Bumped van. Keeping you all informed of insurance progress and repair!

[Brian Kirby]

Mel E - 2006-12-17 12:57 PM Brian, I'm afraid you can protest all you like about this, and wish it were otherwise, but it isn't. Protected NCD ONLY protects the discount you get from the total premium (though the calculation is usually a bit more complicated than a straight discount). It does not protect the premium itself. If you have an accident that causes your own insurer substantial loss, then the next year's premium will be loaded, though you will still get the same discount. This is completely normal practice in the motor insurance industry and things like 'I've been claims free for 40 years', 'I've never had a conviction', and so on have no impact whatsoever. It's why I gave up on the extra premium for protected NCD some time ago. What you get for what you pay isn't worth a candle. With most insurers (and it will be in your contract or policy), you do not lose the whole of your NCD and go back to 0% if you have an unrecoverable loss, but usually step back 2 discount steps. Often it's from 60% to 40% or therabouts. So what are you paying the protection fee for?

As a sequel to this: by chance, my car insurance renewal invitation arrived today.  While querying a few of the details, I asked for clarification on the above point.  The advice I recieved was that the premium should not, in the normal course of events, be loaded as described above in respect of a single claim.  The answer was, as ever, a bit guarded because "there can be no hard and fast rules as cases are taken on their merits etc etc".  However, there was some surprise expressed, without having benefit of the full facts, at the loading being imposed as it had been. 

Further surprise was expressed at the concept of automatically loading premiums following an accident, so that, to all intents and purposes, the cost benefit of protecting the NCD was negated.  My informant admitted to having made a claim last year, for which they had not been held liable and, having protected NCD, finding to their surprise that their renewal premium had actually fallen slightly.  It therefore seems that there may be more variability in the way protected NCD policies are interpreted by the various companies, than is at first sight apparent.

Is this just another chapter of the old story that things which appear cheapest, do not always turn out to be so, when all the factors are taken into account?  Something, perhaps, to check when renewing?  Interesting, though.

[Mike Chapman]

Hello Brian,

 

Interesting comments from your informant.

 

I have heard of premiums reducing after a claim before. Once when the insured added his wife as named driver on the policy and another time when the company reduced premiums due to a low incidence of claims in a particular post code area due to the moving of a county boundary.

 

What you are referring to however is a slight reduction in premium without any changes to the policy terms. Was there a change in the NCD offered (eg. 65% to 70%)?

 

As has been said it is worth checking the policy terms, especially amendments to cover and voluntary excesses, at renewal.

 

Happy Christmas to you and your family,

 

Regards,

 

Mike.

[Brian Kirby]

Hello Mike

Short answer is that I have written all I know.  I didn't press for more detail, as the comment was purely voluntary and it seemed a bit invasive to do so.

Thanks for the good wishes, and mine to you and yours.

[chris]

Well everyone, the Assessor has been and passed the estimate. Once my dealer receives written/faxed confirmation they will probably start repairs next Wednesday.

 

My view now on the insurance renewal debate has to be "wait and see". As people say you can always move around but, I have always looked for the best all round broker rather than the cheapest. If I am still happy with Safeguard I will stay .

 

Happy Christmas everyone and hopefully we will have our van for the New Year.

 

Chris

[messerschmitt owner]

Bill - 2006-12-21 11:34 AM

 

There's another wrinkle to all this: an organisation called MIAFTR [Motor Insurance Anti-Fraud & Theft Register], which is owned by ABI [Assoc of British Insurers).

 

My daughter was recently rear-ended while driving my old (E-reg) Citroen BX. Damage was minimal - the plastic bumper was boken, but the body panelling underneath was untouched.

 

Clearly the other driver was at fault, but I elected not to claim - at this stage anyway. Nevertheless, her insurers have decided to declare my car an insurance write-off to MIAFTR, on the grounds that a new bumper would cost more than their assessment of what the car is worth.

