What is the point in NCB?

Barks

Barks

Barks

Soldato
Joined
20 Jul 2008
Posts
4,506
As above, what is the actual point in this?

Firstly, a lot of accidents are, funnily enough, accidents. A skilful driver may pose a lower risk but essentially accidents can occur to anyone.
Protected/Guaranteed NCB. Doesn't this defy the whole point?
What is the difference between having 3 NCB or simply 3 years without any history of claims/accidents.

It seems to me like an unfair mechanism used to justify car insurance companies adopting price discrimination. The fact it only applies to the policy holder is also grossly unfair.

It has very little to do with personal risk and just about everything to do with being a long term financial investment for the policy holder.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts,
 
Aren't a large majority of accidents at low speed? Hence that would suggest that a skilful/careful driver is much less likely to smack in someone's bumper while reverse parking etc?

I see where you're coming from though, far too many uninsured idiots out there along with people who will just drive off after a prang in a car park - they hit others indiscriminately so a lot of it is down to how lucky you are :(
 
It would seem there is always someone to blame though. They are no longer known as RTA(Road Traffic Accident) but now(well, a few years now) known as a RTC(Road Traffic Collision).

But pretty much it's just a discount for not costing your insurance company loads in fees etc.
 
scott212 said:
As above, what is the actual point in this?

Firstly, a lot of accidents are, funnily enough, accidents. A skilful driver may pose a lower risk but essentially accidents can occur to anyone.
Click to expand...

It can, but a skilled driver will be less likely to get into a situation where an accident could occur, and more able to avoid accidents caused by others poor driving.

scott212 said:
Protected/Guaranteed NCB. Doesn't this defy the whole point?
Click to expand...

Protected no claims is pretty much an insurance gimmick IMO.

scott212 said:
What is the difference between having 3 NCB or simply 3 years without any history of claims/accidents.
Click to expand...

The former means you have held an insurance policy for three consecutive years without a claim against it. The later is meaningless; if you don't hold a policy you can not possibly have any history of claims against it.

scott212 said:
It seems to me like an unfair mechanism used to justify car insurance companies adopting price discrimination. The fact it only applies to the policy holder is also grossly unfair.
Click to expand...

It seems unfair to you, no doubt because your premiums are high as you have no NCB. However, everyone has had to go through the same situation at some stage.

scott212 said:
It has very little to do with personal risk and just about everything to do with being a long term financial investment for the policy holder.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies are a business, they exist primarily to make money. They do this by balancing the premium against the calculated risk they are taking. If you have no insurance history, the odds are stacked against you since the insurance company have only you age and profile to calculate risk against, rather than your history. It's a fact that young drivers (especialy male) present a large risk to insurance companies, even more so if you have no insurance history.
 
Last edited:
Because people who claim are a liability to an insurance company. Believe it or not, insurance companies would rather not pay out any money, ever - so they give preference rates to people who hardly ever claim.
 
Insurance companies are a business, but car insurance is a legal requirement. In an ideal world surely car insurance would be a non-profitable government run organization?
 
Statistics, insurance companies are in the business of making money.

They clearly have statistics that show people with however many years of no claims bonus are in general not as likely to have an accident.

Think about it!
 
Are you still on your Anti-insurance company due to discrimination crusade?

NCB is awarded to people who do not make fault claims. People who cause accidents cost more money than people who dont, thus they pay more money.

It's quite simple.
 
scott212 said:
Insurance companies are a business, but car insurance is a legal requirement. In an ideal world surely car insurance would be a non-profitable government run organization?
Click to expand...

No. Insurance is a legal requirement to make it fair for everyone on the road. If there was no insurance, a guy could spend his life savings on a car, then some tossbag would come along, destroy it, and never be required to do anything about it. Guy #1 would be completely screwed.

Insurance is not a legal requirement so that someone makes some money. It's to make it fair. even for you.
 
DampCat; insurance isn't a legal requirement to protect your cars. It is a legal requirement to protect people. If you disable someone for life, they may need £xxx,xxx for the rest of their life. Someone has to pay that.
 
Well thanks. I was pretty sure people could think around the scenario of a car crash rather than needed to write every word for every situation that might arise.
 
I was bored a had a quote for a Disco3 and with 0 NCB it was something like £930 and with 1yr NCB it was £1000 :eek:

All with the same details :confused:
 
Yeah I mean why should I have cheaper insurance just because I've cost my insurance companies nowt and handed over thousands of my hard earned over the last 9 years compared to Johnny Crash-a-lot who's had 3 smashes in 4 years and cost his insurer tens of thousands of pounds ;)
 
scott212 said:
Insurance companies are a business, but car insurance is a legal requirement. In an ideal world surely car insurance would be a non-profitable government run organization?
Click to expand...

Definately. If you had a trustworthy government to offer fair prices. I would imagine our govenment would add some extra tax in there and keep the prices high.

It is not a good situation that private companies can charge what they like for something that is a legal requirement. Insurance companies rip people off because they can, and sadly there is nothing we can do about it.

The only saving grace is that there is plenty of competition which helps to keep the premiums down. It is still disgustingly expensive though.
 
What's wrong with the suggestion that a government run, non-profit, car insurance system would be cheaper?

Even if you do have loads of NCB your still getting done and paying way over the odds.

Insurance companies make a hell of a profit. How do they do this? By charging a hell of a lot. Simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom