Firstly a little background.....

In 2012 some nice person exited a sideroad into the side of my brand new Monte Carlo

I had a witness and the other party held their hand up straight away.

There was a lotta damage but I know the insurance will sort it.Im not at fault,right?

When the claim was on going my insurance told me it would be quicker if I claimed on my insurance as a non fault claim.I was to pay the excess etc and my insurance would claim it all back

I thought this very strange but was assured it was commonplace and my no claims would not be affected and I would not be any worse off in the future

I accepted this but near the car repair date the 3rd partys insurance contacted me and advised me to claim on their insurance instead

The car was booked in though so I left it as it was and apart from having to disclose a non fault claim on websites etc I thought no more of it

Fast forward to now.Im named driver on the wifes car and her renewal arrives in the post (£1100)

I ring the insurance up and manage to get it down to £560 but wifey needs to ring them to confirm as shes main driver 

While shes on the phone they realise ive had a non fault claim and stick another £40 on because of it

I take the phone and am told that "statistically people who make non fault claims go on to make fault claims as well"

I was annoyed, but not as annoyed as I was at my original insurer for telling me to claim on my own insurance in the first place! 

Wish I`d cancelled the repair and claimed on the other persons insurance after all

Moral of the story is If you`re not at fault,dont claim on your insurance no matter how much bs your insurance provider gives you

Edited 5 May, 201412 yr by dazz600

I had a bump in 2009 when some foreign woman went through a red light after misreading the traffic lights.

 

Since 2009 my quotes have seen a slight increase due to this smash, even though everything was recovered through her insurers.

 

So as far as I'm aware, it doesn't matter whose insurance you claim on for a non-fault. Irrespective you will be paying more on your insurance premium for the next 5 years until you're no longer legally obliged to inform them.

 

I saw my a*se also to be honest, as how does it make sense that I'm having to pay more purely because some stupid woman misread the traffic lights!?!! It's not as if I could've done anything at all to avoid her either!

Even after claiming from the other parties insurance you'll still have to declare it as a non fault claim regardless of which policy you claimed from.

 

Premiums will always increase, even if your NCD remains intact as you are still considered to be a greater risk.

Exactly as mannyo says, you'll still have to declare a non fault either way so makes no difference. 

I cannot understand why people get so confused about this matter.

It's called the No CLAIMS Discount.

Notice that middle word?

A claim is a claim, even if it doesn't cost the insurance company any money. Statistically it proves that you have at some stage been a "risk" and therefore until you can "prove" that the risk has been diminished, which normally means a few years of no claims, then you will have to pay more.

 

And one further comment. From my experience I have found that these sorts of "problems" seem to be much more prevalent with the cheaper end of the insurance market. Sometimes spending a bit more money gets you a better service.

Whilst I obviously have to accept the statistical reasoning behind why I've had slightly increased premiums for the last 5 years due to a non-fault collision, I'm always aggrieved to the fact that there was simply no way of me (or anyone else in my position) avoiding being hit. Why should I have to suffer an increased premium because of someone else's dangerous negligence!?!

 

This is not a rant at anyone in particular, but the system is fundamentally flawed. As with so much else these days....   Ultimately, I need car insurance. So I swallow the bitter pill and accept it.

 

I completely agree with why the OP is not happy! Even if they have misunderstood the way it works slightly.

Oh I can understand getting hacked off with being mullered with higher costs due to no fault of your own. That said, the OP seems pee'd off with the way his insurance company have dealt with it think they've shafted him, which they havent. (no more than everyone else anyway)

(no more than everyone else anyway)

 

Definitely the key words!

 

It's ultimately just a flawed system. Then again, it would cost insurance companies to look at each non-fault as an individual case just to try and keep innocent party's premiums down.

The system is not flawed. 
An Actuary calculates the "risk" that is involved in a policy and thereby sets a premium for that policy.

If a driver has an accident, even if not his own fault, then that proves there is a "risk" with that person, therefore that "risk" has to be covered. That could be by removing all or part of the discount or by increasing the premium due until the "risk" has been removed.

It is no different to living in different post codes or having certain occupations; it is all about "risk".

Firstly,I never knew non fault didn't depend on who insurance you actually claimed on

And secondly,even tho I have no choice in the matter am just not buying the 'risk' element

Someone ran into me.there was never any 'risk' of me ever being at fault

The only thing I'm guilty of is being on the road and isnt that what cars are for?

