Do Not Sell My Personal Information Jump to content


Insurance increase after non-fault non-claim accident


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, VrmmVrmm said:

I have a feeling this is how no claims protection works...automatically.   I also feel that companies probably treat third party policy holders only as people who aren't prepared to cover all the bases and may in turn view them as a higher risk....only a hypothesis so (others) please don't come back with zillions of arguments.

 

Yes you "feel".... but it is not how it works. NCB protection protects you from loosing NCB when you make the claim and it is your fault. My no-claim bonus was not affected as I did not make a claim, nor it was my fault, but my premium still increased by 30%... and I have NCB protection as well.

2 hours ago, VrmmVrmm said:

(1) it's a binding contract and there's no if's and's or but's

(2) Imagine telling the court in such a civil case that you felt the insurance company was fraudulent and they applied illegal penalties because of the way they assessed you as a risk 

1. That is exactly the problem with it, for example employment contract is binding contract as well, but it is regulated and there are statutory rights which you have regardless of the contract and if the contract contradicts those rights it becomes illegal. However, there are no rules which protects driver in similar way as there are to protect basic rights of employee. Insurers have free reign to do whatever they wish and just by virtue of that I consider such contract ... at very least unfair if not illegal. Lets put it that way - there is high risk of such contract to be manipulated for the gains of insurance companies and for the loss of policy holder - it is basically blank cheque given to insurers by goverment.

2. Possibly, but that is exactly what it is. Insurers are just private party same as policy holder, they are not some sort of holy entity which is inherently right. Who checked that they assessed the risk correctly, who defines the rules and the costs? They do themselves - here is clear conflict of interest because there is no safety mechanism to stop them from inventing the rules and raising the risk, but there is huge motivation for them to do so - extra money.

3 hours ago, Tyre Tread said:

(1) I agree that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Perhaps I should have said data :)

(2) Anyway, I was only trying to give a wee insight into perhaps areas that were missing from people's understanding.

(3) As for asking for the occupation of the insured, if you really don't understand the differences in how someone might drive( i.e. times of day s well as driving behaviour) of a musician versus an accountant then you haven't the vaguest clue how insurance companies assess risk.

(4) Maybe we should stop being mad at the insurance companies and be mad at the fraudsters who cost us all tens to hundreds of pounds each year in our increased premiums.

(5) The insurance world is far from perfect but until someone comes up with a better solution...

(6) Funny how we pay 70%+ in tax on petrol and accept it Which for some can amount to a cost of thousands per year) but we recoil at a few extra pounds on insurance premiums.

1. Who check that the data collected is relevant data and it is correct? Insurers only checks themselves - so how can you say that they doing it right? You can always collect more irrelevant data to increase premiums - who controls that? Oh just insurers themselves... I other country where I have insured  (for £57 a year TPO) they only ask vehicle registration and driving license number - that is it...

2. Feel free to share some of that - so far I have not seen anything in your posts.

3. Can you prove that musician A will drive like musician B - no you can't. That is why this statistics is irrelevant. If we do statistics like that, then all black people would be drug dealers and all truck drivers murderers... You cannot just simply find correlation is some irrelevant data and stick the label on whole society group.

4. Maybe not.... because insurance companies washes so much money that no fraudster will ever will. Our insurance is not expensive because of fraudsters or uninsured drivers, it is expensive because of insurance companies can charge whatever they like and they do it. Do you think there are no fraudsters in other countries? Oh yes there are... why you think in other countries insurance is cheaper then? Because law in those countries are more lax i.e. in the country where my insurance costed £57/year the fine for driving without one was ~£133. If insurance company would try to charge me £3000 there I would just accept the fine for driving without it, but here the fine is £3000 + potentials seizure of the car, so insurance company can charge much more in such circumstances and still keep quite high compliance rate.

5. In other countries they have found better solution somehow.. same insurance companies, sometimes even same underwriters. I know for example that my policy for £57/year was underwritten by Aviva.

