for her. Same incident but possibly hits the premium twice.

I'm also going to have to declare the claim on my policy to my 2 other insurers.

Not ran any dummy quotes to see what difference it makes yet.

You only need to declare it once per policy:


On any policy she remains as a named driver then you only declare the claim under her history.


For any policies that she is not a named driver on, then you declare the claim.

EdGasket

Quentin wrote: »

You only need to declare it once:


On any policy she remains as a named driver then you only declare the claim under her history.


For any policies that she is not a named driver on, then you declare the claim.

That doesn't make sense. You say you only declare it once but then proceed to explain that you need to declare it twice i.e. once for the named driver on a policy where she is the named driver and then on your own policy as well?

So why is it that when you start off a second policy, you begin with no claims and have to build it up, that you have to declare on that 'independent' policy, a claim from the original policy on which you have already been penalised?

Seems like the insurers are having their cake and eating it because they won't let you use the NCB built up on policy 1 on new policy 2 but if you have an incident on one policy then both are affected. Is that right?

arcon5

Because that independent policy uses the data to assess risk on renewal,
Yes you declare a claim you have made and an accident the named driver has had. Usually though during a quote they can be done as a single entry...

bowlhead99

EdGasket wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. You say you only declare it once but then proceed to explain that you need to declare it twice i.e. once for the named driver on a policy where she is the named driver and then on your own policy as well?

It does make sense but you might be missing the subtlety.

Rolandtheroadie said 'same incident but possibly hits the policy twice' when he reports a claim on his policy and an accident for her.

Quentin said no, you are only going to declare it on any particular policy once, so it will hit any one policy, once. It may of course hit other policies too.

In other words, if your wife writes off your car and you're buying insurance for another car she's named on, you can put it under her history - yes she has an accident to report from when she drove into a tree, which resulted in a £10,000 claim ; but you don't need to also put in £10,000 in your own 'do you have any claims' part of that same policy application. It does not need to 'hit the policy twice'.

Similarly if you're buying insurance for a car she's not named on, you would have to say yes I have indeed had some claims in the last 3 years, I claimed £10,000 for a car accident when my wife drove into a tree.

In both cases, the prospective car insurance policy is going to be hit with the impact of one claim. If wife was going to be a named driver on five of your cars, that's five cars whose basic premiums are loaded - they are going to be hit with some sort of price impact of her accident because the £10,000 will be written in a box under her name on the form. If she instead gives up driving and you are still insuring five cars, that's five cars whose basic premium is going to be hit with some sort of price impact of the fact that you are the kind of person who has made large claims, because the £10,000 will be written in a box under your name on the form, you can't pretend it never happened.

But in either case, the same incident only loads the base premium once not twice because you only put it on the form in one place. Rolandtheroadie feared he would have to declare it twice on one form, and 'double load' the premium for that car - which Quentin said is not the case and I agree with that.

So why is it that when you start off a second policy, you begin with no claims and have to build it up, that you have to declare on that 'independent' policy, a claim from the original policy on which you have already been penalised?

Entirely separately from the premium loading, you have a no-claims bonus if you are succesfully able to string 12 months together without a claim, and it gets greater the longer you go without claiming on that particular vehicle.

So if you had three years NCB on Car A, B, C, D and five years on Car E, but then your wife crashed Car C, the three years NCB on Car A, B, D and five years on Car E are still intact. But if you didn't pay extra for protected NCB status on Car C then that particular NCB will drop down.

Then if you want your wife to still be on all five polices next year, the basic premium for all of them will be loaded up, because she has a bad track record. However, you will still get your bonuses (discounts off the basic premium) for all of the cars apart from C, because as you say, you built them up and earned them independently.

So for example Car A and Car C were both £1000 base premium but you never see that figure because they both had 3yrs NCD(40% discount) for a net price of £600.

Next year Car A increases to £1100 basic premium because of inflation and the wife's dodgy accident record or your extravagant claim history, but Car A is now up to 4 yrs NCD (50% discount), so its net price is £550, so it's actually cheaper than it used to be. While Car C is £1100 with zero NCB, so at £1100 it's a lot more than the £600 it used to be.

Seems like the insurers are having their cake and eating it because they won't let you use the NCB built up on policy 1 on new policy 2 but if you have an incident on one policy then both are affected. Is that right?

Some insurers will 'match' an NCB on your main car by giving you a discount on another car if they're keen to get your business, but it won't become a transferrable bonus - those have to be built up independently, as you know.

