For a long time now I have been under the impression that if you have an accident that is not your fault and the other persons insurance company pays you out in full then you will not be penalised at renewal time by your own insurer.

Having read a number of threads on here, people were suggesting that this was not the case and their premiums had risen, even though they were the innocent victim.

I decided to do a bit of digging and this is what I found out.

A number of brokers that I talked to said that a non fault accident should not result in a rise of premiums because you are totally innocent, however when getting quotes from the same companies and declaring a non fault accident on one quote and not mentioning it on another quote from them there was a rise in premiums of between £30 and £50.

On talking to the Companies and giving this evidence they did admit that their premiums rose as a result.

On talking to the FOS they accepted that this does happen and it is totally acceptable, and then the FOS went on to tell me that although this rise in premiums was directly attributable to the accident that was not your fault you could not claim this increase back from the insurers of the person who caused the accident.

That does NOT sit right with me, to my mind any money that you have to pay out as a result of an accident that is not your fault you should be able to recover, and that includes an increase in premiums if you can show that the only reason for the rise is the accident that was not your fault.

Any comments anyone?

Mossy

I believe that some insurers and brokers often consider that drivers who have no fault accidents are at more risk of having another accident than drivers who have no accidents and as such, the increase occurs.

Harsh, but in a bizarre way I can see their logic to some extent.

I am sure some top underwriters could probably give some statistics that 'prove' that people who have accidents are 'x' times more likely to be in an accident again within 'x' years.

As such, they can probably be justified in the eyes of FOS and ABI etc to raise the premiums.

I can see their logic, but what I can't see is why the insurer of the responsible party refuses to accept this as a valid item of claim under uninsured losses.

To my mind an uninsured loss is anything that you pay out that you wouldn't have had to pay out if the accident had not occurred.

Mossy

I can't see why you could not make a claim through the small claims, for the additional premium you had to pay, as a result of a non fault accident. It would depend on how much extra was involved to see whether it was worth it or not.

Is there any case law or legislation that prevents this ? I am not aware of anything that prevents such action. If you are successful then the 3rd parties Insurers would have to pay the relevant amount.

My experience of premium rating at renewal, following one non fault accident, is that it increases the premium by an average of £50. However, this loading in premium stays on the policy for about 3 years, so over that period of time, it adds up to a reasonable amount of money.

It is not just the premium. It can also be the loss that results from a write off payment, that is less than the actual cost of obtaining a replacement car of the same quality.

The problem would be, if the policy increase is after settlement of the ununsured losses or PI claim. As such, your insurers or solicitors will have discharged your claim against the insurers with the usual wording.

If the policy increase occurs during the claim or if no claim has been made against the TP then the problem comes of proving the loss. I doubt any insurers are going to give evidence to the fact that they increase premiums for no fault claims in Court....

Plus you may fail under common law to show that any rise in your premium was forseeable through their negligence and as such the claim is too remote.

Did it say on your renewal that the increase was due to the accident.

My Premium rose just over £100 this year and I did not make a claim, no accidents and no convictions. I went with another insurer who quoted me nearly £200 less and I also got my No Claims Bonus Guaranteed (was protected last year).

Insurance Premiums as a whole have risen again this year, so I would shop around as you may find you will get a cheaper quote.

Good Luck.

Did it say on your renewal that the increase was due to the accident.

 

My Premium rose just over £100 this year and I did not make a claim, no accidents and no convictions. I went with another insurer who quoted me nearly £200 less and I also got my No Claims Bonus Guaranteed (was protected last year).

 

Insurance Premiums as a whole have risen again this year, so I would shop around as you may find you will get a cheaper quote.

 

Good Luck.

The way I did it was to go online and fill in all their questions.

The first time around I said No to any accidents, then I went back and changed the answer to Yes and filled in all the boxes to show it was a non fault accident, no cost to my insurer. The quote then rose by an amount between £30 and £50 depending on the insurer.

So, in answer to your question, YES it was directly due to the accident.

I also spoke to several insurers who confirm that they increase premiums even if you are the innocent party in an accident, even the FOS acknowledged this happens and that it is acceptable.

I'm not arguing about whether this is acceptable or not, insurers are free to calculate premiums however they choose to, my argument is that this should be recoverable as part of your uninsured losses (and as the wise womble says he cannot see why you wouldn't win if you went to Court, and neither do I).

My bone of contention is that when I asked other insurers if they would accept a rise in premiums as an uninsured loss they all said NO, and that to me is wrong.

Mossy

If the policy increase occurs during the claim or if no claim has been made against the TP then the problem comes of proving the loss. I doubt any insurers are going to give evidence to the fact that they increase premiums for no fault claims in Court....

 

Plus you may fail under common law to show that any rise in your premium was forseeable through their negligence and as such the claim is too remote.

