The OH was parked legally and some poor chap misjudged and clipped her bumper on a relatively new car and did the right thing, left his details etc..

OH wants it repaired by Honda … and amazingly she has a NON colour coded bumper…
The guy would have been happy to pay for the bumper … which is £200 and fitting but Honda are quoting for another £800…. including respraying (the non coded bumper) and more under stably a sensor check (£99) on the sensors that are currently all working and nowhere near the site …

The guy who bumped her understandably doesn’t want to pay the Honda £1000 so insurance notified and he’s accepted total responsibility (which seems a no brainer as she was legally parked at the time in a designated parking space) – Honda are claiming it takes 3 days to change a bumper…. quite how I have no idea as I could probably do it myself in 30 mins… and the sensor check must take all of 30 seconds… and I still have no idea what they need to respray!

So notified insurance who then recoded his as her being involved in an accident… (which she obviously wasn’t) and a new insurance quote for her insurance due next month +25% …

Her insurance are also encouraging her to claim off them and use their repair and then she MIGHT get a replacement car???

Overall pissed off that this is now costing us an extra £100 (based on the quote) and the inference from her insurers seems like his insurance won’t pay for a replacement car… so another 3-days??? rental??

I’m not even certain she is making a “claim” it seems to me its the guy who bumped her that is making a claim.

So notified insurance who then recoded his as her being involved in an accident… (which she obviously wasn’t) and a new insurance quote for her insurance due next month +25% …

If someone bumped her car then she was involved in an accident. Therefor statistically more likely to be involved in an accident again so insurance goes up.

Honda are claiming it takes 3 days to change a bumper…. quite how I have no idea as I could probably do it myself in 30 mins

Why didn’t you do that then rather than going through insurance?

Have you spoken to the Insurance Co?
I suffered a rear ender (ohh err) earlier this year and my car was written off. I argued no fault with my insurance company and they accepted. No change in premium.

Gary M – not helpful comment, are you just bored today?

Presume OH can’t be convinced to take the £200 and leave the shysters insurers and Honda out of it? Or too late for that now?

Gary M – not helpful comment, are you just bored today?

I would say 1st comment was answering the question, 2nd was an observation. Are we not allowed them now?

If you’re involved in a no fault collision then in general your premium will go up.

If someone bumped her car then she was involved in an accident. Therefor statistically more likely to be involved in an accident again so insurance goes up.

How is she statistically any more likely to be involved in an accident again than any other driver who has never been hit before? Please explain as that makes no sense to me given its not her fault, she was parked legally, and she wasn’t in the car at the time?

The whole car insurance market is bullshit at times. Went in to battle mode with our insurers after Mrs WS was run in to a few weeks aho from behind whilst maintaining position in her lane doing all of 5 mph. Our insurers immediately stated it would go 50/50 and that they were not willing to do any leg work in checking for cctv etc. Thankfully matey who ran in to her fessed up too but like you we’ve already been told our renewal is likely to go up.

 Therefor statistically more likely to be involved in an accident again so insurance goes up.

And using those stats is also bullshit as we’ve managed 17 years without a single incident, why are we suddenly a danger to be on the road!!!

Going by personal experience. I was rear ended at a set of traffic lights, handbrake on etc. My insurance premium went up, although not by £100, and that was the explanation.

Racket all formulated on the premise that someone else is paying. And ultimately that someone else is you. Definitely worth arguing but they’ll probably use all sorts of weasel terms like your Mrs’ elevated risk as demonstrated by her use of public car park spaces.

As for increased risk due to previous accident my simple statistical mind says either same risk (no or very indistinct correlation between two non-fault incidents, therefore no change) or reduced (this happens to everyone X times in a lifetime and she’s now at X-1).

My parked car was hit by a bus a couple of years ago (and the driver left the scene without notifying anyone but that’s for a different thread) and it was all dealt with through insurance. There was no change in premium as the accident was nothing to do with me. I suspect your insurance company are trying it on with you. If they do increase the premium change insurer as soon as possible.

or reduced (this happens to everyone X times in a lifetime and she’s now at X-1).

