Law change needed on NO FAULT insurance hikes?

[Pete.]

HI, That's a business assessment, it could be argued that they are not qualified to apportion blame that's what the courts are for.

Colin

Only if the matter is taken to court. They are the last step of the process, any number of people get a say-so before it gets that far.

 

[cumbriasteve]

I parked at the local Aldi and there is a swine of a bollard right next to the parking bay, it's quite a low one so when I pulled out it was not visible and went down the side of my door and rear wing...so my fault entirely.

Car picked up same day, courtesy car provided and car returned 4 days later.

My next insurance quote was £26 less, I was protected no claim at the time of the accident, this year it has gone up £18 so still cheaper than the year I had the bang.

Thats with Hastings, can't fault them.

 

[slim_boy_fat]

I understand the premium hike can happen if you're sitting inside the house with your pipe and slippers and someone hits your parked car, that's when it becomes

 

[Pete.]

I understand the premium hike can happen if you're sitting inside the house with your pipe and slippers and someone hits your parked car, that's when it becomes

What if you move your car from parked in a wide quiet road with traffic calming to a narrow back-street where cars have to park one wheel on the pavement so that other vehicles can squeeze through? You're still not driving it, still not at fault but your risk of suffering a claim have just jumped significantly.

 

[slim_boy_fat]

What if you move your car from parked in a wide quiet road with traffic calming to a narrow back-street where cars have to park one wheel on the pavement so that other vehicles can squeeze through? You're still not driving it, still not at fault but your risk of suffering a claim have just jumped significantly.

I wouldn't even contemplate doing that....... The point is that only the Insurers act as arbitrers. And because they record the event, you can't easily shop around because of shared data.

 

[Pete.]

What people don't realise is that when they take on insurance they are entering a contract in which they agree that the insurer will deal with any claim on the insurer's terms. You sign up to their terms - not the other way round. No insurer is going to give someone half a million quid's worth of cover for a couple of hundred quid and allow themselves to be dictated to on how they handle a claim. That would be crazy-fool tactics!

 

[slim_boy_fat]

What people don't realise is that when they take on insurance they are entering a contract in which they agree that the insurer will deal with any claim on the insurer's terms. You sign up to their terms - not the other way round. No insurer is going to give someone half a million quid's worth of cover for a couple of hundred quid and allow themselves to be dictated to on how they handle a claim. That would be crazy-fool tactics!

Aye, but they have a captive audience. Did someone say 'cartels'.....?

 

[awemawson]

If you suffer a no fault accident, and thus also suffer financially, surely you can take out a civil claim against the other party to recover your losses ?

 

[slim_boy_fat]

But how would you predict future premium increases, and therefore consequential loss(es).

 

[DrDeAtH]

Insurance.....biggest legalised rip off in the world

 

[awemawson]

But how would you predict future premium increases, and therefore consequential loss(es).

Much the same as damages are assessed for debilitating personal injuries that will have long lasting consequences. You make an estimate based on similar circumstances and the court judges whether it is a fair assessment or not.

 

[Robotstar5]

One I never understood was when mrs Robo had the back of her car swiped by an uninsured driver when it was parked on our drive was classed as her fault she was in the house at the time.

The driver lost it on the bend and left the road to hit her car, he then abandoned the car and did a runner

 

[slim_boy_fat]

Much the same as damages are assessed for debilitating personal injuries that will have long lasting consequences.

But those start with knowns, e.g. current and potential future earning power, care costs if appropriate etc. etc. You try getting future premium figures from an Insurance Company......

Anyway, It's a 'rip-off' industry - I've lost count of the number of times I've asked the question "Why didn't you just quote that figure in your renewal papers, instead of agreeing to price match?" Answer came there none.

I've said my bit on the subject.

 

[mart]

I understand the premium hike can happen if you're sitting inside the house with your pipe and slippers and someone hits your parked car, that's when it becomes

 

[mart]

Aye, but they have a captive audience. Did someone say 'cartels'.....?

......and high penalties for not having motor insurance. This, I feel is another reason why I feel the government regulator should intervene to ensure a level playing field for insurer and insured.

 

[colnerov]

One I never understood was when mrs Robo had the back of her car swiped by an uninsured driver when it was parked on our drive was classed as her fault she was in the house at the time.

The driver lost it on the bend and left the road to hit her car, he then abandoned the car and did a runner

View attachment 139587

Hi, Playing devil's advocate:

1) The risk of someone losing control of a vehicle on that bend was probably considered to be low but now there's form for that to occur so the risk has been increased and needs to be considered and covered. Which is why they want your postcode, because different postcodes carry different risks, of all kinds.

2) If your car is the Suzuki, it's not parked on your driveway it's parked on land maintained by the local authority which you have permission to drive across to access your property and so should require the vehicle to have road traffic act cover which it has.

I'm not being argumentative just attempting to point out where the insurance company is coming from.

Colin

 

[mart]

If you suffer a no fault accident, and thus also suffer financially, surely you can take out a civil claim against the other party to recover your losses ?

An interesting point.
I know you can sue for your uninsured losses-usually your policy excess amount. Technically you can sue for the premium increase too. Whether the other person can/would pay up is another matter.

 

[Robotstar5]

Hi, Playing devil's advocate:

1) The risk of someone losing control of a vehicle on that bend was probably considered to be low but now there's form for that to occur so the risk has been increased and needs to be considered and covered. Which is why they want your postcode, because different postcodes carry different risks, of all kinds.

2) If your car is the Suzuki, it's not parked on your driveway it's parked on land maintained by the local authority which you have permission to drive across to access your property and so should require the vehicle to have road traffic act cover which it has.

I'm not being argumentative just attempting to point out where the insurance company is coming from.

Colin

1 - There have been a number of incidents on the bend from both directions all due to exceeding the posted speed limit, the most impressive one took out a bus stop, 3 concrete bollards and a lamp post

2 - The local authority maintains the land either side of the drive which the previous owner had to pay handsomely for and we are now responsible for maintaining it.

 

[atomant48]

May I ask which company it is that you use?

Cars are/were with Directline and bike with Bennetts.

The other great thing with DL is they no longer charge an admin fee for changes. We moved halfway through this insurance year and actually got a slight refund on both policies.

 

[bump]

I'd like to see us adopt the Australian system of the Government providing 3rd party insurance for all and top up being an optional.

Not very likely to happen though.