Insurance increase after non-fault non-claim accident

Linas.P · November 16, 2017

I know this might get me in trouble, but it is what it is...

So as some of you might remember I had hit and run accident few month ago, few weeks later I had another one in Lexus loaner - first 2 accidents in my life. The first was reported to insurance, because that was necessary according to the terms and conditions of my insurance, the second one became contentions topic and has not been reported to anyone else, but Lexus dealer - again because my insurance terms and conditions doesn't specify that such event must be reported.

Back then I called insurance in UK scam and fraud and today I just preliminary checked how much non-fault, non-claim and "information only" accident have increase my premium.

Last year I have paid £653

If I quote without disclosing accident the price for next year would be £588

If I disclose the accident the price is £875

So here it is, the cost of non-fault non-claim is £287... and that apparently is "good value for money" according to some and "insurance premium does not raise just from non-fault claims". By the way I am not surprised at all, I knew all along that is going to be the case, but some have argued it won't.

Linas.P · November 16, 2017

Just a reminder of what happened:

VrmmVrmm · November 16, 2017

Just a reminder of the rules really....still not fraud on behalf of the Insurance. BUT....not to tell them is indeed dishonest and indeed fraud.

A bit like having terrible eyesight but telling no one in case you get put off the road! The implication of entering into an insurance contract is first and foremost ALL declarations are

1) Made.

2) Truthful.

Don't get me wrong...I do see your point and can commiserate regards the price going up...but that's the price we all have to pay (if) the company we are with applies such extra costs to the premium (or) the insured hasn't purchased protection. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about...the one where none of us tells the truth on our declarations and we let the truthful honest people pick up the tab on our behalf.

Time to move on as it still remains a fact that insurance premiums are not calculated on a fraudulent basis ....but dishonest declarations certainly are. Just because the truth isn't declared doesn't mean the applicant hasn't been dishonest and untruthful therein lies the crux. They see you as a risk irrespective of blame and have assessed the application in that way, it isn't personal everyone is exposed but better exposed to a fully covered situation than a situation that can be undermined. You were right about your premium going up but remain incorrect about the fraud you perceive it to be.

Linas.P · November 16, 2017

The point I was trying to make is just that the premium indeed goes-up regardless if you made a claim and regardless of who is at fault.

I would summarise... It might not be fraud, it is just that the way insurance works in UK is not fair and there are other countries where system is more fair. By more fair I mean - the systems penalises the ones at fault, not the victims like here.

Small update re: hit and run case. Police didn't want to investigate it at first, but after I literally harassed them they finally agreed to take a look. They have requested the driver to disclose who was driving the vehicle and driver failed to provide the information. They now have summoned driver to the court re: failure to disclose, before they can make case for failure to stop and failure to report the incident.

Finally, if you ask me I would rather drive without insurance if I would have an option (and it is definitely bears thinking about) - I don't see any value in having it and see it as a illegal penalty enforced by government upon me.

VrmmVrmm · November 17, 2017

Like I said you make your choices...the rest of us will pick up the tab.

By the way you seeing insurance as an illegal penalty??? Says it ALL.

When in Rome!

The-Acre · November 17, 2017

I'm with you on this, the system really does stink!

I passed my test in 1972, I've never had an accident and my premiums are all fairly low. I know If I was in a no fault prang they would rocket, unfair.

Linas.P · November 17, 2017

10 hours ago, VrmmVrmm said:

Like I said you make your choices...the rest of us will pick up the tab.

By the way you seeing insurance as an illegal penalty??? Says it ALL.

When in Rome!

The problem is that ... I don't make a choice, because I can't make a choice, because government sets arbitrary rules but cares not to make system fair and transparent. It seems you cannot comprehend that insurance is not like bank account where you can choose to use it or not - it is mandatory and it is enforced.

Drivers have no choice and insurance industry have monopoly right and total control of whatever they want to do. Imagine now you bank with the bank and earn 1% of interest rate on your savings.. cool. Next year bank changes the policy and says actually we not going to pay interest anymore, now you have to pay us the fee of 3% from your saving just for keeping money with us. What!? What would you do? You would change the bank right? But what if all banks changes their policy to the same one? I don't know what would you do, but I would close my account and just keep my money in my draw. But Insurance is even further than that - using same analogy it would be the same like is government would say that keeping the money in your draw is illegal and you must keep-it in authorised bank. That means you would have no choice but to pay whatever fee bank decides to charge you - would that be fair system?