I agree with that, however, my plan would be to print off the quote showing 'no accidents' and the quote showing the accident and the letter from the insurers explaining that the increase in premiums was due to the accident you had been involved in.

Mossy

(PS Guess who had a non fault accident recently)

Another possible defence by the defendants would be to argue that you have failed to mitigate your losses by accepting the rise in your premium and not shoppped around for a better deal.

Really think you are up against it Mossycat!

You could always advise the broker/insurer of your true identity on this here forum and if said insurers don't reduce your premium you will name and shame them on the forum and then personally ensure every quibble and query they get on here will be personally assisted by you. That might work...

Another possible defence by the defendants would be to argue that you have failed to mitigate your losses by accepting the rise in your premium and not shoppped around for a better deal.

 

Really think you are up against it Mossycat!

 

You could always advise the broker/insurer of your true identity on this here forum and if said insurers don't reduce your premium you will name and shame them on the forum and then personally ensure every quibble and query they get on here will be personally assisted by you. That might work...

I thought about that as a defence and in honesty I did visit 4 major online sites and rang a few insurance Companies, in total I've had quotes from over 50 insurers and they all show an increase in premiums.

I think I'm up against it too, but I'm not one to give up without a fight.

I'm laughing about your final paragraph, you owe me a new keyboard, I was drinking coffee at the time!!!!!!!!!!!! :D:D

Mossy

Mossycat

You could always threaten to come around to scratch all their furniture to bits and mark your territory by rubbing your *rse against door posts etc. Not to mention sh*tting in their office plants.

Mossycat

 

You could always threaten to come around to scratch all their furniture to bits and mark your territory by rubbing your *rse against door posts etc. Not to mention sh*tting in their office plants.

Aww come on I'm a nice cat

Honest

Mossy

Here's the response from the ABI

Thank you for your e-mail.

Some insurers take the view that someone who has a non-fault accident is more likely to have a subsequent claim that someone with no claims of any kind. However, not all insurers take this view and so by shopping around hopefully you will be able to find a competitive quotation.

I've asked them to name any insurer who does not load their premiums following a non fault accident, it will be interesting to see who doesn't. My money is that they can't.

Mossy

Hmm, perhaps I should start working for the FOS....!!!

You could always try a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request in this respect to the FOS. As they are a public body they would have to respond and dig for the info. You could also tag on a request for any info relating to stats as to further accidents occuring on N/F claim policies.

Go for it....

Reply from the ABI

Sorry, I haven’t got any specific names. It is a question of shopping around.

They can't provide any specific names because I cannot find one Insurer who doesn't do this.

So, on the one hand an Insurer can load the premiums of an innocent driver for been in a non fault accident and on the other hand refuse to handle this as an uninsured loss, seems like this could go to the OFT.

Mossy

You could always try a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request in this respect to the FOS. As they are a public body they would have to respond and dig for the info. You could also tag on a request for any info relating to stats as to further accidents occuring on N/F claim policies.

 

Go for it....

That's a great idea, thanks, I hadn't thought of that.

Mossy

What do you think in the cases involving un-insured drivers? Should a legal driver with the most basic policy who was not at fault incurr any financial losses/increase premiums?

__________________

What do you think in the cases involving un-insured drivers? Should a legal driver with the most basic policy who was not at fault incurr any financial losses/increase premiums?

 

That's a good question, but in those cases the insurer of the policyholder has had to make a payment, ie a claim has been made, so I can see why insurers would then load a premium.

In this case, the insurer has not had to make a payment and it's more about insurers not accepting the rise in premiums as an unisured loss.

Mossy

The ABI have now come back to me with this answer

Any subsequent increase in premiums would not be considered an uninsured loss by any insurer. It does not fall within this category of losses.

I've asked them to explain why it would not fall within the category of uninsured losses and therefore be recoverable, but as yet they haven't responded.

I doubt I will get a reply to that, because there isn't a valid reason why it wouldn't or shouldn't be recoverable

Mossy

Hi,

I have been involved in a accident where the third party did not stop and went into my rear, complete non fault and also the third party fled the scene, and their car doesn't have insurance and he is possibly untraceable...

I have just checked comparison sites on how it would affect my premiums and it would go up by £1000+ (currently paying £1000 with admiral)

I was not at fault and haven't claimed (yet or might not claim if this increase is the case).

Can't see why the victim of a crime should be punished like this??

Edit:

Just checked quotes putting "incident no claim made" and the premium still rises to £2000+

Absolutely absurd!

For a long time now I have been under the impression that if you have an accident that is not your fault and the other persons insurance company pays you out in full then you will not be penalised at renewal time by your own insurer...etc

 

I have noted a non-fault accident is costing me over £60 per year on a sub-£500 premium. I am writing to the 3rd party insurer, and am making a further claim for my increased premiums totalling £320. Anyone involved in an accident should remember UK insurance companies will take you for every penny they can get regardless of blame.

