[Closed] No fault non-claim affecting car insurance

So notified insurance who then recoded his as her being involved in an accident... (which she obviously wasn't) and a new insurance quote for her insurance due next month +25% ...

If someone bumped her car then she was involved in an accident. Therefor statistically more likely to be involved in an accident again so insurance goes up.

Honda are claiming it takes 3 days to change a bumper.... quite how I have no idea as I could probably do it myself in 30 mins

Why didn't you do that then rather than going through insurance?

Have you spoken to the Insurance Co?
I suffered a rear ender (ohh err) earlier this year and my car was written off. I argued no fault with my insurance company and they accepted. No change in premium.

Gary M - not helpful comment, are you just bored today?

Presume OH can't be convinced to take the £200 and leave the [s]shysters[/s] insurers and Honda out of it? Or too late for that now?

Gary M - not helpful comment, are you just bored today?

I would say 1st comment was answering the question, 2nd was an observation. Are we not allowed them now?

If you're involved in a no fault collision then in general your premium will go up.

If someone bumped her car then she was involved in an accident. Therefor statistically more likely to be involved in an accident again so insurance goes up.

How is she statistically any more likely to be involved in an accident again than any other driver who has never been hit before? Please explain as that makes no sense to me given its not her fault, she was parked legally, and she wasn't in the car at the time?

The whole car insurance market is bullshit at times. Went in to battle mode with our insurers after Mrs WS was run in to a few weeks aho from behind whilst maintaining position in her lane doing all of 5 mph. Our insurers immediately stated it would go 50/50 and that they were not willing to do any leg work in checking for cctv etc. Thankfully matey who ran in to her fessed up too but like you we've already been told our renewal is likely to go up.

 Therefor statistically more likely to be involved in an accident again so insurance goes up.

Going by personal experience. I was rear ended at a set of traffic lights, handbrake on etc. My insurance premium went up, although not by £100, and that was the explanation.

Racket all formulated on the premise that someone else is paying. And ultimately that someone else is you. Definitely worth arguing but they'll probably use all sorts of weasel terms like your Mrs' elevated risk as demonstrated by her use of public car park spaces.

As for increased risk due to previous accident my simple statistical mind says either same risk (no or very indistinct correlation between two non-fault incidents, therefore no change) or reduced (this happens to everyone X times in a lifetime and she's now at X-1).

My parked car was hit by a bus a couple of years ago (and the driver left the scene without notifying anyone but that's for a different thread) and it was all dealt with through insurance. There was no change in premium as the accident was nothing to do with me. I suspect your insurance company are trying it on with you. If they do increase the premium change insurer as soon as possible.

or reduced (this happens to everyone X times in a lifetime and she's now at X-1).

My thoughts exactly

I'd like to see the odds from an insurance company on being involved in a no fault accident

I'd like to then see the odds of being involved in 2 or more no fault accidents over the same period of time

I'm going to bet that the latter has greater odds

Insurance companies are thieves.

I ran into a beemer at the approach to a roundabout a while back. Looking at both cars I couldn't really see any damage to either bumper. The other party wanted to avoid insurers if possible but also wanted their car checked out for any damage that was not apparent. I was happy to go along with that so awaited a phone call.

The phone call duly arrived a few days later. Their local beemer dealer quoted £1300. I notified my insurers and left it to them to sort out. It seemed a crazy amount when I couldn't see any damage, but that's insurance repairs for you. Ages later I did notice a bent bracket holding my radiator grill which I replaced for less than a tenner. Maybe their car was hiding some expensive damage under the bumper, which deforms and springs back.

My insurance did increase at the next year but that was probably just the general increases that have been happening recently.

How is she statistically any more likely to be involved in an accident again than any other driver who has never been hit before?

Because that's what the statistics gathered from decades of insurance claims reveal.

Please explain as that makes no sense to me given its not her fault, she was parked legally, and she wasn't in the car at the time?

Actuarial tables have been created, factoring in mind boggling amounts of data, collected over a very long time, regarding all aspects of car insurance claims.
Cross referencing hundreds of different details relating to the circumstances of the claims.

These are used to assess relative risk, and create a premium based on those risks.

Basically they are assessing the future risk, based on massive amounts of data relating to the past.

I used to deal with this sort of stuff for a major insurer, and while it may be incredibly boring, it's certainly VERY thorough.

I'd like to see the odds from an insurance company on being involved in a no fault accident

I'd like to then see the odds of being involved in 2 or more no fault accidents over the same period of time

I'm going to bet that the latter has greater odds

If I still worked there, I could show you, but I don't.

But past claims data shows that you would be wrong and you would lose your bet.

Insurance companies are thieves.

Possibly, but not because of this particular thing.

How is she statistically any more likely to be involved in an accident again than any other driver who has never been hit before? Please explain as that makes no sense to me given its not her fault, she was parked legally, and she wasn't in the car at the time?

This incident proves that the car gets parked in places where people misjudge and clip other people's bumpers.

This incident proves that the car gets parked in places where people misjudge and clip other people's bumpers.

like a supermarket carpark then? I park in these as well, and plenty other places where folks get accidently clipped. As does pretty much anyone who has ever driven a car.

I'm calling it as I see it...a scam..