My thoughts exactly

I’d like to see the odds from an insurance company on being involved in a no fault accident

I’d like to then see the odds of being involved in 2 or more no fault accidents over the same period of time

I’m going to bet that the latter has greater odds

Insurance companies are thieves.

I ran into a beemer at the approach to a roundabout a while back. Looking at both cars I couldn’t really see any damage to either bumper. The other party wanted to avoid insurers if possible but also wanted their car checked out for any damage that was not apparent. I was happy to go along with that so awaited a phone call.

The phone call duly arrived a few days later. Their local beemer dealer quoted £1300. I notified my insurers and left it to them to sort out. It seemed a crazy amount when I couldn’t see any damage, but that’s insurance repairs for you. Ages later I did notice a bent bracket holding my radiator grill which I replaced for less than a tenner. Maybe their car was hiding some expensive damage under the bumper, which deforms and springs back.

My insurance did increase at the next year but that was probably just the general increases that have been happening recently.

How is she statistically any more likely to be involved in an accident again than any other driver who has never been hit before?

Because that’s what the statistics gathered from decades of insurance claims reveal.

Please explain as that makes no sense to me given its not her fault, she was parked legally, and she wasn’t in the car at the time?

Actuarial tables have been created, factoring in mind boggling amounts of data, collected over a very long time, regarding all aspects of car insurance claims.
Cross referencing hundreds of different details relating to the circumstances of the claims.

These are used to assess relative risk, and create a premium based on those risks.

Basically they are assessing the future risk, based on massive amounts of data relating to the past.

I used to deal with this sort of stuff for a major insurer, and while it may be incredibly boring, it’s certainly VERY thorough.

I’d like to see the odds from an insurance company on being involved in a no fault accident

I’d like to then see the odds of being involved in 2 or more no fault accidents over the same period of time

I’m going to bet that the latter has greater odds

If I still worked there, I could show you, but I don’t.

But past claims data shows that you would be wrong and you would lose your bet.

Insurance companies are thieves.

Possibly, but not because of this particular thing.

How is she statistically any more likely to be involved in an accident again than any other driver who has never been hit before? Please explain as that makes no sense to me given its not her fault, she was parked legally, and she wasn’t in the car at the time?

This incident proves that the car gets parked in places where people misjudge and clip other people’s bumpers.

This incident proves that the car gets parked in places where people misjudge and clip other people’s bumpers.

like a supermarket carpark then? I park in these as well, and plenty other places where folks get accidently clipped. As does pretty much anyone who has ever driven a car.

I’m calling it as I see it…a scam..

I used to deal with this sort of stuff for a major insurer, and while it may be incredibly boring, it’s certainly thorough.

Risk modelling is an element that influences insurance premiums but the predominant influence on the cost / inflation of the premiums themselves are the scams perpetuated by both claimants and the industry itself. Scammers will always exist and can be convicted for fraud, but the insurance ‘repairs’ industry needs a flippin good sort out.

I don’t know exact circumstances of the OP’s case, but for the sake of argument let’s assume her car was parked on the street outside her house when it was hit by somebody driving past. My car is parked outside my house and hasn’t been hit. Just using that information suggests that you are more likely to have your car hit parked outside the OP’s house than outside mine. Hence there is a greater chance of it happening again.

Wrong conclusion. The correct conclusion is that you don’t understand statistics. If we assume that all such events are completely random (they’re not, see above for that argument), then the odds of being involved in 2 incidents over a certain time period are indeed much higher than the odds of being involved in one. However if you’ve already been involved in one then the odds of having another are completely unchanged.

Using the example of a truly random event, tossing a coin, the odds of tossing two coins and getting two heads is 1/4. However if you’ve tossed the first coin and got a head, if you then toss the second coin the odds of getting two heads is now 1/2, not 1/4 – tossing the first head doesn’t make tossing another less likely.