 

I'm still looking into all this, but it seems that it is going to be difficult or impossible to renew the insurance when the present policy expires, which will mean that a perfectly good car will have to be scrapped. I have also so far hit a brick wall with all attempts to have this entry removed.

 

I stress that all this has been done, not by my insurers, but by the other driver's insurers.

 

Consider that many motorhomes are old but low mileage. If you are involved in some trivial fender-bender what is to prevent an unscrupulous insurer from declaring it a write-off?

 

there are different stages of write off - from Cat A - vehicle to be crushed, no useable parts - to Cat D - vehicle repairable but uneconomic to do so. Yours will be a Cat D, in which case, you should claim off the other person, then buy back the salvage at its scrap value and continue to use it as is (or buy a secondhand bumper and fit it yourself). It's a bit of a hassle - but for a £100 Citroen, is it worth it. They're great cars but can be picked up for bargain prices now - yours is simply uneconomic to repair (even at the standard insurance repair rate of £27-35 p/h), esecially as they would fit a new £250 bumper and not a secondhand £20 one.

 

Quite frankly, although you should be put into the position you were before the bump, your excess is most likely more than your car is worth!

 

I Know that for cars, the insurance rate is only about £30 p/h as, when my Smart Roadster was rammed, I took the car to the authorised Mercedes (and Porsche) repairer for the SW and that was all they charged insurance companies (even when working on things like Mercedes SLRs).

[messerschmitt owner]

Bill - 2006-12-21 11:34 AM

 

There's another wrinkle to all this: an organisation called MIAFTR [Motor Insurance Anti-Fraud & Theft Register], which is owned by ABI [Assoc of British Insurers).

 

My daughter was recently rear-ended while driving my old (E-reg) Citroen BX. Damage was minimal - the plastic bumper was boken, but the body panelling underneath was untouched.

 

Clearly the other driver was at fault, but I elected not to claim - at this stage anyway. Nevertheless, her insurers have decided to declare my car an insurance write-off to MIAFTR, on the grounds that a new bumper would cost more than their assessment of what the car is worth.

 

I'm still looking into all this, but it seems that it is going to be difficult or impossible to renew the insurance when the present policy expires, which will mean that a perfectly good car will have to be scrapped. I have also so far hit a brick wall with all attempts to have this entry removed.

 

I stress that all this has been done, not by my insurers, but by the other driver's insurers.

 

Consider that many motorhomes are old but low mileage. If you are involved in some trivial fender-bender what is to prevent an unscrupulous insurer from declaring it a write-off?

 

there are different stages of write off - from Cat A - vehicle to be crushed, no useable parts - to Cat D - vehicle repairable but uneconomic to do so. Yours will be a Cat D, in which case, you should claim off the other person, then buy back the salvage at its scrap value and continue to use it as is (or buy a secondhand bumper and fit it yourself). It's a bit of a hassle - but for a £100 Citroen, is it worth it. They're great cars but can be picked up for bargain prices now - yours is simply uneconomic to repair (even at the standard insurance repair rate of £27-35 p/h), esecially as they would fit a new £250 bumper and not a secondhand £20 one.

 

Quite frankly, although you should be put into the position you were before the bump, your excess is most likely more than your car is worth!

 

I Know that for cars, the insurance rate is only about £30 p/h as, when my Smart Roadster was rammed, I took the car to the authorised Mercedes (and Porsche) repairer for the SW and that was all they charged insurance companies (even when working on things like Mercedes SLRs).

[Bill]

MssershmidtOwner: Thanks for your reply - in the past few weeks I have become an involuntary expert in the mattter of MIAFTR write-off clasifications!

 

As far as the law is concerned on this particuar incident, the driver of the other car is resposible for putting my car back n to the condition it as in before the accident. And if that happens to cost more than the car is worth, then so be it.

 

Where she gets the money from is up to her, if she chooses to claim from her insurer that is her business.