I used to deal with this sort of stuff for a major insurer, and while it may be incredibly boring, it's certainly thorough.

Risk modelling is an element that influences insurance premiums but the predominant influence on the cost / inflation of the premiums themselves are the scams perpetuated by both claimants and the industry itself. Scammers will always exist and can be convicted for fraud, but the insurance 'repairs' industry needs a flippin good sort out.

[quote=tpbiker ]How is she statistically any more likely to be involved in an accident again than any other driver who has never been hit before? Please explain as that makes no sense to me given its not her fault, she was parked legally, and she wasn't in the car at the time?

I don't know exact circumstances of the OP's case, but for the sake of argument let's assume her car was parked on the street outside her house when it was hit by somebody driving past. My car is parked outside my house and hasn't been hit. Just using that information suggests that you are more likely to have your car hit parked outside the OP's house than outside mine. Hence there is a greater chance of it happening again.

[quote=tpbiker ]I'd like to see the odds from an insurance company on being involved in a no fault accident
I'd like to then see the odds of being involved in 2 or more no fault accidents over the same period of time
I'm going to be that the latter has greater odds
Insurance companies are thieves.

Wrong conclusion. The correct conclusion is that you don't understand statistics. If we assume that all such events are completely random (they're not, see above for that argument), then the odds of being involved in 2 incidents over a certain time period are indeed much higher than the odds of being involved in one. However if you've already been involved in one then the odds of having another are completely unchanged.

Using the example of a truly random event, tossing a coin, the odds of tossing two coins and getting two heads is 1/4. However if you've tossed the first coin and got a head, if you then toss the second coin the odds of getting two heads is now 1/2, not 1/4 - tossing the first head doesn't make tossing another less likely.

So notified insurance who then recoded his as her being involved in an accident... (which she obviously wasn't) and a new insurance quote for her insurance due next month +25% ...

I was basically rammed head-on by a woman who didn't notice our large T5 coming towards her last year. Her insurance company disputed liability, which was ridiculous, but meant my premium went up on renewal a couple of months later. The increase was refunded to me once it was designated as 'no fault' on my part. I'd check if the increased premium is refundable.

The whole insurance thing is nuts. Our T5 was written off on the basis that there could be invisible damage to the gearbox, which wouldn't be apparent until it was repaired and running again. Because insurance insists on brand new OE parts, that would mean a VAG gearbox at extortionate money. A recon box would be £1,000.

In the event we bought the salvage and had the van rebuilt and there was no damage to the gearbox at all. So its as technically written off because of a non-existent problem. All very Orwellian. The whole thing is a massive racket designed to funnel money into the pockets of the insurance companies and their designated repairers.

like a supermarket carpark then? I park in these as well, and plenty other places where folks get accidently clipped. As does pretty much anyone who has ever driven a car.

Yep, and if you claimed every time you came back to a trolley ding, or a dooring dent, or someone scraped your bumper, guess what? Your premiums would start to go up....

Compared to someone who only parks their car at home on a driveway or, even better, in a garage and [b]doesn't[/b] ever leave it in a supermarket car park, you are clearly at a much higher risk of a claim. Your example is a pretty good example of the point you are railing against.

[quote=tpbiker ]

This incident proves that the car gets parked in places where people misjudge and clip other people's bumpers.

Sure - but some people park in them far more often than other people. Some people go to the supermarket when it's very busy and there are impatient idiots driving around, some go when it's quiet and park well away from anybody else. If you look at the overall statistics you'll find such differences in behaviour make a difference to the probability of having your car bumped, and shock horror having had your car bumped in a supermarket suggests that you probably belong to a higher risk group, and so you're more likely to have another incident.

The increase was refunded to me once it was designated as 'no fault' on my part. I'd check if the increased premium is refundable.

I had similar and then ins co denied all knowledge of saying they would refund the extra premium once claim was finalised 👿

+1 edlong and aracer

I've had experience of a non-fault collision increasing our premiums (mine because I was the 'driver' of the parked car at the time and my wife's as it was her car, and her insurance) and, more recently, having no effect on our premiums (my car/insurance).

Is it possible that the increase is a temporary loss of NCD until they are confident that the claim is settled as non-fault, at which point it will revert to a lower amount?

Strictly speaking your right is to be put back in the position you would have been in had the collision no occurred so, if you have other costs associated (eg increased insurance costs) then that is a claimable loss. Whether you get anything on that basis will depend on how reasonable each insurer is and how well you present the argument, I suspect.

The racket part is the repair costs - three days to fit a bumper, including "spraying" a non-coloured one? It's not the insurance companies that are the thieves, is it?

The 25% bump just sounds like it's because the claim is still open to me. Once it's all closed down and confirmed as Non-Fault I doubt it would be as bad (but will still go up to a degree)

So notified insurance who then recoded his as her being involved in an accident... (which she obviously wasn't) and a new insurance quote for her insurance due next month +25% ...

If this mean that you actually asked them to revise the renewal price, then there's an even stronger chance it's because of the outstanding claim

Thanks nealglover. You explained it far better than I could, or would be bothered to.

