Can anybody explain this?

[OdysseyHal9000]

First off neither me or my missus is insured thro Chris Knott at the present time, so this is not a dig at them! But maybe they can shed some light on it?
My missus and I both pay extra on our insurance policies for "no claims protection". When I last checked its about £60-£70 extra with this added to the policy. We both have our own cars and our own comprehensive cover and have each other as additional drivers on our policies.
Last July she had a minor bump in her little Mini, totally her fault and her insurance paid out to the tune of £1200. When her renewal came it had gone up by £100. She phoned them to ask why - you guessed it "because of the accident" they informed her.
Fast forward to yesterday, I go online to get a renewal quote, put all ourdetails in blah blah blah and get a quote I'm quite happy with. THEN remember about the bump she had, and being the honest upright law abiding citizen that I am I edited her details to include this and requoted. Guess what? Premium goes up £100.
Pardon my French but WTF is going on here? I thought we both paid for protected no claims? Incidentally, her bump is the only one either of us has had in the last 6 years. Oh, and the reason I'm shopping around this year? My current insurer thinks it's "very competitive" to increase my premium from £260 last year on a 325 coupe to £700 this year on a Z4 3.0 coupe. I'm 40yrs old, no convictions, no endorsements, +6 years No Claims

[Zed_Steve]

I wouldnt bother with protected NCB, the premium seems goes up regardless imo. Many years ago i had it on one of my cars, had a bump (my fault) and made a claim. The following years premium went up by £230! Left it off ever since.

[gookah]

You will find that you still have had your NCB protected, so whatever discount you had, eg: 60% 70% etc, still remains the same..
however what they don't make clear, is that the same discount is now off a larger premium loaded for the extra risk.
A lot of people fall foul of this, err, 'loophole'... when they think their insurance wont increase after an accident and find that it actually does.
Someone I know, had there insurance almost doubled by KwikFit for this very reason by over another £400 on top. But their 65% NCB remained the same.

[OdysseyHal9000]

This is how it seems to work to me, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I have 6 years NCD, I pay to protect it, this gives me the privelege at renewal time of still being able to say "I have 6 years NCD" even if I have (or my missus has) had a claim, at which point if I am renewing with a new company they will ask "any claims in last 5 years?" At which point my premium has a load applied as the answer is yes (as stated above with my renewal quote) OR alternatively you stay with your existing insurer WHO ALSO LOAD THE PREMIUM DUE TO THE CLAIM! (as in my missus's case stated above). How then exactly is my NCD protected?? I just don't understand it I must be fick or sumfing.

I assume if you elect not to protect your NCD, then have a bump, you don't actually lose all your NCD but just a percentage? ZED STEVE from your figure it looks a close run thing either way - yours went up £230, mine will cost £70 for the "protection" then go up £100 anyway.

[OdysseyHal9000]

Sorry Gookah I was busy typing away and posted before I saw your post!
Yes, your post makes sense. I don't necessarily agree with the Insurance company tho as you say, they lead you to believe that NCD protection is protecting your premium. I'd still like to know whether you lose it all or just percentage if you don't protect it then have a claim.

I suppose we can't expect to have it all ways up eh?

[OdysseyHal9000]

this has reminded me of something that happened to me many years ago and demonstrates what a one way street insurance is!!
I passed my car test and had been driving for 4 years before I decided to do my bike test. Bike test complete I ventured out and treated myself to 2 wheels (still had car).
Went to local broker to insure bike (I bet you know where this is going!)
Broker: "Any no claims discount?"
Me: "Yes, 3 years in my car"
Broker: "Ah, sorry, anything to do with your car is not applicable and can't be applied to a motorcycle policy"
Me: "Oh, erm, ok"
Broker: "Any accidents in the last 5 years?"
Me: "Yes, in my first year driving....oh hang on that was in my car.... that won't be applicable will it?"
Broker: "Ah, I'm sorry sir yes it will be applicable and will increase your premium"

Well, you can imagine how I fell about the place giddy with all the joy and fairness of it all

[original guvnor]

I'm not sure about this but I think if you claim without an NCD protection you lose two years worth of NCD at next renewal. No doubt someone will correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Zed_Steve]

This is how it seems to work to me, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I have 6 years NCD, I pay to protect it, this gives me the privelege at renewal time of still being able to say "I have 6 years NCD" even if I have (or my missus has) had a claim, at which point if I am renewing with a new company they will ask "any claims in last 5 years?" At which point my premium has a load applied as the answer is yes (as stated above with my renewal quote) OR alternatively you stay with your existing insurer WHO ALSO LOAD THE PREMIUM DUE TO THE CLAIM! (as in my missus's case stated above). How then exactly is my NCD protected?? I just don't understand it I must be fick or sumfing.

