Renewal and no blame claim increase

[mike597]

I imagine they have a minimum premium. anything more is a suckers price.

[Boxob]

Nice they should regard their existing customers as the suckers! To be expected I suppose.

[Cripes]

Well, this is most enlightening, and I have a query very much in the similar spirit of the original posting.

After being involved in a no fault accident my insurers (Swiftcover) have asked me to liaise directly with the third party's insurer (Aviva) over uninsured losses etc. At the moment I'm still awaiting the engineer's report on whether my car's a write-off, so I haven't given them any figures for these uninsured losses so far.

If, as folk say, my premiums will increase despite it being a non-fault accident, can I therefore claim an amount for the five years I have to declare this accident with the consequential higher premiums? Of course, I don't know what the increase will be, but I could try a comparison site to see the difference, and extrapolate that over the declaration period.

Just a thought...

[mike597]

.

Nice they should regard their existing customers as the suckers! To be expected I suppose.

My choice of language was perhaps a bit inflammatory but you get the meaning obviously.

[mike597]

Well, this is most enlightening, and I have a query very much in the similar spirit of the original posting.

After being involved in a no fault accident my insurers (Swiftcover) have asked me to liaise directly with the third party's insurer (Aviva) over uninsured losses etc. At the moment I'm still awaiting the engineer's report on whether my car's a write-off, so I haven't given them any figures for these uninsured losses so far.

If, as folk say, my premiums will increase despite it being a non-fault accident, can I therefore claim an amount for the five years I have to declare this accident with the consequential higher premiums? Of course, I don't know what the increase will be, but I could try a comparison site to see the difference, and extrapolate that over the declaration period.

Just a thought...

Interesting thought, certainly could be the next arms-race to push up premiums further now that personal injury claims are slowly being clamped down on.

[spyderman8]

After being involved in a no fault accident my insurers (Swiftcover) have asked me to liaise directly with the third party's insurer (Aviva) over uninsured losses etc...

And here was me thinking that was their job...

Glad someone else brought up the issue about "random" as it struck me as being total borrocks too.

[mike597]

Glad someone else brought up the issue about "random" as it struck me as being total borrocks too.

explain?

[spyderman8]

Sorry - wasn't "someone else". You initially posted:

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.

I was assuming you were quoting something you'd been told by, or read from, an insurer. Your later post says exactly what I was thinking - that if its random, it cannot be influenced by past events (like dice throwing). Whereas insurers seem to state that if you've had one claim, you're "statistically more likely" to have another. Which completely contradicts it being random.

In the case of damage caused when the driver isn't present (car parked) etc. if the insurers want to stick to this excuse that it if has happened once its more likely to happen again, then someone (ombudsmen, Government, etc) want to jump on them and explain its total borrocks. Even in the case of accident black spots - the fact that one accident has occurred there already has no direct influence on another accident happening in the same place (except perhaps where they haven't cleared away spilt oil, etc).

[R2MUL]

Sorry - wasn't "someone else". You initially posted:

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.

I was assuming you were quoting something you'd been told by, or read from, an insurer. Your later post says exactly what I was thinking - that if its random, it cannot be influenced by past events (like dice throwing). Whereas insurers seem to state that if you've had one claim, you're "statistically more likely" to have another. Which completely contradicts it being random.

In the case of damage caused when the driver isn't present (car parked) etc. if the insurers want to stick to this excuse that it if has happened once its more likely to happen again, then someone (ombudsmen, Government, etc) want to jump on them and explain its total borrocks. Even in the case of accident black spots - the fact that one accident has occurred there already has no direct influence on another accident happening in the same place (except perhaps where they haven't cleared away spilt oil, etc).

But it's by observing a large number of past random events that the insurer's draw make assumptions on future likelihood / probability - and that's what has brought about the OP's additional premium. All they're saying is that in their dataset (which probably goes back dozens of calendar years and cover millions of exposure years) the reporting of a 'claim' is predicitive of a further claim - and therefore they're charging more to reflect this. They're unlikely to be going down to such a granular level where they're considering the type of claim (i.e. who was or was not driving / what was the value etc).

