Renewal and no blame claim increase

[Glyn]

I have just renewed the policy and as usual i use confused.com every year because the company i am with rips me off at renewal time, and that is every company at every renewal,every year, indeed i expect my new insurrer will do this next year to me too - so no loyalty.

The point of this mail is to expose what i believe is dishonest inflation of the premium.

My wife is always a named driver though she doesnt ever drive the car, by adding her my premium lowers, this year for example with soley me on the policy i was quoted just over £440, by adding my wife the quote was £371 - this in itself seems odd as the car is likly to be driven now by two people and therefore more likely to be involved in an accident as it could be on the road more (though as i said she doesnt drive it ever).

However - When i contacted the new insurrer to accept the quote (£371) i was informed that i had declared no accidents or claims for me or the wife over the previous year but on their records they had a claim by the wife in her car and that would increase the premium to £413 - fair enough you may say.

However, when in discussion with the new company i did tell them my wife had a brand new car, she had parked in a car park and had gone shopping, another driver whilst parking had scrapped her car whilst trying to park next to it, tiny bit of paint marked on the rear wheel arch and rear bumper.

Wife saw this damage when she returned to the car and phoned me, i went to her assistance and photographed the damage and waited for the other driver to return, On the other drivers return i spoke to the lady about it, shown her the photographs of the wifes car and identified the damage on her car (also photographed) It was clear the lady had no idea she had caused any damage but the evidence was conclusive and she admitted liability - the claim went through insurrance and the other drivers insurrance paid in full - so no fault claim was made.

This claim it seems has raised the premium as they state the underwritters consider if you have had a claim then there is a greater risk of another claim, they could not say why that is when my wife was not even in the car at the time, was not responsible for any damage and the other driver admitted liability - just how can my wifes risk have been raised??? This seems like madness to me.

As i have her as a named driver there is little i can do as i have the choice to remove her from my policy, but if i do that my premium raises even further, however, my wife has no choice at renewal time which is due end of August, so i await the renewal premium, I will get a quote on confused, not add any claims, then do another quote with the claim declared - whatever the difference is I will consider as "damages" and will make a claim against the other driver via the small claims court.

The declaration of claims is over a three year period so the damages will be over three years and all this will be detailed in my claim to compensate her for a loss she isnt responsible for.

I just find the whole business with insurrance illogical and unreasonable, insurrance premiums should be based on the risk of the insurred person yet despite the Equalities Act 2010 insurrance companies descriminate against individualls simply by their postcode, their work, their age, their s3x and not the individual and that is unlawfull in the equalities act.

I am perplexed

[mike597]

Actuaries work out the premiums based on the risk factors involved. It's very complex but be reassured that it is solely designed to make the insurance company money. Gone are the days of the old mutuals who were there to mitigate risk for the greater good, these guys are in it for the shareholders and the more the profit the better.

The thing with a no fault claim is NOT that they are saying you are more likely to have an accident, they are saying statistically a claim is more likely if another precedes it. It's a cold, hard statistical fact, don't take it as a personal criticism of you or or wife's driving or parking abilities.

[Kevin G]

I had similar problem last month when renewing my insurance as a no fault claim for my wife was shown on the Insurance industry database as a " fault claim". I rang her insurer More Than, different to mine, who confirmed that when an accident is reported it is "always" lodged as a fault claim until the costs are met by the at fault insurer's company. In my wifes case they had omitted to update the insurance data basewhen the other parties insurer had fully met all costs . More Than appologised and immediately updated the database and also contacted my insurer Saga, to confirm there was an error and the matter was speedily resolved.

I suggest you contact your wifes insurer to check the position and get it sorted out.

[trev]

I am currently declaring two non faults, one mine the other my wife's.

Both inflate each of our three insured vehicle policies and need declaring for five years with most insurers.

Bloody rip off.

[spyderman8]

Government keep saying they're going to do something about the licensed robbery that is the motor insurance industry but never do. I am certain that technically they regularly break both s3x discrimination and data protection laws, but it would take a very rich person - or the Government - to do anything about it. My Boxster's insurance is due for renewal shortly so it will be interesting to see what Manning do.

[BestGear]

....... I am certain that technically they regularly break both s3x discrimination and data protection laws, but it would take a very rich person - or the Government - to do anything about it. ......

Totally OT, but what really pi**es me off is that anyone can credit check another individual... and see all sorts...mortgage outstanding, credit card balances... how many card syou have... what you mobile bill is each month and also your full payment history with any late or missed payments... CCjs etc etc etc....

So much for the DPA...

