[Closed] Can I claim off a third parties insurance for the increase in my premium?

Probably not. Increase may be due to other underwriting factors. Remember women no longer get cheaper rates now that the EU has decided actuarial science is sexist.

No. Increase in premium is because you are now an increased risk, which isn't directly the fault of the other party.

The increase was definitely due to the accident as I'd just got the renewal through in the post before I told them about it. They said the premium would increase because I may not of parked properly or in an unsafe place which is not true and very annoying.

unfortunately your premium is based on a no CLAIMS bonus not a no LIABILITY bonus so will increase as you are making a CLAIM, while the accident was the other partys fault the decision to CLAIM wasn't......

.......whether or not the ethics of this is right, its unfortunately how insurance works as it makes the ins co's more money.....

It would be fun to try wouldn't it? Especially if your/wife's policy and the other drivers are with the same underwriter.

Exact same happened here: because my car has been "in an accident" it is statistically more likely to be in another one even though it was unoccupied and parked correctly at the time. I can only guess that it is not worth the time for underwriters to distinguish between the non-fault claims that possibly had something to do with the habits, locations or times of day that the driver uses, and those like the op's which are nothing but pure bad luck.

I did wonder if promising never to park in a supermarket car park again might get me my £45 back, since nothing else has blemished my driving in the last 18 years, that must be the terribly risky habit my underwriters (and the ones i tried at renewal time) need me to stop in order to be the otherwise staitstically very safe driver i was before my wife drove our car to the supermarket. 👿

Time to change insurers.

"Renewal" is the single most expensive way of getting insurance anyway. Even getting a requote from the same insurer will almost certainly be cheaper than renewing.

I find this interesting as ive had professional advice to the contrary from an insurance company

Im just waiting for the outcome of the disputed claim atm.

Btw hustler- regardless of if you claim or not you are suppose to declare it ( although real world etc etc)

The fact you now have an accident to declare was directly the other partys fault.

Ask them to use your "legal protection cover" to secure the return of your "uninsured loss"??

@the hustler - I'm not actually claiming anything from my own insurer, I'm dealing directly with the third parties insurer. I think I'll put in a claim, nothing to lose!

Trail rat - good luck and let me know if you are successful!

No. Increase in premium is because you are now an increased risk, which isn't directly the fault of the other party.

why an increased risk ?

the risk of someone hitting her car parked at a retail park tomorrow is exactly the same as it was last Sunday ?

Statistics show that someone whos had a claim is more likely to claim again.....

Crock of pish if you ask me.

I had to push back hard on insurance anyway. They decided to try and blame me as i wasnt claiming for my car(500 quid value with 12 month ticket and 4 new tires and shocks) and needed a wishbone a wing and steering rack which i got from scrappys for 100 quid)

Turner guy, its nonsense isn't it. If you are a driver who doesn't pay as much attention, brakes suddenly etc then it is possible to argue that a non fault accident might reveal that your driving habits might make you slighly more likely to get shunted by a similarly dozy driver in future.

But saying one supermarket car park accident (assuming you park correctly!) makes you more likely to have another is as statistically sound as saying that that if you have survived one train crash then you are garuanteed never to be in another one ever again.

why an increased risk ?

the risk of someone hitting her car parked at a retail park tomorrow is exactly the same as it was last Sunday ?

No, you're now a proven dick magnet and as such more chance of another dick driving into you. Clearly the underwriters should study statistics.

[img] [/img]

I think the logic goes something like this.....

If there are 2 sets of drivers, group A go to the retail park once a week and group B go twice a week. Group B will therefore statistically be hit twice as often in the car park as group A who leave their car safely on the drive at home.
(Even though group A and group B drivers are both good drivers and park equally safely)

The fact I was hit means statistically I am more likely to be a group B driver (even though from an individual perspective I hate shopping and rarely visit the places)

As a group B driver in the insurance companies eyes I am more likely to be hit again and in some cases the third party may disappear leaving the group B driver to claim off his own insurance therefore increasing the risk.

[quote=TurnerGuy ]the risk of someone hitting her car parked at a retail park tomorrow is exactly the same as it was last Sunday ?

It is, but the insurance company is now aware that her car is more likely to be hit at a retail park. That's compared for instance with mine which is very rarely parked at a retail park - so to say the increased risk is nothing to do with habits is untrue.

