Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • gjfromuk
    • By gjfromuk 10th Feb 18, 1:40 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 0Thanks
    gjfromuk
    Insurance higher despite accidents not our fault
    • #1
    • 10th Feb 18, 1:40 PM
    Insurance higher despite accidents not our fault 10th Feb 18 at 1:40 PM
    Does anyone know if there are any campaigns about the practice of Insurance companies increasing insurance premiums of motorists even when accidents are not their fault.
    I think it's unlikely the average motorist know this - did anyone on here, because you wouldn't know unless you had submitted without declaring any accidents? Mine was going to be increased by over 50%!!!

    Elephant (part of Admiral) quoted me £470 online, but it wouldn't take payment online. A telephone call revealed they said I had 3 undeclared accidents within last 5 years.

    I was named driver on my wife's insurance, my wife was the driver on 2 of those accidents, but most critically, NONE of those 3 accidents were down to negligence from us as drivers... completely blameless.

    When I pointed this out on the call to them, she insurance advisor told me, "Statistically, if a driver has an accident - even if it is not their fault, they are more likely to have an accident in the future that will be their fault."

    When i pointed out that was grossly unfair to individual drivers to be penalised by a generalised statistic and surely the Insurance company recovered their losses from the parties that are to blame.

    Then she reeled out the most infuriating response, "That's the way insurance works". At that point I just said 'unbelievable!' and put the phone down. I did not insure with them!

    I have just logged a formal complaint as despite the unfairness of making innocent motorists pay for others crashing into them, I consider a 50% plus increase to be excessive.

    Once I get a response I will be submitting the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman - but they only deal with individual complaints. They advised I need to contact the Financial Regulatory Conduct Authority.

    So I will do that, but I am looking for others who would have the same objections so that it has some gravity... I've got to think every motorist would feel the same as me!?
Page 2
    • agrinnall
    • By agrinnall 11th Feb 18, 7:29 PM
    • 19,941 Posts
    • 15,657 Thanks
    agrinnall
    If you are unhappy about the pricing policies of insurers you are perfectly at liberty to try to minimise the cost by taking out the minimum cover required by law and self insuring for any additional cover you require.
    • vikingaero
    • By vikingaero 11th Feb 18, 8:39 PM
    • 10,385 Posts
    • 13,084 Thanks
    vikingaero
    If you are unhappy about the pricing policies of insurers you are perfectly at liberty to try to minimise the cost by taking out the minimum cover required by law and self insuring for any additional cover you require.
    Originally posted by agrinnall
    Sections 143 & 144 of the RTA 1988 deal with insurance or other security:

    144 Exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security.

    (1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the [F1Senior Courts] the sum of [F2£500,000], at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control.

    ( 1A )The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above.

    Although the Act mentions "a person" I'm fairly sure that an individual cannot deposit a sum and this is restricted to companies/corporations. What normally happens is that companies will deposit the bond, take the hit on claims up to £25,000/£50,000/whatever and then have insurance in place for claims above that.
    The man without a signature.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 11th Feb 18, 10:30 PM
    • 2,854 Posts
    • 1,810 Thanks
    Car 54
    Sections 143 & 144 of the RTA 1988 deal with insurance or other security:

    144 Exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security.

    (1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the [F1Senior Courts] the sum of [F2£500,000], at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner!!!8217;s control.

    ( 1A )The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above.

    Although the Act mentions "a person" I'm fairly sure that an individual cannot deposit a sum and this is restricted to companies/corporations. What normally happens is that companies will deposit the bond, take the hit on claims up to £25,000/£50,000/whatever and then have insurance in place for claims above that.
    Originally posted by vikingaero
    I don't think agrinnall was suggesting depositing £500k, simply taking out "Road Traffic Act" cover, (which is basically third-party, without the fire and theft), and taking the risk on fire, theft and damage to one's own vehicle. Probably quite difficult to find such cover these days.