[Menoporsche]

News last week:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/competition-commission-to-launch-investigation-into-motor-insurance-market-7807163.html

Seems like it came from this, in December last year:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16175022

[Glyn]

I posted this thread this morning and quite fortuitously with the post today we received a letter from my wifes insurrance indicating the claim had been admitted and paid in full - the letter also stated confirmation her NCB is not affected.

Being a cynic i believe them that the NCB has not changed but the risk factor and hence the premium by which they apply the NCB will have changed (She also pays for a protected policy so we knew anyway the NCB would not change).

It appears to me the companies can simply change the risk factors for irrelevant considerations but present a view that her risk has not changed by stating the NCB has not changed - it implies no fault and therefore why should the risk change.

Indeed i did try to call them today but after waiting for ages whilst they announced my call was important to them i gave up, but i will be calling again to try and get an explanation - all i want is a logical and reasonable explanation as to how a non fault claim can possibly increase her risk.

This claim by the way was cost inflated simply because it went through the insurrance (which the other driver insisted on doing) My wifes car was due its first service and they quoted £100 to sort the damage out - so you can understand just how minor the damage was, We told the other driver this and it could be sorted at the same time as service - she declined, the total bill after going through the insurrance was £3999, unbelievable, and my wife did not have a hire car or anything else charged to the account.

The company my wife was with at the time of the accident was Diamond, she is now with Admiral (Same company just a different name)

We were even pestered on the phone advising us to claim for whiplash - and even though we reiterated she was not in the car at the time they continued to say we could claim up to £3200 for the whiplash.

Its just all so dishonest

[Boxob]

We were even pestered on the phone advising us to claim for whiplash - and even though we reiterated she was not in the car at the time they continued to say we could claim up to £3200 for the whiplash.

Its just all so dishonest

The word "fraud" comes to mind - well it would have been had you claimed for whiplash.

[Glyn]

I have now mailed them - on behalf of my wife, thanking them for their confirmation letter that the NCB remains intact, i have also asked them to verify if my (her) assessment of risk remains the same as before the no fault claim, ie - the NCB is based on the premium decided by the risk assessment and her premium at renewal will not be adversly affected by the non fault claim.

I await their reply before i question why her risk was classed as raised when i included her on my policy, or indeed request an explanation as to why her risk has raised when they have recovered all costs from the driver responsible and my wifes actions in no way contributed to the claim.

If they confirm no risk raised then i can question why they raised my premium for adding her to my policy

I know this will be long winded but i have all the time in the world - and the tenacity to follow all this up

[R2MUL]

You'll get nowhere. Mike597 is absolutely correct - it's nothing to do with the nature of the claim or who / who wasn't in the car at the time - the fact is the statistical probability of your wife making a further claim now that she's had one, is increased. All you have available to you is to shop around to find another insurer who takes a different view.

Re. other posts - rating on gender is being outlawed from December this year (despite there being a statistically proven difference between the claims experience of male and female drivers). Surprisingly few insurance companies have made an underwriting profit out of motor insurance since 2008 - very few indeed. Re. DPA; all insurance companies / websites / Brokers / comparison sites etc have to tell you in advance (via a fair data processing notice) what third-party data streams they use - this gives you the choice between using them or not using them. However, in reality, most insurers use all the available data sources (e.g. CUE, Experian etc).

You'd be amazed what data is available nowadays - for example, everytime you amend your insurance quote before buying online; the changes that you've made are all stored and fed through to the insurance companies..... So what, you may ask? Well, how many people do you know who have had a claim or conviction but don't like the price they've received online so 'forget' to include it in the final quote? It's all stored. Ever got a quote on 12,000 miles per year and then gone down to 11,10,9 etc until you get a quote you like? All stored. Nowadays, every iteration of your quote is available to be reviewed. That way, when you get caught out for not disclosing a claim or conviction and tell them it was an innocent oversight - they'll probably ask you why, 10 minutes before taking your policy out, did you get a quote that included the true information?

[EXY]

You'll get nowhere. Mike597 is absolutely correct - it's nothing to do with the nature of the claim or who / who wasn't in the car at the time - the fact is the statistical probability of your wife making a further claim now that she's had one, is increased. All you have available to you is to shop around to find another insurer who takes a different view.

You'd be amazed what data is available nowadays - for example, everytime you amend your insurance quote before buying online; the changes that you've made are all stored and fed through to the insurance companies..... So what, you may ask? Well, how many people do you know who have had a claim or conviction but don't like the price they've received online so 'forget' to include it in the final quote? It's all stored. Ever got a quote on 12,000 miles per year and then gone down to 11,10,9 etc until you get a quote you like? All stored. Nowadays, every iteration of your quote is available to be reviewed. That way, when you get caught out for not disclosing a claim or conviction and tell them it was an innocent oversight - they'll probably ask you why, 10 minutes before taking your policy out, did you get a quote that included the true information?