[quote=trail_rat ]Statistics show that someone whos had a claim is more likely to claim again.....
Crock of pish if you ask me.

Are you claiming the statistics are incorrect? 😯

Edit: mudmucher you've got it spot on. If you really are like me and an infrequent visitor to retail parks then you're just unlucky and I'd be similarly irritated if it happened to me, but it's impossible for the insurance companies to use any other way to categorise you.

The motor insurance industry is really zombie maggot infested.

Have you reported Ed Balls to the police?

gogg - Member

Have you reported Ed Balls to the police?

Is he responsible for the motor insurance industry?

TurnerGuy » the risk of someone hitting her car parked at a retail park tomorrow is exactly the same as it was last Sunday ?
It is, but the insurance company is now aware that her car is more likely to be hit at a retail park.

That's compared for instance with mine which is very rarely parked at a retail park - so to say the increased risk is nothing to do with habits is untrue.

trail_rat » Statistics show that someone whos had a claim is more likely to claim again.....
Crock of pish if you ask me.
Are you claiming the statistics are incorrect?

Edit: mudmucher you've got it spot on. If you really are like me and an infrequent visitor to retail parks then you're just unlucky and I'd be similarly irritated if it happened to me, but it's impossible for the insurance companies to use any other way to categorise you.

It is, but the insurance company is now aware that her car is more likely to be hit at a retail park.

Is that true ? I mean really true that your unoccupied car is hit it is more likely to be hit again ? I am struggling to see an actual causal reason here tbh. perhaps you park really badly???

Not strictly true, no more likely to be hit in a retail park than any other car, but the fact is statistically it is more likely to be in a retail park than another car on their books.

The insurance company could get an equally accurate risk adjustment assessment by walking round a retail park taking notes of registration plates and loading those premiums.

The problem is they are going off the statistics based off hundreds of thousands of claims not off my personal circumstances where it is just bad luck I was hit.

the fact is statistically it is more likely to be in a retail park than another car on their books.

They do not know this they only know it was hit and past events [ as I assume we can all assume this was random or near enough anyway] dont predict future events - gamblers fallacy and all that

They do not know this they only know it was hit and past events [ as I assume we can all assume this was random or near enough anyway] dont predict future events - gamblers fallacy and all that

Yes they do, from all the thousands of previous cases they have analysed. The thing to get your head around is the difference between your own individual circumstances - (in this case I was unlucky and generally go to retail parks less than most people, so in reality I am a lower risk than most people) and the overall general risk of people who have already been hit in a retail park which means they are statistically more likely to be parked in one rather than safely parked up at home.

See the explanation I already posted below...

I think the logic goes something like this.....

If there are 2 sets of drivers, group A go to the retail park once a week and group B go twice a week. Group B will therefore statistically be hit twice as often in the car park as group A who leave their car safely on the drive at home.
(Even though group A and group B drivers are both good drivers and park equally safely)

The fact I was hit means statistically I am more likely to be a group B driver (even though from an individual perspective I hate shopping and rarely visit the places)

As a group B driver in the insurance companies eyes I am more likely to be hit again and in some cases the third party may disappear leaving the group B driver to claim off his own insurance therefore increasing the risk.

They do not know this they only know it was hit and past events [ as I assume we can all assume this was random or near enough anyway] dont predict future events - gamblers fallacy and all that

You are over thinking this. One of the events all those with comprehensive insurance are insuring against is the car being hit when left parked. If they have a statistic that says those that have previously claimed for being hit are X% more likely to be hit again, that's all the evidence they really need to change your risk factor for it happening again, and therefore your premium. You can argue all day why that statistic could exist - but that's a different conversation.

Restating a postulated view will not convince me unless you can produce the actual stats that support this view. They still do not know how often you park there just because you were hit [ though your scenario is clearly true that the more often you park there the more often you are likely to be hit there but the claim is that you are more likely to crash/claim again] Your scenario/thought experiment does not even address this - I accept we are both talking theoretically and that is not meant to sound rude.

You are also assuming we all have a drive to safely park our car when it is not on the retail park....you posh middle class thinking we all live like you 😉

If you dont have one it has to be parked somewhere.
If my car gets hit on a road/anywhere when I am not in it I need some serious proof that this has a CAUSAL affect on my risk of having an accident. I can see no way this can be proved even if you can show me the stats that mean i will be more likely to claim.

