Have I imagined that not too long ago NCD was a reflection of the risk you represented to your current, or prospective, insurers that resulted in a discount on the full premium? It was your portable record of fault-free driving. When did it become a certificate that only one insurer could hold for one vehicle? I recently bought another car and there's no way I can use my NCD to insure it as insurers are in league with each other saying that if one is using my NCD, no one else can give me the discount and they have to charge me full premium - is this an ugly new departure in carving our cash from us, or have I been in a deluded stupor? I rather fear that's probably the answer! The same companies that allow us to have several bikes on a single policy all covered by one NCD and one driving record, will not now allow us to have more than one car under those same terms. It makes no difference were I to insure two cars with my present insurer who holds my 9 years' NCD as they made it clear that the NCD would only apply to one of the cars. Even on a multi-car policy !! This is surely a rip off, does a driver who has proven to be a low risk only represent a low risk exclusively on a single car - the one for which the policy is active? This is clearly not the case as proven by the fact that that NCD is transferable to another car at the end of the policy, or to another insurer, so there seems to be no justification whatsoever for limiting drivers to a single discount - we used to be able to insure several cars all with the same level of NCD discount with different insurers - when did that stop? I appreciate that they are businesses and desire to make profits for their shareholders etc.. but in these days where we are led to believe that a moral code has swept through corporate boadrooms and they all sing the mantra of 'Treating the customer fairly' is this avaricious money grabbing at odds with that trend? Does anyone else feel we are being cheated by what seems to be the most despicable industry? One where we are forced by legislation to hand over not insignificant lumps of cash while they seem to be able to invent, vary and ignore terms and conditions as they see fit? Or am I alone in this?
I think this has always been the case. SWMBO has two NCBs for two cars and I have one car NCB and one bike NCB, all built separately. Two of those policies are with Direct Line who give a discount for another DL policy holder in the same household being a named driver. I would have thought that a multicar policy would have just one NCB, but that would violate the rule of heads they win and tails you lose. If there is a second named driver on a multicar policy covering two vehicles the overall risk is similar to two individual policies.
The downside is that you can only have NCD on one policy (single vehicle or multi vehicle) and not use it for multiple policies. The upside is that if you have a claim, your NCD on the policy you claim on is the ony one affected. Although you do have to inform your insurer of any claim, any NCD on a different policy is not at risk. I have 4 bikes and insure them all individually with seperate NCD. Although I'm at the point when I buy my next bike I may look into a multi bike policy again for run of the mill stuff and insure the exotic stuf individually. I got burned a few years ago when all of my bikes were on a multi bike policy, I then bought a 1098S and took off an Aprilia Tuono Factory. The policy doubled overnight and I had nowhere to go. I've always insured them individually since then, it's much easier to shop about.
they fuck you one way or another. i have classic car which i had to insure on the separate policy to daily car, now a year later when i went to renew they told me that i dont earn NCB on classic car policy and my premium doubled (i didnt claim at all in the first year with them) go figure... now i got one more classic car and apparently i have to insure it yet on another policy! doing my head in...
True, you will keep the other NCDs, but claim on any one policy, and all of the other premiums will go up at renewal time, before any NCD is applied!
All of these trading practices would be, if not acceptable, but less infuriating but for two things. 1. It is illegal to not insure a vehicle you use, making "customers" into victims of extortion. 2. The insurance companies, taken together, operate in a trading model that is not inconsistent with an anti-competitive, highly illegal (but nearly impossible to prove) cartel system. There are behaviours in the trade, masquerading as products of the "actuarial table process" but which are a better fit with anti-trust practices: a. Higher prices - cartel members can all raise prices together, which reduces the elasticity of demand for any single member. We've all seen this come renewal time. b. Lack of transparency - members may agree to hide prices or withhold information, such as the hidden charges in credit card transactions. How do premiums double when there is no change in circumstances? c. Restricted output - members may agree to limit output onto the market, as with OPEC and its oil quotas. Difficulty in getting premium quotes for certain vehicles, certain areas, certain people plus non-transferable NCDs. d. Carving up a market - cartel members may collectively agree to break up a market into regions or territories and not compete in each other's territory. You try to renew with ABC Insurance, whom you've been with for nine years, only to be told that your premium will double. You advise them that you will be doing half your normal annual mileage, thus reducing the risk, and then receive a quote that is even higher than the renewal quote you originally received. You then go to XYZ Insurance, who quotes you pretty much the premium you expected to pay to ABC Insurance, based upon last year's (+ inflationary increase). This forces you to move from one insurance provider to another one. (This is a true story by the way, I have changed the names of the Insurance providers involved to protect the complicit). Please. Persuade me that motor insurance in the UK is not a state-sponsored cartel. If you convince me, maybe my blood pressure will reduce to a healthier level.
Yep, I had a claim on my company car and had to declare it for 5 years on my motorbike policies. It added cost to the premium, although my NCD was not affected.
Say I live in postcode AB1 and my insured vehicle is an Xyz. During the past year it just happens that three other Xyz's have been stolen or written off in the AB1 area. The risk as perceived by insurance companies has thus become greater, and this change in circumstances (which is wholly unknown to me, of course) results in my premium doubling.
