Crashed into an ambulance

[Dieselman]

Seems you were lucky not to see your original premium increase, in addition to the reduced NCB.

Mine was a theoretical case, I've not needed to claim on my insurance.

The whole point of NCB is to reward you for not having made a claim (although some cynical souls would claim that it's all a 'smoke and mirrors' marketing ploy anyway). So, unless it's protected, your discount percentage will indeed be reduced following a claim.

However, that's completely separate form your risk profile and the other factors that determine your premium in the first place.

You say in your first para that the NCD will deal with the higher premium as a result of reducing the discount, which seems fair enough, but then in your second para say the premium alters irrespective of the NCD.

That doesn't make sense.

The discount is to rewards a driver that doesn't claim, so is reduced for making a claim.
For a given vehicle, driver age, location, etc, the base premium remains the same, just the discount alters.

To add more.
When I first took insurance on my own car after company cars I was quoted a price based on having had a claim within 3 years.
When it came to presenting proof of claims history there was another unresolved claim showing (which I thought had been resolved in my favour). This reduced the discount to zero but didn't increase the actual premium from the start price before NCD was attached.

p.s. Two years later the claim was resolved in my favour and I recouped over £1000 paid in additional premiums.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Mine was a theoretical case, I've not needed to claim on my insurance.

Ah, fair enough.

It's entirely possible (if unlikely) that the premium could stay the same though, as there are so many factors that influence it, some of them quite arbitrary. I mentioned recently that I was given a £40 loyalty discount on my renewal just for the asking, so with a protected 75% NCB in place, that loyalty discount in itself would negate a base premium increase of £160. Such is the crazy world of motor insurance.

 

[MOCAŠ]

The discount is to rewards a driver that doesn't claim, so is reduced for making a claim.
For a given vehicle, driver age, location, etc, the base premium remains the same, just the discount alters.

Think of the discount as just that - the percentage by which your premium will be reduced for as long as you remain entitled to that discount.

How could the insurance company guarantee that the base premium would remain the same, though? What if you didn't make a claim for 40 years? How would they cope with inflation, or the fact that crime had doubled in your area during that time, or a further increase in personal injury claims, or whatever? They have to be able to adjust their premiums year on year to ensure that their business remains viable.

 

[renault12ts]

Was hers protected for two claims or just one?

Two...so she better be careful for a while.

This explains it ( a bit):

http://www.confused.com/car-insuran...buyers-guide-page-6-no-claims-bonus-explained

 

[Dieselman]

How could the insurance company guarantee that the base premium would remain the same, though? What if you didn't make a claim for 40 years? How would they cope with inflation, or the fact that crime had doubled in your area during that time, or a further increase in personal injury claims, or whatever? .

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?
We are not talking about inflation or differing crime rates, we are talking about a single driver that makes a claim.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?
We are not talking about inflation or differing crime rates, we are talking about a single driver that makes a claim.

It's not about the claim, it's about the risk, as assessed by the underwriter.

If you make a claim for something that the insurer does not see as increasing your risk profile, then you may not face an increase in the base premium. But if you're claiming for an at-fault accident, then that will almost certainly make you a worse risk when you renew.

My point about the crime rate changing is that this would also affect the risk you pose, so could also lead to your premium increasing even if you hadn't made a claim (and therefore had maintained the same NCD).

 

[scottishman2]

Why are you trying to confuse the issue?
We are not talking about inflation or differing crime rates, we are talking about a single driver that makes a claim.

Hate to say this, but I only see one person confused in this part of the discussion........

 

[Dryce]

It's not about the claim, it's about the risk, as assessed by the underwriter.

It's about the price.

Back in the old days when I used to get insurance it seemed relatively sane. Brokers and insurers would work of printed tables. NCB / NCD was an easy way of allowing them to look up the tables and ghet a price and then apply the individual risk factor via the NCB/NCD.

Technology and marketing have undermined this - basically entering in all your info should kick out a number. And it sort of does. No reason for a NCB/NCD.

But complicating this is the NCD/NCB legacy where for marketing purposes (USP), margin purposes (small increase in premium for protection) and loyalty purposes the insurers started messing with NCD/NCB.

There's really only one thing that matters. The price you pay.

 

[st4]

To protect a 4yrs NCB Axa charged me £177. On a premium of under £1000 thats quite steep but IMHO worth doing as you retain the 4 years unless you have two incidents resulting in the insurer being out of pocket, and given where I have been with Axa (judgement in default found against the 3rd party they did not recover my money until I bombarded them, actually, they had to get court officers to get my money back from the 3rd parties insurance co).

To add insult to injury I was stopped at red lights, well within my lane. Some **** in a pikey saxo nearly swipped me and I could see all this hassle all over again. And I spent an age cleaning the car.

 

[John]

I understood that even with protected NCB, if you have a prang and claim in any way, shape or form, your 'risk profile' changes and they believe you are more likely to have another prang, regardless of fault.

Personally, I suspect this is bull**** so they can get more money out of you.

How can someone else hitting you possibly mean you are more likely to have another accident.

Cobblers!

 

[whitenemesis]

.................
How can someone else hitting you possibly mean you are more likely to have another accident.

Cobblers!

Unless your car was parked and you not in it there is always a possibility of complicity, however insignificant or improbable. Insurance companies work in probabilities and to the nth degree

 

[BTB 500]

How can someone else hitting you possibly mean you are more likely to have another accident.

I knew a somewhat nervous / dithery driver who got hit from behind 3 times by braking sharply where you wouldn't normally expect someone to do so. These were all 'non blame' accidents, but from an insurance POV if any of the other drivers had been uninsured then I think her insurer would have had to pick up the tab? In which case increased risk to the company, hence increased premium.

 

[st4]

.

How can someone else hitting you possibly mean you are more likely to have another accident.

Cobblers!

To an extent, but say there are repeated incidents of "non fault accidents" it may be wise to assume that such outwith the norm incidents must have some bearing on the driving of the persons car. Poor road position, hesitation on their part etc. In otherwords, they may not be good at avoiding accidents and anticipating hazards and are therefore more of a risk to the insurer as one day, they could be at fault....

 

[Gucci]

Update:

All charges have now been dropped. Police released the vehicle to be crushed - and insurance paid up slightly MORE than the car was even worth.