So notified insurance who then recoded his as her being involved in an accident… (which she obviously wasn’t) and a new insurance quote for her insurance due next month +25% …

I was basically rammed head-on by a woman who didn’t notice our large T5 coming towards her last year. Her insurance company disputed liability, which was ridiculous, but meant my premium went up on renewal a couple of months later. The increase was refunded to me once it was designated as ‘no fault’ on my part. I’d check if the increased premium is refundable.

The whole insurance thing is nuts. Our T5 was written off on the basis that there could be invisible damage to the gearbox, which wouldn’t be apparent until it was repaired and running again. Because insurance insists on brand new OE parts, that would mean a VAG gearbox at extortionate money. A recon box would be £1,000.

In the event we bought the salvage and had the van rebuilt and there was no damage to the gearbox at all. So its as technically written off because of a non-existent problem. All very Orwellian. The whole thing is a massive racket designed to funnel money into the pockets of the insurance companies and their designated repairers.

like a supermarket carpark then? I park in these as well, and plenty other places where folks get accidently clipped. As does pretty much anyone who has ever driven a car.

Yep, and if you claimed every time you came back to a trolley ding, or a dooring dent, or someone scraped your bumper, guess what? Your premiums would start to go up….

Compared to someone who only parks their car at home on a driveway or, even better, in a garage and doesn’t ever leave it in a supermarket car park, you are clearly at a much higher risk of a claim. Your example is a pretty good example of the point you are railing against.

like a supermarket carpark then? I park in these as well, and plenty other places where folks get accidently clipped. As does pretty much anyone who has ever driven a car.[/quote]

Sure – but some people park in them far more often than other people. Some people go to the supermarket when it’s very busy and there are impatient idiots driving around, some go when it’s quiet and park well away from anybody else. If you look at the overall statistics you’ll find such differences in behaviour make a difference to the probability of having your car bumped, and shock horror having had your car bumped in a supermarket suggests that you probably belong to a higher risk group, and so you’re more likely to have another incident.

The increase was refunded to me once it was designated as ‘no fault’ on my part. I’d check if the increased premium is refundable.

I had similar and then ins co denied all knowledge of saying they would refund the extra premium once claim was finalised 👿

+1 edlong and aracer

I’ve had experience of a non-fault collision increasing our premiums (mine because I was the ‘driver’ of the parked car at the time and my wife’s as it was her car, and her insurance) and, more recently, having no effect on our premiums (my car/insurance).

Is it possible that the increase is a temporary loss of NCD until they are confident that the claim is settled as non-fault, at which point it will revert to a lower amount?

Strictly speaking your right is to be put back in the position you would have been in had the collision no occurred so, if you have other costs associated (eg increased insurance costs) then that is a claimable loss. Whether you get anything on that basis will depend on how reasonable each insurer is and how well you present the argument, I suspect.

The racket part is the repair costs – three days to fit a bumper, including “spraying” a non-coloured one? It’s not the insurance companies that are the thieves, is it?

The 25% bump just sounds like it’s because the claim is still open to me. Once it’s all closed down and confirmed as Non-Fault I doubt it would be as bad (but will still go up to a degree)

So notified insurance who then recoded his as her being involved in an accident… (which she obviously wasn’t) and a new insurance quote for her insurance due next month +25% …

If this mean that you actually asked them to revise the renewal price, then there’s an even stronger chance it’s because of the outstanding claim

Thanks nealglover. You explained it far better than I could, or would be bothered to.

My thoughts exactly

I’d like to see the odds from an insurance company on being involved in a no fault accident

I’d like to then see the odds of being involved in 2 or more no fault accidents over the same period of time

I’m going to bet that the latter has greater odds

Insurance companies are thieves. But if that were true, then someone could set up an insurance firm offering discounts for those already involved in a no fault accident, and steal all that business. The fact nobody does suggests either a deep seated conspiracy OR their data backs up their hypothesis that as a complete population those who have had a no fault accident in the last few years are more likely to have another. Why this is would be really interesting but might be their attitude to risk, how defensively they drive (or park etc). Not being at fault does not always translate to there having been nothing that could have been done to make an accident less likely. And potentially having just got your car back all shiney and new and having had a positive experience you might be inclined to claim for some scratch or minor car door ding.

don’t be too keen to equate accidents with claims. Whilst the insurance company may tell you that you have to tell them even if you don’t claim. The statistics are likely to be related to claims.