C'mon Pete. That's like explaining a magic trick by saying that the rabbit simply magically appears. Vehicles have always been stolen from postcode AB1. They always will be, too. If not last year, then this year, or next year. The idea that premiums have to go up because of some perceived increased risk based upon what has gone before in the previous twelve months is no more than a magician's explanation of one of his own tricks. You might as well say that, because the winning lottery numbers have featured the number "39" more times than any other single number has come up, you must always have "39" as one of your picks to have a decent chance of winning. It sounds plausible ... but it really is faulty logic. OK, say that statistically speaking postcode AB1 has had a theft or a spate of thefts in the past 12 months. Is it more, or less likely, that people living in that postcode will begin to take better security precautions? That the local police will crack down on crime in that area? Is it becoming more, or less likely, that thefts will occur in the area in the next 12 months, for whatever reason? Like I say, the idea that premiums go up based upon historical analysis of perceived increased crime activity in your area is seemingly plausible ... apparently based upon sound statistical analysis ... and in actuality, is as firmly grounded in reality as water-divining and advanced spoon-bending. Give or take.
I guess that depends upon whether insurance is an individual risk or a collective risk. If you have a claim, or more cars of the type you drive are involved in claims, your premium goes up. If an insurance company has a bad year for claims generally and sees a drop in profit would it put up premiums for everyone, even the who have been accident free, next year ? I suspect they would. It is both an individual risk and a collective risk, another heads they win tails you lose situation surely ?
We write models and analytics behind the risk and Pete1950 has the crux of it. Well, a dimension. Insurers are increasingly data-driven; using machine learning and AI combined with blended customer, crime, geographic and insurer data to determine risk and premium. Im not defending any side, I suffer too.
Again, I understand the methodology. It makes a kind of sense, in a prima facie fashion but it is still misdirection - sophistry and window dressing used to justify increased charging in a system that is little more than government-sponsored extortion. Let me show you another example of apparently self-consistent statistical misdirection. The company I work for charges the customer a flat rate for IT support. Say that figure is £1m per annum. There is provision for a rebate if the number of support calls in a year drops below a certain low level (which will never happen) and also for a surcharge if the number of calls rises above a threshold (this will never happen, either). A "bright spark" within my customer's organisation has worked out that if there are 10,000 calls in a year, each call could be said to cost £100. Simple mathematics. Useful when the time comes for negotiating contracts but useless for all other purposes. However, this bright spark regularly broadcasts to staff that the customer should limit the number of support calls made in an effort to cut costs. I believe the rationale is, if each call costs £100, if they halve the calls, they can halve the cost ... so if only 5000 support calls are made, the contract only costs £500k instead of £1m. It only takes a moment's consideration to see that this exercise is complete tosh. The IT support cost is £1m. Flat. By halving the number of calls, hypothetically the cost per call doubles from £100 to £200. The customer would then get into a lather over "the increased cost of IT support". Again, this is rubbish. The cost per call is irrelevant. It is incomplete mathematics but a complete misapprehension of the financial implications of raising a support call. I'm not saying that the insurance economics model resembles that of IT support. They are very different animals. However, the sleight-of-hand application of actuarial tables that is used to justify the mismanagement of motor insurance in the UK relies upon similar facile interpretations of mathematical models.
i went from a ph (perth) to a pa (paisley) post code. my insurance nearly doubled to over.£600 for the two. yet i am further from any civilization than i have ever been (about 90mls by road from paisley) and only twenty mls from where i lived previously. it wont be getting renewed this time. i can pop them on my work insurance for no extra. get some brake down cover. bish bosh £500+saved.
Few years back I went to the pub, had a few drinks and got a taxi home. When I came to collect the car the next day somebody had smashed the rear bumper, must have hit it pretty hard. I was undecided if it was worth claiming as i'd lose my NCD and have to pay excess and have a claim against me, but I notified the insurance company while i got quotes just in case I wanted to claim and got a police reference number (they were useless by the way). In the end I didn't claim and fixed it myself. Later that year I went to insure the bike and Swinton came back demanding an increase as I'd had an accident. I explained the situation when I finally realised they were talking about my car but would not budge. For the next 5 years i had to state on all bike and car policies i'd had an accident with no claim amount even though I was about 5 miles from the car at the time! Not a happy bunny.
The idea that there is an increase in crime in your area that leads to your insurer wanting to double your premium - but another insurer who doesn't know you from Adam will offer you a competitive quote - leads me to believe that there is a hidden mechanism at work. On a slightly different tack, has anyone got any experience of trying to get non-comprehensive insurance for their vehicle? I haven't been able to obtain any quotes that were even 10% lower than that for a comprehensive policy, they all somehow work out to be the roughly the same for each type of cover (I even received a higher quote for 3PF&F than the one for comprehensive cover one time). Is it still possible to get 3rd-party only cover? This is the only coverage you are legally obliged to obtain. If the difference between 3PO cover and FC premiums is negligible, which I suspect to be the case ... why does a crime wave in your area make such a huge difference to your FC policy come renewal time? None of this adds up.
Following my motorcycle accident last year my van insurance doubled (when asked, due to my bike claim), despite the fact that I hold multiple NCB on vans, cars and bikes (all protected)!! R32 car insurance went up 50% as did the sportline and Merc. Bastards all of them. Just 1 claim in 32 years! On another note some insurers will mirror your NCB from another vehicle, say 9yrs NCB on one they may let you have all or just 3-5 years on a second vehicle.
