Surprising insurance renewal cost

[Deleted member 37751]

Although I was involved in a non-fault accident at the end of May, my insurance premium has actually gone down and that's without me negotiating!

This goes against the grain of what's happened to a lot of other forum members it seems...

 

[GreetMe]

Damn you.

 

[renault12ts]

You think that's good? My wife had two, her fault, incidents earlier this year...her's too went down.

 

[polo_dude]

I wish my quotes would go down.

 

[GreetMe]

You think that's good? My wife had two, her fault, incidents earlier this year...her's too went down.

Where is this parallel universe that you and SPX inhabit? Who do I need to bribe to get in?

 

[renault12ts]

Where is this parallel universe that you and SPX inhabit? Who do I need to bribe to get in?

Up north, and even further up north (and to the west a bit).

 

[Hi-Ho Silver]

Good to hear you're unaffected.

I'm still pondering the improbability that just because someone drove into my car and that this was my first claim of any kind in over 25 years of driving (I claimed against another insurer), that my insurance premium has risen.

I'm supposedly now in a higher risk category and from now on, more likely to be involved in another claim. If I ever need to claim again, the allegation would be proven correct. If I never claim again, the allegation would be proven incorrect. Those are not odds but they are suppositions based on nothing whatsoever and I intend to raise them with an insurance ombudsman.

 

[developer]

You think that's good? My wife had two, her fault, incidents earlier this year...her's too went down.

I suppose that's one way of getting a discount..........

 

[TDE1]

Good to hear you're unaffected.

I'm still pondering the improbability that just because someone drove into my car and that this was my first claim of any kind in over 25 years of driving (I claimed against another insurer), that my insurance premium has risen.

I'm supposedly now in a higher risk category and from now on, more likely to be involved in another claim. If I ever need to claim again, the allegation would be proven correct. If I never claim again, the allegation would be proven incorrect. Those are not odds but they are suppositions based on nothing whatsoever and I intend to raise them with an insurance ombudsman.

I suspect the Ombudsman will tell you it is based on statistics calculated by the actuaries / computers of your insurer, and to buy elsewhere if you are dissatisfied with their invited renewal premium.

Each insurer calculates risk and premium based, for the main part, on their own returns. It may appear unfair.

I'd consider just shopping around for a better deal. It's a competitive market.

 

[oscarisapc]

Unfortunately, the odds are correct

There is a evidence that folks who have been involved in one accident are statistically at a higher risk of being involved in another. There are all sorts of complex reasons for this but basically it boils down to the fact that accidents are very rarely the fault of one person alone, even though one person is the ultimate cause. Unfortunately statistics are just odds, and can't convey the complexity of individual circumstances. For example, although the favorite in a horse race wins more often than not, you can't predict the outcome of an individual race by betting on the favorite. So it is with drivers. I can sympathise with the justified irritation that a blameless driver feels when the premium goes up after a no fault accident, but the odds are against him. And insurance is an odds based business.
PS I have no connection with the insurance industry.

 

[PXW]

My insurance renewal offer was massively higher this year. Went online to see what could be offered by an opera singer with dubious job security. My existing insurer was interested in offering me a contract at £120 less than they had already quoted. I eventually wnet with someone else a good £30 less than that.

On the other hand, Mrs PXW's insurance quote came in at an all time low despite her lack of defensive driving training, light touch awareness, poor road discipline, habit of nattering on the (hands free) phone etc. Despite that, she's not bad enough that she is likely to drive into someone or otherwise cause an accident. However, at some point someone will drive into her (hopefully not too hard - I'm quite fond of her really) and she will be unable to react quickly enough to avoid the accident and will acquire a no-fault accident on her record...her insurer will then quite rightly say that she is a higher risk for a repeat. Not saying this is how Hi Ho drives at all, but it's the kind of thing the stats pick up.

 

[Amy_AskWinns]

There are all kinds of market factors that affect premiums not just no claim bonus. As a rule of thumb you can protect your NCD after 5 years giving you two protected lives.

On the third fault accident that’s when it effects your NCD, you usually lose two years worth. But there is lots of other factors to reduce premiums, increased x/s, multi car policies, marital status, occupations, address etc.

 

[NOMONEYBUTAMERC]

I expect your insurance company have noted that you have a) reached a certain age , and b) you may soon be in the market to insure some rather expensive wristwear in the not too distant future.

 

[Hi-Ho Silver]

There is a evidence that folks who have been involved in one accident are statistically at a higher risk of being involved in another. There are all sorts of complex reasons for this but basically it boils down to the fact that accidents are very rarely the fault of one person alone, even though one person is the ultimate cause. Unfortunately statistics are just odds, and can't convey the complexity of individual circumstances. For example, although the favorite in a horse race wins more often than not, you can't predict the outcome of an individual race by betting on the favorite. So it is with drivers. I can sympathise with the justified irritation that a blameless driver feels when the premium goes up after a no fault accident, but the odds are against him. And insurance is an odds based business.
PS I have no connection with the insurance industry.

That's codswallop!

You're simply stating a hypothesis and trying to support it with 'evidence'. Statistics are not 'odds' or predictions, they are measurements. Accidents cannot, by their very nature, be predicted. Where is this body of 'evidence' and who used Chi-Squared instead of a T-Test?

The same hypothesis, skewed the other way...
Up until the point at which someone carelessly drove into my car, I had held a stainless driving record for over 25 years. If that's not a body of evidence which entirely disproves the earlier hypothesis, nothing is. The hypothesis must therefore be 'If someone can drive for over 25 years without being involved in an insurance claim, that any claim they are involved in must not be their fault'. Same reasoning, still complete nonsense!

ps: I'm 5'10 and a Taurean, Earth element, Rooster who likes the colour purple and was born on tuesday the 6th. Furthermore, my car is silver, the indident occurred on a Wednesday and we all know what that means.

 

[oscarisapc]

That's codswallop!

You can believe that if you wish. Why not look up "the environmental fallacy" on Google for a more detailed scientific explanation of why the characteristics of a population do not predict what will happen to any individual within it. Insurance is a pooled risk business, and the pooled risk of those who have had a previous no fault accident is higher than those who have not, irrespective of the drivers’ personal view of their driving prowess.


Be sure to let us know how you get on with the Insurance Ombudsman.