6. You made several major and incorrect assumption with this sentence. First of all that 70%+ tax we pay on petrol goes back to the government and can be reused in public benefit.. whenever it is or isn't that is different topic. Secondly, the rate is clear understood and controlled transparently. Thirdly, here I clearly have a choice - I only pay for what I use and the way I drive and where I drive directly reflects I how much I spend (I know pay as you go insurance is one the plans but not yet implemented and I don't have much hopes for it). Finally, £287 is not few and that is rather small price... Few years ago I was paying over £2000 for insurance and hike of similar magnitude would have costed me extra £1000.... Basically, whole year of my fuel bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Yes you "feel".... but it is not how it works. NCB protection protects you from loosing NCB when you make the claim and it is your fault. My no-claim bonus was not affected as I did not make a claim, nor it was my fault, but my premium still increased by 30%... and I have NCB protection as well.

1. That is exactly the problem with it, for example employment contract is binding contract as well, but it is regulated and there are statutory rights which you have regardless of the contract and if the contract contradicts those rights it becomes illegal. However, there are no rules which protects driver in similar way as there are to protect basic rights of employee. Insurers have free reign to do whatever they wish and just by virtue of that I consider such contract ... at very least unfair if not illegal. Lets put it that way - there is high risk of such contract to be manipulated for the gains of insurance companies and for the loss of policy holder - it is basically blank cheque given to insurers by goverment.

2. Possibly, but that is exactly what it is. Insurers are just private party same as policy holder, they are not some sort of holy entity which is inherently right. Who checked that they assessed the risk correctly, who defines the rules and the costs? They do themselves - here is clear conflict of interest because there is no safety mechanism to stop them from inventing the rules and raising the risk, but there is huge motivation for them to do so - extra money.

1. Who check that the data collected is relevant data and it is correct? Insurers only checks themselves - so how can you say that they doing it right? You can always collect more irrelevant data to increase premiums - who controls that? Oh just insurers themselves... I other country where I have insured  (for £57 a year TPO) they only ask vehicle registration and driving license number - that is it...

2. Feel free to share some of that - so far I have not seen anything in your posts.

3. Can you prove that musician A will drive like musician B - no you can't. That is why this statistics is irrelevant. If we do statistics like that, then all black people would be drug dealers and all truck drivers murderers... You cannot just simply find correlation is some irrelevant data and stick the label on whole society group.

4. Maybe not.... because insurance companies washes so much money that no fraudster will ever will. Our insurance is not expensive because of fraudsters or uninsured drivers, it is expensive because of insurance companies can charge whatever they like and they do it. Do you think there are no fraudsters in other countries? Oh yes there are... why you think in other countries insurance is cheaper then? Because law in those countries are more lax i.e. in the country where my insurance costed £57/year the fine for driving without one was ~£133. If insurance company would try to charge me £3000 there I would just accept the fine for driving without it, but here the fine is £3000 + potentials seizure of the car, so insurance company can charge much more in such circumstances and still keep quite high compliance rate.

5. In other countries they have found better solution somehow.. same insurance companies, sometimes even same underwriters. I know for example that my policy for £57/year was underwritten by Aviva.

6. You made several major and incorrect assumption with this sentence. First of all that 70%+ tax we pay on petrol goes back to the government and can be reused in public benefit.. whenever it is or isn't that is different topic. Secondly, the rate is clear understood and controlled transparently. Thirdly, here I clearly have a choice - I only pay for what I use and the way I drive and where I drive directly reflects I how much I spend (I know pay as you go insurance is one the plans but not yet implemented and I don't have much hopes for it). Finally, £287 is not few and that is rather small price... Few years ago I was paying over £2000 for insurance and hike of similar magnitude would have costed me extra £1000.... Basically, whole year of my fuel bill.

Obviously I'm not in a position to answer all of your questions so I shan't try. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

I think you may be "barking at the moon" but wish you luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am indeed. That is because Insurers are protected by government at the moment and there is literally nothing I can do to change their unfair practices. I am not surprised about that - doesn't mean that I am wrong though. 

Or you are saying - there is no point to even discuss that, because we cannot change anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...