Thread: Stop car insurance companies increasing premiums for INNOCENT VICTIMS on accidents

I agree with this completely. While I haven't been in this situation myself - indeed, since I don't own a car, I do not even *have* motor insurance - I can readily see the injustice.

However, I am probably unable to sign the petition, since although I am a UK citizen, I am no longer a UK resident. I hope plenty of other people will sign it though.

I agree (same thing has happened to me - rear shunt whilst stationary at lights!) and will be signing the petition.

Cheers

I've just been talking to my neighbour and can't believe the nerve of her insurance company after what happened:

She was hit head-on by a drunk driver, who was on the wrong side of the road and my neighbour had no chance of getting out of the way as there is a wall on both sides of the road. The drunk driver was arrested, charged and has just been convicted, and has been found by both his and my neighbour's insurance companies as 100% liable for the accident.

My neighbour has just renewed her car insurance and her premium is 25% higher than last year. When she asked the company, they said the rise is due to her being 'involved' in that accident. Obviously there was absolutely nothing she could do to avoid that accident; her crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Suffice it to say, she changed companies!

What an absolute disgrace! These vermin must be stopped, there must be some law created to stop these disgusting companies doing this to poor, innocent people.

You'll be pleased to know I've finally decided to sign this petition! It did seem kind of weird signing it, considering I work for an insurance company myself, but even after all these months that this issue has been discussed on this forum, I haven't been able to think of any justification for why innocent third parties should be charged higher premiums.

It may be statistically true that once a driver has been involved in a non-fault accident, it may slightly increase their chances of being involved in an at-fault accident (although I still have no idea why this could be so). However, I imagine that the extra risk (if any exists) must be very small, so I don't think it justifies increasing the innocent party's premium by 25%. It is my sad conclusion that companies might be doing this only for the extra money. I don't think this practice fits in with the "treating customers fairly" principles and I think that the increase in premium should be fully borne by the at-fault party, so the innocent party shouldn't have to pay any extra, once liability has been determined.

I would hope that insurance companies would collectively agree to abolish this practice voluntarily without having to be forced by a change in the law.

By the way, which company was the "vermin" involved in your neighbour's case (if she told you, that is)?

Hi all, first post and not good news.
Before becoming an independent mortgage broker, I worked for 6 years in a national car insurance company. This was always a tough one to explain to customers, and I’m sure your initial response will be the same, but here it goes.

Statistically, you are more likely to have a fault claim immediately following a non fault claim.

I know, I know, I know – but think this through… how do car insurance companies calculate their premiums? Statistical analysis of claims data. E.g. a barman will pay a higher premium than a bank worker because they have a higher claims ratio. Not necessarily because the bar worker is going to have a drink, but they work longer and later hours. This “homogenous exposure” is used and is backed up by reams of data that is constantly being updated. The statistics don’t lie and the client is always free to shop around.

Formermortgagebroker

Originally Posted by MrShed

Thats ridiculous though - statistics are only meaningful if they mean something. I agree with statistical analysis, but that is like saying the people with ginger hair are statistically more likely to smoke - it is a meaningless relationship, and almost certainly because of too small a sample size.

Signed, as I wasnt even aware this occurred, and it is frankly disgusting.

OK - Insurance company A insures 10 bricklayers and 10 hairdressers on the same day on the street, driving the same cars. 12 months later 8 of the bricklayers have had claims and only 2 of the hairdressers have had claims.

Costs for the 8 bricklayers will go up because of the claims, but the cost for the other 2 bricklayers are also up slightly because "statistically" they are more likely to have claims based on that data. the hairdressers may even decrease. The 2 bricklayers that don't have claims suffer even though they could be the best drivers in the world, conversely the 8 hairdressers that didn't have claims could be the worst. This is direct stat analysis. There is a claims data base that I would say all insurance companies subscribe too. It contains claims for all drivers in the UK and is a fraud prevention tool.

The pool of data is quite large because insurance companies tend to market to a certain demographic: Sheila's wheels are women in general so they have a broad range of data on women drivers whereas diamond tend to be more competitive on young 18-30 drivers so their data is precise.

Another issue is the attitude of drivers pre and post claim. We have all jumped behind the wheel of a car and driven to where we want to go without thinking about it. It becomes second nature. After a bump however, your driving attitude changes, you were hit by an idiot so you are more aware and more cautious, which is understandable. But while you're looking to see if any idiot is going to hit you,you drive into the car in front of you. Once again the stats bear this out.

The insurance industry has enough problems with the mis selling of add-ons. And trying to get money out of these companies following a claim can be a nightmare. The issue of non fault claims costing you more money, as annoying and frustrating as it is, isn't going to change because it is proven theory.

Going slightly off subject, insurance companies don't make a lot out of insurance. The one I worked for was making £3 per £100, and that is a very profitable company, the sister company was paying out £101 for every £100 it was taking in so it was running at a loss. Insurance companies make their profit by selling add ons such as legal cover, payment protection and personal accident cover. The Breakdown Cover sold with a lot of policies was not as good as the cover you can get outside your local tescos. And don't get me started on claims.......




Formermortgagebroker

PPP on car insurance...?

Payment protection on car insurance payment. Supposedly to cover in the event of a job loss etc to cover premiums. Same as what’s sold on other products such as furniture etc.

Problem was, if you had a 12 month policy and lost your job after say 3 months, you would be required to pay the premiums as normal and reclaim them at the end of the policy.

This was under the General Insurance Standards Council. Not sure if companies are still flogging them, but I know they were between 1998 and 2004 when I was in the industry.

Can open, worms everywhere?