It's that time again - car insurance

[Merlin5]

Renewal on 24th of this month with RAC. Last year was £496 and this year they quoted me £591, almost £100 more. No points on my licence and over 9 years no claims discount. After ringing them just now, got it down to £517 which isn't too bad. I haven't gone ahead with it just yet.


If I go through comparethemarket again as I did last year, it always ask this question:

'Claims, accidents losses and incidents regardless of blame, even if you did not claim, in the last 5 years.' Last year I answered yes to that question, based on a minor incident in 2012, but before the case was resolved. Some of you may recall I made a thread about it. It was thrown out of court earlier this year because the claimant did not comply with court orders, and the incident was seen as a scam. I didn't claim anything for my car.

Here was the letter http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=26254618&postcount=12


RAC said I can send them a copy of that letter in the hope it could bring the quote down more.

I'm presuming insurance quotes will be higher based on saying yes to having an incident. Is it safe to say no or risky?

 

[Haggisman]

Depends if you think it's "safe" to lie to your insurance company?

Considering it's been to court (so there will be records), and you've mentioned it to your current insurer, chances are it will be relatively easy for them to find out if they investigate when you make a claim.

 

[Merlin5]

Depends if you think it's "safe" to lie to your insurance company?

Considering it's been to court (so there will be records), and you've mentioned it to your current insurer, chances are it will be relatively easy for them to find out if they investigate when you make a claim.

You're right. I should mention it. The annoying thing is the 'regardless of blame' bit. You presumably get increased premium even if it wasn't your fault. They should only base increase on a premium if they consider you to be a higher risk, not just because you were involved in an incident which might be someone else's fault. Anyway, I'll send the letter to RAC stating I wasn't the guilty party.

 

[Haggisman]

You're right. I should mention it. The annoying thing is the 'regardless of blame' bit. You presumably get increased premium even if it wasn't your fault. They should only base increase on a premium if they consider you to be a higher risk, not just because you were involved in an incident which might be someone else's fault. Anyway, I'll send the letter to RAC stating I wasn't the guilty party.

Unfortunately stats show that even in "non-fault" accidents, there is usually something the not-at-fault driver could have done to avoid the accident, meaning statistically you are higher risk.

 

[inogen]

You're right. I should mention it. The annoying thing is the 'regardless of blame' bit. You presumably get increased premium even if it wasn't your fault. They should only base increase on a premium if they consider you to be a higher risk, not just because you were involved in an incident which might be someone else's fault. Anyway, I'll send the letter to RAC stating I wasn't the guilty party.

I've seen this come up as an opinion on these boards before and it's not exactly true.

The thing is, if you've had a claim or incident, regardless of fault, it shows insurers that you're statistically more likely to claim than someone who hasn't.

Take 2 examples. One person who parks their car on the same road but hardly uses their car, takes good care to park sensibly, knowing that their car will be where it's left for a few days at a time. Another person on the same road, same car, same age etc, uses their car 10 times a day and parks it all over knowing that it'll move again in an hour or two.

Second car gets hit whilst stationary and legally, but naively parked and there's a non-fault claim. Who's shown themselves more likely to be involved in a claim? Next time the hit might come from an uninsured car.

There's loads of things you can think about. Common routes, driving with distractions etc etc, that can contribute to being more prone to accidents than just black and white fault/non-fault claims. Having a history of non-fault claims, or even one, gives insurers all they need to know to increase a premium.

 

[Merlin5]

Thanks for the advice guys. Guess I'll go with 'yes' for that question.


Question while this thread is open. I'm on compare the market and after typing my reg plate it went to this page



There's a drop down box with options for alarms and immobilisers or none. "What type of alarm and/or immobiliser does your car have?" was already on what you see there in the drop down box, so shall I assume it knows I have that alarm, since it seems to know the answers to the other questions below? I have no idea if or what alarm or immobilser my car is fitted with. If I press lock twice on the keyring remote, it sounds the horn once. Does that set an alarm?

This page suggests I have a Thatcham category 2 immobiliser, and maybe an alarm. http://thatchamfitters.co.uk/car/cars-with-factory-fitted-thatcham-security/peugeot.htm


edit: just looked at my RAC insurance documents which says 'Details of security device if applicable: Approved immobiliser - Confirmed' so presumably no alarm.