My thoughts exactly

I'd like to see the odds from an insurance company on being involved in a no fault accident

I'd like to then see the odds of being involved in 2 or more no fault accidents over the same period of time

I'm going to bet that the latter has greater odds

Insurance companies are thieves.

don't be too keen to equate accidents with claims. Whilst the insurance company may tell you that you have to tell them even if you don't claim. The statistics are likely to be related to claims.

I wouldn't claim for a car park incident - anything more than a £15 mini-valet is likely be a financial write off. 😆

Sure - but some people park in them far more often than other people. Some people go to the supermarket when it's very busy and there are impatient idiots driving around, some go when it's quiet and park well away from anybody else. If you look at the overall statistics you'll find such differences in behaviour make a difference to the probability of having your car bumped, and shock horror having had your car bumped in a supermarket suggests that you probably belong to a higher risk group, and so you're more likely to have another incident.

The point about outside a house is more relevant although even that is debatable.
For example hen I go to my mum's she's paranoid about a tractor taking the wing mirror off because it happened to my brother... hence whenever I park at my Mum's its on the drive.

In the same way she I park at the supermarket I have a set of rules... don't park next to company/white vans... or beaten up cars etc. and avoid busy times.

I'd presume OH would now perhaps also be more cautious... so the risk goes potentially goes down rather than up... the location of local supermarkets is already part of the information on the policy anyway.

Its a bit like saying someone reports having a radio stolen from the car... they don't replace the radio or make an insurance claim but their premium goes up because they report the theft and criminal damage to the police. They no longer have a radio to get nicked... so surely the chance of having another nicked is zero...

[b]However the fundamental point of this is that it's a no fault claim so whether the risk of another of these happening goes up or down it's not relevant to [b]her[/b] insurance. Her insurers aren't paying a penny (and the admin cost of logging this is their own invention/rule)[/b]

Most specifically she wasn't even in the car so it's not even that she could have somehow contributed through her driving...

Compared to someone who only parks their car at home on a driveway or, even better, in a garage

However most people (by most 99%) drive somewhere and park... be it work, school, supermarket, theatre ... wherever as that's the primary point of a car... going from home to somewhere else.

Actuarial tables have been created, factoring in mind boggling amounts of data, collected over a very long time, regarding all aspects of car insurance claims.
Cross referencing hundreds of different details relating to the circumstances of the claims.

These are used to assess relative risk, and create a premium based on those risks.

Basically they are assessing the future risk, based on massive amounts of data relating to the past.

When insurance companies access this data do they do so with the aim of reducing their profit or increasing it?

The real problem I see is that insures place no value on repeat business as they used to.
It's a war of numbers and data ...

The insurers are a cartel that share personal data to their mutual benefit.
The costumers have a whole load of comparison websites making use of the data and choose company A over their current Company B even if they are happy with company B if it's £10 different....

Risk modelling is an element that influences insurance premiums but the predominant influence on the cost / inflation of the premiums themselves are the scams perpetuated by both claimants and the industry itself. Scammers will always exist and can be convicted for fraud, but the insurance 'repairs' industry needs a flippin good sort out.

3 days to fit a bumper ???

[quote="GaryM"]Going by personal experience. I was rear ended at a set of traffic lights, handbrake on etc. My insurance premium went up, although not by £100, and that was the explanation.

Were the lights on red, amber or green ???
Serious question as if they were on green I can perhaps see why.... not that you can't stop anyway (i.e. you could stall) but this seems more open to why you might represent a risk to YOUR insurers... a bit like if it was parked outside the house as aracer says....

If someone bumped her car then she was involved in an accident.

This really begs the question though as to why her insurers have opened a claim when she was merely informing them. Just to illustrate I'm driving along the motorway and get home and find a stone chip has hit my car and scratched the paint... I get out the touch up and cover it over... have I been in an accident?

Does that change of the stone chip came of a car in front and I know it's registration? Should they who wouldn't even know be obligated to inform their insurers? Should I notify my insurers that there was a paint chip and I'm just notifying them and its not an accident and I might only have 3rd party anyway?

She's not making a claim with HER insurers .. she was simply informing them.

[quoteI]s it possible that the increase is a temporary loss of NCD until they are confident that the claim is settled as non-fault, at which point it will revert to a lower amount?

Strictly speaking your right is to be put back in the position you would have been in had the collision no occurred so, if you have other costs associated (eg increased insurance costs) then that is a claimable loss. Whether you get anything on that basis will depend on how reasonable each insurer is and how well you present the argument, I suspect.

Yep the email was automated but whether that's because it's due for renewal or due to the "claim" I don't know.

Fundamentally however you hit the nail on the head....
3rd party insurance is compulsory.... so surely the whole point of that is the blameless party suffers no financial impact?

But if that were true, then someone could set up an insurance firm offering discounts for those already involved in a no fault accident, and steal all that business.

Based on my phone (and unsolicited calls) it appears there is more money to be made suing the company's for no fault ... now perhaps I understand the point of those "Our data say's you have been involved in a no fault accident" calls... except the ones that have called are fundamentally dishonest... based on the answer is no I haven't... but of course it's semantics as they mean "if we ring 100 people some have been involved in no fault accidents" but really why turn it over to them?

Maybe their car was hiding some expensive damage under the bumper, which deforms and springs back.