I assume if you elect not to protect your NCD, then have a bump, you don't actually lose all your NCD but just a percentage? ZED STEVE from your figure it looks a close run thing either way - yours went up £230, mine will cost £70 for the "protection" then go up £100 anyway.

The way i see it is that you dont appear to be any worse off not protecting your no claims, and just take the hit on your bonus if a claim is made. It would only be an issue if more than one claim is made in a short space of time.

[Zed_Steve]

You will find that you still have had your NCB protected, so whatever discount you had, eg: 60% 70% etc, still remains the same..
however what they don't make clear, is that the same discount is now off a larger premium loaded for the extra risk.
A lot of people fall foul of this, err, 'loophole'... when they think their insurance wont increase after an accident and find that it actually does.
Someone I know, had there insurance almost doubled by KwikFit for this very reason by over another £400 on top. But their 65% NCB remained the same.

Sounds like a Nick Freeman thing this 'loophole'

[Wondermike]

Well, you can imagine how I fell about the place giddy with all the joy and fairness of it all

Bunch of robbing gits

[gookah]

The way i see it is that you dont appear to be any worse off not protecting your no claims.

aahh, but what you have to watch for, is that your NCB will be reduced (if not protected), and the premium loading will still also apply, so you get hit twice. At least this way you only get one hit, and this loading will probably be there for 5 years, ("any accidents in the last 5 years?")
Either way the only winner is the insurers, they can charge what the hell they like knowing their competitors are doing the same.

Dick Turpin is the ombudsman.

[lacroupade]

But as has been outlined, its pure semantics.

You are indeed sadly protecting only your discount level, nothing else.

Insurance is a licence to print money frankly and it pees me off.

[BMWZ4MC]

Tesco increased my premium after someone drove into me. The other party took responsibility for the accident (she was arguing with her boyfriend and drove into the back of me when I stopped at a zebra crossing). Her insurance paid out without dispute. When I challenged the premium increase, Tesco told me that I was "the kind of person who gets driven into"!
I told them they were the kind of company that was not going to have any more of my money

What really annoyed me is that I had legal protection to protect against "uninsured losses". That is, costs not covered by an insurance policy, but incurred as a consequence of the accident. I tried to use this to claim for the 5 years of increased premiums that I would incur, but apparently that was not included in the legal protection.

Actually, I really blame costly premiums on the whinging bastards who claim for utter nonsense injuries after car accidents. If you are not prepared to accept the risk of potential injury from a car accident, don't expose yourself to that risk - stay out of cars! A blanket policy of not paying out for all but the most severe of injuries would go a long way to solving the problem. And whilst I'm ranting, what about the bastards who are permanently signed off work with little or no medical problems...Err, I'll get me coat

[OdysseyHal9000]

Yep it's yet another case of us regular guys and gals - the normal law abiding, wage earning, tax paying, insurance tax and MOT getting decent folk getting our collective butts stung yet again. This is just one of so many ways this happens to us daily so I aint going to get on a downer over it cos it's probably never been any different and probably never will be! At least we've got our Zeds and lots other things we have that bring joy to our days, so sod 'em

Thanks for all the replies

[lacroupade]

Tesco increased my premium after someone drove into me. The other party took responsibility for the accident (she was arguing with her boyfriend and drove into the back of me when I stopped at a zebra crossing). Her insurance paid out without dispute. When I challenged the premium increase, Tesco told me that I was "the kind of person who gets driven into"!

I told them they were the kind of company that was not going to have any more of my money

What really annoyed me is that I had legal protection to protect against "uninsured losses". That is, costs not covered by an insurance policy, but incurred as a consequence of the accident. I tried to use this to claim for the 5 years of increased premiums that I would incur, but apparently that was not included in the legal protection.

Actually, I really blame costly premiums on the whinging bastards who claim for utter nonsense injuries after car accidents. If you are not prepared to accept the risk of potential injury from a car accident, don't expose yourself to that risk - stay out of cars! A blanket policy of not paying out for all but the most severe of injuries would go a long way to solving the problem. And whilst I'm ranting, what about the bastards who are permanently signed off work with little or no medical problems...Err, I'll get me coat

And that creates the same problem - I'm not certain if every insurer does this thing of putting you in a higher risk bracket (I've had a no-fault claim on a brand new car that was written off by some stupid old coot who fell asleep at the wheel and drove into it at 60mph while it was parked in a layby outside my house and I didn't get loaded in any way) because any new insurer definitely will assess you in the higher risk category when you declare the accident. They have us by the short 'n curlies.

I mean it is total rubbish to say that someone is accident prone because of a car park shunt caused by a housewife who does 0.7 miles a week. About as sane as the principle of jacking your insurance up because of a speeding ticket since there is no correlation whatsoever between that and accident statistics given that 90% of the population have points on their licence.