DHA Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 So my insurance has more than doubled due to the theft and loss of no claims, which I can understand. However my girlfriend is just getting quotes for her new car. The premium has risen because I am a named driver with a claim! Why? I don't think I am more of a risk because my car was stolen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malagus Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 The insurance companies will take any opportunity to take money from you. I am, it would seem, a huge liability, and don't have my own no-claims (previously I was on folks insurance). fair enough. But all the extra driving qualifications I have? 'oh sir we don't recognise any of those'. The feckers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chick Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 DHA - do they know your relationship with said girlfriend? If they think you are just a named driver not partner / spouse it pushes up the premium ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DHA Posted January 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Yeah down as partner etc. It's only 5% but still pisses me off given all the other extra costs as part of the theft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chick Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Meh ..... thread title aptly named then :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 The insurance companies will take any opportunity to take money from you. I am, it would seem, a huge liability, and don't have my own no-claims (previously I was on folks insurance). fair enough. But all the extra driving qualifications I have? 'oh sir we don't recognise any of those'. The feckers. With respect, statistics will show males under the age of 25 as the biggest risk so insurers aren't going to modify their systems to take into account the 1 in 10000 who decides to take a qualification. Statistics say you're still the most likely type to stuff a car into a ditch and that's all they care about. I've blethered on for 18+ months now saying how much premiums were set to rise and I think people thought I was kidding. The facts are insurers are making very, very little on motor insurance; we lost money for 3 years straight before breaking even or thereabouts for 2. When they made a profit, the return on premium was less then you and I would make on a 1 year building society bond, even with crap interest rates. The sad fact is we are now all reaping the consequences of people taking the piss for years with claims. Insurers have decided enough is enough and if people want to turn a minor bump into a £15k cost of claim using Accidents-R-Us, then we're all going to pay for it. Re DHA's situation, it stinks, it really does. However a claim flags you up as a risk whether it was fault or no fault and these days when renewals are up 20%+ anyway, a claim really does clobber your risk profile so huge hikes are inevitable unfortunately. Even as only a named driver, if you have a fault claim, you bring a high risk to the policy hence they'll bump the premium. As far as I know, the system doesn't take into account if your claim is as a result of someone stealing your car while you sleep or if you trash your car doing 100 in 50 with your eyes closed. Think how I felt; my wife was a named driver on my policy, me on hers. Then she reversed her car into mine on the drive (17 foot wide drive at that, FFS). In 5 brief seconds, we went from 2 unblemished records dating back almost 18 years, to my policy having a no fault claim against me and a named driver with a fault claim and her policy showing her with a fault claim and me with a no fault claim driver. Oh, how we laughed about it in the divorce court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DHA Posted January 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 With respect, statistics will show males under the age of 25 Thanks very much I do look younger than I am, oh hang on......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theduisbergkid Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 The sad fact is we are now all reaping the consequences of people taking the piss for years with claims. Insurers have decided enough is enough and if people want to turn a minor bump into a £15k cost of claim using Accidents-R-Us, then we're all going to pay for it. Sadly, this hits the nail on the head. I wish there was no whiplash payouts, thats a big part of it I'm sure, who actually has whiplash these days with headrests and airbags ? It's too easy for parasites to make over-inflated claims... Good luck DHA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Not to mention the feckers that deliberately cause shunts in order to claim huge payouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malagus Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 With respect, statistics will show males under the age of 25 as the biggest risk so insurers aren't going to modify their systems to take into account the 1 in 10000 who decides to take a qualification. Statistics say you're still the most likely type to stuff a car into a ditch and that's all they care about. Whilst I respect that I am in the highest risk group, when I go out of the way (and to expense) to take driver training then still get told that I am statistically 'bound to have a big shunt soon enough' as one more straight forward insurance agent put it, it ****s me off a wee bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Sadly, this hits the nail on the head. I wish there was no whiplash payouts, thats a big part of it I'm sure, who actually has whiplash these days with headrests and airbags ? It's too easy for parasites to make over-inflated claims... 