Norwich Union -Car Ins HELP!!

movilogo

The golden rule, if you don't intend to claim, never inform your insurer of any accident or incident.

Same incidents have been discussed here many times. On each case, the end users have been penalized for their honesty, which is no longer the best policy.

[Deleted User]

70sven wrote: »

Beccus

I hope you can help me with regards to my wife's problem with NU.

She has been a satisfied customer for the past 4/5 years, no accidents, no claims. She received her latest renewal in April also enclosed was a revised policy extract - not one sheet but a 6 page brochure with many revised terms - we looked at the first few pages and thought it was a typical rewording to cover changes in the law.
Now in October my daughter is learning to drive and my wife would like to pass the car on, my daughter has shopped around for her own insurance and found direct Line to be the cheapest for new drivers. So we rang up to cancel my wife's insurance and we were told we would have to pay £52.50 to cover the adminstration for setting up the policy, she is more than half way through how can it be a flat charge. I have checked my wife's current policy with Ford Insure and there is no mention of a cancellation charge.
It was mentioned in the revised policy extract that it was updated to suit the Financial Services Act but why does it only affect Norwich Union.

Hi
I'm happy to investigate this for you, as far as I am aware we do have cancellation charges written into the policies, but if you want to email me the details i can clairfy further for you.

My email address is [EMAIL="rebecca.sibley@norwich-union.co.uk"]rebecca.sibley@norwich-union.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Becca

nickmack

movilogo wrote: »

The golden rule, if you don't intend to claim, never inform your insurer of any accident or incident.

Same incidents have been discussed here many times. On each case, the end users have been penalized for their honesty, which is no longer the best policy.

Bad advice, the reason why the premium may go up is because the risk profile is increased, not because the insurer wants to punish your for honesty.

If you don't inform your insurer when an accident/incident occurs and they subsequently find out (and they do!) you risk claims being rejected or even the policy being cancelled.

SunnyBrighton_2

This is one of those seemingly weird statistics - has anyone any idea why someone who happens to encounter a bad driver, who makes contact with their car, should then be more likely to be the cause of an incident?

Doesn't seem logical to me cap'n ! (But then, I am a woman!)



"I explained this in an earlier post. There is cast-iron statistical evidence that drivers who are involved in a non-fault incident are more likely to be involved in a fault incident. Therefore, higher premiums are charged."

N79

I'm going to try and explain why this is not necessarily wierd. However, I'm not very good at explaining stats so if this confuses you even more then I'm sorry. I am a professional fantast (statistician)! (joke - we always tell the truth).

One of the easiest mistakes to make with statistics is to assume that correlation between what appears to be two independent variables is due to causation (ie one causes the other. In most cases, it is not. IE, as you say

"why someone who happens to encounter a bad driver, who makes contact with their car, should then be more likely to be the cause of an incident?"

The answer is that it does not, but the statistics show that the correlation exists. But one almost certainly does not cause the other. The easiest explaination could be (note could be) that statistically, over the whole population, people who are involved in not at fault accidents drive more than those that are not and since they drive more, even assuming a flat chance of causing an incident they are statistically more likely (have a higher probability) of doing so. Another reason could be that even though you were not at fault, perhaps your driving is less than perfect in some way which made it more likely that you would suffer a not at fault accident. This same fault could make you more likely to cause an incident. It could be the route you drive is intrinsically more dangerous - who knows.

To put it another way, it is too difficult for insurers to understand and quantify these underlying risks. However, they have noted that these unspecified and unidentified risks correlate to both the chance of having an at fault accident and a not at fault accident. When you have a not at fault accident, the insurance company uses this new data to assess your new not at fault accident risk. Since this risk correlates to your risk of having an at fault accident, they also raise this risk, and your premiums.

This mistake is fairly old and there is a Latin logical fallacy which describes it - post hoc ergo proctor hoc - which means coming after, therefore in consequence. However logical it may seem, it is just not true. Hence why the insurance case feels so illogical - but the fault is with our logic.

The second reason why it feels wierd is that you are trying to apply the statistics of populations to an individual case with a definite outcome. The statistics are used purely to indicate probability, and can not be used to predict the outcome in specific cases (only the probability of an outcome).

I hope this helps.

N79

Badger_Lady

You've already had all the right advice above...

You have to declare anything that happens to you, regardless of whether you claim. If you don't declare, your insurance could be deemed invalid in the event of a claim (and therefore not worth the paper it's written on).

I've got a similar issue - thinking about getting Contents Insurance for the first time. Because I'm clued up, I know I have to explain that I had some jewellery stolen from a previous address (by my cleaner) in 2006. I've since moved across the country, sacked the cleaner, and don't own any jewellery (I never got it back). But it still has to be considered a risk on my profile.

Unlucky :-( Just be glad you've still got your NCB intact.

LemonTwist

70sven wrote: »

Beccus

I hope you can help me with regards to my wife's problem with NU.

She has been a satisfied customer for the past 4/5 years, no accidents, no claims. She received her latest renewal in April also enclosed was a revised policy extract - not one sheet but a 6 page brochure with many revised terms - we looked at the first few pages and thought it was a typical rewording to cover changes in the law.
Now in October my daughter is learning to drive and my wife would like to pass the car on, my daughter has shopped around for her own insurance and found direct Line to be the cheapest for new drivers. So we rang up to cancel my wife's insurance and we were told we would have to pay £52.50 to cover the adminstration for setting up the policy, she is more than half way through how can it be a flat charge. I have checked my wife's current policy with Ford Insure and there is no mention of a cancellation charge.
It was mentioned in the revised policy extract that it was updated to suit the Financial Services Act but why does it only affect Norwich Union.

I've got a question about this. If you are an adult and you are passing your car onto your child, is it possible to have the policy transferred to the child, with them as the main driver (ie keeping the same policy number)? Or do you have to cancel the existing policy and set up a brand new one in the child's name, as 70sven has done?

I'm currently studying for my insurance exams, so I'm interested to learn about these things.