Insurance... as long as it is mandatory should not take position of deciding who drives and who don't.. it is not their business. However, I have no issue with the system if it promotes responsible driving e.g. if you got into accident which was your fault you have to go to some sort of additional driving course and you insurance will increase next year. Fine. But now system actually penalises wrong side and for no reason. For now All of off us are picking-up the tab of fraudulent insurers washing their profits in offshore entities, lending money to themselves and then reporting the "loss", just somehow with that loss they manage to pay above average returns to investors and over 200 million to the owners and management. All those extraordinary profits can pay insurance for million drivers, the insurance companies can pick-up the tab, but they don't, they want you, me and everyone else to pick-up tabs, just not them - they have profits to make. It seems you have no problem with that, but you have problem when somebody raises the issue of unfair premium hikes right?

You say we all make our choices... maybe... it is good for me that because of my financial situation I won't even feel the difference and even if I cannot afford the insurance I am in metropolitan city with public transport (no matter how terrible it is). But now think about somebody young already paying £3000 whose work maybe depends on the car being involved in non-fault accident like this, maybe they won't be afford the extra £1000 on to of their already astronomical bill? Insurance can actually f***-** with people lives like this and you are saying - "it is your choice".. no it is not.

As for me I know exactly what will happen - when it comes time for renewal they obviously will come-up with something like £1100 if the actual price is £875. Then I will call them and will literally destroy them over the phone, for very least I will be on the line for 1,5h until they will apply every single possible and not possible discretionary discount and I would not hang-up before I have spoken with every manager including CEO of the company. The end result will be that I will pay somewhere in between £653 I have paid last year and £588 which I should pay this year. But that is me, I am sure not everyone have enough inside knowledge and are dedicated enough to fight.

Linas.P · November 17, 2017

14 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

above average returns to investors and over 200 million to the owners and management.

Ohh.. and sorry I refer to a single company with single person receiving that money. The insurance industry as a whole funnels multiple billions through complex structures, offshore entities, internal lending and tax heavens. And that is not an issue.. but one person not paying for their master plan fraud is an issue?!

rayaans · November 17, 2017

Agree with you Linas.

The UK insurance system is stupid and certainly has a culture of making money using any excuse they can.

I might set up a petition on change.org to change the insurance system in this regard. The costs should rise for the ones at fault and insurance companies should need to be more transparent on the way they increase the renewal premiums i.e. if the IPT has gone up by 0.5% or so, then it should give you a breakdown of what that was and thats why your insurance went up by £20 or whatever.

I also think the Government needs to come up with some form of state insurance system which would be an income for them, yet keep the costs down for customers (or thats the theory anyway)

In my line of work where I need indemnity insurance, the defense union has had to cut its prices by 50% - and that equates to thousands of pounds per customer because the government said they were going to bring out State medical defense insurance.

Tyre Tread · November 17, 2017

I used to think along the same lines as the OP until a couple of months ago when I started working for a motor insurer. It has certainly opened my eyes.

Linas.P · November 17, 2017

Fell free to share.. maybe there is something we don't know.

Bluesman · November 17, 2017

19 minutes ago, rayaans said:

Agree with you Linas.

The UK insurance system is stupid and certainly has a culture of making money using any excuse they can.

I might set up a petition on change.org to change the insurance system in this regard. The costs should rise for the ones at fault and insurance companies should need to be more transparent on the way they increase the renewal premiums i.e. if the IPT has gone up by 0.5% or so, then it should give you a breakdown of what that was and thats why your insurance went up by £20 or whatever.

I also think the Government needs to come up with some form of state insurance system which would be an income for them, yet keep the costs down for customers (or thats the theory anyway)

In my line of work where I need indemnity insurance, the defense union has had to cut its prices by 50% - and that equates to thousands of pounds per customer because the government said they were going to bring out State medical defense insurance.

I have said for years that if something is required by law then it should be the government that provides it, just like road tax.

Linas.P · November 17, 2017

Cannot agree more with you both.

I can still see where private capital can "chip-in" e.g. offering added value services like fully-comprehensive covers, Fire and theft protection, GAP insurance, Windshield/Audio/Other mods cover.... but straight Third Party only which is required by law should be provided by government on clear and transparent terms without discriminating against anyone. At very very least it should be strongly controlled and audited by government to ensure it is best value possible and any hikes should be scrutinised and clearly explained.

