We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Accident in car park.
Comments
-
They did know about it. They said so in a letter. I paid the premium up front.0
-
No this is just a money grabbing exercise. No wander so many minor accidents don't get reported.
Think of insurance as a bet. You are betting a couple of hundred quid that you can cause a lot more damage than that in the next 12 months, with the proviso that you can't do it deliberately.
If you win the bet, they could be down tens of thousands. If you lose, they get a couple of hundred.
Now they get to set the odds, and to do that they use statistics gathered over many years relating to the claim history of millions of drivers. You now fit into a slightly different risk category, so the odds they offer you go down a bit.
It may seem unfair, or crazy even, as anyone with any sense would do all they could to avoid a repeat incident, so the odds ought to go up, but they are playing the long game, and statistics always work if you give them enough time and large enough sample sizes. Plus, there is the well known algorithm of "Bad luck always comes in threes" to factor in.
You are free to try other insurers who will offer slightly better odds, but that is it I'm afraid.
And the reason so many accidents go unreported is exactly this, so I suppose you could argue that the data is flawed in the first place!
I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....
(except air quality and Medical Science)0 -
Now they get to set the odds, and to do that they use statistics gathered over many years relating to the claim history of millions of drivers. You now fit into a slightly different risk category, so the odds they offer you go down a bit.
Except that in this instance they already had all the data they needed relating to the OP to determine the "odds" ... but they either overlooked a portion of the data or decided it wasn't relevant data. They can't now come along and try to change the odds after already accepting the bet when already having had all the relevant data to hand. 0 -
Except that in this instance they already had all the data they needed relating to the OP to determine the "odds" ... but they either overlooked a portion of the data or decided it wasn't relevant data. They can't now come along and try to change the odds after already accepting the bet when already having had all the relevant data to hand.
This is correct, they offered a price that was wrong as a contract, the contract was accepted and money changed hands. Unless they have something about being able to ask for whatever they like whenever they like in the T&Cs, then they can't ask for extra money now to cover their incompetence surely?I want to go back to The Olden Days, when every single thing that I can think of was better.....
(except air quality and Medical Science)0 -
If it's taken to the ombudsman it would cost them more money than they have recovered from you. Depends whether you want to fight for the principle or use up energy and time chasing it...
At the same time breathe a sigh of relief that you did have cameras front and rear.0 -
Joe_Horner wrote: »What, like public roads and car parks?
I know that's their justification but it's a weak one at best.
Consider that, against that fairly speculative argument, there's the alternative interpretation that he's definitively shown himself to be a driver who's unlikely to cost them money on frivolous claims for minor scratches. Therefore, he's a lower risk than many.
As for keeping the footage to yourself until the claim proceeds, absolutely agree with that and believe that insurers should be under a legal obligation to commence fraud proceedings when such a situation comes to light as part of their duty of care to their clients.
I'd imagine certain areas are more likely to have dodgy people who not only drive into cars then try and blame the victim but also put in fraudulent claims which the insurance firms will have recorded, each incident adds weight to the fact this area or that area should have slightly higher premiums. Nothing speculative at all, indeed it's fairly logical that this is the way they work. That he should get a discount for a dash cam I agree, some firms do. Even a front facing one would have shown he wasn't moving when he was hit and thus saved the firm money.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I'd imagine certain areas are more likely to have dodgy people who not only drive into cars then try and blame the victim but also put in fraudulent claims which the insurance firms will have recorded, each incident adds weight to the fact this area or that area should have slightly higher premiums. Nothing speculative at all, indeed it's fairly logical that this is the way they work.
Except that, statistically, that's very dodgy ground. One of three situations apply:
1) The driver habitually drives in a "high risk" area. In this case, if he has a long history of not being victim to this sort of thing then that mitigates the risk of the area - clearly he's "doing something right".
Further, as most drivers spend most of their time driving in and around their home area, most of any heightened geographical risk will already have been included in their quote based on area.
2) The driver was taking an out of character and unusual trip into a high risk area. In that case, the statistics of the area have no meaningful connection to his ongoing risk.
3) It was a one-off genuine accident with no connection at all to the risk of the area. These things do happen. Again, that makes no difference to ongoing risk any more than being hit by a meteorite on the M1 would.
In all cases, if the driver concerned has an otherwise good record, there's no material increase in risk from a single parking scrape like this. Not that the insurers are going to worry about that - if there's something they can pin an increase on, they'll do it.0 -
Except it isn't. Statistically, if you've made one claim - even if it is was a no fault claim - then you're more likely to make another.Joe_Horner wrote: »Except that, statistically, that's very dodgy ground.
This isn't a matter of cause and effect just that, in general, people who have made one claim are a higher risk group.0 -
Ergates. I didnt make a claim.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards