Is it wrong to charge higher premiums to victims of car and traffic crime

Bryinwim

We have recently been charged an extra 40% on top of our annual premium due to someone else driving into our parked car...we are a victim and now the insurance companies deem this to be a 'at fault' claim...this is wrong how can this be our fault....I suggest 3 categories instead of the current 2 'at fault' & 'non fault' claims. The additional categories should include 'victims claims' this then includes victims of hit and run, uninsured drivers and vandalism. Categorise claims correctly and fairly and stop victims of crime feeling even more like victims by the insurance companies telling them it is their fault...someone else drove into your car - someone else is uninsured - someone else vandalised your car how can you be 'at fault'.

FutureGirl

'at fault' doesn't mean it in the literal sense of being at fault of something with regards to car insurance.

You still made a claim on your car insurance.

Bryinwim

Why not try and make a difference and stop victims being categorised incorrectly - Go to 'all government petitions' on google then search 'Stop higher premiums being charged to victims of car and traffic crime'

Bryinwim

Why call it 'at fault' then...it is incorrect classification..lumped together with claimants who have caused an accident.

FutureGirl

Like I already said 'at fault' doesn't mean it in the literal sense.

You still made a claim on your insurance policy, and they cannot recover those costs. You had a policy, you wanted them to pay out to they did. Because they can't revoker their costs that is why it's called a fault claim.

Quentin

Bryinwim wrote: »

Why call it 'at fault' then...it is incorrect classification..lumped together with claimants who have caused an accident.

You misunderstand the use of the word "fault" in relation to claims.


This "fault" is nothing to do with "blame"


If you have comprehensive cover and use it to make a claim for damage to your own vehicle your insurer will call this a "fault" claim - as they have had to pay out.


If they subsequently are able to get reimbursed all their costs (off a third party) then your claim is reclassified as "non fault".


In the case where you are damaged by an unidentified third party, or uninsured party without any assets etc then you do have a "fault" claim on your record. (Though you consider your self "blameless" that is irrelevant as you have made a claim)

Bryinwim

So if it is as you say a 'fault' claim how and why does this justify a 40% increase in premium, I personally am at no higher risk than anyone else for a hit and run or an uninsured driver driving into me. The insurance industry will say that statistically I am at a higher risk of making another claim in the future!!! Possibly because I might live in an area where there are more uninsured drivers? Or I is it because I am more likely to park car my car in an area where someone else is more likely to crash into my car and not own up to it...this is not right I and so do all responsible drivers pay a annual premium to cover these costs 'in case' of an incident. We should not be penalised for being a victim, I agree the insurance company can't revoke the costs from a third party, but surely 'non fault' claims and 'fault claims carry different weights (different additions to your premium). So the insurance industry choose to lump you into a higher risk category to charge you a higher premium. This again doesn't seem like a fair categorisation. I'm sure it is very complex when it comes to looking at statistics but they can also be very easily manipulated in favour of a premium increase...

McKneff

My 2 incidents a couple of years ago were classed as non fault incident. I claimed directly from the guilty paty's insurance and my premiums didn't go up either.
Some companies don't up the premiums.

Quentin

Bryinwim wrote: »

So if it is as you say a 'fault' claim how and why does this justify a 40% increase in premium, I personally am at no higher risk than anyone else for a hit and run or an uninsured driver driving into me. The insurance industry will say that statistically I am at a higher risk of making another claim in the future!!! Possibly because I might live in an area where there are more uninsured drivers? Or I is it because I am more likely to park car my car in an area where someone else is more likely to crash into my car and not own up to it...this is not right I and so do all responsible drivers pay a annual premium to cover these costs 'in case' of an incident. We should not be penalised for being a victim, I agree the insurance company can't revoke the costs from a third party, but surely 'non fault' claims and 'fault claims carry different weights (different additions to your premium). So the insurance industry choose to lump you into a higher risk category to charge you a higher premium. This again doesn't seem like a fair categorisation. I'm sure it is very complex when it comes to looking at statistics but they can also be very easily manipulated in favour of a premium increase...

What difference do you see it making if you had your third category for claims by victims of crime?


All it would mean is extra admin for insurers , which we would all have to pay for.


Someone with a completely claim free record has cost the insurer less than an identical profile customer who has been the victim of crime/blameless claims and obviously deserves a lower premium.


But shop round at renewal time for the best deal and you should be able to "negate" the 40% loading you say your fault claim(s) have added - though unless you have protected your NCD, then isn't the increase mainly down to lost NCD?

Quentin

McKneff wrote: »

My 2 incidents a couple of years ago were classed as non fault incident. I claimed directly from the guilty paty's insurance and my premiums didn't go up either.
Some companies don't up the premiums.

The OP has a "fault" claim!


(There was no third party to claim from)

rudekid48

Insurers are commercial entities and entitled to price as they see fit. You were a bad customer - they lost money on you - so the upped your premiums. You can still shop around and go with another.

You paid for cover, you used the cover, the price changed. It really is that simple.