My neighbour forgot to put their handbrake on fully one time they nipped into the house to grab something they had forgotten, it rolled slowly into my brand new 54 plate Ka. I wasn't aware of this happening so as there was not a scratch on my car or theirs thanks to springy bumpers. They came round a few days later to own up and I went to check my car but there was no damage. Until I opened the boot and couldn't. The whole boot pan had rippled up pulling the boot and rear 3/4 in with it perfectly! The whole lot only moved about 10mm in total but it was enough for it going from being no damage whatsoever to nearly a total loss. Their car (Y reg Focus) was written off for the foam stuff in the bumper needing replacing and the slam panel being deformed.

Thanks to crumple zones and soft parts for pedestrian safety it doesn't take much to cause significant damage.

Change insurers and it'll go back down to what it was before (mine actually came to less).

Change insurers and it'll go back down to what it was before (mine actually came to less).

That's doubtless what we'll do....
I think I'm mainly just annoyed that we pay good money and then get ripped off ..
She was very specific that she didn't want to open a claim with her insurers but they went ahead and opened one anyway.
I did tell her to do it by email but she insisted on calling as someone told her it's a legal requirement to "call them"... and of course it doesn't affect her as I pay her insurance yet had it been me I'd just have pulled the bumper off and fitted a new one... mainly to avoid the hassle

stevextc the question insurers ask is has the driver had a claim in the last x many years .

not has the driver made a claim off their own insurance in the last x many year.s

my wifes got a non fault on her insurance record atm that we are still paying for and means she cannot drive my land rover or the camper van without me paying nearly 10 fold my current insurance. which is a pain in the hoop

Most specifically she wasn't even in the car so it's not even that she could have somehow contributed through her driving...

and of course it doesn't affect her as I pay her insurance

yet had it been me I'd just have pulled the bumper off and fitted a new one... mainly to avoid the hassle

I had a motorcycle accident once - car driver pulled out in front of me & fully accepted liability. However I am realistic enough to admit that the manner in which I was riding was partially to blame - hence why those who have had accidents can statistically be more of an insurance risk.
My dad had two total loss claims, neither of them his fault necessarily (once loaned car to a friend who crashed it and once swamped it in a flood) both times insurance paid out but was refused renewal as was considered too high a risk. All different examples to yours but gives you an idea of the way insurance risk and stats can go.

stevextc - Member
That's doubtless what we'll do....
I think I'm mainly just annoyed that we pay good money and then get ripped off ..

My renewal premium more than doubled but Confused.com found lots of alternatives for the same or less than before.

[quote=stevextc ]I'd presume OH would now perhaps also be more cautious... so the risk goes potentially goes down rather than up...

You might presume that, but the statistics collected by insurers suggest otherwise - have one no fault claim, you're more likely to have another.

the location of local supermarkets is already part of the information on the policy anyway.

Sure, but the time of day you visit them and where you park in the car park isn't.

However the fundamental point of this is that it's a no fault claim so whether the risk of another of these happening goes up or down it's not relevant to [b]her insurance. Her insurers aren't paying a penny (and the admin cost of logging this is their own invention/rule)[/b]

Ah, was surprised nobody brought this up before - yes it is relevant, particularly so for an incident where somebody hits a parked car with nobody in it, because there's a good chance that next time the person will just drive off, so you will have to make a claim on your insurance.

When insurance companies access this data do they do so with the aim of reducing their profit or increasing it?

Name an industry that purposefully does things to minimise profit 🙄
What's your point caller ?

Actuarial data is consulted to assess risk. That's it.
Really simple.
It's not a scam, it's what insurance companies do to assess their likely exposure.
And it's accurate too. They spend shedloads of time and money on it as it's the only reliable way to predict what's likely to happen in the future.

[quote="aracer"]You might presume that, but the statistics collected by insurers suggest otherwise - have one no fault claim, you're more likely to have another.

Technically the insurers collect data and then derive statistics ... which might sound like picking at straws but the difference is really everything.

I'm absolutely certain you have had some accidents or near misses in your life .. (not necessarily car related..) and have learned from them and changed your behaviour because that's fundamentally a big part of life.

[quote="nealglover"]Actuarial data is consulted to assess risk. That's it.
Really simple.
It's not a scam, it's what insurance companies do to assess their likely exposure.
And it's accurate too. They spend shedloads of time and money on it as it's the only reliable way to predict what's likely to happen in the future.

Except it's not predicting WHAT is going to happen... it's predicting the likelihood and cost of a claim in a sample.

To put it bluntly the insurers don't CARE what is going to happen, even if they could predict it.. they only care on their exposure.

To apply this I don't know what metadata this is classified with but I doubt it includes relevant detail because the insurers don't care about relevant detail.

It's possible they know the parking is covered by 24hr CCTV I suppose but I strongly suspect that this (for example) hasn't been factored in because that reduces their dataset by creating more sample...

It's not a scam, it's what insurance companies do to assess their likely exposure.

Don't they also consult data on how much they can put up the insurance before it forces a customer to change insurers?
Is putting the premium up and sharing that data with other insurers not actually a deliberate incentive to leave insurers completely out of it next time? Not to mention the whole garage/dealer scam.. how can they get away with charging for painting an unpainted bumper?