I wouldn’t claim for a car park incident – anything more than a £15 mini-valet is likely be a financial write off. 😆

Sure – but some people park in them far more often than other people. Some people go to the supermarket when it’s very busy and there are impatient idiots driving around, some go when it’s quiet and park well away from anybody else. If you look at the overall statistics you’ll find such differences in behaviour make a difference to the probability of having your car bumped, and shock horror having had your car bumped in a supermarket suggests that you probably belong to a higher risk group, and so you’re more likely to have another incident.

The point about outside a house is more relevant although even that is debatable.
For example hen I go to my mum’s she’s paranoid about a tractor taking the wing mirror off because it happened to my brother… hence whenever I park at my Mum’s its on the drive.

In the same way she I park at the supermarket I have a set of rules… don’t park next to company/white vans… or beaten up cars etc. and avoid busy times.

I’d presume OH would now perhaps also be more cautious… so the risk goes potentially goes down rather than up… the location of local supermarkets is already part of the information on the policy anyway.

Its a bit like saying someone reports having a radio stolen from the car… they don’t replace the radio or make an insurance claim but their premium goes up because they report the theft and criminal damage to the police. They no longer have a radio to get nicked… so surely the chance of having another nicked is zero…

However the fundamental point of this is that it’s a no fault claim so whether the risk of another of these happening goes up or down it’s not relevant to her insurance. Her insurers aren’t paying a penny (and the admin cost of logging this is their own invention/rule)[/b]

Most specifically she wasn’t even in the car so it’s not even that she could have somehow contributed through her driving…

Compared to someone who only parks their car at home on a driveway or, even better, in a garage

But that is a pure leisure driver … surely the highest risk group .. people who go out and drive simply for the sake of it and don’t park at all then drive home?

However most people (by most 99%) drive somewhere and park… be it work, school, supermarket, theatre … wherever as that’s the primary point of a car… going from home to somewhere else.

Actuarial tables have been created, factoring in mind boggling amounts of data, collected over a very long time, regarding all aspects of car insurance claims.
Cross referencing hundreds of different details relating to the circumstances of the claims.

These are used to assess relative risk, and create a premium based on those risks.

Basically they are assessing the future risk, based on massive amounts of data relating to the past.

When insurance companies access this data do they do so with the aim of reducing their profit or increasing it?

The real problem I see is that insures place no value on repeat business as they used to.
It’s a war of numbers and data …

The insurers are a cartel that share personal data to their mutual benefit.
The costumers have a whole load of comparison websites making use of the data and choose company A over their current Company B even if they are happy with company B if it’s £10 different….

Risk modelling is an element that influences insurance premiums but the predominant influence on the cost / inflation of the premiums themselves are the scams perpetuated by both claimants and the industry itself. Scammers will always exist and can be convicted for fraud, but the insurance ‘repairs’ industry needs a flippin good sort out.

Agreed .. the whole process in the Honda body shop is designed for anyone BUT the consumer…
£99 (+vat) for a automatic check…. FFS they plug in the computer and it self diagnoses.
£250 (from memory) to respray a non colour coded bumper????

3 days to fit a bumper ???

Were the lights on red, amber or green ???
Serious question as if they were on green I can perhaps see why…. not that you can’t stop anyway (i.e. you could stall) but this seems more open to why you might represent a risk to YOUR insurers… a bit like if it was parked outside the house as aracer says….

If someone bumped her car then she was involved in an accident.

No she wasn’t… she wasn’t in the car… and until material damage is established there hasn’t been an accident either.

