[zltm089]

Originally Posted by wayne71

Car insurance makes my blood boil, it really is a con.

Last year my better half was turning from the main road in to a side street, some pizza delivery guy pulled out of the side street into the side of her.

He denied any wrong doing and claimed she was driving on the wrong side of the road. What he claimed made no sense and unless she was driving sideways up the road was impossible given the damage to her car, he even put a claim in for whiplash!

Our insurance company halifax/esure wanted her to accept 50/50. We wrote a letter instructing them under no circumstances should they accept any responsibility on her behalf and that we wished to pursue it through court. In the end we won because the guys insurance company failed to respond when asked to give evidence. It took around 8 months though and in that time her insurance was up for renewal and she had to pay a big premium on the basis she had an open claim (we never got this back), it also made her stay with halifax/esure for another year until it was sorted.

I honestly believe her insurance company couldn't give a monkeys about who was to blame and just wanted to avoid court and it was only because we were persistent that we won in the end.

She now has to pay extra for her non fault claim which seems absurd, how the hell do they get away with it?

plus 1 million....


fcukin joke!!!!!....car insurance is proper fcuked up!....no matter how much statistics or actuarial crap....or how insurance works etc... thats not my problem.....I think they're not being properly regulated and just do whatever THEY want!!!

no claims bonus, premiums, non fault claims, driving points, legal aid, brokers, claims company etc....its all bollocks!

For the amount we're paying and we have to deal with all the shit and sort it out when we have an accident....

[urfankhaliq]

Originally Posted by m1bjr

Want to talk stats?
Sure, I deal with statisitcal probabilities, sigma tubes, std deviatiions and confidence levels daily in my job.

Think about it - your wife is just ONE person in many hundreds of thousands.
So not in any way representative on her own.
You need a much bigger sample for an accurate picture.
The bigger the sample, and the longer you count data for, the better the statistical accuracy

She may well have another 20 years of claim free motoring, but who can predict that as FACT? Nobody.
What we can predict accurately is that based on a large sample of motorists already collected,
she is highly likely to be in another bang within 12m.

In the case of insurance companies, they have HUGE amounts of data for HUGE amounts of customers.
They are also competing for business so one wont just 'make up' the data.

Apply it to accident frequency in the workplace as another example...well studied and proven:
For every x amount of near misses, there WILL be x number of serious injuries.

You can deny all you want, but the theory is proven.
Soemone might hit her again and she is not at fault, but there is still a cost to dealing with it.
Which is why your premium will rise too, even though your NCD may be unaffected.
Let us know how she gets on

Hmm there arnt any stats in there tho really? it just tells us that you work with stats a lot apparently

[xenon]

Originally Posted by m1bjr

She may well have another 20 years of claim free motoring, but who can predict that as FACT? Nobody.
What we can predict accurately is that based on a large sample of motorists already collected,
she is highly likely to be in another bang within 12m.

Simply because someone drove into her it's more likely? And if they hadn't then it would be less likely?

That's bollocks.

Whether you choose to believe the insurance company's reasoning is your perogative but if you really do deal with statistics and probabilities then you will know that in terms of mathmatical probability it increases her risk not a jot, statistically it's down to whose statistics you believe.

[Hotcoupe]

I'd keep the OH in the house xenon,you let her out and the consequences could be life altering

87% of statistics are bollocks anyway.

[toxicnerve]

Originally Posted by wayne71

Car insurance makes my blood boil, it really is a con.

Last year my better half was turning from the main road in to a side street, some pizza delivery guy pulled out of the side street into the side of her.

He denied any wrong doing and claimed she was driving on the wrong side of the road. What he claimed made no sense and unless she was driving sideways up the road was impossible given the damage to her car, he even put a claim in for whiplash!

Our insurance company halifax/esure wanted her to accept 50/50. We wrote a letter instructing them under no circumstances should they accept any responsibility on her behalf and that we wished to pursue it through court. In the end we won because the guys insurance company failed to respond when asked to give evidence. It took around 8 months though and in that time her insurance was up for renewal and she had to pay a big premium on the basis she had an open claim (we never got this back), it also made her stay with halifax/esure for another year until it was sorted.

I honestly believe her insurance company couldn't give a monkeys about who was to blame and just wanted to avoid court and it was only because we were persistent that we won in the end.

She now has to pay extra for her non fault claim which seems absurd, how the hell do they get away with it?

Because, despite all the bullshit spouted re the FSA/ombudsman, insurance is completely unregulated.

The Government requires us to have, at minimum, 3rd party insurance but then hangs us out to dry by forcing us to buy said insurance through free-market companies (some/most of whom are the very same ones that were bailed out by us).

The problem with this is that they can charge whatever the fuck they blatantly fix price or skew their customer base (Sheila's Wheels etc) to suit them.

Originally Posted by xenon

Simply because someone drove into her it's more likely? And if they hadn't then it would be less likely?

That's bollocks.

Whether you choose to believe the insurance company's reasoning is your perogative but if you really do deal with statistics and probabilities then you will know that in terms of mathmatical probability it increases her risk not a jot, statistically it's down to whose statistics you believe.

Xenon, you're missing the point.

What the statistics will show is that people who make a claim will be x% more likely to make another claim within 12months compared to those who have not made a claim.

[xenon]

I'm not missing the point - the point is obvious. But in a 100% no-fault accident I don't believe the statistics. In fact, they won't even differentiate whether the "claim" was 100% paid by the other side, regarded as no fault or whatever. They'll simply put it down as a claim and therefore you're more likely to claim like some other scrote who drives like a twat. Ergo: It's bollocks.

[toxicnerve]

Originally Posted by xenon

I'm not missing the point - the point is obvious. But in a 100% no-fault accident I don't believe the statistics. In fact, they won't even differentiate whether the "claim" was 100% paid by the other side, regarded as no fault or whatever. They'll simply put it down as a claim and therefore you're more likely to claim like some other scrote who drives like a twat. Ergo: It's bollocks.

I agree. I'm not suggesting it's fair and insurance companies obviously skew the stats to their advantage.

I'm not defending them or their processes.