Anyone any links to actual stats?

EDIT: Aye convert a fair point but is the claim actually true or are they just making you pay more?

I thought someone would bring up the argument about the 3 closed doors, one with the prize behind, and you are allowed a guess.

Obviously 1/3rd chance of being behind each door.

So you choose, the door is opened and nothing behind.

Now you are given the chance to change your choice - so should you?

Apparently so, as there is now a 66% chance that it is behind the door you haven't chosen.

Crack on and look for them they jy. Im not looking then up.

I am just relaying what my insurance told me was reasoning for m policy going up and why i should be seeking the 30 odd quid my policys gone up by.

turnerguy - you are thinking of the 'monty hall problem' but not remembering it right.

You choose one of 3 doors, the 'host' (who knows what is behind each of the doors) opens one of the [u]other[/u] two doors revealing nothing behind it. You now have the choice of staying with your original choice or switching to the other remaining closed door. Your chance of winning doubles if you change. I'll let you work out (or google, but that's boring) why. It's so simple (and obvious when you think about it )but very clever.

Junkyard - if you accept the more often you park there the more likely you are to be hit then you are halfway there.

Just need to understand that assuming a 50/50 split of drivers that either go to the shops once or twice a week then if there were 300 cars in a car park consisting of drivers that go to the carpark once a week (group A) and cars that go twice a week (group B) then out of those 300 cars 200 will be group B drivers (higher risk) and 100 will be group A drivers (lower risk). Therefore if you get hit in a car park you are twice as likely to be a higher risk group B driver(in this theoretical scenario) and twice as likely to be hit than a group A driver and 1.5 times more likely to be hit than a mixed group of 50/50 group A+B drivers (the general population)

Simples!

As regards not having a drive then your insurance will have already been loaded higher - it's one of the questions they ask (where is the car kept - on a drive/street)

The way insurance works is they calculate your risk based upon factors such as the car you own, where you live, mileage, etc...

This sets your premium £x

Then they discount this by your No Claims Bonus y%

£x multiplied by y% will be your quote. If you've made a claim y% will have increased.

Many things will affect your renewal quote which may/may not be claim related.

- No differentiation male/female (increases for the ladies)
- The riskiness of the area you live
- The riskiness of the typical people driving your type of car

Your increase in premium may be linked to the above so it would be very difficult to prove that the increase was caused by the 3rd party.

Insurance companies will often increase renewal prices to increase margins from lazy customers who dont shop around.

Shop around you'll probably find something £50 lower than your renewal quote without even trying

Simples.......

Junkyard - if you accept the more often you park there the more likely you are to be hit then you are halfway there.

What if my car was hit in a freak accident where a driver loses control and shoots up my drive, writing it off ? Is my drive now a statistical black spot

Chew - As already mentioned, I already had the renewal letter with the price before the accident, they explicitly said it would increase because of the no fault accident. I still keep all my no claims bonus because I haven't claimed but the underlying premium has increased as a result

scaredypants - most car parks have a high proportion of minor accident due to the volume of traffic in a small aread, however even taking your argument of a very safe car park with no collisions this doesn't matter as they aren't working on individual cases they are working on the overall population of car parks which statistically will be (on average) more dangerous than you drive.

It's not that I'm happy about any of this, I'm losing out remember and I'll still be putting in a claim to the 3rd parties insurance for the fact that their policy holder has unfairly re-categorized me as a higher risk driver and my premiums will suffer as a result.

I would be interested to see the statistics tbh

Based on the two Actuaries I know, I can almost guarantee that "interesting" is something it won't be 🙂

I like within easy walking distance of a supermarket and go there on foot more often than in the car. I also leave my car at home and cycle to work and so never my works car park which i could otherwise 'risk' parking in ( in reality no collisions between anyone/thing in my works car park in the three years it has existed but there you go) . So where is my discount please oh insurance underwriters blessed with incomprehensible wisdom, insight and foresight? Ah yes, thought not.

Besides, compared to the premium cost increases for other actually statistically significant changes to risk like speeding points and own fault accidents, the £40+ it seems to be costing people is obviously disproportionate to the possible increased risk and cost to underwriter.

