|
My other half has had 3 no fault claims since 2004,one in progress now. A couple of friends have commented that she may be refused insurance in future even though she was not at fault. Can this be true? Hardly seems fair if so. I would be interested in your comments.
|
It's not a no blame bonus, its a no claims bonus.
Anyone that manages to put themselves in a position where they have three accidents in as many years is either very very very unlucky or would benefit form learning some defensive driving techniques.
|
|
She put herself in the position of being stationary in all three cases so I guess she is very,very,very.VERY unlucky.I don't think defensive driving techniques are applicable here.The question being asked is "Is it the case she may be refused insurance in future?",thanks for your help....
|
She put herself in the position of being stationary in all three cases so I guess she is very very very.VERY unlucky.
My BIL had 3 separate accidents within a couple of hours - someone drove into him in car park, then he was rear-ended twice. All bumps though, rather than serious damage.
My own brother was just forced to opt out of his company car, the previous one having been written off by a stolen vehicle. It was certainly an issue when he tried to get his own insurance.
|
|
|
The question being asked is "Is it the case she may be refused insurance in future?",thanks for your help....
"You" below means your wife.
Insurance "refused" would be very harsh. And the refusal would then have to be declared every time you apply to any company.
Insurance quote declined is more likely. Most companies are now based on "computer says NO". You would need to phone them and most likely would need to speak to a senior manager in order to be considered if first confronted by the "computer says NO".
If your claims have been settled in full, if you had claimed direct from the third party, and/or your Insurance Company has recovered all monies from the third party, and your excess has also been recovered, you have a good chance of having no difficulty in getting quotes from most companies.
There is an easy way to test this.
Use your real name or an alias name if you want [get an alias email address].
Use your own car details or find the registration number of a car on a forecourt that is similar to the one you want quotes for.
Feed in all your other data truthfully to get quotes online from 99.99% of all the motor insurers [Use the five or six comparision brokers as per system explained by Martin Lewis of www.moneysavingexpert.com - remember to use the insurance comparision link here on HJ's site: www.honestjohn.co.uk/guides_insurance/index.htm ]. Remember to decline marketing contacts because otherwise you will be plagued by telesales calls.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think she will be refused cover, although that is possible. Much more likely is that they will load the premium a bit.
Insurance companies work on risk factors and someone who has had 3 incidents in four years is seen as a potentially higher risk than average.
Kevin...
|
|
|
|
Has she still got her NCB? If they weren't her fault, and all costs were recovered, I can't see it making any difference.
|
Was on the M6 a few years ago driving in lane 3.
A woman in front had a van pull out in front of her probably doing 10 mph less.
The woman just totally over reacted & stood on the brakes even though just a dab on the brake pedal would have surficed.
Not wanting to be rear ended myself, there was room for me to move into lane 2 so I passed her, now almost stationary.
Although technically it wouldn't have been her fault, she stood a good chance of being rear ended.
I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be her insurer if that was a sample of her driving competance.
|
|
|
>Has she still got her NCB?
NCB doesn't really make any difference here. All other things being equal, someone with three marks on their record will always be seen as a higher risk than someone with a clean record.
eg. The initial premium (before No-claims discount) for a 'clean' driver may be £1000, the initial premium for someone with three black marks could well be twice as much.
As jbif noted above: get online quotes for with-and-without scenarios. I'd be surprised if there was no difference.
Kevin...
|
|
Thanks for the replies folks.Just to give you a bit of background the first two claims were settled by the other parties but after the second claim the insurance company asked for an extra £7.I didn't think that was fair as the other parties admitted liabilty so I fail to see how she can be considered as a higher risk?The latest claim may be more problematical as he doesn't seem to have insurance...
|
It might not be her, but the roads she drives on. If you spend more time on roads with poor accident records, you are more likely to be involved in a shunt. Unfortunately, as far as the insurer as concerned, they assess the overall risk when deciding on the premium and even whether to provide cover. Three claims in such a short time, even non-fault ones, suggests a high risk, whatever the cause.
Cheers
DP
|
The insurers work on risks and statistics and are impersonal.
Who is a bigger risk to them - someone who has never had an accident or one who has had one a year for the last three years.
|
Interesting one this one. Got me thinking about things that have happened to my most recent cars and the number of incidents.
Latest One - Nothing yet but it will.
Passat (2) - rear ended once, dropped a set of ladders on the bonnet once.
Golf (4) - wife scraped rear wheel arch on post, hit side on once but someone coming out of t junction, someone vandalised roof with two deep scratches, wing mirror taken off by driver who absconded asap.
Other Golf (1) - Tiles blown off roof on Christmas eve 1997 landing on bonnet, wing etc.
Fiat Tipo (1) - 3 months old when artic lorry was reversed into it causing nice big dent.
