John Lewis insurance charging for non fault car accidents

Exetermike

I insured my car with John Lewis in the belief that they are an honest company who major on customer service. However a few weeks after taking out the policy they charge me £51 for having had 2 non fault accidents.

Other people have reported this procedure with other insurance companies and the argument is always that statistics say if you are involved in any accident, you are a higher risk, irrespective of fault. However, Insurance companies choose the algorithms and statistics that give them an excuse for charging more, with no independent scrutiny. Facts are one thing, but interpretation is another, which brings to mind the quote that says there are lies, damn lies and statistics!

This underhand practice reflects very badly on the reputation of insurers and perhaps most of them don't care, but John Lewis has a reputation of being customer and family friendly and so why do they risk damaging their whole brand image by allowing their insurers (Provident Insurance) to abuse their customers in this way?  Perhaps even reputable companies believe insurance is an area where brand image, honesty and ethical behaviour count for nothing? - if so they are wrong, one bad apple can ruin the whole barrel.

Given the chance I would use an ethical and honest insurer every time - just seems hard to find one.

SaverRate

Exetermike said:

I insured my car with John Lewis in the belief that they are an honest company who major on customer service. However a few weeks after taking out the policy they charge me £51 for having had 2 non fault accidents.

Other people have reported this procedure with other insurance companies and the argument is always that statistics say if you are involved in any accident, you are a higher risk, irrespective of fault. However, Insurance companies choose the algorithms and statistics that give them an excuse for charging more, with no independent scrutiny. Facts are one thing, but interpretation is another, which brings to mind the quote that says there are lies, damn lies and statistics!

This underhand practice reflects very badly on the reputation of insurers and perhaps most of them don't care, but John Lewis has a reputation of being customer and family friendly and so why do they risk damaging their whole brand image by allowing their insurers (Provident Insurance) to abuse their customers in this way?  Perhaps even reputable companies believe insurance is an area where brand image, honesty and ethical behaviour count for nothing? - if so they are wrong, one bad apple can ruin the whole barrel.

Given the chance I would use an ethical and honest insurer every time - just seems hard to find one.

Did you not declare the accidents/claims when you took the policy out? If not I am not surprised you were charged extra 

DullGreyGuy

Exetermike said:

I insured my car with John Lewis in the belief that they are an honest company who major on customer service. However a few weeks after taking out the policy they charge me £51 for having had 2 non fault accidents.

Other people have reported this procedure with other insurance companies and the argument is always that statistics say if you are involved in any accident, you are a higher risk, irrespective of fault. However, Insurance companies choose the algorithms and statistics that give them an excuse for charging more, with no independent scrutiny. Facts are one thing, but interpretation is another, which brings to mind the quote that says there are lies, damn lies and statistics!

This underhand practice reflects very badly on the reputation of insurers and perhaps most of them don't care, but John Lewis has a reputation of being customer and family friendly and so why do they risk damaging their whole brand image by allowing their insurers (Provident Insurance) to abuse their customers in this way?  Perhaps even reputable companies believe insurance is an area where brand image, honesty and ethical behaviour count for nothing? - if so they are wrong, one bad apple can ruin the whole barrel.

Given the chance I would use an ethical and honest insurer every time - just seems hard to find one.

Did you "forget" to mention these incidents/claims? Are you questioning your insurer's integrity after answering their questions incorrectly?


These things are very simple, make full and honest declarations at quote stage and you will see which insurers look most favourably on those that have had a series of non-fault claims. If you "forget" to declare things you are always at risk of significant premium increases for accidental non-disclosure or policy being voided and premiums retained if they deem it to be reckless or intentional non-disclosure.

cymruchris

I agree with the above - if you'd had two non-faults and hadn't declared them, then yes I agree you should be charged to make amendments to the policy to cover updating it to the correct information. They could have cancelled your insurance policy for not declaring information that would then make any future policies difficult to obtain (you often get asked the question 'have you ever had a policy cancelled') If you were open and honest at the quotation stage, you'd likely have found there was no difference to the overall cost, or at least very little.

Yes various risk factors are taken into account when calculating policies which is why you have to declare everything up-front. And although any accidents by anyone get recorded as 'no-fault' that doesn't mean the driver was entirely blameless. There are times when a party takes responsibility, or a decision is made on the balance of probabilities where the non-fault driver was still partially to blame. So a non-fault accident can still add a little (usually negligible) to a policy quotation. 

DullGreyGuy

cymruchris said:

Yes various risk factors are taken into account when calculating policies which is why you have to declare everything up-front. And although any accidents by anyone get recorded as 'no-fault' that doesn't mean the driver was entirely blameless. There are times when a party takes responsibility, or a decision is made on the balance of probabilities where the non-fault driver was still partially to blame. So a non-fault accident can still add a little (usually negligible) to a policy quotation. 