I also leave my car at home and cycle to work and so never my works car park which i could otherwise 'risk' parking in ( in reality no collisions between anyone/thing in my works car park in the three years it has existed but there you go) . So where is my discount please oh insurance underwriters blessed with incomprehensible wisdom, insight and foresight? Ah yes, thought not.

I'm confused. You leave your car at home during the day and cycle to work so I'm guessing when you get to the bit on the form where it says "where to you keep your car during the day?" you answer at home? I also assume in the class of insurance section you tick "Social, domestic and pleasure" not "Social, domestic and pleasure and commuting"? In which case you are getting a discount ya muppet!

So where is my discount please oh insurance underwriters blessed with incomprehensible wisdom, insight and foresight? Ah yes, thought not.

As above, if you have told them how, when, and how much you use your vehicle, then you have been "discounted" accordingly for the bits that make you low risk.

How did you think it works ?

Junkyard - if you accept the more often you park there the more likely you are to be hit then you are halfway there.

What I dispute is that you are more likely to have a crash anywhere because your unoccupied car was hit.
I dont know what the data says and cannot find anything useful but it does not strike me as being a priori [obviously] true that your car being hit when parked means you are more likely to crash.

It doesnt have to be true , this is insurance we are talking about.

Its mandatory thus they can charge what ever they want and give any reason they want.

Chunts.

I'm confused. You leave your car at home during the day and cycle to work so I'm guessing when you get to the bit on the form where it says "where to you keep your car during the day?" you answer at home? I also assume in the class of insurance section you tick "Social, domestic and pleasure" not "Social, domestic and pleasure and commuting"? In which case you are getting a discount ya muppet!

Insurers ask about business use, not all of them (about half in the mere fifteen or so times I have shopped around) ask about how you get to and from work. Many also ask where your car is kept overnight not during the day. I could park it in my garage overnight, but in the busy road outside my child's nursery whilst I am at work during the day for all they know. (I couldn't fit my car in my garage and my kids are too old for nursery but you get the point...)

As above, if you have told them how, when, and how much you use your vehicle, then you have been "discounted" accordingly for the bits that make you low risk.

Except that [b]no insurer[/b] asks you if you ever park your car in supermarkets or our of town shopping centres, as it is obvious that almost every domestic (ie not company, pool or works) car will do regularly. And then the ones that are unlucky enough to get pranged in such a car park, (and lucky enough to get the responsible person's insurer to pay for it) the rules of probability are suddenly bent in the underwriters' favour as you somehow become statistically more likely than all the other cars in the same car park to get hit a second or third time.

My point is that a circa 10% increase in premium for such a statistically insignificant increase in risk is (or even more than 10% considering some of the super-low premiums people talk of on insurance threads on here) disproportionate to any possible increase in risk supposedly demonstrated by an unlikely incident that happens too infrequently to be able to be a reliable predictor of above-average risky car park use.
That is if there is a risk at all that has not already been covered by the understanding that we all go shopping with our cars sometimes and sometimes bad stuff happens to even really careful people.

More likely this is part of the economies of underwriting -it is not worth the extra effort and therefore expenditure for underwriters to distinguish between any associated risk factors in various different non-fault parties incidents and adjust accordingly so they just don't bother and apply the same increase in premium to all.
It also risks disincentivising people to declare small incidents settled 'in cash' (ie guilty driver pays out of own pocket) since there is now a financial incentive for [i]both[/i] drivers not to declare an incident if it small enough to be settled between them.

OK, I haven't read all of this. Just enough to say - I think it proves that if your car is hit by a falling meteorite this week, it's likely to be hit again by another one next week.

Interesting thread - the OP complaining about premiums being loaded is the one explaining to the disbelievers the statistical basis for premiums being loaded!

[quote=mudmuncher ]It's not that I'm happy about any of this, I'm losing out remember and I'll still be putting in a claim to the 3rd parties insurance for the fact that their policy holder has unfairly re-categorized me as a higher risk driver and my premiums will suffer as a result.

The trouble is, how do you prove (even on balance of probabilities which is the standard of proof required if you took it all the way to court) that the re-categorization is unfair? Because if it's a fair re-categorization then I don't see that you have a claim. More than that, I'm not sure the other motorist can be held liable for such consequential damages.