    And if the Act says "person" that's what it means, though I can't imagine it would make sense for any individual.
    Last edited by Car 54; 11-02-2018 at 10:35 PM.
    • wymondham
    • By wymondham 12th Feb 18, 8:06 AM
    • 5,099 Posts
    • 8,959 Thanks
    wymondham
    Had some experience of this. A few years ago my lease car was damaged just before going back. It was damaged in a car park by the range rover that snuggled up to it (I wasn't in the car). I contacted my insurance company and theirs but decided to repair it myself as I didn't know who the other party was (we didn't meet) - regret telling any insurance company now....

    Subsequently 4 years later my son has been told if I'm on his insurance it'll cost him £50 a month more due to that incident, when it wasn't my fault and no claim was made ... go figure!

    Heads they win, tails we lose!
    • RichardD1970
    • By RichardD1970 12th Feb 18, 8:12 AM
    • 2,885 Posts
    • 4,253 Thanks
    RichardD1970
    Sections 143 & 144 of the RTA 1988 deal with insurance or other security:

    144 Exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security.

    (1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the [F1Senior Courts] the sum of [F2£500,000], at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control.

    ( 1A )The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater sum for the sum for the time being specified in subsection (1) above.

    Although the Act mentions "a person" I'm fairly sure that an individual cannot deposit a sum and this is restricted to companies/corporations. What normally happens is that companies will deposit the bond, take the hit on claims up to £25,000/£50,000/whatever and then have insurance in place for claims above that.
    Originally posted by vikingaero
    I may be wrong but I'm sure I've heard/read/saw that the very rich Arab princes that visit the country are known to do this.
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 12th Feb 18, 9:16 AM
    • 9,060 Posts
    • 9,975 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    Makes no sense to me either, mine was parked outside my house!
    Originally posted by cjdavies
    And therefore is more vulnerable and likely to be crashed into than if it was parked on a drive and most likely the location where it's parked is more likely to have similar accidents in future.
    • Iceweasel
    • By Iceweasel 12th Feb 18, 9:43 AM
    • 4,311 Posts
    • 3,163 Thanks
    Iceweasel
    All insurance works the same way.

    A claim on your home insurance will result in an increase at the following renewal.

    And they similarly ask about claims in the last 3 years if you seek a quote from another insurer.

    Statistics apparently prove that if you have a claim then you are more likely to have another than someone who has not claimed.

    Who is at fault is of no interest to the insurers.

    And as for 'protected' no-claims 'bonus' - a great many people get a surprise when they find out what it really does.

    It most certainly does not mean that your premium won't be increased.
    • Raxiel
    • By Raxiel 12th Feb 18, 10:25 AM
    • 652 Posts
    • 354 Thanks
    Raxiel
    Makes no sense to me either, mine was parked outside my house!
    Originally posted by cjdavies
    I've long felt the phrase "Drivers who are involved in a non-fault incident are statistically more likely to be involved in another one" really means "Drivers who submit a claim are more likely to submit another claim instead of paying for damage out of their own pocket" and that's why they charge you more.
    • IanMSpencer
    • By IanMSpencer 12th Feb 18, 10:33 AM
    • 1,462 Posts
    • 1,079 Thanks
    IanMSpencer
    I don't think this is a "pure" insurance complaint as from the OP's words it seems that they have chosen not to reveal non-fault accidents due to their belief that they were not relevant. Unfortunately, the insurance industry have evolved a concept that if you've had one claim you are more likely to have another.

    For the OP's benefit, what I will agree with is that the general public believe that the no claims bonus is the adjustment that car insurers make for making a claim and also adjusting the base premium is double dipping - it really makes a nonsense of protected no claims when you realise that even not making a claim can put your premium up!

    I do think that there should be transparency over how different companies operate non-fault and fault base premium adjustments.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,215Posts Today

8,464Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Facebook today admitted in parliament that after it heard of my defamation lawsuit against it for 50 fake scam ads? https://t.co/XttOnyH9sq

  • RT @jamiesusskind: After more than 10 years, and with such sadness, I am leaving Labour. I'm doing it for the same reason that I joined: be?

  • RT @Deeangelique_: I suggested @MartinSLewis get 'I Don't Do Ads' tattooed to his forehead yesterday. Today he posted this. I gave Martin L?

  • Follow Martin