No claims bonus

Actually, it is easily checkable. A driver that has had a protected-NCD accident could ask for two quotes, one with and one without future protection. The latter will be cheaper.

The insurer will load for the increased future risk given an accident has occurred. Maybe it’s a consumer misconception (and poor insurer communication) that the premium is protected. I wouldn’t call that an insurance company rip-off.

That doesn’t tell the customer who has NCD protection at the time of the claim what the new premium would have been had they not had the protection, which would be the only way of knowing the answer to my posed question.

Motor insurance is unlike many other insurances in that reducing the premium for NOT having a claim is the norm. Other than on the basis of unfortunate experience of their own or possibly someone they know, or express information given to them by the insurance company (of which I have never been aware in 45 years of buying), why would anyone expect their next premium to be higher than just loss of that discount when they have in effect paid an additional insurance premium to protect the discount?

They have protected the discount. If the gross premium was protected I’m sure the insurance marketing would call it a protected premium.

If your question is about why premiums go up after a claim then that’s because insurance is risk-based. Premiums would rise after a claim even in products that don’t normally have NCD, e.g. house insurance.

People often think that insurers try to recoup their losses from a claimant, that it is somehow personal, but that’s not the case. It is always forward looking based on the best assessment of the future risk.

I haven’t worked in the motor insurance industry but I did cover the theory in my studies years ago.

Where a claim is not the fault of the insured person, risk has already been taken into account when setting the initial premium: driver factors, location factors, usage factors and vehicle factors. The fact of someone else causing an accident such as those described by @davidhendon doesn’t in any way alter the risk.(Unlike, say, a marked increase in frequency particular incidents in the area where the insured person lives - which would be reflected in the renewals of everyone in that area).

The argument that the premium should be increased because it is risk based is therefore clearly a fallacy when it is not the insured’s fault, and doing so is pure profiteering by the insurance company simply because they can.

Possibly different if a claim is the insured’s fault, but only if the frequency of incidents is sufficient to show that that individual is a higher risk than indicated by the standard assessment as made when taking out the insurance initially.

1 Like

Statistically people who are involved in accidents, even where no blame is attached to them, are more likely to be involved in an accident in the future.
Quite often, even though a driver is not blamed for causing an accident they are partly to blame. This makes them a higher risk.
For example, somebody driving at 45 in a 30 zone collides with somebody pulling out of a junction. The driver pulling out of the junction will be blamed, but the driver doing 45 won’t be blamed, but isn’t blameless in reality.

IIndeed that may be - but but depends on the circumstances, and absolutely not in the first detailed example quoted by @davidhendon

Unfortunately David now belongs to a group of drivers who have been involved in an accident and deemed as not at fault.

Quote below from Money Expert
However, your premiums will rise even if you’re the blameless victim of a collision or theft. This hardly seems fair, but insurers have found from their data that drivers who make non-fault claims are more likely to claim again in the future.

Some people deemed not at fault will be 100% not at fault (David), some people deemed not at fault (the guy doing 45 in a 30 zone) will be partially at fault. The cost of forensically examining every accident would be astronomical. Just think how much additional premiums every driver would have to pay to cover the cost.

Just checked my wife car insurance policy. She insists on protecting her no claims, at last renewal she paid under £8 per year.

The reason it is only £8, is she drives less than 2,000 miles per year. Her car is 13 years old with only 24,000 on the clock.
Seems Direct Line are very fair when it come to protecting NCD’s :grinning:

On a price comparison site I’ve had the premium go down when selecting ‘protected no claims’. :open_mouth::slightly_smiling_face:
It didn’t make sense why but I took the cheaper quote and saved some money. :moneybag:

Premiums go down if you include spouse as named driver.

Indeed, this is often true. I’ve never been sure why though. :thinking:

1 Like

I think this is because, statistically, if you have a wife who is herself a driver, then make fewer claims (presumably because you are more cautious generally).

When we first bought a second car for my wife to use, we discovered that it was cheaper to insure her with me as a named driver than to insure me with her as a named driver, even though I had nine years without an accident and she had only been driving for five years or so.


There are numerous cases of dash cam footage being used on YouTube to prove who was at fault in this type of accident with the outcome was in favour of the innocent driver in text added on screen. Many cammers often provide footage to victims when they are not even involved in a crash themselves, and are merely observers or witnesses.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.