This really begs the question though as to why her insurers have opened a claim when she was merely informing them. Just to illustrate I’m driving along the motorway and get home and find a stone chip has hit my car and scratched the paint… I get out the touch up and cover it over… have I been in an accident?

Does that change of the stone chip came of a car in front and I know it’s registration? Should they who wouldn’t even know be obligated to inform their insurers? Should I notify my insurers that there was a paint chip and I’m just notifying them and its not an accident and I might only have 3rd party anyway?

She’s not making a claim with HER insurers .. she was simply informing them.

[quoteI]s it possible that the increase is a temporary loss of NCD until they are confident that the claim is settled as non-fault, at which point it will revert to a lower amount?

Strictly speaking your right is to be put back in the position you would have been in had the collision no occurred so, if you have other costs associated (eg increased insurance costs) then that is a claimable loss. Whether you get anything on that basis will depend on how reasonable each insurer is and how well you present the argument, I suspect.[/quote]

Yep the email was automated but whether that’s because it’s due for renewal or due to the “claim” I don’t know.

Fundamentally however you hit the nail on the head….
3rd party insurance is compulsory…. so surely the whole point of that is the blameless party suffers no financial impact?

But if that were true, then someone could set up an insurance firm offering discounts for those already involved in a no fault accident, and steal all that business.

Based on my phone (and unsolicited calls) it appears there is more money to be made suing the company’s for no fault … now perhaps I understand the point of those “Our data say’s you have been involved in a no fault accident” calls… except the ones that have called are fundamentally dishonest… based on the answer is no I haven’t… but of course it’s semantics as they mean “if we ring 100 people some have been involved in no fault accidents” but really why turn it over to them?

Maybe their car was hiding some expensive damage under the bumper, which deforms and springs back.

My neighbour forgot to put their handbrake on fully one time they nipped into the house to grab something they had forgotten, it rolled slowly into my brand new 54 plate Ka. I wasn’t aware of this happening so as there was not a scratch on my car or theirs thanks to springy bumpers. They came round a few days later to own up and I went to check my car but there was no damage. Until I opened the boot and couldn’t. The whole boot pan had rippled up pulling the boot and rear 3/4 in with it perfectly! The whole lot only moved about 10mm in total but it was enough for it going from being no damage whatsoever to nearly a total loss. Their car (Y reg Focus) was written off for the foam stuff in the bumper needing replacing and the slam panel being deformed.

Thanks to crumple zones and soft parts for pedestrian safety it doesn’t take much to cause significant damage.

Change insurers and it’ll go back down to what it was before (mine actually came to less).

Change insurers and it’ll go back down to what it was before (mine actually came to less).

That’s doubtless what we’ll do….
I think I’m mainly just annoyed that we pay good money and then get ripped off ..
She was very specific that she didn’t want to open a claim with her insurers but they went ahead and opened one anyway.
I did tell her to do it by email but she insisted on calling as someone told her it’s a legal requirement to “call them”… and of course it doesn’t affect her as I pay her insurance yet had it been me I’d just have pulled the bumper off and fitted a new one… mainly to avoid the hassle

stevextc the question insurers ask is has the driver had a claim in the last x many years .

not has the driver made a claim off their own insurance in the last x many year.s

my wifes got a non fault on her insurance record atm that we are still paying for and means she cannot drive my land rover or the camper van without me paying nearly 10 fold my current insurance. which is a pain in the hoop

Most specifically she wasn’t even in the car so it’s not even that she could have somehow contributed through her driving…

Well you don’t need to be in a car to have a no fault accident that you could have done more to prevent: how close to junctions you park; how close to the kerb; parking opposite obstructions; parking close to other cars; etc… Those are all things that the person who parks the car may have some influence over, as well as the general area where she parks. They may all only have a small influence and she may have been parked impeccably in the most sensible place in the country, but they don’t assess risk on an individual basis they do it on a population as a whole.

and of course it doesn’t affect her as I pay her insurance

This is what you are really annoyed about isn’t it? Perhaps you need to have a discussion with her.

yet had it been me I’d just have pulled the bumper off and fitted a new one… mainly to avoid the hassle

and therefore “statistically” you remain in the “not had any claims” group and are less likely to make future claims (because for minor stuff you won’t bother). A different way of looking at it is your GF is marking herself out as someone who will insist on a £1000 repair for a £200 job, and therefore is a higher liability for any future claim where she is at fault.