[quote="aracer"]shock horror having had your car bumped in a supermarket suggests that you probably belong to a higher risk group

I really don't think this is the case... be it supermarket or elsewhere ..
This sort of accident (perhaps outside some areas) is just something that can happen to anyone with the exception of people who never park anywhere but their garage - and hence simply drive for leisure)

Incidentally ... the only insurance repair I had was nothing to do with me ... I left my car at the Indy and the Europarts truck reversed into my bumper. The dealer claimed against Europarts ... so do I need to report this as me being in an accident? Is this something likely to happen again? The Indy said they had never had this happen before... but should that affect my insurance?

Jeez OP you're like a dog with a bone, let it go

Not read all of the posts, but here's a bit of personal experience.

My wife got bashed into at a car park under the same circumstances. The other driver fessed up (after being dobbed in by a bystander who left a note on our windscreen). To be fair, he/she had no idea they'd smashed into us - he/she was very old apparently.

Anyway, to get to the point. The insurance renewal quote went up a bit the next year, but that was mostly rectified by shopping around. Then the subsequent year there was no appreciable hike in price. Obviously, I can't be totally sure that my wife isn't badged for the rest of her life as higher risk, but I reckon if that were the case then I'd notice a peak in her insurance premium that never went down. As it was, I reckon it was only a £25 spike for a year.

CBA commenting on all the repeated arguments where you're ignoring what's been said several times or reckoning that you know better than the highly paid actuaries who the insurance companies employ. But this is I think a new argument:

[quote=stevextc ]Is putting the premium up and sharing that data with other insurers not actually a deliberate incentive to leave insurers completely out of it next time?

Maybe it is. It would seem quite a logical thing for the insurers to do in that case. Clearly if you avoid the insurers by getting £200 cash for a repair which can be done for that price rather than sending a £1000 bill to your insurers by going to a main dealer, they wouldn't have any reason to increase your premiums...

I'm not sure how your main dealer (who you chose to go to) charging excessive amounts for a job is your insurance company's fault.

I stopped on a narrow road for an orange trollop in a Range Rover Sport who didn't and hit my wing mirror with hers. She stopped to pick up the many pieces of her mirror, swore at me and drove off.

Stupidly I phoned my insurance thinking I could get a foot in the door in case the husband worked out how much a new mirror was and wanted to claim. I described what happened, said I was not making a claim myself as there was no damage to my car and that I had an eye witness who would attest that I had stopped and was not at fault.

They never did make a claim but come renewal time my premium had doubled as I now had no NCB as apparently there [i]could[/i] be a claim at some point.. I argued this with someone at the brokers and after getting a bit shouty with me they agreed to talk with their manager. Ten seconds later she came back and said all NCB was reinstated, no accident was being recorded for which I thanked her, oh and would I like to renew my cover? I laughed and hung up.

I was involved in a non-fault accident in May (similar situation, car parked, other driver accepted liability). Just got a renewal price on the insurance which is due next week.

It's gone down by 18p.

Just saying.

CBA commenting on all the repeated arguments where you're ignoring what's been said several times or reckoning that you know better than the highly paid actuaries who the insurance companies employ.

Most certainly this.

I've tried, but apparently some people just [b]want[/b] to believe it's all a badly organised scam where they just guess the premiums, add a bit just in case, and then add a bit more just for a laugh.

No amount of actual real world professional knowledge will matter.

Actually I believe it's a very well organised scam.

[i]‘This latest information that has been sat on by the ABI completes a picture they would rather not have out there – of a booming industry with healthy profits and cash reserves paying out huge dividends,’

‘This isn’t a sector buckling under the weight of “fraud” as they would want the British public to believe.’[/i]

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/abi-data-shows-insurers-saving-billions-in-claims-costs/5058366.article

My insurance goes up about 25% every year and I have to go through the same bs ringing around competitors until I get it back down to the original price and my current insurer matches or beats it song and dance, thought it was normal.

Try letting your policy lapse and then ask for a new quote from the company rather than just renewing. It's been less then the renewal price every time for me.

My insurance goes up about 25% every year and I have to go through the same bs ringing around competitors

Renewal prices are a different story.
That's just making the most of lazy customers who don't check prices. And it's a bit shit.
But not really relevant to this situation.

Maybe it is. It would seem quite a logical thing for the insurers to do in that case. Clearly if you avoid the insurers by getting £200 cash for a repair which can be done for that price rather than sending a £1000 bill to your insurers by going to a main dealer, they wouldn't have any reason to increase your premiums...

I'm not sure how your main dealer (who you chose to go to) charging excessive amounts for a job is your insurance company's fault.

But the decision to go to a main dealer in this instance isn't affecting her insurer...
If it was me I wouldn't have anyway.. just due to the fact the main dealer takes 3 days to do the job.

The point is [b]had she bumped the car and had to claim on her insurance[/b] I'd have more strongly suggested (since I'm paying) she just pays the £250 to get a new bumper fitted at the same place she gets her MOT fitted.

some people just want to believe it's all a badly organised scam where they just guess the premiums, add a bit just in case, and then add a bit more just for a laugh.

No amount of actual real world professional knowledge will matter.

Personally I feel the Honda dealership seem to be pulling the biggest part of the scam... I don't understand how they are so confident they can quote to respray a non painted bumper?

I'm sure most people with a car insurance claim really just want it cleared up... (not everyone but most) and the whole system seems to penalise the honest people who are simply trying to follow the process.

