Car Insurance - Non fault claims

Lonz · 8 May 2010 at 23:55

I was involved in an accident last year. It was completely the other person's fault and they admitted liability. Now it's time to renew my insurance, and trying to sort myself out on something a bit more powerful...

Having a look around, the best price I can get is £500 more (!!!) than what it would have been had I not been involved in an accident. I know life isn't fair, but come on... that's just... not fair! What's more, I'm only being added as a named driver to another car.

I had similar trouble when insuring my modestly powerful MINI. My renewal from Admiral was £250 more than what I paid for last year. A new quote form their website gave me a price of the same as last year, whilst quoting that I'd been involved in a non-fault accident. I rang them and asked what was going on. Apparently there's statistical evidence to suggest that people involved in crashes are more likely to crash again. After a bit of arguing I managed to get a small discount.

Being a young driver clearly makes it worse though - I've managed to earn four straight years NCB since passing at the age of 17. Things were starting to enter the "reasonable" price category.

No wonder there's over a million uninsured cars out there... :rolleyes:

Rant over.

Tute · 9 May 2010 at 00:26

Apparently there's statistical evidence to suggest that people involved in crashes are more likely to crash again. After a bit of arguing I managed to get a small discount.

Well we all know it's not always true but insurance companies don't care about that.

As for getting insured, have you tried any young driver specialists? Tried price comparison websites? Also try playing companies off against one another - get the best quotes off the websites and get on the phone.

Hxc · 9 May 2010 at 00:29

My fault accident made my premium £4 more expensive than when I didn't declare it (to compare, wasn't considering fraud etc).

Lonz · 9 May 2010 at 00:30

Hxc said:
My fault accident made my premium £4 more expensive than when I didn't declare it (to compare, wasn't considering fraud etc).

M**********r!!!

Lonz · 9 May 2010 at 00:34

Tute said:
Well we all know it's not always true but insurance companies don't care about that.

As for getting insured, have you tried any young driver specialists? Tried price comparison websites? Also try playing companies off against one another - get the best quotes off the websites and get on the phone.

I did try comparison website but Admiral were still the cheapest for what I was after. The MINI isn't the problem, it's the other car I'm trying to get insured on as a named driver that is causing the real head/heartache.

K.C. Leblanc · 9 May 2010 at 00:47

I've just had this, but the difference is only about £30. Since the claim isn't resolved I'm going to ask the other party meet this cost.

matkeys · 9 May 2010 at 00:57

my 2 non faults put my insurance up £75 still what can you do **** happens, get on with it

rypt · 9 May 2010 at 01:09

Technically if it is non fault you can still take the other party to small claims court to make them pay for the fact that your premium is higher

Dogbreath · 9 May 2010 at 08:08

I had an argument with someone on here a while back that flatly refused to believe this could happen. It completely sucks, and it shouldn't be legal to do this IMO.

matkeys · 9 May 2010 at 08:45

It is wrong but that's the way it Is!!!!

Hxc · 9 May 2010 at 10:42

Dogbreath said:
I had an argument with someone on here a while back that flatly refused to believe this could happen. It completely sucks, and it shouldn't be legal to do this IMO.

Insurance is mostly based upon stats; stats apparently show that people who have non fault accidents, are more likely to have another accident, fault or not. Thus the charge is higher. It's logical. Perhaps unfair to those who were genuinely not at fault at all, but I'm sure there are lots of cases where the fault is split between the two parties, yet it gets entirely blamed upon one or the other.

Once again please note Admiral Group as a whole had a combined ratio of 91% in 2009, meaning that they made an underwriting profit of 9%. They are not charging prices that totally screw you out of hundreds of pounds, they are breaking even with a 10% margin on top... fair?

malfunkshun · 9 May 2010 at 10:55

Mine is going up this year and I havent had a conviction/claim/FPN or changed my car, so my NCD is two years instead of one and I have held a full UK licence for more than a year (which I hadn't last year). It's the nature of the beast to screw everyone possible.

Dogbreath · 9 May 2010 at 11:40

Hxc said:
Insurance is mostly based upon stats; stats apparently show that people who have non fault accidents, are more likely to have another accident, fault or not. Thus the charge is higher. It's logical.

If you were driving at the time then it's quite possible that whilst not technicaly at fault, you could have averted the accident with better driving skills. In this case I can understand that, on a case by case basis, you may present more risk.

However, imagine you have parked in the same place for years with no problems, and then one day some drunken idiot crashes into it. Why do you suddenly present a larger risk?

I'm also well aware of insurance companies profits, and my rant is not about premiums in general, but about unjust behaviour.

Griffo · 9 May 2010 at 11:54

I notice on some quote sites they have a drop-down for what kind of claim, I assume this lets them cater for "someone hit my parked car" and "...I braked suddenly" case differences...

Lonz · 9 May 2010 at 11:56

The ironic thing is, the repairs on the claim are much than that off the increased premium. I'm well aware that insurance companies are businesses and that they are out to make their shareholders money, but these are just market inefficiencies punishing those who play by the rules.

Hxc · 9 May 2010 at 11:59

Dogbreath said:
If you were driving at the time then it's quite possible that whilst not technicaly at fault, you could have averted the accident with better driving skills. In this case I can understand that, on a case by case basis, you may present more risk.

However, imagine you have parked in the same place for years with no problems, and then one day some drunken idiot crashes into it. Why do you suddenly present a larger risk?

Judging insurance premiums on a case by case basis taking everything into account would be fantastic; but it's unfortunately not viable. Thus, the stats based appraoch we presently have is the best comprimise. If you think you can offer a service based upon actual personal risk rather than statistical risk, get forming a company, you'd have a massive amount of business, I'm sure.

Ev0 · 9 May 2010 at 12:01

I had 2 non fault claims a while ago, some insurers loaded the premium because of it and some didn't.

elephant would have wanted an extra £50, Privilege didn't want an extra penny.

Dogbreath · 9 May 2010 at 16:03

Hmm, can the rise in premium not be claimed back from the third party insurers? If they all had to pay each others non-fault premium increases they might be a bit more careful how they apply it.

*Moangroan* · 9 May 2010 at 18:08

Lonz said:
I rang them and asked what was going on. Apparently there's statistical evidence to suggest that people involved in crashes are more likely to crash again.

No wonder there's over a million uninsured cars out there...

Rant over.

Satistical evidence some donut will do it again....but u pay the priviledge...nice one.

It really does make you wonder looking at fines and bans for driving without insurance seem lower than the actual yearly premium. Buy an old banger and who cares if they take it. I wouldn't like to go down that route but it is cheaper.