It sounds like a pain to be back at the start on the second car. But the upside is that when you lose some no claims status on your tatty Fiesta because you pranged it in a busy supermarket, you don't also lose status on your Jaguar and might still be getting a discount of 50-70% on the core price of that policy. You would of course need to tell the Jaguar insurers that you or your wife are the type of people who have prangs in supermarket carparks, and so you might suffer the core price going up, but you are still getting the 70% off whatever that core price goes up to if the Jag has never had a scratch on it.

So in summary yes you are right, you can't use your bonuses on the cars you haven't earned them on, but in absence of incident those bonuses will tick up year by year and you don't lose those bonuses on the cars you haven't claimed on. When you or the wife crashes a car and you need to claim on "Car C", you do need to tell Admiral and Direct Line and Tesco who insure Car A,B,D,E that you recently claimed £10,000 off Aviva for driving into a wall - it is highly relevant to their assessment of the risk of insuring you and all of them are right to load the premiums against you. Because I don't want them loading my premiums when you are the one that's getting £10,000 cheques off the insurance industry.

EdGasket

Thanks for your detailed reply which I understand. I still find it unfair that an independent policy should be affected though; it means anyone with more than one policy will be hit harder than someone with just one policy.

bowlhead99

EdGasket wrote: »

Thanks for your detailed reply which I understand. I still find it unfair that an independent policy should be affected though; it means anyone with more than one policy will be hit harder than someone with just one policy.

I do see your point. But of course someone who gets a reputation for buying a lot of insurance policies and needing to claim on them is going to have a more expensive time buying insurance policies than someone who's only had one policy he ever claimed on.

Thing is, if you don't put all those accident prone, claim prone people on a policy in your name, you're immune to the effects of them needing to claim. And if you don't want to be immune, and are willing to let their record taint yours (because, for example, you get a deal when bulk-buying insurance policies, or because getting separate insurance policies for those other family members would be prohibitively expensive if you let them be independently assessed for risk and have them buy their own policies), then you have to take the rough with the smooth.

Anything financial is like that. If I let my crazy ex-wife get a joint loan or mortgage or current account with overdraft with me, ostensibly to save costs, then when she screws it all up by not turning out to be a 'sensible' choice, I might get reamed.

wba31

I found the long response confusing, but in my case it feels like my household is paying twice for my mistake;

I was taking my wife's car to the garage in June, had an incident (my fault). As a named driver the claim goes through her insurance policy.

She loses no claims and her premiums subsequently increase. When shopping for new insurance she has to declare an accident where 3rd party driver on her policy was at fault.

I have to declare the accident when insuring my car, that despite me having protected no claims, i have had an accident in the last 5 years. no doubt my premiums will increase.

bowlhead99

wba31 wrote: »

...had an incident (my fault)...

I have to declare the accident when insuring my car, that despite me having protected no claims, i have had an accident in the last 5 years. no doubt my premiums will increase.

That sounds perfectly normal, if you have accidents where you are at fault, your premiums will increase. They assess that you are a riskier driver than me who didn't have an accident when taking my wife's car to the garage, so I get the standard price and you get a higher price.

As an aside, you have not claimed on the policy on your car and so whether or not you have paid extra to protect the no claims bonus on your car, you will still get your discount on your car because the policy has had no claims. The reward for no claims on a policy is an increasing level of discount every year (to a point where it plateaus).

As a named driver the claim goes through her insurance policy.

She loses no claims and her premiums subsequently increase.

Makes sense that as a claim goes through her insurance policy then she will lose no claims bonus if she didn't pay to protect it. After all, you don't lose your no claims because you didn't claim against your insurance policy; she claimed against hers so she does.

When shopping for new insurance she has to declare an accident where 3rd party driver on her policy was at fault.

If she is shopping for new insurance for her own car and is asked have you had any accidents or claims in last few years and how expensive were they, then clearly she is going to have to say yes I had to claim on a previous policy because one of my family members crashed my car and I didn't want to fix everything myself out of my own pocket - so it caused my insurer to have to pay out £5000.


The way to not have your mistakes mess up her policy is not to be a named driver on her policy - have her be the only named driver and perhaps just you driving her car occasionally via an extension of the third party coverage on your own insurance policy. Then if you screw up, she's fine. However if you want comprehensive cover when driving her car and you want her insurers to pay out for your accidents, then clearly she is going to get a reputation for making claims on her policy when she has to claim on her policy for your accidents.

Does that make it any less confusing?