I think for me the thing is car insurance is a (pretty much) compulsory part of life... like having a bank account or having water... or a MOT

It's not like choosing to buy a bike or not... or do I want to pay X amount for bearings vs X/5 .... or just wear the things to the ground...

It's not I don't understand the need for compulsory MOT or car insurance it's simply that it needs to be regulated differently. (IMHO)

For example a few weeks ago I [b]chose [/b]to buy a tent and some equipment from Millets via Internet .. the whole thing was a lifestyle choice. I paid for a next day delivery which SOMEONE screwed up... and they silently refunded the next day cost... (next day being 2 as I ordered late at night)
I saw the money go back and called them and after a not unreasonable amount of time on a non-premium rate number spoke to someone and said either deliver tomorrow or cancel but make your mind up...

They and I both knew that legislation existed .. and they actually got the stuff delivered... but this to me FEELS different to something I can't choose to buy or not....

I don't FEEL like a customer ... and I don't FEEL like they treat me as a customer but someone forced to use a service.

the whole system seems to penalise the honest people who are simply trying to follow the process.

I'm not convinced you aren't just feeling bitter and exaggerating the reality of the situation.

I chose to buy a tent and some equipment from Millets via Internet .. the whole thing was a lifestyle choice.

Owning a car is a lifestyle choice too.

There are costs associated with ownership, but those costs are avoidable if you really don't like them.

I had an 'accident' in a multi storey car park I used to use for work every day a few years ago. I was reversing as the car 2 in front misjudged the ramp and backed up without looking, so guy in front of me did the same. I reverse back to avoid being hit, whilst actually looking, and as I'm going backwards a car drives down the the ramp from the level above, turns right and actually drives into the back of me as I'm reversing. I couldn't really stop as the guy in front was looking like he'd hit me.

I had a witness, he sent his account in twice, my insurers lost it, twice. Found me at fault, I lost 3 years no claims and premium went up.

When I queried it with my insurer a very helpful woman informed that in all cases they find the reversing party at fault regardless of circumstance, and my witness account was pointless. She said that way it eventually evens itself out across the industry on who pays out and they're all happy.

Core, from your description I would say you were at fault in that situation.
You were moving the wrong way on a one way (presumably) ramp.

"That's just making the most of lazy customers who don't check prices."

Such a telling statement

This whole shop around thing gets right on my knackers. I buy hundreds of goods and services every year - why the hell should I sopend my very limited free time 'shopping around' when all that entails is passing free data to all and sundry.

Insurance is a scam. It wasn't for a long time but it is now.

I can only assume neal works for the insurance industry to be such an apologist for a hideous network of legalised scammers which incorporates claim management companies, car hire and of course manufacturers who produce designs which need to be written off after a minor shunt. Its a crazy world.

can only assume neal works for the insurance industry to be such an apologist for a hideous network of legalised scammers

I don't.

And if you could be bothered to read the thread properly, you would already know that and wouldn't look quite so stupid.

Hope that helps.

Insurance is a scam. It wasn't for a long time but it is now.

Of course it is dear.

As there is a perfect example in this thread. Here you go...

The OP (or at least his wife) is insisting on taking the repair to Honda, who he has admitted are charging 5 times more than the repair is really worth, and adding on things to the bill that don't need doing.

The "insurance industry" will be paying that bill (at least initially) 5 times more than they should really be paying, if the OP wasn't insisting on taking it to a dealership he knows is waaaaay overcharging for the work.

So who is scamming who ?

Premiums will rise as a result of garages such as this one defrauding insurance companies by overquoting on insurance repairs.
And people moan when their premiums rise, but happily pass on a vastly overpriced bill to their insurers.

[quote=stevextc ]But the decision to go to a main dealer in this instance isn't affecting her insurer...
If it was me I wouldn't have anyway.. just due to the fact the main dealer takes 3 days to do the job.
The point is had she bumped the car and had to claim on her insurance I'd have more strongly suggested (since I'm paying) she just pays the £250 to get a new bumper fitted at the same place she gets her MOT fitted.

So you're expecting the insurance company to know the ins and outs of your marriage, that some of the time you're in charge, some of the time you're not and that you'd make an insurance claim in one situation and not the other? 🙄

The only information they have is that you have made an insurance claim in this situation, therefore it's not an unreasonable assumption that you'd also make an insurance claim in the same situation if it was your insurance company paying. At least that's what their statistics suggest.

There are some patient people on here. Very well explained (however in vain the explanation seems to be....)

MrsP had someone reverse into her car in the summer - he accepted full responsiblity, his insurance fixed her car with no claim made and they confirmed that this meant no impact on her own policy.

But she's a named driver on my policy and when I checked my bank statement I found a £30 charge from my insurer relating to the 'non fault accident' she had. I've got the 30 quid back and told them they no longer have authority to charge to my card, but still need to fight to get rid of the record on my policy.

So yes you can argue statistics etc, but if the insurer of the damaged car isn't taking the incident into account then it seems a bit far fetched for another insurer to slap a charge onto my insurance as a result.