I'm sorry can some please explain to a tick paddy how someones risk/claim probability increases when said person wasn't in the car at the time? I just don't get it

I must pass the second paragraph on to my daughter, she gets about 5-15 quotes a week minimum

[R2MUL]

I'm sorry can some please explain to a tick paddy how someones risk/claim probability increases when said person wasn't in the car at the time? I just don't get it

It's just the way the actual claims experience pans out (for a lot of insurers) - take a large sample of people who report their first claim for several years and a reasonable proportion of them go on report a further claim in a short space of time. It's not entirely clear what's behind it - could be that there's less of an emotional attachment to a car once it's been damaged - so they go on to drive it less carefully?

[London987]

it's as said before - liklihood of claiming.

i had some chump smack into the back of me in a queue on a motorway. totally non-fault, i didn't even claim, he did as his car was a write-off.

i still got listed as a non-fault claim, got back-charged for a year by Admiral for not declaring it (didn't know i had to as no money changed hands - his car was worth about 50 quid and mine just got a light scratch).

basically, they mark you as a whinger and likely to claim again rather than getting on with it.

in other words, you actually USED your insurance damn you, and you'll probably use it again!

that's how you get marked as an increased risk. nothing to do with your driving etc in this case.

[Menoporsche]

I'm sorry can some please explain to a tick paddy how someones risk/claim probability increases when said person wasn't in the car at the time? I just don't get it

It's just the way the actual claims experience pans out (for a lot of insurers) - take a large sample of people who report their first claim for several years and a reasonable proportion of them go on report a further claim in a short space of time. It's not entirely clear what's behind it - could be that there's less of an emotional attachment to a car once it's been damaged - so they go on to drive it less carefully?

Or less emotional attachment to their insurance company, if you're going to sting me for something not my fault then hell I'm going to get my money's worth out of you

[EXY]

I'm sorry can some please explain to a tick paddy how someones risk/claim probability increases when said person wasn't in the car at the time? I just don't get it

It's just the way the actual claims experience pans out (for a lot of insurers) - take a large sample of people who report their first claim for several years and a reasonable proportion of them go on report a further claim in a short space of time. It's not entirely clear what's behind it - could be that there's less of an emotional attachment to a car once it's been damaged - so they go on to drive it less carefully?

That's not quite the same thing though matey, if you are NOT actually in the car there is absolutely fek all YOU can do about, either way.

MP's post does make a bit of sense, I have worked with twunts that reckoned they weren't getting their moneys worth if they didn't claim at least once every few years. New windscreen on the car (even witnessed them hitting it with a hammer), new hall carpet (poured paint down the stairs) and a new bath (again good ole Mr. hammer done the deed) Oh nearly forgot he also sold his lawnmower then reported it stolen to get an incident number for the claim

[Boxob]

...and knowing/witnessing this you've reported said twunts for these fraudulant crimes?

[mike597]

Let's look at in purely analytical terms. One thing I recall from my maths degree is that random events by their very nature cluster. Otherwise known as the "no buses for twenty mins then three come at once" principle.

Though there's other reasons behind that precise example but trying not to over complicate

Anyway if you accept the theory that a claim is random (taking out the human factor) then it's clear that a claim preceded by 10 years of no claims is statistically more likely to be followed by another claim than by another 10 Claim free years.

As I say over simplification but its a simple case example for you to argue over.

[EXY]

...and knowing/witnessing this you've reported said twunts for these fraudulant crimes?

Report it to who?????????

The Police wont give a fek and I don't know which insurance company he was insured with. I have some experience reporting much more serious indiscretions and can assure you it's like banging your head off a brick wall

FWIW said individual was a self confessed christian

Let's look at in purely analytical terms. One thing I recall from my maths degree is that random events by their very nature cluster. Otherwise known as the "no buses for twenty mins then three come at once" principle.

Though there's other reasons behind that precise example but trying not to over complicate

Anyway if you accept the theory that a claim is random (taking out the human factor) then it's clear that a claim preceded by 10 years of no claims is statistically more likely to be followed by another claim than by another 10 Claim free years.

As I say over simplification but its a simple case example for you to argue over.

