Churchill, Direct Line, Privilege – do not pay to guarantee your no claims discount, it’s a con.

Gazzer

I strongly suggest you do NOT pay Churchill Insurance the additional premium to guarantee your no claim discount.  I expect the same applies to Direct Line and Privilege who are also owned by the same underwriters, UK Insurance Ltd.

My stepdaughter did and was involved in a minor accident where both parties were at fault and the damage to her car was so minimal that she did not even bother to get it fixed. When her renewal from Churchill arrived she still had the maximum no claims discount but they had hiked her premium because of the accident and when it was queried with them apparently this is standard practice even if you are involved in any accident and have paid them extra money to protect yourself.

I think this is a CON, she paid extra to have her bonus protected only for Churchill to penalise her in another way. Their explanation was the bonus was guaranteed but they reserve the right to increase premiums if someone is involved in an accident. Had she been involved in a number of accidents then it would be more acceptable but for one minor accident it is not.

Apparently they paid out nearly £1000 to the other party and when they were asked to provide copies of invoices etc. to substantiate this they refused. Where is the accountability and transparency, do they have something to hide? By the way the other vehicle was much larger so why they agreed to pay this amount considering the minor damage to her car and the fact both parties were partially to blame is a mystery.

No wonder insurance companies have a bad name when it comes to dealing with customers.

So if you want to be conned and not be able to get information which really you are entitled to then by all means insure with Churchill, my stepdaughter certainly will not. She will also not be using the other companies owned by UK Insurance Ltd, Direct Line and Privilege either for the same reasons.

[Deleted User]

It's not a con. It's just that you've misunderstood the difference between premiums and no claims.

As your daughter develops her driving skills and has fewer accidents, her premiums will drop. 

But at least for the time being, her protected no claims is lowering what she has to pay.

Jumblebumble

Gazzer said:

I strongly suggest you do NOT pay Churchill Insurance the additional premium to guarantee your no claim discount.  I expect the same applies to Direct Line and Privilege who are also owned by the same underwriters, UK Insurance Ltd.

My stepdaughter did and was involved in a minor accident where both parties were at fault and the damage to her car was so minimal that she did not even bother to get it fixed. When her renewal from Churchill arrived she still had the maximum no claims discount but they had hiked her premium because of the accident and when it was queried with them apparently this is standard practice even if you are involved in any accident and have paid them extra money to protect yourself.

I think this is a CON, she paid extra to have her bonus protected only for Churchill to penalise her in another way. Their explanation was the bonus was guaranteed but they reserve the right to increase premiums if someone is involved in an accident. Had she been involved in a number of accidents then it would be more acceptable but for one minor accident it is not.

Apparently they paid out nearly £1000 to the other party and when they were asked to provide copies of invoices etc. to substantiate this they refused. Where is the accountability and transparency, do they have something to hide? By the way the other vehicle was much larger so why they agreed to pay this amount considering the minor damage to her car and the fact both parties were partially to blame is a mystery.

No wonder insurance companies have a bad name when it comes to dealing with customers.

So if you want to be conned and not be able to get information which really you are entitled to then by all means insure with Churchill, my stepdaughter certainly will not. She will also not be using the other companies owned by UK Insurance Ltd, Direct Line and Privilege either for the same reasons.

Insurance companies can hike premiums if one has been involved in an accident even if one does not have protected no claims or is at fault. This is supposedly because their statistics show that one may be more likely to have an accident than someone who was not involved in an accident.

Faith177

It does literally what it says on the tin it protects your bonus it doesn’t state you won’t pay for the fact you’ve had a claim.

think it’s a con try seeing what the premium will be with the reduced bonus you’ll be glad she paid it 

Sea_Shell

NCD is usually (was) the last calculation made on the premium.

There is nothing to stop insurers loading or increasing the gross premium, before then applying NCD to give the net figure you pay.

The calculation you need to do is how much her premium would have been if she'd have lost some NCD too!!?   Then see if it was a con?

jackieblack

Gazzer said:

I strongly suggest you do NOT pay Churchill Insurance the additional premium to guarantee your no claim discount.  I expect the same applies to Direct Line and Privilege who are also owned by the same underwriters, UK Insurance Ltd...