I have to say that after every incident I just wanted to get rid of the car because it just didn't feel right any more.
The other point that I wish to mention is that not once has the repair been done to a standard that made me feel food. My Golf was returned to the main dealer ten (yes ten) times before I was willing to accept it but even then i just wanted to get shot but couldn't afford.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I too was once in the position of having had three no fault claims settled in a period of two years, including one total loss. Statistically, some of us are just going to be unlucky in this way - I have otherwise driven for 40 years without a claim. I resent the implication by some posters on here that a three times victim must be in some way themselves partly culpable, and can assure the OP that, from my experience, this will not affect her premiums (mine currently being under £200 fully comp, full NCB, on a 1.6 cmax)
Edited by seemaxer on 17/08/2008 at 14:13
|
|
Thanks for your replies folks.Will report back at renewal time!
|
I've read similar incidents before (in money saving expert forum). Usually, no fault accident will keep the NCB intact but it is statistically proven that when someone has 3+ no fault accidents, they are considered increased risk of having fault accidents. So, even though NCB remains, premium usually goes up to a scale as if he has lost a NCB.
|
You cant argue the facts here. Someone who has three incidents in 4 years is a higher risk.
"Ah but she was parked each time" you chirp up. All that indicates is that the driver has no concept of parking in risk free places.
|
>All that indicates is that the driver has no concept of parking in risk free places.
The last car I had written off was parked in a garage... It was uninsured at the time, too.
I should think, OP, that the current ins co will be delighted to continue covering her, at an increased premium.
|
|
|
All that indicates is that the driver has no concept of parking in risk free places.
But 'risk free' (generally) just means that the probability of an accident is low - it doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. So you could have a very good concept of 'risk free' parking which you adhere to rigorously, and be unlucky.
|
it doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. So you could have a very good concept of 'risk free' parking which you adhere to rigorously and be unlucky.
Not the case. your concept of risk free is flawed.
|
Not the case. your concept of risk free is flawed.
So does the concept of risk free parking mean that the parker should find a place to park with no actual (as opposed to probable) risk, and if so, how do they do that?
Otherwise, please can you explain the concept?
Edited by Focus {P} on 26/08/2008 at 12:34
|
the concept is simple and requires not much explaining. The fact that the subject got hit THREE times ALL while parked means that the person parking does not perform much or any risk assesment, or if they do they have poor perception of risk. You cant argue the fact that three no fault hit while parked accidents in four years means they are a statically higher risk in future. This is not bad luck or chance.
If i am hit once, I may just shrug it off as bad luck. It was probably bad parking.
If i am hit again the next year, I wouldnt shrug it off as bad luck, I would start to be rather paranoid about how and where I parked the car. Such paranoia how about how and where the car is parked means the risk of being hit for a third time is much much lower. To be hit a third time after such risk avoidence would be stretching the bounds of bad luck a little too far.
Something in this chain of thoughts didnt happen for the three times unlucky person.
|
You cant argue the fact that three no fault hit while parked accidents in four years means they are a statically higher risk in future.
No - statistically they are a higher risk. But as I understand it you are saying that a (very) low chance of something happening (having an accident in a low risk area) means it can't happen, which isn't true. Ask someone who has won the lottery :-)
|
No not saying it CANT happen. Of course it can happen, its the three times bit I am pointing out. You never see anyone win the lottery bigtime three times now do you
|
|
> and if so, how do they do that?
Car parked on the end or begiining of a row of cars along a road is at higher risk.
Cars parked nearer to junctions are at higher risk
Cars parked near obstructions, bustops, crossings are at higher risk
CArs parked in narrow streets are at higher risk
Cars parke din highly trafficed roads are at higher risk.
Car parked in far end of car park protected by two walls is at lower risk (tho my abe at higher risk of theft or vandalism) Car parked under streetlamp at night is at lower risk of vandalism, as is car parked in busy street. Car parked by pile of broken door glass means yours is certainly next on some scroats list.
I could go on, the list can be almost endless, but it is mostly common sense and observation.
|
> and if so how do they do that? Car parked on the end or begiining of a row of cars along a road is at higher risk. : I could go on the list can be almost endless but it is mostly common sense and observation.
Yes - I understand this, but unfortunately parking in a low risk area doesn't guarantee not getting damaged.
|
|
|
Mr Ego is talking sense - you'd be well advised to listen to him.
After all, if anyone knows about accidentss it's him.
|
Mr Ego is talking sense - you'd be well advised to listen to him. After all if anyone knows about accidentss it's him.
:-)
I'm just sticking up for the OP- you can have a very good concept of risk free parking (assuming I understand the definition, which is what I was attempting to clarify) but still be unlucky and end up making claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
