Protected No Claims on cars

[Buckman]

Why do we get offered the option of NCD when applying for a new policy? I am beginning to wonder what is the point of paying to protect your No Claims? In 2015 we had a small mishap with the Jeep and cost of repair was £800. We claimed from CC as we had car insurance with them at the time. When the policy came up for renewal, the new premium was almost £800!

When getting quotes you are asked the number of years of No claims and I always state +20 years. If I did not protect the No claims surely I could still state that I have not made any claims for 8 years taking into account the mishap in 2015? If the insurance company check, they can see that we have not made a claim for several years even if they NC was not protected.

Is paying to protect the No claims a rip off or not? I have only come acoss this in this country as do not recall paying it in South Africa or Rhodesia for comprehensive insurance.

 

[Lutz]

In Germany one can protect one's no claims bonus by reimbursing the insurance company with the amount of any claims made against them, That makes sense when one has already accrued a substantial no claims bonus and the claim made was comparatively low. For this purpose, the insurance companies will provide details of the break even point below which it's worthwhile paying out of one's own pocket.

 

[Mr Plodd]

A point often misunderstood is that its a No Claims bonus, not a No Blame bonus (or a premium protection bonus)

Any claim regardless will have an impact on the premium you are charged. Your premium will increase but the NCD discount will then be applied to that premium.

Don't have a go at me, I am just explaining how the insurance companies operate.

I once had my car hit whilst parked and unattended. Third party paid out No problem at all, but at next renewal my premium was hiked. When I questioned it the response was " Our stats show that if you have a no fault claim you are then more likely to go on to make an at fault claim"

I asked to see those stats under and FOI enquiry "Sorry sir, that's commercial sensitive information so we don't have to supply it"

Their bat, ball, playground and rules !

 

[Buckman]

Basically paying the protection for No claims is waste of money?

 

[otherclive]

Basically paying the protection for No claims is waste of money?

Doesn’t it all depend on the cost per annum of the NCD and the reduction that you obtain on your renewal premium. Plus you can have reducing level of protected NCD over some years on most policies.

It must make money for insurance companies otherwise they would not offer it. A bit like breakdown insurance on domestic products.

 

[Mr Plodd]

N CD is just another form of insurance. All depends on the acceptable level of risk that an individual is prepared to accept.

 

[Lutz]

It strikes me that UK insurance companies‘ policies are rather unfair. Where I live the premium never changes no matter how many claims have been made, only the no claims bonus goes down with each claim.
Besides, no claims and no blames over here is the same thing. One would never make a claim against one's own insurance if one is not to blame. Claims are always made against whoever is to blame. You don't even need to inform your own insurance if the picture is clear.

 

[RogerL]

It strikes me that UK insurance companies‘ policies are rather unfair. Where I live the premium never changes no matter how many claims have been made, only the no claims bonus goes down with each claim.
Besides, no claims and no blames over here is the same thing. One would never make a claim against one's own insurance if one is not to blame. Claims are always made against whoever is to blame. You don't even need to inform your own insurance if the picture is clear.

How are split liability cases handled - some in the UK insurance industry have the view that few accidents are solely one party's fault.

 

[Lutz]

How are split liability cases handled - some in the UK insurance industry have the view that few accidents are solely one party's fault.

If it’s not obvious who was to blame and two parties can’t agree then obviously both will inform their insurance and leave it to them to sort things out. More often than not they will refer the matter to a court to apportion the blame.

 

[Buckman]

If it’s not obvious who was to blame and two parties can’t agree then obviously both will inform their insurance and leave it to them to sort things out. More often than not they will refer the matter to a court to apportion the blame.

In the UK its seems that UK insurers regard you as guilty even when totally innocent i.e. car is parked in a proper parking bay etc when involved in a mishap. The result is that you are now more likely to have another mishap!

 

[Raywood]

First of all the insurers normally work on the last five ears record although there are some things like drink driving they will use if further back. In most case it will make no difference if you have an eight or a twenty year claim free record. On that basis the claim will make no difference.
I do agree that the insurers who up the premium for one no fault accident seem to be taking money under false pretences for protected no claims bonusses although they will not release the so called statistics that they say supports their increases. I suspect the only way to get to tthe bottom of it would be to sue them for the extra charged and see if they can prove their case, but in practice I doubt anyone will ever go to the trouble.