I had a motorcycle accident once – car driver pulled out in front of me & fully accepted liability. However I am realistic enough to admit that the manner in which I was riding was partially to blame – hence why those who have had accidents can statistically be more of an insurance risk.
My dad had two total loss claims, neither of them his fault necessarily (once loaned car to a friend who crashed it and once swamped it in a flood) both times insurance paid out but was refused renewal as was considered too high a risk. All different examples to yours but gives you an idea of the way insurance risk and stats can go.

stevextc – Member
That’s doubtless what we’ll do….
I think I’m mainly just annoyed that we pay good money and then get ripped off ..

My renewal premium more than doubled but Confused.com found lots of alternatives for the same or less than before.

You might presume that, but the statistics collected by insurers suggest otherwise – have one no fault claim, you’re more likely to have another.

the location of local supermarkets is already part of the information on the policy anyway.

Sure, but the time of day you visit them and where you park in the car park isn’t.

However the fundamental point of this is that it’s a no fault claim so whether the risk of another of these happening goes up or down it’s not relevant to her insurance. Her insurers aren’t paying a penny (and the admin cost of logging this is their own invention/rule)

Ah, was surprised nobody brought this up before – yes it is relevant, particularly so for an incident where somebody hits a parked car with nobody in it, because there’s a good chance that next time the person will just drive off, so you will have to make a claim on your insurance.

When insurance companies access this data do they do so with the aim of reducing their profit or increasing it?

Name an industry that purposefully does things to minimise profit 🙄
What’s your point caller ?

Actuarial data is consulted to assess risk. That’s it.
Really simple.
It’s not a scam, it’s what insurance companies do to assess their likely exposure.
And it’s accurate too. They spend shedloads of time and money on it as it’s the only reliable way to predict what’s likely to happen in the future.

Technically the insurers collect data and then derive statistics … which might sound like picking at straws but the difference is really everything.

I’m absolutely certain you have had some accidents or near misses in your life .. (not necessarily car related..) and have learned from them and changed your behaviour because that’s fundamentally a big part of life.

Except it’s not predicting WHAT is going to happen… it’s predicting the likelihood and cost of a claim in a sample.

To put it bluntly the insurers don’t CARE what is going to happen, even if they could predict it.. they only care on their exposure.

To apply this I don’t know what metadata this is classified with but I doubt it includes relevant detail because the insurers don’t care about relevant detail.

It’s possible they know the parking is covered by 24hr CCTV I suppose but I strongly suspect that this (for example) hasn’t been factored in because that reduces their dataset by creating more sample…

It’s not a scam, it’s what insurance companies do to assess their likely exposure.

Are you saying that is all they care about?
From a consumer POV it seems more like the most important data that can be derived is how much they can make someone pay.

Don’t they also consult data on how much they can put up the insurance before it forces a customer to change insurers?
Is putting the premium up and sharing that data with other insurers not actually a deliberate incentive to leave insurers completely out of it next time? Not to mention the whole garage/dealer scam.. how can they get away with charging for painting an unpainted bumper?

I really don’t think this is the case… be it supermarket or elsewhere ..
This sort of accident (perhaps outside some areas) is just something that can happen to anyone with the exception of people who never park anywhere but their garage – and hence simply drive for leisure)

Incidentally … the only insurance repair I had was nothing to do with me … I left my car at the Indy and the Europarts truck reversed into my bumper. The dealer claimed against Europarts … so do I need to report this as me being in an accident? Is this something likely to happen again? The Indy said they had never had this happen before… but should that affect my insurance?

Jeez OP you’re like a dog with a bone, let it go