[quote=julianwilson ]Besides, compared to the premium cost increases for other actually statistically significant changes to risk like speeding points and own fault accidents, the £40+ it seems to be costing people is obviously disproportionate to the possible increased risk and cost to underwriter.

Except that the premium increases due to at fault claims are a lot more, and having 3 speeding points makes less difference to the risk than having a single non fault claim.

[quote=slowoldgit ]OK, I haven't read all of this. Just enough to say - I think it proves that if your car is hit by a falling meteorite this week, it's [b]more[/b] likely to be hit again by another one next week.

FTFY - this actually makes a good point about why people don't understand this statistical stuff, as increasing the chance from 1:1,000,000 to 1:900,000 still makes it more likely.

But there's now one less meteorite up above

But there's now one less meteorite up above

further proving aracers point, that you don't understand statistics 😉

I wasn't going to be so rude (my comment was non-specific), simply suggest that now there are only 9,999,999 meteorites up there.

I have this irrational idea that statistics may not be absolutely reliable when dealing with infrequent random events.

Insurance is full of unfairness. If you live in a town where lots of other people make fraudulent claims you pay more

I remember someone telling me that a 1.6 Cortina was faster than a 1.6 Capri. But the capri cost more to insure because 1.6 capri drivers as a group crash more often than 1.6 Cortina drivers

I think in this case the insurers argument is that if they look at the group of people that have had no claims in the last 5 years and the group of people with 1 no fault claim in the last five years. The group with 1 claim is more likely to make another claim. It matters not to them why you claimed before. It could be more frequent use of poorly designed car parks. It could be that the area has more idiot drivers or it could be that your lumped in with fraudulent claims. Or as said above it shows a greater willingness to claim rather sort things out in other ways. All they know is that your in the group more likely to claim again

I think there was a thread on pistonheads where someone was trying to recoup their increased insurance costs from the other party after a non-fault accident but I can't remember if it got anywhere.

The fact remains that if you are involved in an accident (even if it wasn't your fault) statistically you are more likely to be involved in another.
I've been privy to the raw data from one of the biggest UK insurers and there is no denying this.

It's a shitter, but that's how it is.

Do insurance companies have to prove the stats show after a car park claim you're more likely to crash? They are the ones taking the gamble on you, couldn't they just decide "my mate dave said people who get hit in car parks are a bazillion times more likely to write off their car in the next 12months and that's good enough for me". No need to justify anything, if you don't like their reasoning go elsewhere.

I'd heard ins coms penalise "unlucky" drivers too, multiple none fault claims in different circumstances (so no identifiable contributing factor) and your premiums will rocket. How true dunno.

Our car was hit in a car park last year, renewal (after calling for a better price - [b]always[/b] do this) was cheapest yet, but we are fairly new drivers so probably still getting a hefty discount for each year of experience driving.

Its mandatory thus they can charge what ever they want and give any reason they want.
Chunts.

And yet no insurer has made money on motor insurance for some years, blame fraudsters, accident management companies etc.

I'd heard ins coms penalise "unlucky" drivers too, multiple none fault claims in different circumstances (so no identifiable contributing factor) and your premiums will rocket. How true dunno.

Correct, no such thing as luck in statistics!

So, you were quite happy to take the "no claims discount/bonus" (or whatever you call it) but are now kvetching because there has been a claim on your policy, your fault or not, and are no longer entitled ?

Perhaps you should have paid the extra for "protected no claims" where the insurance companies take more money off you in order to preserve your "discount". Or in other words, pay them more so you don't have to pay them more.

It's a massive gouge - but if companies start claiming off each other for increasing each others customers premiums they will be rubbing their hands together with glee, and increasing premiums further.

They will just insure the risk against each other.

Or perhaps offering a scheme called "protected no claims discount premium increase bonus" whereby you pay them more now to avoid paying them more later in the event that there is a claim and the other insurance company claims against your policy for the increased premiums, and you have to pay them more.

It's all a farce, and when I rule the world car insurance will no longer be compulsory, so they won't get away with this crap anymore.

I wasn't going to be so rude (my comment was non-specific), simply suggest that now there are only 9,999,999 meteorites up there.

Is that a fact?

How many bicycles are there in Beijing?

The fact remains that if you are involved in an accident (even if it wasn't your fault) statistically you are more likely to be involved in another.

