Car insurer increases premiums - incident no blame or claim

it's life, the fact is you are statistically more likely to have an accident as you have had one.


No fault accidents may also attract premium loading, shop around, some don't


Bare in mind for future readers, no fault accidents become fault accidents if your insurer cannot recover costs e.g 3rd party if not insured e.t.c. It is not just about who is 'at fault' but also about costs recovered

tamste wrote: »

Very disappointing if they take this approach, but not sure where the remedy is.

There isn't one.

tamste wrote: »

I have been 12 years with no incidents, most of the time with the same insurer (I do check the market yearly and negotiate down to same price). So after 12 years incident free motoring, on a clean licence throughout,I am considered higher risk and thus am charged more following being hit from behind by a third party when I was stationary, to which there was no damage to my vehicle and no claim, and the third party admits liability!

The first part of your statement is partly relevant and you still benefit from this in that you have build up NCD, which you will maintain.

As for the second part, yes you are considered to be higher risk because you have been involved in a collision. Underwriting is not about 'fair' it is, in the main, about risk assessment based on statistics and statistics show that those that have been involved in a collision are more likely to be involved in another one. Therefore this incident has placed you in a higher risk group. Not necessarily a high risk group but a higher group than you were previously.

tamste wrote: »

Will discuss with them later this morning, but something is not right here.

There is nothing wrong here from an underwriting viewpoint. If you call and haggle you may get a few quid off as a goodwill gesture but the chances are slim. It is naive to think that your insurance will not impacted just because you are not found to be at fault in an accident.

The is some merit in that statement. There are areas where insurance is still conducted as it was a hundred years ago. There are still underwriters sitting in Lloyds with a queue of brokers waiting to see them with the 'risk' (policy) that they need to cover written on paper. The underwriter then considers the risk, decides on whether he will take all or part of it and what the premium will be. This is then written onto the documents and sealed with the underwriters stamp. Not unlike being in a bookmaker and it's going on right now.

And yes, insurance companies are there to make a profit, as are all companies. However, that market can also work in your favour. Check the competition and you may well get a better price than you current insurers are offering.

tamste wrote: »

I understand what you say, but the calculation of risk is dependent on the algorithm constructed, and the data that the algorithm assesses. As had been quoted elsewhere, there are statistics, statistics and damn lies.

Unfortunately I am dealing with an industry where risk assessment is centred on profit & loss, which is very different from my industry where not effectively determining risk and taking appropriate remedial action can have a life or death (or at least significant harm) impact.

Thanks for the responses by the way. It's not just me then!

I recall having insurance companies described to me in the past as bookies in suits. Seems there may be merit in this.

Nothing personal but business I am afraid, loyalty doesn't pay, change to a provider that provides value for money and is reasonable for service. Other providers may not have the same risk algorithms.

I've had non fault accidents and some insurers don't load premiums compared to others