Re. pursuing via the FOS - their remit does not extend to individual insurers' pricing. You're not being discriminated against, so their response would be that an insurer is entitled to charge what they want; it's an open market and you have the option to shop around and switch if you please.

[Dominouk]

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.

But she did so something, she parked in a "dangerous" place, this has been proved by the fact a collision did actually happen, so the insurance company will quite reasonably expect her to do park in this or other "dangerous" places again, and therefore a claim in the future is more likely. This is just a simple fact, as has already been stated, and the insurers have statistical evidence that it is true.

Imagine this scenario, at a quiet time you "park" in the fast lane of a motorway, then leave the car and sit on the hard shoulder to watch the show... Do you still think that since you're not in the car you can't can't possibly have done anything to increase the risk of a claim?

I know it's an extreme example, but I'm just trying to highlight the point that "she parks in dangerous places", the insurance company now know this, so future claims are more likely.

BTW, just because I understand it doesn't mean I agree with it...

[EXY]

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.

But she did so something, she parked in a "dangerous" place, this has been proved by the fact a collision did actually happen, so the insurance company will quite reasonably expect her to do park in this or other "dangerous" places again, and therefore a claim in the future is more likely. This is just a simple fact, as has already been stated, and the insurers have statistical evidence that it is true.

Imagine this scenario, at a quiet time you "park" in the fast lane of a motorway, then leave the car and sit on the hard shoulder to watch the show... Do you still think that since you're not in the car you can't can't possibly have done anything to increase the risk of a claim?

I know it's an extreme example, but I'm just trying to highlight the point that "she parks in dangerous places", the insurance company now know this, so future claims are more likely.

BTW, just because I understand it doesn't mean I agree with it...

That's b*ll*x, a car park is not a dangerous place, unless dogging counts

Mind you I do know a few wimmin who could see nothing wrong with parking in the outer lane of a motorway

I still don't understand I reckon you are all just making it up

[jsm]

I agree.

How is our drive dangerous when my wife's murano is parked and we are watching the tv and a car rolls down our cul de sac and hits it.

Its private property for a start.

The insurance company will tell me we have bought a dangerous plot in a minute.

Its b@llocks.

[mike597]

Postcode probably has more influence on cost than claims do.

Guys, I think you're off the mark. I don't believe the actuaries base their calculations on people contributing to claims by carelessness or otherwise. The simple facts are this would be the case if a claim event was the result of a roulette wheel spin. This isnt sociology its hard mathematics.

Random unrelated events cluster by their very nature. Simple mathematical fact.

Stop being so emotive.

[Glyn]

Perhaps the solution is to park it in a locked garage and travel by bus.

If the car park is a dangerous place can i sue the local authority. (as the car park is not fit for purpose)

Why do they call it a car park if what i do in it is park the car and this action is dangerous

Exy - Dogging is safer as the spunk on the window/doors will just wipe off and not involve an insurrance claim.

No reply yet from the insurrance company - but i wont give up

[spyderman8]

Stop being so emotive.

I'm going to scream and scream and scream till I'm sick.

If the car park is a dangerous place can i sue the local authority. (as the car park is not fit for purpose)

Nice one!

[EXY]

Exy - Dogging is safer as the spunk on the window/doors will just wipe off and not involve an insurrance claim.

I was more worried about the paw and claw marks all over the dash

[Dominouk]

If the car park is a dangerous place can i sue the local authority. (as the car park is not fit for purpose)

Obviously the definition if danger here is about whether you'll get a dent, not about whether you'll get physical injury, we're talking about the car.

Fact 1: Someone actually crashed into your car in the car park, proving it is dangerous.

Fact 2: By saying it's not dangerous, you think nobody could possibly cash into your car in the car park.

As has been said, it is all b*ll*cks, the insurance companies just use software to calculate premiums based on facts and statistics (I think they'll place more weight on Fact 1 than Fact 2)

Anyway good luck with your lawsuit, you'll need it.

You may also want to consider suing God for making this flawed world in the first place, that's probably got more chance of success than getting anything out of an insurance company (opposite of God)

[Glyn]

Well, i have mailed the company asking for clarification if the premium becomes loaded because of this incident, sent twice so far and to date no response.

