Show Us Your Motors!

[Akagi]

Insurance will right that off then welcome to your new premium

Its "write". They are insurance underwriters.

It may well get written off if it goes through insurance, but that might not be such a bad thing. You could then have the UK's best looked after CAT N Fiesta, and potentially a few K in your back pocket after buying back the salvage and having it repaired on the cheap.

That being said, its not a dead cert that it will be written off. I'd say it could go either way. And insurance prices don't suddenly triple when you are involved in a non fault accident. Don't be such a pessimist.

 

[MrRockliffe]

And insurance prices don't suddenly triple when you are involved in a non fault accident.

They're not allowed to - by law Proving that though… another question entirely

 

[Kenai]

They're not allowed to - by law Proving that though… another question entirely

Which law out of interest? Not heard that before

 

[MrRockliffe]

Which law out of interest? Not heard that before

May be misquoting - perhaps not a law but insurance regulations. I’ll double check and get back to you

 

[MrRockliffe]

Which law out of interest? Not heard that before

They got back to me, and advised that it would be in breach of “Treating Customers Fairly”, a set of regulations first introduced by the FCA into the finance world and later adopted by the insurance sector.

He advised that increasing your premium for an accident deemed not your fault, and with no expense incurred by your insurer, would be in direct breach of this policy.

 

[Kenai]

They got back to me, and advised that it would be in breach of “Treating Customers Fairly”, a set of regulations first introduced by the FCA into the finance world and later adopted by the insurance sector.

He advised that increasing your premium for an accident deemed not your fault, and with no expense incurred by your insurer, would be in direct breach of this policy.

Thanks, i'll have a read around the subject at some point.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Surely all they are doing is assessing risk so if it can be shown that people involved in a non fault accident are statistically more likely to be involved in another accident then how is not fair?

 

[Basher]

He advised that increasing your premium for an accident deemed not your fault, and with no expense incurred by your insurer, would be in direct breach of this policy.

Yet it happens all the time. The fact is that someone in an accident (at fault or not) is statistically likely to be in another. So nothing unfair at all about that.

 

[Akagi]

In my experience (not with my own policies), at least in recent years, adding things like non fault claims makes very little difference unless you are a new or otherwise already high risk driver.

There are plenty of other things much less fair which can affect your premium far more. Like your job title.

When I got my first car I actually started volunteering so I could put my occupation as "Voluntary Worker" without committing fraud, because the premium was about £700 less vs. having it as "Student" or "Unemployed"

 

[MrRockliffe]

The fact is that someone in an accident (at fault or not) is statistically likely to be in another. So nothing unfair at all about that.

This doesn’t seem very logical. Surely you’re equally likely to be in another?

The same way if you flip a head, the next coin flip is equally likely to be a heads, because each time you flip the coin there’s a 50/50 chance, and isn’t dependent on the result before.

 

[Basher]

This doesn’t seem very logical. Surely you’re equally likely to be in another?

The same way if you flip a head, the next coin flip is equally likely to be a heads, because each time you flip the coin there’s a 50/50 chance, and isn’t dependent on the result before.

No, you're statistically more likely to be in another accident vs someone that hasn't been in an accident at all.

It's not as simple as flipping a coin. The insurer may decide that if someone collided with you on your commute, that your route is riskier than they had originally anticipated, thus your premium increases.

 

[MrRockliffe]

No, you're statistically more likely to be in another accident vs someone that hasn't been in an accident at all.

It's not as simple as flipping a coin. The insurer may decide that if someone collided with you on your commute, that your route is riskier than they had originally anticipated, thus your premium increases.

Still doesn’t make any sense to me. Perhaps on a commute, but if you’re just out driving, I don’t see how you’d be more likely to have another accident.

 

[Basher]

Still doesn’t make any sense to me. Perhaps on a commute, but if you’re just out driving, I don’t see how you’d be more likely to have another accident.

Fair enough, that's what the statistics say, though. If you've been in an accident before, you're more of a risk.

 

[Havana_UK]

@MrRockliffe that's not how this works...it's nothing to do with "you" specifically. Statistics are used to deal with large amounts of data to detect patterns, and insurers have found over the course of many years and lots of data they've collected that drivers who have been involved in one claim are more likely to be involved in later claims. This is the pattern that emerges from the whole data set.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Still doesn’t make any sense to me. Perhaps on a commute, but if you’re just out driving, I don’t see how you’d be more likely to have another accident.

It's really quite simple and it rests with the idea that a large amount of accidents are at least in part contributed to by the actions, or lack, of the third party. Many non-fault accidents are avoidable, even if they are not your fault when they happen. Consider a few examples:

a) Driver A always brakes late when he comes up to a queue of traffic. However one day, he brakes late as per usual and the guy behind runs into him. Whose fault is that? It's the guy behind - you must always be able to stop in the distance you see to be clear. But would the accident have happened if Driver A had eased of the throttle sooner and braked gradually to a halt? Probably not - the guy behind wasn't paying attention and was caught out by the harsh braking.

b) Driver B always parks like an idiot. On a bend. The space next to the truck loading bay. Right up against the line. You name it, he'll stop at nothing to park his car as close to where he's going as possible. One day somebody clips his car when it's parked. It's not his fault - he isn't even in the car. But would it have happened if he was more careful about how he parked?

etc etc. Basically, if you're involved in a non-fault accident it can point to areas of your driving which may make you more likely to have an accident yourself. Some insurers see this extra risk and use it to price policies accordingly. Some do not.

 

[ChrisD.]

House move complete and here's the fleet.

FD2 will be going into the garage once I get a chance to empty it from all the empty boxes and random junk.

 

[watercooledman]

Very nice and lovely home too

 

[Akagi]

Not at all envious. Mainly of the fact you have a garage. Albeit tiny looking. But also that is a nice looking house!

 

[ChrisD.]

Very nice and lovely home too

Not at all envious. Mainly of the fact you have a garage. Albeit tiny looking. But also that is a nice looking house!

Thanks both.

The garage will fit the Civic and that's the most important thing. It came out of a single one before which was slightly bigger but I have the advantage of a shed as well as rafters for storage. Plus power to keep the battery on charge!

 

[grudas]