car insurance no claims question

Bruce it's how it works.  Each incident has statistically made you more likely to have another incident in the near future, so a greater risk for the underwriters and hence the need for a greater premium to be charged. 

The NCD protection is exactly as it is stated - it protects your No Claims Discount but does not mean that your premium as a whole is "protected".

The thing is about car insurance is that it's a very competitive market and loyalty is hardly ever rewarded so it pays to shop around come renewal time.

OK, it's not a con - well not as such.    It's referred to an accident loading.

For most insurers it'll be something like...

No of accidents in 3 years / loading
1  /  10%
2  /  25%
3  /  50%
4  /  No Quote or special conditions.

More than 100% loading for 2 accidents is unreasonable (but not illegal) - look for another insurer.

The accident loading typically applies irrespective of fault - with some insurers, you'll still get penalised is someone crashes into your car even while it's parked!

Thanks both

I long since stopped any brand loyalty to my car insurer. I will shop around for sure but wondered if having had two claims this year would mean I would start without any NCD, despite such good prior record.

Bruce

Huge posted:

...The accident loading typically applies irrespective of fault - with some insurers, you'll still get penalised is someone crashes into your car even while it's parked!

Yes, the statistics don't differentiate between whose fault it was - they just show that if you have been in an incident then the risk of you being in another one within the next 12 months is proportionately greater. It's probably not fair or accurate for everyone, but in insurance it's hard to argue with statistics...

Bruce, you need to check with the terms and conditions of your Insurance - specifically the terms of the NCD protection - to see whether having two incidents within the policy term affect your eligibility for a future NCD.

The government took the insurance industry to task a couple of years ago for failing to make customers aware of the fact that premiums still go up after a claim, regardless of NCD protection. Insurers were told by the 'Competition and Markets Authority' that they must 'specify how much a NCD is worth and what the cost would be in the event of a claim, so that customers can decide if it’s worth it.' If your insurer failed to do this in their sales material, you could have a case against them. Of course, they probably did give you this information, but in the driest and most indigestible form they could concoct in their small print! 

There have also been a number of cases where actuarial risk and statistical risk have shown little or no correlation (and sometimes even a negative correlation!).

One such negative correlation situation occurred within a minority sector of the motor insurance industry back in the late 1980s; it only stopped when the relevant governmental agency (I think it was the Insurance Ombudsman then, but it may have been in some court cases) started using the word 'cartel'.

The insurance industry is a hive of scum and villainy.

I had an accident this year, not my fault ,uncontested . Full NCD , protected NCD. Result,  they,  M and S , put my premiums up from £340 to almost £500. I had the same spiel about the discount being the same but it wasn't my fault! Dumped M and S now paying much the same as before with another provider. 

Just did a quick comparison site trawl and looking at £330-390 from other providers with all details the same (and declaring my claims this last year etc).

Bruce

I usually visit a couple of comparison websites at renewal time, and was most surprised a couple of years ago when the best quote came from my existing insurer, for exactly the same cover, but for some £80 less than the figure quoted in my renewal.

Needless to say, I took out the new policy, but it did raise doubts about companies taking advantage of customer loyalty, and routinely increasing premiums.

Insurance quotes are extremely unpredictable to me!  My last two insurance renewals were most competitive from my existing insurer even after numerous web searches.  This year however, my premium went up and two other well known insurers offered a new policy at a saving of over £200.  Loyalty does not exist in any shape, form or fashion - after a period, insurers appear to get bored of their customer base and encourage them to either cough up an unhealthy amount or, more likely, move on to another provider.  I chose the latter, having had no change of circumstance, claim, etc.

I also learned the hard way about NCD's several years ago when a taxi driver clipped the front of my car as I was edging out of a poorly sighted side street (this street is now bollarded off to prevent access/ egress).  The taxi driver was bent over picking up his radio handset and not looking where he was going.  I was stationary.  But because my wheels were in front of the junction line (the only way possible to exit the road); and because there were no personal injury claims; my insurer decided not to contest and accepted I was at fault.  When it came to renew, I found it impossible to get a competitive quote from the market and I was stuck with my insurer for 2 or 3 years paying through the nose until my profile became more acceptable to the market.  You gotta love the motor insurance sector.....!!

