car insurance NCB

[Oggy]

I had not thought about it historically either. Although my wife and I have always had 2 cars in 2 separate names and 2 separate insurance policies. So that if one of us got dinged with higher rates because of an accident or traffic offence, the other would not suffer.

That'll work just as long as neither of you is a named driver on the other's policy. As I found out about ten years ago, when my wife was peripherally involved in a multi-shunt caused entirely by an L-driver about five cars away from her.

My wife and her car were undamaged, and so were the cars immediately around her. Nobody for a single moment suggested that she was responsible for anything, and she didn't receive any communications at all about the matter. Ever!

But, about three months later, my car's insurer wrote me a furious letter, accusing me of concealing the fact that she had been involved in an accident in her own car. And cancelling MY NCB until such time as "her" accident claim had been resolved. (Sure enough, it was in the hands of somebody's battling solicitors......)

Believe it, word gets around pretty fast on the insurance claims database. And my own insurer had figured that this fault-free driver (my wife) was also a named driver on my own car's policy - and that that fact alone was sufficient reason to accuse me of concealing her "involvement in an accident claim". I can tell you, I drove pretty carefully for the next nine months, which was how long it took for the shambles to be resolved.

[Edit]: Meanwhile, my wife never received any warnings about any danger to her NCB. Or any formal notification that the case had been resolved. Or anything at all, in fact.I nstead, I had become the punchbag.

BJ

Did you expect them to treat you in a truly fair and civilized manner? If so, why? It's all about the money. The customer can go to blazes. Way of the world I'm afraid. Get used to it.

[Arborbridge]

I had not thought about it historically either. Although my wife and I have always had 2 cars in 2 separate names and 2 separate insurance policies. So that if one of us got dinged with higher rates because of an accident or traffic offence, the other would not suffer.

That'll work just as long as neither of you is a named driver on the other's policy. As I found out about ten years ago, when my wife was peripherally involved in a multi-shunt caused entirely by an L-driver about five cars away from her.

My wife and her car were undamaged, and so were the cars immediately around her. Nobody for a single moment suggested that she was responsible for anything, and she didn't receive any communications at all about the matter. Ever!

But, about three months later, my car's insurer wrote me a furious letter, accusing me of concealing the fact that she had been involved in an accident in her own car. And cancelling MY NCB until such time as "her" accident claim had been resolved. (Sure enough, it was in the hands of somebody's battling solicitors......)

Believe it, word gets around pretty fast on the insurance claims database. And my own insurer had figured that this fault-free driver (my wife) was also a named driver on my own car's policy - and that that fact alone was sufficient reason to accuse me of concealing her "involvement in an accident claim". I can tell you, I drove pretty carefully for the next nine months, which was how long it took for the shambles to be resolved.

[Edit]: Meanwhile, my wife never received any warnings about any danger to her NCB. Or any formal notification that the case had been resolved. Or anything at all, in fact.I nstead, I had become the punchbag.

BJ

Something similar happened to me, but I must have been lucky - or insurance companies weren't so desperate to screw us all ten years ago. My wife was the victim of a shunt on the M23, but that had no effect on the policy on my own car on which she was named. At least, had no effect I knew of at the time.

I think Oggy's remarks tend to be abrasive rather than helpful. Perhaps a shortage of empathy, but I would have thought your moan is a very valid one - even insurance companies try to maintain some sort of logic to why they do things like load policies. The classic one is being scraped in a car park. Not your fault, but the loading (if it occurs at renewal) has some logic: your risk profile has, they would argue, risen.

Arb.

[servodude]

The classic one is being scraped in a car park. Not your fault, but the loading (if it occurs at renewal) has some logic: your risk profile has, they would argue, risen.

...It's only idiomatically that lightning never strikes twice

there's plenty of effort put in to make sure you can be pretty certain of where it's going to strike and to make it do so

[bungeejumper]

...It's only idiomatically that lightning never strikes twice

there's plenty of effort put in to make sure you can be pretty certain of where it's going to strike and to make it do so

Awkward, I know, but there's plenty of solid actuarial evidence that, if your name's Troy or Kaz or Duwayne, you're likely to have more accidents than other people. Car insurers used to get a lot of flak for loading premiums according to such unspoken socio-economic indicators. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5896561 , for example.) I imagine they still do?

Apologies for wandering off-topic. This thread, of course, is primarily about NCBs, not premiums.

BJ

[servodude]

...It's only idiomatically that lightning never strikes twice

there's plenty of effort put in to make sure you can be pretty certain of where it's going to strike and to make it do so

Awkward, I know, but there's plenty of solid actuarial evidence that, if your name's Troy or Kaz or Duwayne, you're likely to have more accidents than other people. Car insurers used to get a lot of flak for loading premiums according to such unspoken socio-economic indicators. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5896561 , for example.) I imagine they still do?

Apologies for wandering off-topic. This thread, of course, is primarily about NCBs, not premiums.

BJ

I think the thread has been moved out of "getting a slap for derailment" territory
Really tricky to pull apart the correlation and causes with this kind of stuff - and I imagine there's a big dose of Simpsons Paradox (especially if you don't adjust for geography effectively)

[bungeejumper]

Really tricky to pull apart the correlation and causes with this kind of stuff - and I imagine there's a big dose of Simpsons Paradox (especially if you don't adjust for geography effectively)

Thanks, I had to look that one up. It was worth it.

BJ

[servodude]

Really tricky to pull apart the correlation and causes with this kind of stuff - and I imagine there's a big dose of Simpsons Paradox (especially if you don't adjust for geography effectively)

Thanks, I had to look that one up. It was worth it.

BJ

Ooh it's a good one!
It's one of THOSE things, much like once you properly get Bayes Theorem, which makes you realise how crucial/important/influential any given sample set is (for good or ill)...
.. "something something" cars...
to bring us back on track (or the road really )

[chas49]

I didn't bother with a claim either, and never reported the accident.

And how did you answer the question on your next renewal which said (something like) "Have you been involved in any accident (whether or not you were at fault) in the last 5 years"?

[Lootman]

I didn't bother with a claim either, and never reported the accident.

And how did you answer the question on your next renewal which said (something like) "Have you been involved in any accident (whether or not you were at fault) in the last 5 years"?

This was around 1988 so I have no idea if that question was even asked. As best I recall my insurance routinely renewed.

But as I said, with no injury, no police involvement, no damage beyond my own vehicle and no action by the other party, the collision had no external impact. No claim was made and since I absorbed the loss myself I viewed the accident as not meaningfully reportable. And I have had no accident since then.

In fact the collision was fairly minor but the car was written off because the radiator was punctured and then the engine overheated and seized, making the car not worth repairing. And I have had no accident since then.

[CliffEdge]

The objective of the capitalist is to sell you absolutely nothing at the highest price possible.