How exactly do you think I'm going to be able to express exactly what causes a '99 V70 to cost more to insure than an E38 or M5 - it will depend upon so many factors interpreted differently by every insurer with different models all trying to achieve a competitive advantage. I can try to guess, that as a '99 V70 is worth almost nothing its owner is less likely to care about it/spend money on maintenance etc, but it's purely a guess - I don't have every UK insurers' models in front of me.
so basically it's random on the discretion of the company, gotcha
I also have not claimed that insurers are whiter than white, but I believe the practice of increased renewal pricing is pretty common across many annual-contract service industries? Insurers must now declare last year's premium on renewal invites, so you can at least see what the differences are (some players had introduced this before it was introduced as legislation).
it's not just increased renewal, it's always the same story, high renewal, ring them up "oh because uninsured drivers", go to comparison sites, ring them up again "sorry sir let me discount x, give you free y, and 50% less on z" and suddenly it's competitive.
pretty dishonest, and doesn't exactly fill you with confidence to beleive anything they say.
I don't think it takes much to extrapolate that those who have car park dents or bumps as you put it can be argued to be no greater risk than someone who doesn't - they clearly have less control over their vehicle which seems like a fairly good indicator of risk to me.
if you're going to tell me you've never had a minor scrape, much less had a minor scrape which you sorted yourself without getting the insurance involved then i'm calling bovine leavings, these things happen, yes granted if it's a regular occurrence then it's a valid point.
Whilst not every non-fault accident is going to be avoidable, I'd wager a good number of 'innocent' parties in non-fault accidents could have avoided the accident altogether by driving differently e.g. more defensively, anticipating risk.
mate of mine got hit in stationary traffic, motor 2 cars back from him shunted the car behind into him, kindly explain to me how defensive driving would have helped him in that scenario? because the poor lad lost his car, and now can't get any insurance he can afford, it's not as if they've made any effort to understand the circumstances and apply fair reasoning.
Ultimately insurers must prove to the regulator that their pricing decisions are based on prudent analysis of the rating factors (including historical loss experience) they have at their disposal. It's not some conspiracy.
a regulator that allows much of these things to occurr isn't being serious enough, which is kind of my point in the first place.