My favourite would be punctures, mind you I haven't had a puncture (hugging a bit of wood for luck, I hope I don't go blind) in a few years are you suggesting I wont get one but a series of them

Another is Policemen, never one around when you are getting burgled but if you claim to have shot a burglar hundreds of the fekkers show up

[mike597]

Exy. You're a bright chap. You're mixing up the statistics that define the general case with a one off or rare event. Of course there will be examples that will buck the trend but as we know insurers just like bookies are about accepting the events that are at either end of the scale as they are sufficiently balanced out by the majority in the middle.

[Glyn]

Mike597, I hear what you say but i stil dont get how a persons risk goes up when your not even with the car, you cant influence events or other drivers parking.

Based on your comments then anyone that has 9 plus years full no claims and therefore on the maximum should loose their no claims as its likely they will have a claim soon because they havent claimed for a long time.

Get a driving ban after 20 years for drink driving because you must have done it and got away with it for so long, or have three penalty points awarded because you must be ready for some points if your licence is clear so far.

In respect to my particular post perhaps all the registrations of cars parked in the same car park should also have a risk rise as they were just lucky the person that hit my wifes car didnt choose to park next to them.

Sorry, i know im being flippant and i can see some sense in what you say, but how can any individual become a greater risk of anything when they havent done anything that that contributes to the issue that raised the risk.

I will keep this thread updated as i receive replies and even though i may get nowhere with this i will keep pushing it forward as i believe if no one challenges ludicrous events like this then they will become the norm and we will all pay as it becomes an acceptable practice.

I will take this to the FSA if needed just to get a proper explanation

[mike597]

I hear what you say but i stil dont get how a persons risk goes up when your not even with the car, you cant influence events or other drivers parking.

You hit the nail on the head. What you have to get your head around if that you being treated as a mathematical model not a person. A statistical event not a living, breathing individual. These events by their very nature are (simplistically) defined as random and random events CANNOT have influence on other events. This is where you are bring the human factor in that they are not. Roll a dice. You get six. Does the dice know that? Does getting a six mean you are less likely or more likely to roll a six again? The dice knows nothing and the probability of rolling a six is always the same. That said, roll a dice 1 million times and you will see that the 'sixes' are not evenly spread every sixth dice roll. Sometimes you get 2 or 3 in a row, sometimes you wait for 8, 9, 10 rolls before getting another. That is the nature of random events and their clustering capacity.

This is where you are finding it hard to reconcile with real-life understandably as people aren't random in their nature. Everything we do is influenced by our previous actions, experiences etc. This is where the modelling gets really complicated as creating statistical models based on events having knowledge of earlier outcomes becomes complex, quickly.

There is no thought to this process for the insurer. They don't know you or your wife and don't care whether you are 'careful owners' or not. You are one in several thousand customers and you all get treated the same.

Sorry I've taken this thread off into degree level statistical modelling but it struck a chord with me as I've seen and understood the concepts behind the insurance business model, albeit years ago now.

[jsm]

I think they make it up!!

I just talked to Admiral multicar for an hour on my complicated renewal.

Currently I have my Boxster S and my wifes Murano on cover with them. Total cost £1100 per year.

This year we have got 3 claims to add (not good). 2 non fault and 1 at fault minor bump so I am expecting a big increase.

It goes up by £200 , not bad I thought.

I then ask to add another car which Iam just buying as a work hack (Saab Aero V6 Cab) and had got a couple of quotes of comparison sites which quoted £500 fully comp with 20k business miles a year.

So I am thinking £1300 plus £500 = £1800 for all three. Sounds a lot which it is but for 3 cars, 20k a year business and all are high banding it seems ok to me.

Anyway she then quotes the Saab at £1100 and the total comes to £2400!!

I politely declined and said no!

In the meantime I ran a quote through them as my wife as the policy holder (it wouldnt let me do a quotes as it said I have a live policy with them) and for all of the above I got £1444!!

I told her what I had done and instantly she matched it.

Good for me but ridiculous at the same time by knocking a grand off the renewal.

I will finish how I started my reply with "I think they make it up"!!!

[mike597]

Interesting feedback on the matching of a new quote. I might try that. I like the convenience of being the contact person for admiral despite my wife being the policy holder on one car. No one else seems to do this.

[Menoporsche]

In the meantime I ran a quote through them as my wife as the policy holder (it wouldnt let me do a quotes as it said I have a live policy with them) and for all of the above I got £1444!!

I told her what I had done and instantly she matched it.

That's brilliant, thanks for that. So they have the cream of mathematical geniuses and supercomputers crunching the mind-numbingly complicated probability of past and future claims, customer premiums and international corporate profit margins, and then subject the entire calculation to... salesman's discretion.

I see a Python sketch somewhere here.