Rise In Premiums Following a Non Fault Accident

[Cliff1963]

Hi MSSF,

 

Thank you for your clarification...however!

I understand the concept of risk from the insurers point of view. Lets say you are on a roundabout with right of way and a car enters the roundabout and hits you. Its the third parties fault and there are plenty of witnesses. Yes you are considered an increased risk....why....because your insurer can not know that even though you were not at fault, could you have stopped sooner or turned to avoid the accident. From the insurer point of view, it is possible that you could.

 

In my sons case (read previous post 20-09-11) he was legally parked and his car was unattended. I can here you saying "but the car is still at an increased risk of being hit than say, than if it was parked on the drive". And you are correct. But this is the point, 'at greater risk of being HIT. Yes, the risk is there, but if he parked in the same place again and got hit again, the fault would be with the third party. It is clear to me that THERE IS NO INCREASE IN THE RISK OF A PAYOUT BY MY SONS INSURER. Isn't the whole point of his insurance, to protect against the cost HE incurs if HE is in an accident.

 

The insurance companies may as well increase everyone's insurance on our street and argue that they are also at an increased risk because the live on the same street.

 

I am still fighting this rip off , steer clear of ADMIRAL.

 

Cliff 1963

[Madhafu]

Hey guys! Just ran across ur post today as I wondered the same thing when I thought of the accident I had yesterday and I'm insured by Direct Line. I asked them and they said to me as the accident the other person who hit me admitted liability etc I will NOT be suffering any loss, my no claims bonus is SAFE therefore NO premium increases and the car is being repaired and a hire car was given etc no...perhaps there are insurers alike who wouldn't increase ur premium etc. Hope this helps.

[Cliff1963]

Hi Madhafu,

 

Your comments are appreciated. I have had a reply from admiral and they have refunded £178 of my son's premium. I have also written to the parent company (EUI) directors complaining that even with the refund, the insurance still rose by over £400 following a non fault accident. I was advised by the Financial Ombudsman that some companies do not penalise their customers for non fault accidents...there is a but!

 

The age of the insured could well result in a much higher premium from companies like direct line, my son was quoted over £3500 by DL. Even with the hike in premium, Admiral was still almost £1000 cheaper (the word cheaper being relative, no insurance is cheap). I suppose its a case of swings and roundabouts, but I still believe that insurance companies in England are having our pants down.

 

If I get a result from my contact with the directors of EUI (Admiral), I will post the results.

[Wulfyn]

CUE checking is becoming a very common occurence in the insurance industry in order to catch fraud. It's not perfect and insurers are all taking varied and independent approaches to how they are using it. Some for example will not look for non-fault claims, whilst others will.

 

It's a similar situation as to how insurers use non-fault claims. There is a statistical link to the number of non-fault claims you have and the chance to be involved in a future accident. This is possibly because of the 'noise' created from fraudsters who brake hard / in stupid places to make people run into the back of them. Technically they are not at fault, but they tend to get a lot of fault accidents in the future and it makes everyone else look bad.

 

The good news is that not every insurance company does increase rates (some will allow 1 non-fault without loading but will load if there are more). So shop around... you might even get a meerkat doll for your trouble

[Madhafu]

Hey Cliff1963 - you're welcome, most importantly you have a point there...insurances premium adjustments is like a game they play, it's sad, there is no clear guideline. Keep us posted

[Cliff1963]

Hi to anyone who has followed my thread relating to Admirals £600 increase in my sons premium following a 'non-fault' accident. I promised an update and here it is. Unfortunately I have learned this week that my son has had another (very minor) bump. He just nudged the back of a car resulting in a small scratch and a cracked number plate. Considering my efforts to resolve his current insurance status, he was reluctant to tell me about the accident, so in an attempt to avoid undoing my work or involving the insurance company, he exchanged details and offered to pay in cash for the repairs (less than £100). The third party was more sensible and informed their insurance provider, who, either through the CUE or directly, informed Admiral. The strange thing is, when I asked my son to contact Admiral, they informed him that 'as he had paid for the repairs, the accident would be logged as non-fault'. As I have written before, with Admiral a non fault accident amounts to pretty much the same thing as an 'at fault' accident. I can not see how this will affect my existing claim for a re-evaluation of my sons insurance status, as the facts from the date he he took out the insurance t the date his premium was increased have not changed and my complaint is therefore legitimate.