3rd party accident management companies are one of the biggest problems at the moment, they can add noughts onto a cost of claim in the blink of an eye although insurers are fighting back. Combine them with dodgy no-win-no-fee solicitors and the aforementioned parasites and you have the perfect combination to turn a £500 bump into a £15k+ claim. DHA - do you need to be a named driver on your girlfriend's policy or was it a way of reducing premiums? My wife was always a named driver on mine as it reduced my premium (even though she never drives it) however after she played dodgems, it was cheaper to take her off my policy for 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malagus Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 The no win no fee have you had an accident? lot are a blight on every motorist Times used to be the only concern about a shunt with miss whiplash was the missus finding out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Whilst I respect that I am in the highest risk group, when I go out of the way (and to expense) to take driver training then still get told that I am statistically 'bound to have a big shunt soon enough' as one more straight forward insurance agent put it, it ****s me off a wee bit. Did you do the additional training to reduce your premium or because you wanted to do it? If it's the latter then you can't blame the insurers/brokers, however unfair it seems. I thought there were courses out there that young drivers could take to reduce premiums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chick Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 If I get a big payout I will buy you all a drink Actually my whiplash injury is still playing me up on random days, not helped that I did have a neck injury about 15 years ago (resulting in acupuncture which sorted it out for me once and for all ) and the accident in November has all but resurrected it. I actually am just claiming back the cost of physio .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malagus Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Did you do the additional training to reduce your premium or because you wanted to do it? If it's the latter then you can't blame the insurers/brokers, however unfair it seems. I thought there were courses out there that young drivers could take to reduce premiums? About 50/50. To reduce the risk to me and to lower my insurance. - part of the cost justification was that it'd save me money. You can take things like PassPlus, but this is about £150-200, not every insurer recognise it, and those who do don't do so forever, half the time. (direct line only recognise it and discount you for the first year, after that you get nowt.) Also it's a poor qualification aimed mostly at covering the grey area not covered by the test (a good instructor will cover this anyway) and working on confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DHA Posted January 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 DHA - do you need to be a named driver on your girlfriend's policy or was it a way of reducing premiums? My wife was always a named driver on mine as it reduced my premium (even though she never drives it) however after she played dodgems, it was cheaper to take her off my policy for 2 years. Yeah we both drive each other's cars fairly often Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theduisbergkid Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 I did have a neck injury about 15 years ago *ahem* Leslie Ash ? If I get a big payout I will buy you all a drink Mine's a pint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 I can see why there would be a lot of angst towards No Win No Fee companies or those that ramp a claim up for personal injury damages when all they have is a dented pride. But... I do sympathise too. How many of us on here would want to claim all our costs and damages back if we were sat in a queue of traffic tomorrow and some idiot ran into the back of us at 30mph? I know I would. Inconvenience, whiplash at worst, possible strain on limbs etc. I'd want compensating for that and I'd want the best claims company I could get because my time is valuable to me - and the potential loss of business if I was unable to work could have major implications for me and my company. So I do think it has to be borne in mind that no all such claims should be dismissed as the scourge of the insurance industry. Oh, and I've never benefitted from such a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 I agree - people like audi_chick should be entitled to claim for treatment for as long as it's needed plus loss of earnings etc. The problem is for every genuine case, there's probably 10 fraudulent. If a_c was in pain 24/7 as a result of the accident then there should be no limit to compensation in my book. Loss of earnings x 40 years plus whatever else is required. Only guess what? Thanks to the scumbags she'd get £5k maximum and forced to sign a waiver no doubt. My problem is (as ever), those people who are nudged at 5mph in their £2000 Corsa. Probably no damage, maybe a new bumper but they ring all the numbers they've heard on the radio. By teatime, they've got a 2 month old £15k Astra on the drive which they'll have for 3 weeks while their car is 'off the road'. Accidents-R-Us will bill the insurers £800/week for said