Insurance higher despite accidents not our fault

vikingaero

agrinnall wrote: »

If you are unhappy about the pricing policies of insurers you are perfectly at liberty to try to minimise the cost by taking out the minimum cover required by law and self insuring for any additional cover you require.

Sections 143 & 144 of the RTA 1988 deal with insurance or other security:

144 Exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security.

(1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the [F1Senior Courts] the sum of [F2£500,000], at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control.

( 1A )The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above.

Although the Act mentions "a person" I'm fairly sure that an individual cannot deposit a sum and this is restricted to companies/corporations. What normally happens is that companies will deposit the bond, take the hit on claims up to £25,000/£50,000/whatever and then have insurance in place for claims above that.

Car_54

vikingaero wrote: »

Sections 143 & 144 of the RTA 1988 deal with insurance or other security:

144 Exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security.

(1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the [F1Senior Courts] the sum of [F2£500,000], at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner!!!8217;s control.

( 1A )The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above.

Although the Act mentions "a person" I'm fairly sure that an individual cannot deposit a sum and this is restricted to companies/corporations. What normally happens is that companies will deposit the bond, take the hit on claims up to £25,000/£50,000/whatever and then have insurance in place for claims above that.

I don't think agrinnall was suggesting depositing £500k, simply taking out "Road Traffic Act" cover, (which is basically third-party, without the fire and theft), and taking the risk on fire, theft and damage to one's own vehicle. Probably quite difficult to find such cover these days.

And if the Act says "person" that's what it means, though I can't imagine it would make sense for any individual.

wymondham

Had some experience of this. A few years ago my lease car was damaged just before going back. It was damaged in a car park by the range rover that snuggled up to it (I wasn't in the car). I contacted my insurance company and theirs but decided to repair it myself as I didn't know who the other party was (we didn't meet) - regret telling any insurance company now....

Subsequently 4 years later my son has been told if I'm on his insurance it'll cost him £50 a month more due to that incident, when it wasn't my fault and no claim was made ... go figure!

Heads they win, tails we lose!

RichardD1970

vikingaero wrote: »

Sections 143 & 144 of the RTA 1988 deal with insurance or other security:

144 Exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security.

(1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the [F1Senior Courts] the sum of [F2£500,000], at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control.

( 1A )The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above.

Although the Act mentions "a person" I'm fairly sure that an individual cannot deposit a sum and this is restricted to companies/corporations. What normally happens is that companies will deposit the bond, take the hit on claims up to £25,000/£50,000/whatever and then have insurance in place for claims above that.

I may be wrong but I'm sure I've heard/read/saw that the very rich Arab princes that visit the country are known to do this.

AnotherJoe

cjdavies wrote: »

Makes no sense to me either, mine was parked outside my house!

And therefore is more vulnerable and likely to be crashed into than if it was parked on a drive and most likely the location where it's parked is more likely to have similar accidents in future.

Iceweasel

All insurance works the same way.

A claim on your home insurance will result in an increase at the following renewal.

And they similarly ask about claims in the last 3 years if you seek a quote from another insurer.

Statistics apparently prove that if you have a claim then you are more likely to have another than someone who has not claimed.

Who is at fault is of no interest to the insurers.

And as for 'protected' no-claims 'bonus' - a great many people get a surprise when they find out what it really does.

It most certainly does not mean that your premium won't be increased.

Raxiel

cjdavies wrote: »

Makes no sense to me either, mine was parked outside my house!

I've long felt the phrase "Drivers who are involved in a non-fault incident are statistically more likely to be involved in another one" really means "Drivers who submit a claim are more likely to submit another claim instead of paying for damage out of their own pocket" and that's why they charge you more.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I don't think this is a "pure" insurance complaint as from the OP's words it seems that they have chosen not to reveal non-fault accidents due to their belief that they were not relevant. Unfortunately, the insurance industry have evolved a concept that if you've had one claim you are more likely to have another.

For the OP's benefit, what I will agree with is that the general public believe that the no claims bonus is the adjustment that car insurers make for making a claim and also adjusting the base premium is double dipping - it really makes a nonsense of protected no claims when you realise that even not making a claim can put your premium up!

I do think that there should be transparency over how different companies operate non-fault and fault base premium adjustments.