I don't bother, I've heard too many people complain their insurance costs increase after a claim. They retain their NCB, but the insurance company raises the initial premium

If you don't protect you will go from 10 to probably 3 years NCB.

I have been in this situation. Needless to say on renewal my existing company wanted me to take out a new mortgage - it was esure and they only covered drivers with min 5 year NCB!

Car insurance is such a competitive market that by shopping around I found cover with 3 years NCB no more expensive than I had paid the year before with many more than 5 years NCB.

As a result of this experience I have never protected my NCB.

One of the problems nowadays is that insurers are now doing sneaky things, in that they 'pre-load' policy premiums if you've had an accident, and whether you have a protected bonus or not makes no difference - the 'starting point' before any discounts is higher, which to me, rather makes the whole point of a 'protected NCD' less worthwhile - they just claw it back through a higher starting premium.

It can penalise someone for having just one fault claim, but because its recent (within 5 years, even if you've not claimed for well over 10). I'd rather they charge a higher amount for protected NCD when you first take one out, then slowly reduce the cost if you don't actually claim at all, a bit like ordinary NCDs.

My Dad had an accident a few years back when a dog off its leash (not his - they didn't find out who) ran acorss the road (and surprisingly kept going) and hit his car, causing about £500+ of damage, so it was a 'fault' claim, which he found lead to a large increase in his premium (despite having a protected NCD and no fault claims for well over 10 years) because of this sneaky 'pre-loading'. He actually used to work (for 35 years) in insurance, and to say he was unhappy at finding out this was an understatement - he changed from his staff policy (ok for retirees) to another (LV) who actually reduced it back down to below what he had been paying the year before (and with better customer service by all accounts).

In my view, insurance policies should ONLY reflect the entire driving history (and not be biased towards just the most recent) in addition to the usual other factors. I agree also that there appears to be a wide variation in the amounts charged for a protected NCD, which really shouldn't vary by much, given probably all premiums are calculated using computer programs nowadays, and yet many (even discounting those that 'specialise') charge vastly different rates, both overall and for protected bonuses. Realistically the only difference between firms' quotes should be how efficient they are at running their businesses and the level of after sale/claims customer service they provide. You have to wonder sometimes what you are actually getting for your money.

Yes i think it is, not so much balancing the costs of probability of accident, but when you go online and put in the details, and under the question NCB can state several years the resulting premiums are fankly amazing value, especially if you own cars that are in high groups.

Insurance wise i used to stay loyal to certan companies, no longer the case due to severe premium loadings due to their other customers whcih i don't undertand, don't necessarily go for the cheapest such as Battle'r (think about it) the likes of whom sometimes have reputation for taking the mick on admin charges etc, but i work up the quotes till i find a company that sounds familiar.

Just out of interest, SWMBO is doing very well with Saga and we're going to try them for buildings/contents next year, but being an HGV'er i'm with Cornmarket (formerly Adelaide) who specialise in IAM and HGV/PSV and will beat any quote for those driver groups.

Hello Andy, some good points, and the new tyres are the mutt's nuts. I cannot believe the difference they make to the grip in the wet. Not one single skid, no increased laundry bills. :)

My experience.

A good few years ago, Toyota Hiace van, full NCB protected, comprehensive insurance, premium just under £200. Wife took it out one day and took the corner off our drive a bit too sharpish and pushed in the sliding door on the telegraph pole outside.

Claimed on the insurance and a new door fitted, cost about £700. Come renewal time premium now as near as dammit £1000. How come says I to the insurance company, well you have made a claim. So NCB stays the same but base premium loaded up.

Rang around a few other companies and all basically the same, ended up going TPFT for £600 and it took a good few years for the claim to drop off the radar. Never bothered with protected NCB since.

I think it's a scam just like Gap insurance.

If you use a comparison website, Do not bother selecting protected NCD when you do the search for the initial price. They usually quote a price without any of the bits you asked for.

I only renewed my insurance a few days ago and it clearly said that protected NCD will not stop the price from increasing after an accident. I did opt for it though as it was only about £2 more on the price.

Reguardless of having protected your NCB or not the insurance goes up after an acident. This is reguardless of it being your fault or not.

That's my experence when someone ran into the back of me on the motorway on 2 occasions over the last 15 years. p.s. not the same person lol.

First time around I had NCB protection and it did just that, I kept the NCB but insurance went up £150 a year for the next 3 years. 2nd time I didn't bother and guess what. I still kept my NCB but with 1 less year and they charged me an extra £150 a year for the next 3 years!

True, but my point was that quite often premiums go up even if you have a non-fault claim, the insurer giving the excuse that you are more likely to claim (a fault claim) as a result, and yet the actual claim may have been a) not just your fault, but because of an unexpected reckless manourvre from another driver, or b) in a location a long way away from your normal driving area that you may only visit sparingly if ever again, so how does that make us more likely to claim? Answer, it doesn't - it was pure bad luck.

I can understand it if not all the costs of the claim (as I stated before) were not recoverable (e.g. admin costs) and you regularly claim (even if not your fault) because the area you live in is becoming more dangerous to drive in, but more often than not that isn't the case, and besides, one new claim in a large number of years is a statistic, not a pattern - only if it repeatedly happens across the board does that become one.

Completely agree. How can an insurer quote statistics to justify an additional premium when in this instance the car was parked on a private drive and the driver tucked up in bed !

Statistical risk assessment - your car insurance premium depends partly on how many/few claims your neighbours have made - many claims mean that statistically you're more likely to make a claim.

It may not be completely fair but it's the best they have.

Interesting contribution, thanks. That could make sense as I believe the postcode of the incident has a "high risk" insurance factor.

The problem is that this should only matter to new drivers with very little driving (claims) history - I could live in a very high claims area but be a very safe driver, having no fault claims, therefore my premium renewal should be the same (all other things being equal) as if I lived in a low claims area.

The other problem is that insurers never ask you where and when you do most of your driving (e.g. where you drive to work or take regular trips, are you a 'Sunday driver'), given that this will make just as much difference if location is a factor as anything else. I personally think most of insurers' 'factors' are geared to jack up the premiums wherever or whoever you are - those stats (as said above) should only be used for new drivers or ones where a claims history cannot be proven - premiums should be, as far as possible, based on personal data on the driver.