And yet no insurer has made money on motor insurance for some years, blame fraudsters, accident management companies etc

Anyway theoretically discussing hypothetical stats without the stats is quite possibly the most pointless thing we will ever do
Its ride o clock.

Hels i agree . Go nz on there ass . That said wouldnt have liked to have had an accident out there :/

Also you do realise protected no claims doesnt mean your policy wont rise.

It means the discount off your new higher policy remains the same as it was pre crash. So price will still go up just not as much

PROOF - folk keep saying this no one has produced any evidence to prove it.
Technically they were not involved in a crash a parked car was hit - you cannot just claim this increases the risk you need to prove it.

That's the thing, insurance companies don't need to prove anything.

You tell them your details, and they calculate a price and offer it to you in order to get your business.

If you don't like the price you can go elsewhere.
(And if they don't like your details they can quote a high price to help you decide to do just that)

Lots of "random" events happen, and the only way insurance companies can assess that risk is to look at past events.

Gamblers fallacy or not, have you got a better way for them predict future events ?

Glory and riches await if you do 😉

PROOF - folk keep saying this no one has produced any evidence to prove it.
Technically they were not involved in a crash a parked car was hit - you cannot just claim this increases the risk you need to prove it.

That's what's so great about internet arguments. A little hint - neither you or anyone else on this thread is an insurance actuary - why would anyone have 'proof'? We are just a bunch a pub bores that know next to nothing arguing the toss. If proof is so important to you - where is your 'PROOF' to the contrary?

I do believe that the insurers are to blame for all their own problems. Yonks ago they introduced 'knock for knock', which then confused better and worse drivers in their statistics. Then they persistently increased prices on renewal and offered cheaper deals to new business, so lost their market of stable, long-term custom because they'd all moved on. I'd been with the same Co for over ten years, just cancelled and moved on one renewal day. And they'd offer a cheaper deal to someone they'd never seen before.

Do they still deny handing on your details to the ambulance chasers?

neither you or anyone else on this thread is an insurance actuary

Although I worked at CGU/Norwich Union/AVIVA between 2000 and 2005 and worked with the actuarial tables that generate the quotes.

A little hint - neither you or anyone else on this thread is an insurance actuary

If proof is so important to you - where is your 'PROOF' to the contrary?

Hoisted up by my own petard...yah bastard [ meant in jest but well played]

If the choice is concede or read that I will concede 😉

I will give it a go and thanks [ sort of]

Folk mentioned what the statistics proved I asked to see the stats/prood no one produced them. Why are you having a go at me for asking to see them rather than the folk who told us what they proved despite not having seen them
I am really not sure why you think my approach is the unwise one here tbh

I'm not really having a go at you, just pointing out that in a typical internet discussion manner you are elevating it beyond what it is - a discussion between clueless ejiots (and Nealglover!). Have a careful look at what I typed earlier...

[b]If they have a statistic[/b] that says those that have previously claimed for being hit are X% more likely to be hit again, that's all the evidence they really need to change your risk factor

I know my place...."if they have a statistic". Not I have a statistic; not that definitely such a statistic exists; but [b]if[/b]. That's the level of conversation here - supposition about a system most of us are barely qualified to speculate about. Nothing will change as a result of the discussion, the status quo will remain unaltered. Folk who start demanding proof on internet arguments between clueless nobodies (I include myself very much in this) like we are world experts just always make me giggle (especially when they type it in capitals to make it more important) 😉

So, you were quite happy to take the "no claims discount/bonus" (or whatever you call it) but are now kvetching because there has been a claim on your policy, your fault or not, and are no longer entitled ?

He hasn't claimed on his insurance has he

Perhaps you should have paid the extra for "protected no claims" where the insurance companies take more money off you in order to preserve your "discount". Or in other words, pay them more so you don't have to pay them more.

He hasn't said that he lost his no claims discount. He has higher premium. So i think insuring your no claims discount doesn't help in this case

I assume if you insure your no claims discount that doesn't stop them increasing your premium as you made a claim

If the choice is concede or read that I will concede

I wouldn't expect anyone to read it to be honest, it's as dry as sand on toast with extra dust 🙂

It was meant purely to demonstrate that there is actually method behind the madness, and not just "robbing bastards" plucking figures out of the air to rip everyone off.