Peter

The insurance industry makes all the rules for its own benefit.  We, the insured, are powerless to complain, except to shop around.  Many years ago a driver caused minor damage to my car whilst I was stationery in a car park.  Fortunately I was in the car at the time and the other driver admitted full responsibility, both to me and to their insurance company.  Their company settled the claim in full.  I subsequently wrote to their insurer stating that I didn’t consider the matter closed if as a result of this no-fault accident I was penalised with an increased premium at renewal time and I reserved the right to make a supplementary claim.  They totally refused to recognise this possibility and said the matter was closed.  I feel no loyalty to any insurance company.  If you don’t shop around you get taken for a ride at renewal time.  It’s an industry which needs a complete overhaul, despite it being more regulated than ever.  

On the narrow point, with minor scrapes I think it always worth doing the sums re how much is your voluntary & compulsory excess and what is the cost of repair by, say, Chips Away? Sometimes a repair of a hundred or so quid might be worth shallowing compared to hassle of the insurers and their ways of recovering from you more money through increased premiums.

More broadly, I think car insurance has long-gone the way of other products like building/contents insurance, gas/electricity costs, broadband, pay TV, mobile phones and so on.  Concepts of loyalty are a myth. The companies rely on your laziness to pay at renewal, stay on contracts etc and will happily rip you off. It's a sad consequence of the market-driven economy but these days if you don't want to be ripped off you have to (a) do your research before each and every renewal point and (b) be prepared to put up with the on-line/tel negotiation process.  It annoys me that I have to endure this hassle in my life but what really bugs me is the thought that there must be very many so-called customers of these services that are insufficiently savvy, too poorly educated, too busy, insufficiently confident, too infirm or old etc to cope. They are easy prey for this corporate thievery.      

Way back when, motor insurers operated a "knock for knock" agreement between themselves, on the basis that, overall, simply paying their own insured's damage costs would average out, whilst cutting down substantially on admin costs involved in trying to recover those costs from the "at fault" driver's insurers.

This meant that, regardless of fault, one's claim was paid out under one's own insurance policy ............. the phrase in use at the time was "it's a no claim bonus, not a no blame bonus".

The way round this for the motorist was to make it clear that the submission of a claim form represented simply "notification of an accident", as required by most policy conditions, but in no way was to be taken as representing a claim under the policy, as the third party was considered to be at fault.

We no longer seem to have this option, and the insurance industry continues on it's merry way, routinely boosting premiums each year.

Had a "shunt" a couple of months ago when a terribly nice Polish chap drove into the side of my car. Just had my renewal through, up from £400 to £415, so fundamentally no change.

I use a broker for all our insurance, two cars and the house, as we have circumstances most online companies won't cover and the reduction in hassle at renewal more than compensates for the little extra cost.

Willy.

PS. Have a lot of sympathy for the guy who drove into me. I suspect that, turning right onto a main road, in very busy traffic, he checked the "wrong" lanes for oncoming traffic. Been there, done that, most recently in Aberdeen Washington state. Scared the heck out of Mrs Willy but the US lanes, unlike those in Belfast, are so wide even a F250 had enough room to avoid me.

These days having a dash-cam can be very helpful in providing evidence as to what exactly happened and who is to blame. Also, discounts are available from many insurers, especially if the dash-cam has GPS with record of mph.

Debs

I have to say the info in this thread is a complete surprise - and shock - to me (well, it is about 30 years since my last claim!) and undoubtedly it is a con - but unfortunately the whole insurance industry seems to be one big con, so sadly I'm not surprised.

I just wish the powers that be would force greater honesty and clarity, but they seem uninterested.

naim_nymph posted:

These days having a dash-cam can be very helpful in providing evidence as to what exactly happened and who is to blame. Also, discounts are available from many insurers, especially if the dash-cam has GPS with record of mph.

Many may not be aware, but there is already a little black box in modern vehicles that records a suite of variables including speed, braking, and steering. Depending on local laws (i.e., varies by state in the US) this evidence can be used in an accident investigation either for or against you, depending on how it is interpreted. Dash cams may go to another level providing visual evidence.