Tyre Tread · November 17, 2017

44 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Fell free to share.. maybe there is something we don't know.

It's not that I don't want to, just I'm far from being an expert but consider things like:

If you have had a no fault accident is it that you regularly visit/park in places where you are more likely to sustain damage to your car? The OP's experience would suggest that there is validity in that premise since he had a long driving history with no accidents and then 2 in a short space of time.

The Insurance co may have to consider whether your driving is deteriorating? No accidents for many years then an accident.

Are you regularly travelling through a high risk area? A14 near Kettering is apparently a high risk area for crash for cash incidents and one insurance company will investigate all accidents that happen there more thoroughly before payout.

My own personal experience is perhaps also relevant. A couple of years ago I relocated from the Midlands to South Wales and rented a flat in a not so brilliant area while we found somewhere to buy. We ended up buying a house in one of the nicest areas of the city and my car insurance went up. When I enquired why from a friend who works in the insurance industry he said it was likely to be due to the area we'd moved to having a high level level of much older wealthy drivers driving bigger cars that are more expensive to repair. It also meant the area was more likely to be frequented by car thieves looking for high end vehicles to steal.

The Insurance industry is far more complex than I ever gave it credit for and there are many more factors taken into account when calculating premiums than the ones you might be aware of when you sign up for insurance.

HTH but I reiterate that I am a newbie to working in insurance so my insight is somewhat limited and possibly naive.

jumbojake · November 17, 2017

As I understand it, they all run statistical models for risk ... and if you have been in an accident (regaless of fault), apparently statistically you are more likely to have another in a short space of time..... it seems in this case that model was proven right!

My premium went up becuase of a windscreen replacement (AA insurance) .. they detailed it on my renewal as a no-fault claim... now that will be visiable to all insurers if I chose to move...prevuous insurers never used to detail it.... very annoying, but I see their justification.

Agree it is unfair that people who don't bother don't seem to get much grief from the system... that's an issue for our Police and justice system... not really insurance.

what we need is a not-for-profit insurance company...

rayaans · November 17, 2017

5 hours ago, Tyre Tread said:

It's not that I don't want to, just I'm far from being an expert but consider things like:

If you have had a no fault accident is it that you regularly visit/park in places where you are more likely to sustain damage to your car? The OP's experience would suggest that there is validity in that premise since he had a long driving history with no accidents and then 2 in a short space of time.

The Insurance co may have to consider whether your driving is deteriorating? No accidents for many years then an accident.

Are you regularly travelling through a high risk area? A14 near Kettering is apparently a high risk area for crash for cash incidents and one insurance company will investigate all accidents that happen there more thoroughly before payout.

My own personal experience is perhaps also relevant. A couple of years ago I relocated from the Midlands to South Wales and rented a flat in a not so brilliant area while we found somewhere to buy. We ended up buying a house in one of the nicest areas of the city and my car insurance went up. When I enquired why from a friend who works in the insurance industry he said it was likely to be due to the area we'd moved to having a high level level of much older wealthy drivers driving bigger cars that are more expensive to repair. It also meant the area was more likely to be frequented by car thieves looking for high end vehicles to steal.

The Insurance industry is far more complex than I ever gave it credit for and there are many more factors taken into account when calculating premiums than the ones you might be aware of when you sign up for insurance.

HTH but I reiterate that I am a newbie to working in insurance so my insight is somewhat limited and possibly naive.

I know that's how the insurance companies work things out.

But, the method is hugely flawed.

A driver that is not at fault is certainly no more likely to make a claim than someone who's never made a claim.

Its stupid - if someone goes into the back of you at traffic lights, how does that make you more likely to claim next time?!

The premium should ultimately go up for the drivers at fault. Currently, it seems that non fault incidents make premiums go up by x and fault incident by y.

IMO x+y need to be stuck onto the premium of the driver at fault rather than making innocent drivers pay

Tyre Tread · November 17, 2017

32 minutes ago, rayaans said:

I know that's how the insurance companies work things out.

But, the method is hugely flawed.

A driver that is not at fault is certainly no more likely to make a claim than someone who's never made a claim.

Its stupid - if someone goes into the back of you at traffic lights, how does that make you more likely to claim next time?!