And I would say that in general, if an actuary says something is riskier than something else, they can be trusted to know better than anyone who spends time arguing about shiz on a bike forum like what we do

He hasn't claimed on his insurance has he

True, my NCB is not affected and my insurance company are not even involved - dealing with the third parties insurance.

Just to clarify my risk of having an accident (fault or no fault) didn't suddenly increase on Sunday after this muppet smashed into my car, my risk of another incident is exactly the same, but what it has done is reveal that statistically (in the insurance companies eyes) my risk is slightly higher. ( and this higher risk was present before the accident)

This is because it has put me into the category of people who had suffered a no fault accident and within this category will be a higher proportion of fraudsters who set up no fault accidents, people who genuinely can't park, park in risky areas, go to retails parks every day, dither when pulling away from roundabouts etc. etc., hence the higher premiums. Of course on an individual basis there will be people within this group that are very high risk and people who are no higher risk or even lower risk than average but the [b]average[/b] risk will be higher across the thousands of people in this category.

For the sake of a 5 minute email I will try and claim a few hundred quid for the increase in premiums I will suffer, I'm not sure i will be successful but I do hold a few cards up my sleeve so we will see.

Just trying to return to the original point...

The problem is one of indemnity, which seeks to put the claimant back in the same financial position after a loss as they were before the loss occurred.

There is some case law back in the mists of time relating to the recovery of increased premiums, and basically it was held that it wasn't possible at law. Can't remember the reference but I'm sure it's out there.

Then there is the fact that the next 5 years' premium change probably can't be stated in advance - so how much would be claimed? How would a claim ever end?

Finally, there is the possibility that the financial loss (the premium increase) is just that - a pure financial loss. This would probably be considered to be too remote from the original claim for damage to the car. What I mean by that might be best explained with an example:

If you crashed your car into the toll booths on the Severn Bridge, destroying the booths and closing the bridge, your car insurance would pay for the losses of the third party. So it would rebuild the toll booths, and would pay for the lost income of the bridge operator while this was going on.

However, it could not pay for the extra mileage/time/etc costs of all the motorists who had their journey affected or who had to make diversions around. This financial loss is considered too remote. Extrapolate that further and things like missed job interviews caused by the bridge being closed, and therefore missed £x millions of lost earnings also cannot be claimed at law.

Not saying it can't happen - just that the legal precedence is a bit shonky.

Anyway, back to the enjoyable squabbling over supermarket carp arks... 😀

[quote=mudmuncher ]Just to clarify my risk of having an accident (fault or no fault) didn't suddenly increase on Sunday after this muppet smashed into my car, my risk of another incident is exactly the same, but what it has done is reveal that statistically (in the insurance companies eyes) my risk is slightly higher. ( and this higher risk was present before the accident)...

Spot on yet again - I'm fairly sure this is the first thread like this I've seen on here where the OP actually understands the issue and it's just the bandwagon jumpers who're getting irate about something they don't understand.

For the sake of a 5 minute email I will try and claim a few hundred quid for the increase in premiums I will suffer, I'm not sure i will be successful but I do hold a few cards up my sleeve so we will see.

I genuinely wish you luck with that, but for reasons I explained above you will need a lot of it 🙂

Spot on yet again

I genuinely wish you luck with that, but for reasons I explained above you will need a lot of it

I'm under no illusion it is likely they will pay for this, however I do have a few things up my sleeve I can bring into play to try and persuade them.

As a footnote: an acquaintance who works in motor insurance once told us: "If you have a small shunt or scrape on no-claim incident, DO NOT tell your insurer. Fix it for cash and carry on because they will put you down as an 'accident magnet'. I didn't tell you that, by the way."

"..... I didn't tell you that, by the way."

Your acquaintance has a flair for the dramatic

It's not some big insurance industry secret that he shouldn't be telling you, that's just how it works.

(See above for details 😉 )

"...Fix it for cash"

Because they monitor your credit cards for body shop payments, be careful out there

it could well be just to cover any admin processing work by your company as a result of the incident and dealing with the other insurance company. ie claim not your fault equals a few phones calls and a form and any additional dispute resolution etc by your company and not based on driver risk at all but on the risk of time spent with the potential time spent being charged as an increased premium for a period.