The whole premium should be tailored more toward blame,as in you can have 10 accidents that weren't your fault and never have to pay any more for premiums

As for 'cheaper end of insurance market' my original insurer was LV and swmbo's is Admiral

Neither back street dealers imho

Some insurance companies (privilege for one) only ask if you've made any claims in the last 3 years, so it's always best to go with one of then once it's 3 years after your claim, that's what I've done in the past.

...It is no different to living in different post codes or having certain occupations; it is all about "risk"...

Risk, statistics and new information.

Everytime you make a claim they learn more about you. A mate of mine lives in a low risk postcode area outside Manchester. He works in a rough area of Manchester. When he was bumped at work, his risk profile (and premium) soared.

Statistically, if you make any kind of claim, you are more likely to make another.

The system is not flawed. 

An Actuary calculates the "risk" that is involved in a policy and thereby sets a premium for that policy.

If a driver has an accident, even if not his own fault, then that proves there is a "risk" with that person, therefore that "risk" has to be covered. That could be by removing all or part of the discount or by increasing the premium due until the "risk" has been removed.

It is no different to living in different post codes or having certain occupations; it is all about "risk".

 

I'm sorry I have to disagree with you.

 

You mention this being no different to living in a different post code. You choose to live somewhere, you most certainly do not choose to be run off the road when travelling from A to B minding your own business.

 

My opinion is the system is flawed based on exactly how 'risk' is calculated. I fail to see how a system that 'calculates' a specific individual to be more of a risk just because they have been in an accident through no fault of their own is in any way fair. If you wanted to get an accurate analysis of whether a person involved in a non-fault is more of a risk, then you would need to look much further statistically to prove that. Obviously the way in which the risk is calculated is done so at more of a top level, hence the rather generalised statistic that people who have been in a non-fault accident are more likely to be involved in a fault accident.

 

You say that if a driver has a non-fault accident then this proves that they are a risk. How exactly does this prove that this person is more of a risk? Without further detailed statistically analysis you can't make that assumption...  This person could be a highly qualified off-duty traffic police officer who drives for a living for example. But yes, I understand that these are obviously the rules at present, not to mention the fact that it wouldn't be economical for companies to carry out further in depth statistical/risk analysis purely on a labour/time cost basis.

Just to be clear...  I'm not arguing with anyone here. I just feel that the way that you get an increase in premiums for simply being involved in a completely unavoidable accident through no fault of your own is ridiculous!

 

However, I accept that this is the way it's done, and it isn't about to change any time soon. So as above.... I pay my money and accept it begrudgingly.

I'm guessing that Dazz, you didn't bother to read the T & C's that LV provide then! (I insure with LV!)

 

All insurance is about "risk". It doesn't matter whether it is cars or life. That is why smokers pay higher life insurance costs than non-smokers, and why I pay higher car premiums as a railway worker than an office worker in the same area.

...I just feel that the way that you get an increase in premiums for simply being involved in a completely unavoidable accident through no fault of your own is ridiculous!...

Not necessarily. Maybe the place where you had your accident an accident blackspot? Is it a dangerous road? Statistically, you are more likely to have an accident is those cases and you are statistically more likely to drive down the same roads. Statistically you are a higher risk. We all know that some roads are more dangerous than others.

Note the word 'statistically' keeps appearing. Unless there is a GPS tracker in the car, an insurer can't ask about every road you drive down so they have to use statistics.

Not necessarily. Maybe the place where you had your accident an accident blackspot? Is it a dangerous road? Statistically, you are more likely to have an accident is those cases and you are statistically more likely to drive down the same roads. Statistically you are a higher risk. We all know that some roads are more dangerous than others.

Note the word 'statistically' keeps appearing. Unless there is a GPS tracker in the car, an insurer can't ask about every road you drive down so they have to use statistics.

 

When was the last time you were ever asked for specific location details when you had to put in the record of a past accident on an insurance quotation...? They charge you more purely on the basis that you had a non-fault accident, not the road that it was happened on.

 

I completely agree that it's all about statistics. My point being that the level of statistics is not deep enough to come to the immediate conclusion that because person A has a non-fault accident, they are more likely to have a fault accident. However, that's the way it is!

 

 

Right, I'm retiring from this! zzzzz's await.... or I may very well be paying more insurance when I fall asleep at the wheel tomorrow!!

Once again I say the system is flawed.Blame/risk are 2 different things.All the insurer should do is go down a checklist and say "has the proposed had an accident or claim that was their fault?" if yes,premium goes up.If no,premium stays same and you go to next question

Calculating a premium is not rocket science,and all the insurer wants to do is cover their own back and make more money

As for reading t+c`s....I`m  a bloke and don`t read instruction manuals or car insurance t+c`s

But if it says in there Im a risk for having 1 non fault claim in 20years of motoring then fair point      :think:

 

Omg just had another thought...Soon be the Briskoda meet on August 3rd

Alll those cars in 1 field in close proximity!

