Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gaffers]

Having read many threads on here about premiums going up after no blame claims on their policy I was wondering if it would be possible to recoup the extra cost through the other party's policy.  If you had an accident that wasn't your fault you shouldn't be out of pocket and as it seems an official policy that your premium will go up if you make a claim even when you arent to blame I see a reasonable assumption that these are costs attributeable to the accident.

Thoughts?

[taitinson]

Totally agree, but can't see the insurance companies agreeing to that, not while they've got a hole in their ass or until hell freezes over anyway

[OOMV6]

I don't understand the logic at all. A bonus is given for not claiming. If you have an accident which is the other partys' fault, where is the jutification in increasing the premium? Surely the premium is based on, amongst other factors, how big of a risk you are - i.e the likelihood of you (or someone else) making a claim on your  insurance. Can anyone explain why ins premium goes up if you have made no claims?

[blackviper90210]

Because they use any excuse, relevant or not, to screw every decent driver going

[Gaffers]

All valid points, but I am not debating why they do it rather what would be the rights of the 'victim' to claim costs for increased premium post non-fault claim.  It would be interesting to try.

[OOMV6]

All valid points, but I am not debating why they do it rather what would be the rights of the 'victim' to claim costs for increased premium post non-fault claim.  It would be interesting to try.

Sure, I get what you're driving at. All I am saying is if it was apparent why this happened, it would be easier to stop it... or claim it back as you say.
My feeling is that by claiming in the way you suggest, there will be a "circle" of money. Imagine you are involved in an accident - not your fault. In order to keep your premium safe, the other insurance company would have to fork out to cover your extra premium costs. If all insurance companies did this, they would all incur extra costs and pass them on to the drivers. So your premium would go up anyway - it just would not be for a reason of claiming.
Perhaps driving associations, car clubs etc etc should campaign to either get this stopped, due to it being blatently unfair on the "safe" driver

[TheBoy]

Having read many threads on here about premiums going up after no blame claims on their policy I was wondering if it would be possible to recoup the extra cost through the other party's policy.  If you had an accident that wasn't your fault you shouldn't be out of pocket and as it seems an official policy that your premium will go up if you make a claim even when you arent to blame I see a reasonable assumption that these are costs attributeable to the accident.

Thoughts?

Having had this debate very recently, both with the insurer, and the solicitors, no chance...

a) until 3 weeks before, who knows how it will affect it
b) risks are based on stats. Statistically, I am more likely to have another accident since being in a no-fault pile-up

[MaxV6]

87.32% of all statistics are made up on the spot.


 


i would challenge any insurer to provide a cast iron proof of that argument.....     I'm damn sure the numbers can be made to mean anything the calculator finds convenient to "prove"

[Gaffers]

Indeed, because by that argument you would be statistically likely to endure more and more accidents on an exponentially increasing scale.  I wonder if anyone has actually taken the insurance companies to task on this yet and asked them for proof?

[TheBoy]

Indeed, because by that argument you would be statistically likely to endure more and more accidents on an exponentially increasing scale.  I wonder if anyone has actually taken the insurance companies to task on this yet and asked them for proof?

Not much different from if you live in Manchester, you can expect to pay more than if you lived in Norwich.  No disrespect meant or intended to our Manchunian friends - apart from you have a shite footie team - but I know some brokers wont even quote of Mancs residents...

[fiend61]

apart from you have a shite footie team -

which one TB??
carefull now 

[TheBoy]

apart from you have a shite footie team -

which one TB??
carefull now 

Both of 'em, but I particularly hate Utd. With a passion. I hate all the 3 big teams that play in red - Utd, Scousepool and the Arse - but Utd really are the scum.

Did I mention, I really hate Manc Utd?

[Kevin Wood]

I also had this argument with my insurance company when I had a ladder fall on the car from a nearby CCTV installation that was being worked on, on private property.

I extracted the money from the company to blame, had the car repaired. No involvement whatsoever by my insurance company, who I informed as required.

"That'll be an extra £100 please". "This means you could be at increased risk".

I asked if they would recommend that I parked my car out of sight of CCTV cameras in future, instead of in clear view. Would that make me less "at risk"?

<shuffle>

Essentially they came close to admitting that they were superstitious. They've looked at my tea leaves and it didn't look good.

In fact, of course, contact them for any reason whatsoever, and they'll find a reason to extract more money from you. It's all they are interested in. If you're stupid enough to be honest with them, that's what you can expect in return.

[Lazydocker]

In fact, of course, contact them for any reason whatsoever, and they'll find a reason to extract more money from you. It's all they are interested in. If you're stupid enough to be honest with them, that's what you can expect in return.

Like charging fractionally more than 20% admin fees on a £2.5k business policy Won't be using Swinton again