Grrrrrr

I ran into a beemer at the approach to a roundabout a while back. Looking at both cars I couldn't really see any damage to either bumper. The other party wanted to avoid insurers if possible but also wanted their car checked out for any damage that was not apparent. I was happy to go along with that so awaited a phone call.

The phone call duly arrived a few days later. Their local beemer dealer quoted £1300. I notified my insurers and left it to them to sort out. It seemed a crazy amount when I couldn't see any damage, but that's insurance repairs for you. Ages later I did notice a bent bracket holding my radiator grill which I replaced for less than a tenner. Maybe their car was hiding some expensive damage under the bumper, which deforms and springs back.

The bumper indeed deforms and springs back, but in these days of painted bumpers, sadly the paint doesn't do the same and can crack. Then you get problems which won't be covered by manufacturer warranties in the future, so if it was a fairly new BMW that 1300 quid could well have been just the cost of a resprayed bumper at an approved repairer so the driver keeps the paint warranty.

[quote="nealglover"]Owning a car is a lifestyle choice too.
But hardly like buying a bike or a tent....
Not owning a bike or tent wouldn't exclude me from the majority of jobs ... It's completely possible to get a job but the choice is rather limited. Even if I commuted by train I'd be back in the same situation of a service provider with a trapped base of customers who don't get treated as customers.

The OP (or at least his wife) is insisting on taking the repair to Honda, who he has admitted are charging 5 times more than the repair is really worth, and adding on things to the bill that don't need doing.

The "insurance industry" will be paying that bill (at least initially) 5 times more than they should really be paying, if the OP wasn't insisting on taking it to a dealership he knows is waaaaay overcharging for the work.

So who is scamming who ?

Premiums will rise as a result of garages such as this one defrauding insurance companies by overquoting on insurance repairs.
And people moan when their premiums rise, but happily pass on a vastly overpriced bill to their insurers.

Core, from your description I would say you were at fault in that situation.
You were moving the wrong way on a one way (presumably) ramp.

From an insurance PoV that might provide clarity... but what is the correct way to tell this when they ask..."so the car in front was reversing into you and you did nothing?"

but then ultimately if the insurers then increase their premium anyway (regardless) what's the incentive?

The fact is I actually feel like I'd like to tell the other parties insurers that it's a non painted bumper... but they should know that anyway and I from our perspective there is no incentive and plenty of disinsentive

They already accepted the estimate so informing them that I think they are being scammed will only at best delay the repair.

At the end of the day... someone insured for 3rd party damages ran into her completely legally parked car.It doesn't seem unreasonable that this gets sorted out costing us as little as possible (preferably nothing).. because [u]surely that is why insurance is compulsory[/u].

Premiums will rise as a result of garages such as this one defrauding insurance companies by overquoting on insurance repairs.
And people moan when their premiums rise, but happily pass on a vastly overpriced bill to their insurers.

So here is the thing... she has a specific model with a non-colour matched bumper ... 90% of CRV's have colour matched ones... (at least from when she was buying)

All the quotes she got (including the 3rd party's company which was her previous insurer) were exactly the same for a CRV of that year - they made no differentiation on if it was a colour coded bumper or not... so despite this data being available by my reckoning they factor in the coloured bumper into the insurance cost...

Just MHO but colour coded bumpers are one of the stupidest ideas... certainly from an insurers PoV ???
Wouldn't it make sense to offer a discount on insurance?

[quote=stevextc ]But there is simply no incentive for me (or OH) to sort this out...

Are you trolling yourself now? Remind me again why you started this thread, and what difference it would have made to you if you'd taken the cash the other bloke offered for a simple repair rather than putting it through your insurance...

Wouldn't it make sense to offer a discount on insurance?

That's a good idea, because clearly the claims will be less for non painted bumpers, or people might even decide to avoid an insurance claim altogether and replace it themselves. Oh hang on...

[quote="aracer"]Are you trolling yourself now? Remind me again why you started this thread, and what difference it would have made to you if you'd taken the cash the other bloke offered for a simple repair rather than putting it through your insurance...

The main differences
1/The very small (IMHO) risk that something more significant is damaged and it's just a bumper.
The current Honda quote say's that this won't be known until they pull the bumper off so we're covered if it is.... however this doesn't affect HER insurers anyway...

2/ Her insurance documents say she has to inform them ANYWAY

That's a good idea, because clearly the claims will be less for non painted bumpers, or people might even decide to avoid an insurance claim altogether and replace it themselves. Oh hang on...

See 2 above ....

TBH had this happened on my car (with colour coded bumper) I wouldn't even bother replacing the bumper...

[quote=stevextc ]however this doesn't affect HER insurers anyway...

You do realise that the cost of insurance is based upon future risk?

[quote=stevextc ]TBH had this happened on my car (with colour coded bumper) I wouldn't even bother replacing the bumper...

Do you think it would be reasonable for the insurance to be cheaper for your car than the insurance for your wife's?

t seems to me the insurance industry are scamming the insurance industry ....by the it all balances out in the statistics

Nope.
Honda main Dealers are not part of the insurance
Industry.
By charging for repair work that isn't needed, they are scamming the insurance industry (directly) and scamming anyone who pays an insurance premium (indirectly)
And by enabling them to do so, by letting them get away with passing false costs to an insurer, you have become part of the problem.

But there is simply no incentive for me (or OH) to sort this out...