Plus even for non-fault claims insurers can only recover their allocated claims costs and so they end up carry costs they cannot recover (unallocated costs will include their claims handlers and all the infrastructure that supports/oversees them). 

Many have a pattern to their multiple non-fault claims and the reality is over a long enough timeline a counterparty to such a claim will turnout to be uninsured or a hit and run thus becoming a fault claim the next time you park in that dodgy car park but the next person that clips your car doesnt bother stopping.

Ebe_Scrooge

Exetermike said:

However a few weeks after taking out the policy they charge me £51 for having had 2 non fault accidents.

As others have intimated, please can you confirm whether these were accidents you had prior to taking out the policy (and if so, did you declare them), or did they occur after your new policy started?  If they occurred since taking out the new policy it would be unusual for an additional fee to be charged mid-term - although, of course, you'd see your renewal price increase next year.

DullGreyGuy

Ebe_Scrooge said:

Exetermike said:

However a few weeks after taking out the policy they charge me £51 for having had 2 non fault accidents.

As others have intimated, please can you confirm whether these were accidents you had prior to taking out the policy (and if so, did you declare them), or did they occur after your new policy started?  If they occurred since taking out the new policy it would be unusual for an additional fee to be charged mid-term 

There is the window between the new policy being bought and the new policy incepting where additional incidents can occur and have to be reported and will impact this year... most people buy their policy 1-3 weeks out and so the OP would have to have been very unlucky to have 2 non-fault incidents in such a short space of time. 

dunstonh

Other people have reported this procedure with other insurance companies and the argument is always that statistics say if you are involved in any accident, you are a higher risk, irrespective of fault. 

That is correct.  However, you would not be charged after taking the policy out as it would be included in the premium you were quoted at the point of sale.  That is provided you told the truth on application though.

The only time an insurer comes after you for more money after taking the policy out is if you failed to disclose a material fact or misled the insurer.

Given the chance I would use an ethical and honest insurer every time - just seems hard to find one.

If you were an ethical and honest consumer, then you would not have this problem.

most people buy their policy 1-3 weeks out and so the OP would have to have been very unlucky to have 2 non-fault incidents in such a short space of time. 

And the speed at which claims are settled means the odds of them being classified as non-fault in that time is equally unplausible.

DullGreyGuy

dunstonh said:
And the speed at which claims are settled means the odds of them being classified as non-fault in that time is equally unplausible.

I'd stick with unlikely rather than implausible... with direct insurers actively wanting to capture third parties and various "uninsured driver" promises it is possible for a non-fault determination to be quickly made. Certainly a traditional claim managed by your insurers and counterclaimed from the third party's insurer wouldnt be close to settlement in a month let alone two of them. 

Exetermike

I did in fact not declare the no fault accidents by omission rather than design as when I came to the section about accidents, I just thought that since I had no fault accidents this section didn't apply - but apparently there is no such thing as a no fault accident, even when not in the vehicle. So yes error on my part there, and they were in 2021 and 2019, so existed before the new policy came into effect.  Of the £51 extra charge, £15 was for a policy ammendment and thus £36 was penalty for having been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I find it amazing though how so many people seem to accept that penalisng an innocent party is somehow justifyable, or believe that insurance company statistics could show an increased risk when the fault was 100% with the other party.

I just feel this is yet another example of corporate greed and appalling abuse of customer trust. 

cymruchris

Exetermike said:

I did in fact not declare the no fault accidents by omission rather than design as when I came to the section about accidents, I just thought that since I had no fault accidents this section didn't apply - but apparently there is no such thing as a no fault accident, even when not in the vehicle. So yes error on my part there, and they were in 2021 and 2019, so existed before the new policy came into effect.  Of the £51 extra charge, £15 was for a policy ammendment and thus £36 was penalty for having been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I find it amazing though how so many people seem to accept that penalisng an innocent party is somehow justifyable, or believe that insurance company statistics could show an increased risk when the fault was 100% with the other party.

I just feel this is yet another example of corporate greed and appalling abuse of customer trust. 

Thanks for clarifying - so sadly an error on your part that has led to the additional charges. Yes - any section asking about accidents will record all - including non-fault, and then there's usually a question around the cost of the claim - and in the case of non-fault it's usually £0.

As much as in your own case you may have been the innocent party - as mentioned there are some occasions where non-fault is granted, although done so on the balance of probabilities rather than hard facts, as in some accidents hard facts are difficult to come by. Therefore non-fault accidents do get given a very small loading on a premium as a result. Insurance is supposed to cover the many - so there has to be a bit of logic and common-sense applied - and it might not be something you agree on, but that's how insurance works. I'm sure when it comes to renewal, it will have negligible impact on next years premium.