 

I say this in hindsight that in France, my insuramce for the same vehicle was 280 Euros (Less than half my costs in the UK on roads I'm more familiar with!)

Well i've just had my quote to renew my car insurance. No claims in the last 10 years so I have full no claims bonus, i am 52 years of age and my car and all other circumstances are the same and yet my premium is just over £100 more! They will have to do better than that!

Davo66, not really something you can claim for, but have a go and please let me know if I'm wrong.

Sam I feel your pain, my pain is coming soon. premium increases are all over the place, the market hardening is taking effect.

Hi all,

My first post!

My neighbour reversed out of his drive and into my sons parked car but admitted being at fault, his insurance paid out in full and my son did not even contact his insurer. When his insurance came up for renewal, he got a quote from admiral but did not declare this non-fault accident, he was quoted £1855.00 for a Citroen C2 GT. When he collected his car and rang to arrange the insurance, his premium has risen by £600 to over £2400. Admiral insurance claimed that this was because he failed to declare the non-fault accident. We contacted the insurance ombudsman and after 9 months of haggling, we (not the insurance companies or the ombudsman) discovered that the wrong details had been entered on the CUE (claims underwriters database or something similar). We have managed to get an offer of a £178 refund on the policy, but I am not resting here, this would still mean that my son is paying a £422 hike in premium because the insurance company claim he is a higher risk because someone crashed into his legally parked and unattended car. He works nights and was asleep in bed when the accident occurred, the conditions were good clear daylight and dry. The third party is 92 years old and we have since discovered that this is the second time he has reversed out of his drive and into a parked car....his premium £a little over £300...worse still, his premium did not go up after the accident. (my son has no other accidents for the last three years)

Here is and idea. If everyone posting their complaint joined together as a cooperative and approached an insurer as group, stating that they will only take insurance from a company who looks at their insurance risk in full. A bigger revenue stream will always make companies think again. All young drivers should consider banding together in the same way.

Note:

The average cost for insurance for a male driver between the ages of 17 and 25 in Scotland £560.00

The average cost for insurance for a male driver between the ages of 17 and 25 in England £1700.00

The reason is because the Scottish parliament will not allow personal injury insurance run in tandem with car insurance. If you suffer a minor injury in a car accident in Scotland, you have to take a personal injury claim to court yourself via a civil action.

Lets all move to SCOTLAND

Thanks for reading.......Cliff

Hi all,

 

My first post!

 

My neighbour reversed out of his drive and into my sons parked car but admitted being at fault, his insurance paid out in full and my son did not even contact his insurer. When his insurance came up for renewal, he got a quote from admiral but did not declare this non-fault accident, he was quoted £1855.00 for a Citroen C2 GT. When he collected his car and rang to arrange the insurance, his premium has risen by £600 to over £2400. Admiral insurance claimed that this was because he failed to declare the non-fault accident. We contacted the insurance ombudsman and after 9 months of haggling, we (not the insurance companies or the ombudsman) discovered that the wrong details had been entered on the CUE (claims underwriters database or something similar). We have managed to get an offer of a £178 refund on the policy, but I am not resting here, this would still mean that my son is paying a £422 hike in premium because the insurance company claim he is a higher risk because someone crashed into his legally parked and unattended car. He works nights and was asleep in bed when the accident occurred, the conditions were good clear daylight and dry. The third party is 92 years old and we have since discovered that this is the second time he has reversed out of his drive and into a parked car....his premium £a little over £300...worse still, his premium did not go up after the accident. (my son has no other accidents for the last three years)

 

Here is and idea. If everyone posting their complaint joined together as a cooperative and approached an insurer as group, stating that they will only take insurance from a company who looks at their insurance risk in full. A bigger revenue stream will always make companies think again. All young drivers should consider banding together in the same way.

 

Note:

The average cost for insurance for a male driver between the ages of 17 and 25 in Scotland £560.00

The average cost for insurance for a male driver between the ages of 17 and 25 in England £1700.00

The reason is because the Scottish parliament will not allow personal injury insurance run in tandem with car insurance. If you suffer a minor injury in a car accident in Scotland, you have to take a personal injury claim to court yourself via a civil action.

Lets all move to SCOTLAND

 

Thanks for reading.......Cliff

This is where I get lynched, but, looking at it from the insurance companies point of view:

Your son is leaving his car somewhere where there is an increased risk of it getting hit. (Your neighbour is still there, and as you say, he has done that before).

Even if your son moves his car elsewhere, out of reversing range of the neighbour, he is still nearby, and still at greater risk of getting hit by the same guy.

Not all no fault claims are like that, of course, the car hit my a falling meteorite is not more likely to be hit again - but many are, which is why insurance companies are loading premiums like this.

As for the difference in insurance premiums between England and Scotland - off to renew our passports, we are moving north of the border!