The premium should ultimately go up for the drivers at fault. Currently, it seems that non fault incidents make premiums go up by x and fault incident by y.

IMO x+y need to be stuck onto the premium of the driver at fault rather than making innocent drivers pay

Not sure its is as flawed as you would imagine. Statistics don't lie and insurance companies base risk upon data gathered and have to justify themselves to a degree in the prices they charge in a competitive market place.

As the insurance companies say to the brokers, If you don't like my price just take your business elsewhere.

Edited November 17, 2017 by Tyre Tread
Shpelling

doog442 · November 17, 2017

It's a minefield. They require you to report any incident - no matter what. On one occasion my daughter opened her door and allegedly hit the alloy wheel of a Range Rover. The guy went the whole hog ..threats / demanding £500 for a wheel refurbishment but then made a mistake that would have cost him dear....but as it transpired also hammered my daughter for 3 years.

He rang his insurance company. I guess in an effort to make us pay up. We didn't but within a few hours Admiral sent a text and e mail and it was on her record. There was no claim, it came to nothing but the Incident was on her record and reflected in her renewals.

An Insurance claim is absolutely the last resort in my eyes.

Linas.P · November 17, 2017

That is kind of the same thing for me... regardless of what terms of conditions says I know that whole reporting thing is just to "rip-you off more". Hence it is important to report, because you know insurers have profits to make!

In my case I would have tried to agree with guy that he covers the damage and that is it - claiming insurance is worse for both myself and him. The problem was that I had no choice - as it was "hit and run". Basically, there was risk that he might realise he had collided with me make a report to police to avoid "hit and run" claim, if I do not report it first it might actually become my fault! So I had to report it to police and that at the same time means reporting to insurance, because police always asks for insurance reference number...

@Tyre Tread - oh statistics lies indeed.. there is nothing more discriminating than statistics. What is worse you can interpret statistics anyway you like and suit any purpose you want. Statistics is manipulated on daily basis everywhere you go. As well there is something I call "irrelevant statistics" - you can make statistics based on anything you like e.g. on hair colour or anything else. Take statistics for given period of time about that and you will be able to find some sort of correlation e.g. that ones with blonde hair make statistically 6% more accidents in 2016. The rhetorical question - should you add the hair colour to insurance questionnaire and charge people 6% if they are blonde? That would be stupid isn't it? Bu insurance questionnaires ask if you married what is your occupation and many other things which are irrelevant. why?

javadude · November 18, 2017

I had three non fault incidents with my previous car, the RX. It was crashed into while parked each time. (Sandwich van at clients office who drove off but was caught on CCTV, wickes articulated lorry smashed back window and bent tailgate while I was in Halfords buying screen wash that I then didn't need, driver reversing up street with wife guiding him caught on my home CCTV. He tried to drive off but I had his wife.) In each case I claimed on the other person's insurance and they payed out. My insurance went up. When my daughter asked about putting me on her insurance for her first car (something we'd heard would lower the premium due to my experience) the company said the premium would be higher. OK with that many incidents maybe they have a point....

Tyre Tread · November 18, 2017

15 hours ago, Linas.P said:

That is kind of the same thing for me... regardless of what terms of conditions says I know that whole reporting thing is just to "rip-you off more". Hence it is important to report, because you know insurers have profits to make!

In my case I would have tried to agree with guy that he covers the damage and that is it - claiming insurance is worse for both myself and him. The problem was that I had no choice - as it was "hit and run". Basically, there was risk that he might realise he had collided with me make a report to police to avoid "hit and run" claim, if I do not report it first it might actually become my fault! So I had to report it to police and that at the same time means reporting to insurance, because police always asks for insurance reference number...

@Tyre Tread - oh statistics lies indeed.. there is nothing more discriminating than statistics. What is worse you can interpret statistics anyway you like and suit any purpose you want. Statistics is manipulated on daily basis everywhere you go. As well there is something I call "irrelevant statistics" - you can make statistics based on anything you like e.g. on hair colour or anything else. Take statistics for given period of time about that and you will be able to find some sort of correlation e.g. that ones with blonde hair make statistically 6% more accidents in 2016. The rhetorical question - should you add the hair colour to insurance questionnaire and charge people 6% if they are blonde? That would be stupid isn't it? Bu insurance questionnaires ask if you married what is your occupation and many other things which are irrelevant. why?