 

The point of my posting was not the nitty gritty of who pays for what, but the fact that an insurance company can choose to make a vehicle virtually uninsurable, and their is very little recourse.

 

This doesn't matter too much (except as a matter of principle) on an old car of little value such as my BX, but a 10-year-old motorhome could easily be worth £10,000. What would it become worth if it was effectively blacklisted as being uninsurable?

 

In thory, if incorect information is stored on a UK database, then the Data Protection Act says it must be corrected. I have discovered that the Data Protection Act has about as many teeth as my great-grandmother.

 

[chris]

Just to let you all know that the van was picked up a week ago with an excellent job done on it.

 

Everything ran like clockwork and no hastle. Safeguard and 3As at Pencader, Carmarthen sorted things out for us and we are back using the van

 

 

Will promise to get back to you all if my policy increases in October.

 

Chris

[chris]

 

 

CONCLUSION :-D :-D :-D :-D

 

NEW POLICY QUOTE has arrived nearly a year on :-D

 

 

Well I promised to reply and this is my new quote from Safeguard after the accident costing £2003.

 

Nov 2006 £415.44 (Includes £20 legal protection)

Nov 2007 £437.38 (includes £25 legal protection - gone up £5)

 

The actual increase in the policy without legal insurance is £21.84 which is no shock whatsoever considering the warnings about after effects of the summer floods on policies.

 

I have now kept my promise to keep you all informed and this is now in black and white for all to see. I for one am glad to be with Safeguard and am one very satisfied customer as the policy is the best I can get.

 

Cheapest is not always best when you spend thousands on your pride and joy.

 

Hope this helps anyone researching what company to go with.

 

Safeguard still has my vote.

 

 

:-D :-D

[Brian Kirby]

Good for you, Chris.  Except that it would obviously have been better had it not happened at all, you have emerged happy with both the insurer and the repair, and little, if anything, out of pocket.  Now, why can't it always be that simple?

[Guest Tracker]

Brian Kirby - 2007-11-03 4:53 PM

 

Good for you, Chris. Except that it would obviously have been better had it not happened at all, you have emerged happy with both the insurer and the repair, and little, if anything, out of pocket. Now, why can't it always be that simple?

 

 

Having worked for the Pru for some years from the 70's to the 90's, my experience was that the vast majority of claims were dealt with quickly and fairly by the vast majority of insurance companies.

 

The trouble was that you hardly ever heard another word from the policyholder about the good experiences - and this is as it should be of course as no insurer is entitled to undue praise for honouring the contract swiftly and fairly.

 

However, for those very few for whom it went pear shaped for whatever reason, and by no means always the insurers fault, I used to find it very difficult to get the wheels back on track sometime.

 

For some unknown reason certain insurance claims clerks, loss adjusters, repair garages, parts suppliers and uncle Joe Cobbley and all could all be incredibly insensitive, lose the ability to communicate and become thoroughly uncooperative at times.

 

And those mainly are the claims you get to hear about, which is why I am damn glad to be out of the industry now!

[michele]

chris - 2007-11-03 4:16 PM

 

 

 

CONCLUSION :-D :-D :-D :-D

 

NEW POLICY QUOTE has arrived nearly a year on :-D

 

 

Well I promised to reply and this is my new quote from Safeguard after the accident costing £2003.

 

Nov 2006 £415.44 (Includes £20 legal protection)

Nov 2007 £437.38 (includes £25 legal protection - gone up £5)

 

The actual increase in the policy without legal insurance is £21.84 which is no shock whatsoever considering the warnings about after effects of the summer floods on policies.

 

I have now kept my promise to keep you all informed and this is now in black and white for all to see. I for one am glad to be with Safeguard and am one very satisfied customer as the policy is the best I can get.

 

Cheapest is not always best when you spend thousands on your pride and joy.

 

Hope this helps anyone researching what company to go with.

 

Safeguard still has my vote.

 

 

:-D :-D

Get my vote as well ;-)