Never fear though,am gonna ok it with the insurance first and then bubble wrap the car      

Well you have my sympathies.

 

In 2010 I was hit by an unsecured locker door (not the big wagon door) on the back of a lorry. Did a bit of cosmetic damage, the guy admitted fault on the spot and a nice chap came by to say he'd seen it happen and was happy to be a witness.

 

I phoned my insurer (Esure at that time) and they said they'd get it sorted. Since they'd admitted fault I didn't need to pay my excess since all costs would be claimed back from the other insurer.

 

6 months later a bit of minor paint damage to the doors ended up with almost the whole car getting resprayed three times. Twice by the insurers choice of body shop that made an utter arse of it, over sprayed everywhere, runs, drips and finger prints; and once by a decent bodyshop that fixed it (Iain Ross in Luncarty, top bloke, gave me a jag as a loaner). The insurers shop also damaged one of my alloys. Esure sent out an assessor before they'd let me get the car fixed properly and even he wouldn't authorised the black stone chips that had been sealed under clear coat like burned match heads. Luckily Iain Ross's guys were decent and fixed that for nothing as part of the main job.

 

Whilst all this was going on I had to renew my insurance and because Esure hadn't claimed back the excess from the other company the accident was still listed as an "at fault" accident so I was hit by a premium increase which was never refunded even after it reverted to no fault.

 

The only good thing I've found it that I haven't found any penalty from having a no fault on my record since then.

 

I can understand that the insurers can increase your premium for no faults since statistically if you have a couple of claims then you may drive into circumstances that make a no fault accident more likely, therefore you're a higher risk.

 

A mate of mine who works in the industry told me after that you should always claim on the other person's insurance for no fault claims. Then the recovery of the excess doesn't apply.

Edited 6 May, 201412 yr by Aspman

So, say you are stationary at a traffic light on red, positioned in accordance with the highway code and someone runs in to the back of you. This somehow can make you a bigger risk? You're unlucky, yes, but that's about it.

 

To say you are a bigger risk because you have been involved in an accident in and of itself is nonsense. Its just an excuse to charge more.

So, say you are stationary at a traffic light on red, positioned in accordance with the highway code and someone runs in to the back of you. This somehow can make you a bigger risk? You're unlucky, yes, but that's about it.

 

To say you are a bigger risk because you have been involved in an accident in and of itself is nonsense. Its just an excuse to charge more.

 

I suggest you talk to an Actuary, and find out exactly what they do and how they assess "risk" for insurance companies.

Whether you like it or not the facts are that statistically someone who has an accident has more chance of having another within a period. 

It seems pretty clear how it works to me. 

 

Mrs Smith, she drives pretty poorly and has many near misses daily. She has a accident, say she's coming up to a filter lane on a roundabout where you dont need to stop and give way. Mrs Smith stops anyway, causing the car behind to smash into the back of her. Clearly in the insurance companies eyes she is not to blame at all, so she has a non fault accident on her file. The problem is that it isnt long before she has anther smash this time, she gets the blame (correctly). Now when the insurance company look at her file, the say, oh look, she has had a non fault accident and now a fault accident so therefor people who are blameless in a accident are still a higher risk of having another one.

 

Long story short, there are people who drive round causing accidents but dont get the blame, no doubt you've all read the stories or had friends involved in stories. These people will inevitably have a accident and get the blame, which then attaches the 'high risk' tag to the non fault accident they had previous.

 

If the companies wanted to take details of accidents and look at them to make a decision if the person was just unlucky or were perhaps played a part in some way to causing the accident it'd mean people who are just in the wrong place at the wrong time wouldnt get done over but they are out to make money at the end of the day and that method wouldnt help that objective.   

Edited 6 May, 201412 yr by matt1chelski

I suggest you talk to an Actuary, and find out exactly what they do and how they assess "risk" for insurance companies.

Whether you like it or not the facts are that statistically someone who has an accident has more chance of having another within a period.

I know a senior actuary to the motor insurance industry.

The big problem they have, is that they are limited in what information they can ask for. Ever wondered why they never ask for the address of your workplace? They are not allowed to. Consequently, they have to rely on statistics.

My cousin is a Actuary for one of the big insurance companies.

My cousin is a Actuary for one of the big insurance companies.

I find it fascinating talking to him.

The ABI did a survey a couple of years ago and it found that over 85% of the general public think that knowing the probability of throwing a double six, can be used to predict the result of the next throw :(