Car Insurance Is Now Becoming Ridiculous

DUTR

stevepb101 wrote: »

No,but surely all the costs are paid by the person at faults insurance company and the person not at fault does not pay or suffer financially afterwards,that is right.

You have to also look at the bigger picture.... when the markets were good insurance was cheap as the companies could invest the premiums and profit from that, with a weaker market they have to profit from premiums and lowering payout risks. Ideally I would imagine they don't want to have anybody claim.

shaun_from_Africa

stevepb101 wrote: »

So you would be happy,and think it's right,that if somebody hits your car even if you are not in it at the time,you will pay more insurance next year because of that??

If my house got flooded due to weather then my insurer will pay out for the damage.
However, because my house now poses a higher risk to the insurer, they will increase my future premiums.

Vehicle insurance is no different.
If my car is parked outside my house and someone drives into it because it's near a bend or on a road that ices over easily, insurance will pay out (either my insurance or the insurance of the other driver, assuming that they weren't uninsured).
From that day on, I will be statistically more likely to make another claim so the policy rises to reflect this increased risk.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

There are a couple of issues: although you have had a no fault accident, the insurers presumably also consider that accidents are normally avoidable by anticipation, and a significant percentage of no fault accidents probably have factors that aren't adjudicated due to lack of evidence - e.g. driving at 35mph in a 30mph is what a lot of drivers do and yet they would feel that if someone pulled out on them, they were entirely not at fault.

Put another way, I doubt you'll find many advanced motorcyclists who have been in accidents because it hurts too much to claim your priority with aggressive riding.

In terms of no claim/no blame, I have an enquiry outstanding with the FCA about the evolution of the insurance industry and how it operates now is out of step with the perception of the general public. It's not that I don't think it is wrong per se to adjust base premiums, but I completely understand why people feel that if they have earned NCD and retained it, then they have earned protection from premium rises. You will not find a clear, easy to understand explanation of how total premiums are derived on any insurer website, which to me is against consumer law.

The problem comes from the days before computers where it was all filing cabinets in Lloyds and they simply didn't try and take everything into account. I suspect Direct Line were the instigators with their novel product when they entered the market with those new fangled computers and call centres.

Warwick_Hunt

stevepb101 wrote: »

No,but surely all the costs are paid by the person at faults insurance company and the person not at fault does not pay or suffer financially afterwards,that is right.

So you pay £300 a year for cover and write off a £30,000 car, where's the £29,700 coming from?

Aylesbury_Duck

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

So you pay £300 a year for cover and write off a £30,000 car, where's the £29,700 coming from?

...and possibly face an injury claim from a third party which could dwarf that.

stevepb101

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

So you pay £300 a year for cover and write off a £30,000 car, where's the £29,700 coming from?

From the other drivers insurance company if I'm not at fault

Car_54

IanMSpencer wrote: »

you will not find a clear, easy to understand explanation of how total premiums are derived on any insurer website, which to me is against consumer law

Which particular law did you have in mind?

I can't think of any supplier (of any goods or services) who explains how his prices are arrived at.

Warwick_Hunt

stevepb101 wrote: »

From the other drivers insurance company if I'm not at fault

But if he's only paying £200, where's the rest coming from?

Aylesbury_Duck

stevepb101 wrote: »

From the other drivers insurance company if I'm not at fault

What if you were at fault? Would you be happy to have the £30k loaded onto your premiums for however long it took to pay it off?

EdGasketTheSecond

stevepb101 wrote: »

One of my mates was across the other side of his road talking to a friend,it had been snowing,a bit icy etc when a women driving along the road skidded and hit his car.
There were around 30 cars parked up on both sides of his road and she could have hit any one of those but unfortunately it was his.
On renewal he was told his premium was raised by £200 due to his 'claim' ??
How can they say he is 'statistically' a bigger risk when he was no where near his car and nothing to do with him??
Years ago this would have had no effect whatsoever on his premium and it is totally ridiculous and a money making exercise and surely no one can agree with this and think it's right???

Your mate obviously has bad karma and is therefore a higher risk.