 

By the December renewal date, my son will have only two non-fault accidents to declare and we will be looking for a company who would interoperate "non fault" in the same way as any other rational person would.

[Madhafu]

Cliff... What an outcome...we can only hope for the best but, your pro-activeness in addressing the recent minor bump was commendable because had insurance been in a position to get involved from the on-set it would end up being more and costly, just to earn more money from a bad situ. Hope it works out with the initial issue at hand of the £600 Godspeed.

[rossocorsa]

had no fault on 20th October when renewal with Admiral was on 25th claims department stated when this was reported that no change on renewal would occur actually it went up by £32.44 and they debited the higher amount without informing me. Not a lot I suppose and if renewal wasn't due you'd probably not even notice. Annoying though and admiral will not refund the difference even though they entered into (in my view) a verbal contract when I asked the claims department if reporting the claim would affect the renewal and they said no. Still at the end of the day they are cheap compared with the rest so not a lot I can do really

[Wulfyn]

Cliff,

 

the second non-fault shouldn't affect the review of the first one. However I just had a thought. A lot of insurance companies use some VERY old computer systems - things which won't be able to log the difference in a non-fault claim with someone driving and with it being unattended. I mean when you go to fill out your answers to get insurance look at what questions they ask you. If they are unable to record the difference then it won't be picked up by the rating engines.

 

 

However you are doing the right thing in shopping around. One advantage of the insurance market is that it is very competitive and there are lots of people working hard to get rates as low as possible whilst still covering costs. Just because one company doesn't see much of a difference between fault and non-fault doesn't mean they all will.

 

As ever the aggs are a good place to start in order to get some ball-park figures of a good market rate. You then have to review what is being offered in each product and select the one that is best for you.

[Banana-Man]

Had a no fault accident in Sept 2011. The at fault driver's insurance, LV, sorted the repairs and provided a hire car. I also had to claim for around £350 of lost earnings etc but they finally covered it.

 

I received renewal quote this morning and it doesn't show the details of the accident. I called LV to see if I need to tell my insurer, esure. They said I should notify esure. I asked LV if they would cover any renewal premium increase. They said "No". I argued that as any premium renewal increase would be a direct loss to me as a direct result of their policy holder's actions, then LV would be liable. They said I could send them a letter....or better still write to the Ombudsman. I prefer more direct action.

 

I contacted esure and "notified" them of ther accident. Kerching! 10% premium increase. OK, only about £25 but hey, why should I pay that.

 

I've written to LV to see whether they are prepared to cover it or whether I need to pursure their policy holder directly. I'm thinking about doing both. The more people upset with LV for shirking their liability the better. I doubt their policy holder will renew with LV when he finds out they haven't fully settled the claim and he's got to waste time dealing with me.

 

As for esure....well I guess everyone should note that non-fault claims will increase your premium by 10%. If you don't want that possibility then find an alternative insurer that doesn't penalise non-fault drivers.

 

Does anyone have a list of insurers that don't load premiums for non-fault accidents?

[unclebulgaria67]

Think they all apply loadings of similar amounts. Can't think of any companies that don't.

[Gus75]

Exactly my question. Same situation, I have 5 individual policies that will now be loaded for the next few years, probably 5 as that is what insurers always ask about. So a 30 to 50 quid rise per policy x 5 X next 5 years about a grand. Can't believe this cannot be recovered as a loss. Yes yes yes we all know how to shop around for cheaper quotes, however cheap is usually not good quality and however cheap it gets you are still being loaded for an incident that you had nothing to do with. I agree of the insurers think you are now a higher risk they can charge more. But I think the third party is responsible for compensating me for my loss, probably via their insurance policy. I think it's time the oft stepped in to have a look at this.

