Protecting no claims Bonus

quattros

Hi hope all are well!
I wanted to know is it worth still protecting my no claims bonus with insurance companies,  I have accumulated about 17 years and would like to know if it is worth paying extra to protect it and consequences of not protecting in my case. 
Thanks

AdrianC

First off, you don't have "about 17 years". You have about 8-9 years, depending on the maximum your previous insurer recognised.

The consequences of not protection? You probably lose two years (which is probably about 2% of the base premium) if you have an at-fault claim.
Is it worth it? Depends on how much your base premium is, how much they want to protect it, and how likely you think you are to have an at-fault claim.

DUTR

At 17yrs he may already have the maximum NCD, so if he lost 2yrs for a claim, he'd still be on the maximum.
Personally I didn't haven't had NCB protection for a few years as mine was at the max , however he has to decide for himself if it is worth still paying the £30 or whatever for NCD protection.

neilmcl

DUTR said:

At 17yrs he may already have the maximum NCD, so if he lost 2yrs for a claim, he'd still be on the maximum.
Personally I didn't haven't had NCB protection for a few years as mine was at the max , however he has to decide for himself if it is worth still paying the £30 or whatever for NCD protection.

Are you sure about that? Given the maximum no claims is generally 5 years, whether you have 10 years, 17 years makes little difference, if you make a claim you will usually drop back to 3 years of NCD.

DUTR

neilmcl said:

DUTR said:

At 17yrs he may already have the maximum NCD, so if he lost 2yrs for a claim, he'd still be on the maximum.
Personally I didn't haven't had NCB protection for a few years as mine was at the max , however he has to decide for himself if it is worth still paying the £30 or whatever for NCD protection.

Are you sure about that? Given the maximum no claims is generally 5 years, whether you have 10 years, 17 years makes little difference, if you make a claim you will usually drop back to 3 years of NCD.

Aha, just checked mine , it now drops to 3 years for claim 1, 1 yr for claim 2 and then to NIL, my NCB is at 20 years, but then underneath it says if you haven't protected NCB your NCD will be reduced by two years for each non recoverable claim within a policy year, the 1st table perhaps is for policies with NCB 5 years or less?

quattros

Thanks for the Reply’s , I understood that 5yrs is usually the max NCD , then some will offer further discount up to max 9yrs , So lets say i have an accident and i have not protected my No claims do i drop down to 3yrs NCD from 17 years i currently have?

fred246

There was a long discussion on this a while ago. As usual I was wrong. It was generally agreed that in the war of consumer vs insurer the insurer won. They made massive profits from people protecting their no claims discount. Everyone paid to protect their no claims discount and they were happy to pay it and it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. Sort of win win for everyone. I just get the cheapest cover, max the excess and remove any extras. I normally pay less than most people seem to pay for breakdown cover. I have done it for years. I have had maximum NCD for years. I can afford the premium, the excess and the increased premium if I crashed. I have a feeling it's one of those areas where the rich can afford to take a bigger risk. If you're poor you pay more because you can't risk an increased premium.

452

fred246 said:

There was a long discussion on this a while ago. As usual I was wrong. It was generally agreed that in the war of consumer vs insurer the insurer won. They made massive profits from people protecting their no claims discount. Everyone paid to protect their no claims discount and they were happy to pay it and it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. Sort of win win for everyone. I just get the cheapest cover, max the excess and remove any extras. I normally pay less than most people seem to pay for breakdown cover. I have done it for years. I have had maximum NCD for years. I can afford the premium, the excess and the increased premium if I crashed. I have a feeling it's one of those areas where the rich can afford to take a bigger risk. If you're poor you pay more because you can't risk an increased premium.

You're rich then are you? 

Is that why you run round in a 15 year old Ford with no service history?

motorguy

fred246 said:

There was a long discussion on this a while ago. As usual I was wrong. It was generally agreed that in the war of consumer vs insurer the insurer won. They made massive profits from people protecting their no claims discount. Everyone paid to protect their no claims discount and they were happy to pay it and it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. Sort of win win for everyone. I just get the cheapest cover, max the excess and remove any extras. I normally pay less than most people seem to pay for breakdown cover. I have done it for years. I have had maximum NCD for years. I can afford the premium, the excess and the increased premium if I crashed. I have a feeling it's one of those areas where the rich can afford to take a bigger risk. If you're poor you pay more because you can't risk an increased premium.

It was NOT "generally agreed" that the insurer won.

Its as per what Adrian put - an individual needs to weigh up the impact on their insurance premium relative to the usually minimal amount to protect the no claims bonus.  If someones policy is £200 then losing two years no claims will have a small effect, if someones insurance premium is £500 or £1000 it will have a much bigger effect.  Either way usually a very small cost for the protected bonus.

And its was not a "long discussion" in the same way as this one neednt be, but now we'll spend pages and pages correcting what you'll come out with by which point the O/P will longsince have lost interest and given up.

Car_54

452 said:

fred246 said:

There was a long discussion on this a while ago. As usual I was wrong. It was generally agreed that in the war of consumer vs insurer the insurer won. They made massive profits from people protecting their no claims discount. Everyone paid to protect their no claims discount and they were happy to pay it and it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. Sort of win win for everyone. I just get the cheapest cover, max the excess and remove any extras. I normally pay less than most people seem to pay for breakdown cover. I have done it for years. I have had maximum NCD for years. I can afford the premium, the excess and the increased premium if I crashed. I have a feeling it's one of those areas where the rich can afford to take a bigger risk. If you're poor you pay more because you can't risk an increased premium.

You're rich then are you? 

Is that why you run round in a 15 year old Ford with no service history?

You are confusing cause and effect. I would be considerably richer if I sold my present car and bought a 15-y-o Ford.

motorguy

fred246 said:

There was a long discussion on this a while ago. As usual I was wrong. It was generally agreed that in the war of consumer vs insurer the insurer won. They made massive profits from people protecting their no claims discount. Everyone paid to protect their no claims discount and they were happy to pay it and it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. Sort of win win for everyone. I just get the cheapest cover, max the excess and remove any extras. I normally pay less than most people seem to pay for breakdown cover. I have done it for years. I have had maximum NCD for years. I can afford the premium, the excess and the increased premium if I crashed. I have a feeling it's one of those areas where the rich can afford to take a bigger risk. If you're poor you pay more because you can't risk an increased premium.

Maybe you need to think about what you're saying then before you say it (and the impact it might have on others) and accept other people may have a perfectly valid and correct view that you could learn from.

You keep advising people to do things that may have very very signiificant financial consequences for them, but hide behind an anonymous username, taking no responsibility for your actions.

And yes YOU can afford the premium, which given your age and the age of the car probably doesnt amount to a big hill of beans, but what of someone maybe paying £750 or £1000 or £2000 a year for insurance?  As usual you cant just broad brush what you believe is right for you and make it work for everyone.

You spent time on here offering sometimes frankly awful and / or inappropriate advice based on "information" and views often from the last century and regularly derail threads, diluting the efforts of those who want to help.

You are either that blinkered and set in your ways that you cant accept other people have different needs and requirements and offer an objective opinion or at least accept newer more relevant views to adjust your own thinking OR you're simply a troll and you get a kick out of doing it.  If its the former its frankly not surprising you get the horrid customer service you say you do.