So if you want to be conned and not be able to get information which really you are entitled to then by all means insure with Churchill, my stepdaughter certainly will not. She will also not be using the other companies owned by UK Insurance Ltd, Direct Line and Privilege either for the same reasons.

All insurance companies operate the same way, this is completely standard.  Unfortunately it’s common for people not to understand the difference between how premiums and NCD are calculated and applied. Not understanding this doesn’t make it a con.

If your stepdaughter will only buy insurance from a company that doesn’t work this way, she’ll never buy insurance again.  

Mickey666

Jumblebumble said:

Insurance companies can hike premiums if one has been involved in an accident even if one does not have protected no claims or is at fault. This is supposedly because their statistics show that one may be more likely to have an accident than someone who was not involved in an accident.

Indeed.  I know someone whose car was damaged in a no fault accident on a filling station forecourt.  No dispute about the total fault of the other driver (helped by the filling station CCTV), other driver handled the entire claim and paid for everything, friend's NCD was unaffected but his premium was increased by almost 25% simply for 'being involved in an accident'.  His insurance co even had it on record that he was at no fault but trotted out the excuse that 'statistics show he's more likely to be involved in another accident in the future'.

No wonder people tend to hate insurance companies!

I wonder if he could have sued the at-fault driver for the consequent increase in premium - after all, that was a material loss caused by the at-fault driver.

alfred1950

The whole point is that insurance is all about statistics and perceived risk.
If you have an accident and you don't have NCB protection you are hit with a double whammy of 
1/. The loss of NCB and
2/. The increase because of the perceived risk.
In your stepdaughters case she has just been hit by the one increase of the perceived risk.
As has already been stated , this is totally normal and you should not go about bad mouthing insurance companies and calling it a CON just because you don't understand how insurance works.
 

dunstonh

His insurance co even had it on record that he was at no fault but trotted out the excuse that 'statistics show he's more likely to be involved in another accident in the future'.

No wonder people tend to hate insurance companies!

Insurance is priced on statistics.  So, that should not be a surprise.

We know people dislike insurers. That is why 8 out 10 people are happy to defraud them. It is quite adversarial.  

rs65

Gazzer said:

I strongly suggest you do NOT pay Churchill Insurance the additional premium to guarantee your no claim discount.  

My stepdaughter did and was involved in a minor accident where both parties were at fault 

Had she not protected her no claims discount, the accident would have caused her to lose some of it and she would have had a lower number of years to take to another insurer.  Maybe paying the additional premium was a good thing to do.

Jumblebumble

Mickey666 said:

Jumblebumble said:

Insurance companies can hike premiums if one has been involved in an accident even if one does not have protected no claims or is at fault. This is supposedly because their statistics show that one may be more likely to have an accident than someone who was not involved in an accident.

Indeed.  I know someone whose car was damaged in a no fault accident on a filling station forecourt.  No dispute about the total fault of the other driver (helped by the filling station CCTV), other driver handled the entire claim and paid for everything, friend's NCD was unaffected but his premium was increased by almost 25% simply for 'being involved in an accident'.  His insurance co even had it on record that he was at no fault but trotted out the excuse that 'statistics show he's more likely to be involved in another accident in the future'.

No wonder people tend to hate insurance companies!

I wonder if he could have sued the at-fault driver for the consequent increase in premium - after all, that was a material loss caused by the at-fault driver.

We had the same. Someone came across a give way on a mini roundabout straight into the side of our car which was on the roundabout.
Our premiums were loaded on both the cars by 15% which I find unacceptable as I am paying more for someone elses  stupid driving
I contacted my insurance company to find out the premium difference and fortunately They did not respond so I threatened them with a formal complaint and ombudsman which they resolved by giving me about the difference in compo as bad customer service
Most amusingly the idiot driving the car claimed that the driver of my car  had driven around the roundabout the wrong way but changed their tune when it was pointed out we had a dash cam
Even better this week she would have been right as the roundabout has traffic lights for gas work and everyone is driving round that roundabout the wrong way !