I think you may be straying into the realms of reductio ad absurdum.

I agree that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Perhaps I should have said data :)

Anyway, I was only trying to give a wee insight into perhaps areas that were missing from people's understanding.

I think you may be straying into the realms of reductio ad absurdum.

I agree that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Perhaps I should have said data :)

Anyway, I was only trying to give a wee insight into perhaps areas that were missing from people's understanding.

As for asking for the occupation of the insured, if you really don't understand the differences in how someone might drive( i.e. times of day s well as driving behaviour) of a musician versus an accountant then you haven't the vaguest clue how insurance companies assess risk.

Maybe we should stop being mad at the insurance companies and be mad at the fraudsters who cost us all tens to hundreds of pounds each year in our increased premiums.

If we were all suddenly allowed to self insure or have no insurance I wonder how many people would then become bankrupt overnight in trying to settle claims for which they have no funding.

The insurance world is far from perfect but until someone comes up with a better solution...

Funny how we pay 70%+ in tax on petrol and accept it Which for some can amount to a cost of thousands per year) but we recoil at a few extra pounds on insurance premiums.

Anyway, I didn't intend to come on this thread to defend insurers as I'm sure like every other industry there are good and bad.

So I'm out! Good luck!

Britprius · November 18, 2017

I do not know if this would work, but if you have a no fault accident. Ask your insurance how much your premium will increase over the next 5 years because of this. "This is the period you have to declare the claim for." Then ask them to claim back this sum from the guilty third party. This should be possible particularly if you have legal cover as part of your insurance.

John.

Tyre Tread · November 18, 2017

12 minutes ago, Tyre Tread said:

Deleted as duplicated post

VrmmVrmm · November 18, 2017

20 minutes ago, Britprius said:

I do not know if this would work, but if you have a no fault accident. Ask your insurance how much your premium will increase over the next 5 years because of this. "This is the period you have to declare the claim for." Then ask them to claim back this sum from the guilty third party. This should be possible particularly if you have legal cover as part of your insurance.

John.

I have a feeling this is how no claims protection works...automatically. I also feel that companies probably treat third party policy holders only as people who aren't prepared to cover all the bases and may in turn view them as a higher risk....only a hypothesis so (others) please don't come back with zillions of arguments.

VrmmVrmm · November 18, 2017

31 minutes ago, Tyre Tread said:

I think you may be straying into the realms of reductio ad absurdum.

I agree that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Perhaps I should have said data :)

Anyway, I was only trying to give a wee insight into perhaps areas that were missing from people's understanding.

I think you may be straying into the realms of reductio ad absurdum.

I agree that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Perhaps I should have said data :)

Anyway, I was only trying to give a wee insight into perhaps areas that were missing from people's understanding.

As for asking for the occupation of the insured, if you really don't understand the differences in how someone might drive( i.e. times of day s well as driving behaviour) of a musician versus an accountant then you haven't the vaguest clue how insurance companies assess risk.

Maybe we should stop being mad at the insurance companies and be mad at the fraudsters who cost us all tens to hundreds of pounds each year in our increased premiums.

If we were all suddenly allowed to self insure or have no insurance I wonder how many people would then become bankrupt overnight in trying to settle claims for which they have no funding.

The insurance world is far from perfect but until someone comes up with a better solution...

Funny how we pay 70%+ in tax on petrol and accept it Which for some can amount to a cost of thousands per year) but we recoil at a few extra pounds on insurance premiums.

Anyway, I didn't intend to come on this thread to defend insurers as I'm sure like every other industry there are good and bad.

So I'm out! Good luck!

I have to agree with you...WHY? because it makes sense...reality bites always!

Some you win some you lose, we can argue here all we like but that's the rules we should all be playing by. Many forget that insurance is more than just cover and remember that it's a binding contract and there's no if's and's or but's ....honesty and truthfulness are prerequisites otherwise the insurance can rightly say the applicant is in breach of contract for non disclosure and literally walk away and let you face a civil claim for MILLIONS. Above all else I'm not willing to take such a risk...life's too short.

Imagine telling the court in such a civil case that you felt the insurance company was fraudulent and they applied illegal penalties because of the way they assessed you as a risk would bring the house down with laughter. Get Real...count our blessings if it's only paint and move on.