[Modeler]

I found this forum / thread after a blood-boiling call to Admiral last night. Two years ago a woman drove into the back of my car at a roundabout; I was waiting at the line as there was a queue on the roundabout and moving forward would have blocked the exit to my left. I notified Admiral who confirmed that she had admitted liability and the claim would be made against her insurance. They paid out and my car was fixed. Not being a compulsive liar / money-grabbing lowlife I did not pretend that something might have happened to my neck.

 

When negotiating my renewal premium for this year, when asked if I had been involved in any accidents (regardless of blame) I described the above. My renewal premium instantly rose by 27.5%

 

Worse was yet to come... I was told that for some unknown reason this had not been factored into my premiums for the last two years and they may have to back-date the difference. Despite being unfairly penalised for someone else's reckless driving, I don't see why an administrative error on Admiral's part now means I now have to compensate them for an absurdly-derived "added risk" that now lies in the past. My car doesn't have a flux capacitor!!!

 

The strange thing is, when I asked my son to contact Admiral, they informed him that 'as he had paid for the repairs, the accident would be logged as non-fault'.

 

By that logic... if instead of being the victim of a shunt, I hit someone else's car in a moment of lunacy but paid for the repairs out of my own pocket, Admiral would consider me to be the same level of risk as I am now. Un-****ing-real!

 

Reading some of the stories here, I would say I'm glad it's not just me but I'm not. I can't believe this goes on and careful, responsible, conscientious drivers get penalised for just being there. What really sticks in my gizzard is that I joined the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) 12 years ago. I took and passed an advanced driving test, but this makes no difference to my premium. Someone drives into the back of my car while I'm stationary, and it goes up by over a quarter. What the hell is going on?!

[davidoneman]

i have just had a non fault accident a car drove into the side of mine , he has admitted fault . I have just looked at insurance to see if it will be going up and to my amazment it rises £102.50 for the non fault accident it makes me mad how can this not be claimed abck as in my eyes its a non insured loss if it wasnt for the person bumping me my insurance wouldnt go up ! but i suppose we are in rip of britain they can do as the please and no one to stop them no wonder people drive around with no insurance when they only get a few points and a small fine :-x

[greasmonkey]

I think its time the goverment took over the insurance on cars like they do for the road tax

they make it conpulsary to have insurance but dont want to make insurance companies charge a fair

amount or form a co-op and go to one insurance comp.

[Bang!]

A few thoughts...

 

1. Its fairly simple to show the change in price of insurance after a no fault accident at the following renewal by entering the accident free details to confused.com/gocompare.com etc and seeing the difference in the best prices returned each time.

 

2. In the past where an uninsured driver had an accident a claim could be submitted to the MIB who acted as if they were the other parties insurers. Its years since I dealt with this, and I think there were problems if the other driver disappeared/was unidentifiable.

 

3. Even if a clear difference in price is shown by 1. above, then it would be impossible to project this forward five years and claim for that amount. Issues in the future could mess this up, such as more non fault accidents, at fault accidents, convictions... So in theory for the amount to be calculated , it would be required to find what the actual costs were then claim at the end of the period.

 

4. I cannot think why if an insurance company declined to pay out on an this part of a claim, then to go to court after the consequential loss was entirely determinable, and documented details could be shown for quotes, that there is any reason a court would not make an award to the non fault party.

 

5. If 4 above happens, it will really confuse the insurance industry, as claims for non fault accidents would appear in two tranches with a considerable number of years between them.

 

6. The only simple way of fixing the situation, would be for insurers to not try to milk people for extra premiums if they were not a contributing factor in an accident.