My question is do we really need to be relegated to recording more and more events in our daily routines to protect our innocence or alternatively expose our culpability should a mishap occur? What's next? Everyone wearing a Bluetooth camera on their lapel streaming their life in real time to their smartphone, just in case something litigious occurs in the coffee shop, on a sidewalk, or in the workplace?

It all gets a bit Big Brother Nineteen Eighty-Four to me and I don't need it in my life.

Your premium and the discount you get on that premium are 2 separate and independent things. Let me give you an example

Lets say you have 0% NCD and your premium is £1000. You have 2 accidents within 1 year and your premium goes up to £2000

Now add in an NCD of say 30%. In the first year you’d pay £700 and in the second year £1400. 

Insuring your NCD means that you retain the 30% discount even after 2 claims, whereas without NCD, your discount may drop to 15% or even 0% So:

With NCD insurance your 2 year’s premiums would be £700 and £1,400, whereas without NCD insurance your premiums would be £700 and £2000*

* Depending on how much your NCD percentage goes down following each claim

Chris G posted:

  I subsequently wrote to their insurer stating that I didn’t consider the matter closed if as a result of this no-fault accident I was penalised with an increased premium at renewal time and I reserved the right to make a supplementary claim.  They totally refused to recognise this possibility and said the matter was closed. 

This is why you should climb out your car after the shunt holding your back and neck and screaming in agony. I don't see any problem in claiming for compensation, no matter what label you put on it. When it's a non-fault accident, who pays for all the hassle, time, organisation, trips, increased premium for 3 years and the fact that your car will never be the same again, with it's now poor paint finish.

Claiming financial compensation for fictitious pain and injury is fraud, isn't it?

count.d posted:

Chris G posted:

  I subsequently wrote to their insurer stating that I didn’t consider the matter closed if as a result of this no-fault accident I was penalised with an increased premium at renewal time and I reserved the right to make a supplementary claim.  They totally refused to recognise this possibility and said the matter was closed. 

This is why you should climb out your car after the shunt holding your back and neck and screaming in agony. I don't see any problem in claiming for compensation, no matter what label you put on it. When it's a non-fault accident, who pays for all the hassle, time, organisation, trips, increased premium for 3 years and the fact that your car will never be the same again, with it's now poor paint finish.

a) That is fraud.

b) If you believe that you will actually gain in the long term you are desperately naïve. False claims cost everyone more money in the long run, you included.

Bruce

Adam Meredith posted:

joerand posted:

.......recording more and more events in our daily routines to protect our innocence or alternatively expose our culpability should a mishap occur? What's next? Everyone wearing a Bluetooth camera on their lapel streaming their life in real time to their smartphone, just in case something litigious occurs in the coffee shop, on a sidewalk, or in the workplace?

It all gets a bit Big Brother Nineteen Eighty-Four to me and I don't need it in my life.

It struck me several years ago that the technology now existed for the Government to track mobile phone locations in real time, measure the rate of travel and issue speeding fines without recourse to other techniques of observation.

That they don't doesn't mean that someone isn't.

I did see  an article a while back that suggested a model whereby you could elect for speed-tracking on your car that would lead to reduced premiums, if you demonstrated safe driving speeds. It presumably didn't use an actual phone, but an installed tracker, as a driver could just leave their phone at home before a fast and dangerous drive, only taking it with them when they had time to drive more sedately. Nor should they be "penalised" for being a passenger in a car with a reckless (but not wreck-less) driver.

I can't imagine it would ever become popular (or even necessary) as we are all great drivers, with excellent judgement, who continue to safely choose which speed limits and other traffic laws we obey.

winkyincanada posted:

I did see  an article a while back that suggested a model whereby you could elect for speed-tracking on your car that would lead to reduced premiums, if you demonstrated safe driving speeds. It presumably didn't use an actual phone, but an installed tracker, as a driver could just leave their phone at home before a fast and dangerous drive, only taking it with them when they had time to drive more sedately. Nor should they be "penalised" for being a passenger in a car with a reckless (but not wreck-less) driver.

Both Ariva and DirectLine have something similar ... and yes they do use phone apps (though a quick look shows the DirectLine also has a "black box" which supposedly is easy to install - I assume it plugs into the OBDII port.