And you have removed your right to moan about increased premiums as a result. Well done.

So what should they actually do... let the reversing car in front hit them ?

Or.... maybe.... lean on the horn ?
That tends stop low speed manoeuvres pretty quick.
Especially in an enclosed space like a car park ramp.

[quote=aracer]You do realise that the cost of insurance is based upon future risk?

How does whether or not the other party decides to pay out of his own pocket or make a insurance claim change this ??

Moreover if the other party did then how does this then increase the risk for the insurer ? and if it doesn't why do they insist on being informed?

So what should they actually do... let the reversing car in front hit them ?

Not been so close to the car in front in a situation where that car is likely to need some space?

Not been so close to the car in front in a situation where that car is likely to need some space?

In a perfect world where every accident has someone wholly to blame???
From experience when I'm stopping I'm also making sure the person behind doesn't run into me...
Sometimes that means I end up closer to the car in front than ideal... however I could take the attitude that them running into me is their problem... if they hit my car it's their problem

EXCEPT it isn't.... because they run into me whilst on the phone and putting their make up on whilst leaning over to the kids in the back and it affects MY insurance. Regardless of how many laws they are breaking and how badly they are driving it apparently means I'm more likely for someone to run into me again...

Not only that but I prefer to not have an accident .. regardless of who's fault it is....

However the other time this happens is when the car in front starts off with plenty of room but backs up because the car in front backs up because the car in front backs up....

I've had to back up dozens of times but never had an accident doing so but I'm sure I'd have had plenty if I just stubbornly stuck on the handbrake and honked the horn!

[quote="nealglover"]Honda main Dealers are not part of the insurance
Industry.
By charging for repair work that isn't needed, they are scamming the insurance industry (directly) and scamming anyone who pays an insurance premium (indirectly)
And by enabling them to do so, by letting them get away with passing false costs to an insurer, you have become part of the problem.

The 3rd party's insurers have the registration .. they have the information available to them that it's a non-colour coded bumper... had it not been for the OH showing me the quote she'd not even have thought about it... she's n more mechanically minded than most drivers...

On the other hand the insurers should understand this...

At this moment they have a quote.... it's not an invoice that they have agreed to...
They then wish to deal DIRECTLY with the Honda dealer and cut the OH out... (their decision) which I think will mean she never gets the invoice.

The 3rd party's insurers have the registration .

And you have the actual car.

It's up to you what you choose to do. It's just the ultimate irony when you come on here moaning about insurance premiums going up

But you can't be arsed to alert anyone when you know that the dealership are scamming 5 x the value of the repairs that are needed.

And you have the actual car.

It's up to you what you choose to do. It's just the ultimate irony when you come on here moaning about insurance premiums going up

But you can't be arsed to alert anyone when you know that the dealership are scamming 5 x the value of the repairs that are needed.

The dealership haven't scammed anything yet... they have provided a quote.
The other parties insurance accepted the quote and now wish to deal DIRECT with the dealership

They are the ones decided to take me and OH out of the equation.... what gets done or not would seem to be between them and the dealer so long as the car comes back repaired.

And you have the actual car.

From my own experience in our house insurance, even then they are not interested in my expert opinion... despite the 50M grant and the huge flood defences on a minor stream and it wining this and that award the insurance database for flood risk has not changed...

As a qualified expert in this I tried explaining that this must decrease the risk of flooding but I was told the ACTUAL RISK of flooding is irrelevant because all that matters is what their database says... and as the database hasn't been updated the risk is the same as before.

(incidentally the house has never been flooded... since it was built and even prior to the very extensive flood management programme)

I give up.

You are totally correct.

Please moan away all you want.

The others with industry experience have covered off the reasons premiums may increase. Those who dont get it on this thread are probably the same who dont get it on every other thread.

Let me try putting it a different way..

Someone is going to pay the £millions it costs to fix damaged cars, buildings, people caused by motorists.

Your premuim is just someone (very clever and with all the data) guessing what your proportion of that £million should be.

Ultimately the best way to reduce insurance is stop crashing cars into each other.

Hopefully autonomous vehicles will be better drivers than people.

Hopefully autonomous vehicles will be better drivers than people.

At the very least, they will probably better understand how insurance works.

God help us all when they discover internet forums though.

Hang on...

From my own experience in our house insurance, even then they are not interested in my expert opinion...

Hahahahaha. Just spotted this.

Of course they aren't interested in your opinion. Why would they be.

Are you genuinely surprised by this or just putting in the groundwork for a later play of the Edinburgh defence.

I presume the insurers being referred to in fairly scathing tones on this thread are entirely different from the insurers on the "helping a neighbour" thread who would be helping her sort her house out?

But you can't be arsed to alert anyone when you know that the dealership are scamming 5 x the value of the repairs that are needed.

After that, the obvious question is why don't THEY challenge it? Ultimately, they don't need to as they can, as an industry, adjust premiums to cover their overall exposure to risk, as has been repeated by several of you. They aren't losing out in the long run; their customers are.

They aren't losing out in the long run; their customers are.

Yep. And moaning about increased premiums, while simultaneously doing sod all about it.

"It's not my problem, why should I tell them!"

Ffs. Can nobody else see the irony in that.

"It's not my problem, why should I tell them!"