Beware of claims where you were not at fault by PaulT

In the paper an article about the actress Sheila Hancocks insurance premium going through the roof. She had been involved in two accidents that were not her fault. However, the company, Admiral, that raised her premium stated that:

she had been involved in two accidents that were not her fault, it took the view she was more likely to be involved in a crash and make a claim in the future.

A spokesman said 'from our claims data we have found that customers involved in a non-fault incident often go on to make a fault claim in the future'

What's the difference between and insurance man and an estate agent - none, it's the same old bullsh*t

"Don't think of them as problems, think of them as opportunities."
"OK, I think I've hit an insurmountable opportunity!"


Posted 27 Jun 2015, 09:22 #1 

User avatar
Yes. This has been an issue for a while. Basically it's a way of making no claims bonus no longer relevant. Yes, we know you have protected no claims, so your no claims has remained the same. But we've put the price up anyway. Because we can. Mind you, Sheila Hancocks's reasoning was no better: 'it's because they rip actors and actresses off. Sorry but they do that to everyone. Because they can.

BTW Admiral will also wriggle if you don't declare all the optional extras on a car as modifications. Even though when you do, they don't record them properly. Because they can.

Posted 27 Jun 2015, 18:52 #2 

User avatar
Same thing happened to me when my first Rover 75 was "T boned".

I argued the case and won.

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website

Posted 27 Jun 2015, 19:04 #3