But im not that easily brushed off.

Perhaps some of the explanations given on this forum are indeed correct but i wont know that for sure until the company comment, and when they do that opens the door to challenge it.

If indeed the premium becomes loaded then i know that any amount of loading can be regarded as damages in law (Damages must have a value of 1p or more) and that leaves me the opportunity to claim those damages from the responsible party under negligence laws.

I will keep this thread updated

[trev]

Watching this thread with interest.

Please do keep us updated, I am getting creamed on 3 policies for two non faults.

[R2MUL]

Well, i have mailed the company asking for clarification if the premium becomes loaded because of this incident, sent twice so far and to date no response.

But im not that easily brushed off.

Perhaps some of the explanations given on this forum are indeed correct but i wont know that for sure until the company comment, and when they do that opens the door to challenge it.

If indeed the premium becomes loaded then i know that any amount of loading can be regarded as damages in law (Damages must have a value of 1p or more) and that leaves me the opportunity to claim those damages from the responsible party under negligence laws.

I will keep this thread updated

But you know it's loaded because of the claim, because your premium before it was declared was £371 and when they added the claim, it was £413 - or did I misunderstand that bit?

[Glyn]

Yes, i do know its loaded and you are correct in what you said regarding the premiums before and after but in order to reclaim the increased premium i need the statement from the company in writing to demonstrate that the increased premium is applicable because of the claim and nothing else - this then becomes damages which i can then claim against the other driver.

Im not fussed if the drivers insurrance pays or take the driver to the small claims court to recoup the damages, plus, the damages will be over a three year period so i will lay claim to the lot as the other drivers action incurred expense to me.

Under the law of Tort (negligence) there is a 6 year window to make a claim from the point you discover the negligence, therefore if the small claims court only entertains the premium increase for the one year ahead (as other premium hikes are only at this stage presumption) then i will lay claim each year until the premium has no loading as a result of the incident.

I dont like doing this and i guess the other driver when she finds out what i am doing will be really upset but what choice do i have if anothers actions costs me money.

When i think back to the original quote of £100 to rectify the paintwork and the resulting farce that the insurrance company has made of it perhaps it would have been better to have just paid for the repair myself.

By having my wife on my policy it has raised my premium by £40, the insurrance asks for details of any claims in the last three years - so i expect that the impact on my policy will be a three year deal, so my insurrance will cost an extra £120 plus the cost of my wifes insurrance another £120 - and none of it is my wifes fault.

I know i cant claim my losses as i can remove her from my policy but my wife has no choice but to pay up hence the ltigation to recover.

[R2MUL]

I think you're spot on to be pursuing this; at the end of the day, you're out of pocket as a direct result of the other driver's actions.

The claim will have a diminishing adverse impact on your premium over years 1, 2 & 3. Few insurers rate on claims outside of this period.

[Glyn]

A phone call from the company asking if i will be taking the multicar policy and with all three cars they will reduce my policy by £20, however, i said before i make a decision i am waiting to hear from the claims dept a confirmation that my wifes premium has been raised and the reason why, once i have received this i will be able to make a decision.

They are offering a good deal for all three car though.

The person i spoke with put me on hold and spoke to the claims dept and has prompted them to reply to me by e-mail, so hopefully i will have this in writing in the next day or two and then i start my action.

Will update this post as events happen

[Dominouk]

Seriously, I think you should contact the other party directly and offer them the chance to settle before taking them to court. Explain all the facts and especially that you didn't want to involve insurance companies, and they insisted, which course of action has cost you.

Good luck.

[Glyn]

Dominouk, completely agree with you, though i do need something in writing to prove to her that i am being charged extra premium for her actions.

I will contact and give her the opportunity to settle this, The lady in question was so nice and genuinly upset that she had damaged my wifes car, she agreed she would pay for the damage rather than use the insurrance company - that is until her husband got involved - and as you know the repair went from £100 to 4K.

The claims dept at Admiral just dont seem to be responding to any mails i send, So the next step may be a solicitors letter to them (another cost i will reclaim).I will wait until Friday though before i make an appointment.