Astra to include their fee. No-Win-No-Fee Ltd then encourage a whiplash claim netting the claimant £2000 (that's right 100% of the award folks, we don't take a penny!!!!) while they submit their bill for £8000 of legal costs. Oh, and somewhere along the line, someone forks for £200 to repair a bumper that was probably hanging off anyway. All of a sudden, a minor bump becomes a £10k+ claim on the insurance company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Completely concur. Don't you think the insurance industry could do a little more to vet potentially fraudulent claims and prosecute the perpetrators in order to discourage less of it in future? I don't know how do-able that is, it's just an off the cuff thought. I've seen the programmes about those that deliberately cause accidents in order to benefit and that strikes me as just one element. I'd like to see Mr Smith get brought to court too though, you know the guy who claims the £15k when all he had was bumper hanging off and the ability to apply for an Equity card tomorrow because of his acting prowess. I think the prosecution and adequate publication of cases against people like Ordinary Joe The Sponger would have quite an impact and hopefully make them think twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Don't you think the insurance industry could do a little more to vet potentially fraudulent claims and prosecute the perpetrators in order to discourage less of it in future? I don't know how do-able that is, it's just an off the cuff thought. We have a large anti-fraud department, which I understand has doubled in size in 3 years. And I bet they are flat out but are only scraping the surface. Again though, it costs. And guess who picks up the bill? I've said most of this before but I'd like to see people prosecuted for fraud wherever possible. None of this "we know you're lying so feck off with your claim and we're cancelling your policy". Pay out then prosecute them. Not just for the £k they scammed, but the £15k the insurance company has lost. Recent precedents suggest 2 years jail? Lovely. Then see how many of them fancy a new TV or a holiday on the back of a minor or staged bump. Actual prosecution is another thing as well. It's up to the CPS ultimately and we all know they're not exactly consistent in applying the rules. The cost of bringing it to court plus the chance of getting a conviction/recovering funds may well put insurers off ultimately but I'm speculating on that one. Edited January 12, 2011 by Milo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milo Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 When push comes to shove though, this all effects people like DHA. If the industry wasn't hemorrhaging money left right and centre thanks to the underclass who see it as second income, then there would be no need to screw people over at the first opportunity, especially when they've already been the victim once. And if the under 25 males would stop wrecking their cars every fortnight...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 My other half had a car run into the back of her a little while ago now. Guy admitted it was his fault. We got offered a courtesy car while ours was away. No joke we had that car for over a month. I spoke to the insurance co and the hire people but was given various reasons (excuses) as to why it was taking so long. I wasn't overly concerned as I wasnt paying for it. When the car was returned the bill for his insurance must have been enormous. We then had a never ending paper trail of letters from them and their solicitors asking us to clarify why we'd had the hire car for so long!! We had to fill out forms for this and that asking if we'd asked for a car and for how long , etc etc. In the end I told them to sort it out between themselves but it looked liked it was heading for court. The hiring out of courtesy cars is a massive con. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 I bet it went back with clean floor mats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 We have a large anti-fraud department, which I understand has doubled in size in 3 years. And I bet they are flat out but are only scraping the surface. Again though, it costs. And guess who picks up the bill?I've said most of this before but I'd like to see people prosecuted for fraud wherever possible. None of this "we know you're lying so feck off with your claim and we're cancelling your policy". Pay out then prosecute them. Not just for the £k they scammed, but the £15k the insurance company has lost. Recent precedents suggest 2 years jail? Lovely. Then see how many of them fancy a new TV or a holiday on the back of a minor or staged bump. Actual prosecution is another thing as well. It's up to the CPS ultimately and we all know they're not exactly consistent in applying the rules. The cost of bringing it to court plus the chance of getting a conviction/recovering funds may well put insurers off ultimately but I'm speculating on that one. I wasn't aware of that and the CPS and costs point isn't one I'd thought about. I guess in some ways it is no different to many commercial cases. We've had cause to go legal on something not too long ago and in the end we reached a point where the costs of pursuing the case were well into the thousands and were set to triple if we went to court - at which point it became commercially non-sensical and we ended up writing the money off as bad debt. Not something I was keen to do, but the only sensible thing to do in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now