No claims bonus question

[forza2.0]

Say im insured on two cars, do I build 1 yrs ncb on each one of them, and then can I use those 2 years of NCB on one vehicle?

Basically I have my own car which im insured on. Im also getting insured on my old mans volvo with a insurer that gives named drivers their own NCB. So i was thinking that after i have got a year from each of those policies I can get a better car after a year and say I have got 2 years NCB. Will this work?

Cheers

 

[Roo]

Nope. As far as I'm aware, you can only get 1 years NCB at a time. You can also only use your NCB on one car at a time - I have 2 cars, but can only use my NCB on 1 - although the other asked if I had any NCB on another car, so they might take that into account.

But to your original question: regardless of how many cars you're insured to drive, you can only build up 1 year's NCB; a year is still a year, no matter how many cars you drive. In the same way, if you claim and lose your NCB, you lose it for all cars - not just the one you're claiming on. (Unless it's protected, but at our age and with less than 4 years NCB it won't be.)

For those less aquainted with the British insurance system: NCB = No Claims Bonus.

Hope that made sense.

 

[forza2.0]

tep makes sense and highlights what a rip off the insurance industry is. Someone needs to get them regulated.

 

[superturbo]

NCB or some brokers call it NCD: No Claims Discount

When you take out insurance you can only use your NCB on one vehicle, when they ask "do you insure any other vehicles?" (if you do) they will then ask if you are the main driver of the other vehicles.
I think all insurance companies can communicate so they can tell if you are using your discount twice as technically you should only be able to transfer your accured NCB to one vehicle at a time.

My dad has a linked policy where both his cars are on the same policy, he uses his NCB for both vehicles that way but this is a specific policy.
A crazy thing with NCB is that if you accrue 10 years of no claims (like me) then don't drive a car for 2 years on your own policy you will end up back down to 0 NCB. Hence when taking out a new policy most insurers will ask for proof of NCB from last insurer which is no longer than 2 years old.

Here's one question though, if you have 2 cars and 2 policies, with two different insurance companies, taking into account that one policy has your accrued NCB and the other policy starts from zero; if you keep the car insured that starts on zero NCB with the same insurer, after two years will you have two years NCB which is non transferable to another insurer?

tep makes sense and highlights what a rip off the insurance industry is. Someone needs to get them regulated.

I was sat still indicating to turn right and had someone ram me off the road a few years back because he wasn't looking where he was going. I saw the **** come flying up behind in my rear view mirror and had about .5 of a second to brace myself for the impact as there was no time to make the turn.

Even now my insurers had to know about the claim I made off his insurance, known as a 'no fault claim' although my NCB wasnt effected I was told I still have to declare a no fault claim for 5 years and was also told it puts my policy up! How that was my fault! I'd love to have someone explain that!

 

[Famine]

tep makes sense

Yes it does. Which makes your next statement quite flummoxing...

highlights what a rip off the insurance industry is

How does it?

Say you bought 5 2CVs, insured them all for a year on 1,000mi policies (should cost you about £2k) and didn't drive them anywhere. How much NCB/NCD should you have? Should you be given a full 5 years and a 50%-66% discount on your next car? No - because YOU have only been driving for one year.

I don't consider the insurance industry to be a rip off either. I give them about £450 a year. For this they will replace all of my cars, giving me temporary replacements for each, and, if I screw up badly enough, cover all of my incurred medical expenses, the expenses of anyone I hit and pay for my legal team. That's about £150,000 of personal liability for £450. Oh, and I won't lose my No Claims Bonus either. Does that really sound like a rip-off to you?

Even now my insurers had to know about the claim I made off his insurance, known as a 'no fault claim' although my NCB wasnt effected I was told I still have to declare a no fault claim for 5 years and was also told it puts my policy up! How that was my fault! I'd love to have someone explain that!

Okay.

Actuarial data shows that people who have a collision - regardless of fault - will tend to have another during the next 5 years. This makes you an elevated insurance risk, so your premium is more expensive to cover this level of risk.


Also, please don't double-post. Use the Edit button to add to your previous post if you're still the most recent poster.

 

[superturbo]

I don't consider the insurance industry to be a rip off either. I give them about £450 a year. For this they will replace all of my cars, giving me temporary replacements for each, and, if I screw up badly enough, cover all of my incurred medical expenses, the expenses of anyone I hit and pay for my legal team. That's about £150,000 of personal liability for £450. Oh, and I won't lose my No Claims Bonus either. Does that really sound like a rip-off to you?[/color][/b]



Okay.

Actuarial data shows that people who have a collision - regardless of fault - will tend to have another during the next 5 years. This makes you an elevated insurance risk, so your premium is more expensive to cover this level of risk.


Also, please don't double-post. Use the Edit button to add to your previous post if you're still the most recent poster.

So whats the point in NCD then, if you have to declare a claim.

Of course you say all this but have you spent a month on the phone everyday to try and claim for an accident that wasn't your fault? I did only to receive the worst service I've ever spent £430 on and I'm not the only one out there that has either.
You might like to think that insurance is all fun and games until you have to make a claim then get royally owned, then offered less than you want for the car even when the value has been agreed, even worse if you are not the one at fault.
So, thanks for your take on the subject but I don't appreciate your opinion that I will crash in 5 years because according to 'actuarial data' other people do. Are you agreeing that YOU should be getting bent over and paying for other people's mistakes if you get hit.... let's hope someone doesn't run into you so you have to find out.

Insurance can certainly be a con, don't even get me started on PPI or MPPI, there has been inquiries into just how much only recently, fact.

 

[Famine]

Nicely hostile response there. I apologise for stating facts, and won't make that mistake again.

So whats the point in NCD then, if you have to declare a claim.

If you haven't made a claim against your insurance, you get a discount. The clue is in the name.

NCD applies after your premium has been calculated - from risk data associated with you, your car and where you live. A non-fault accident is risk associated with you. This is factored into the premium. THEN, at the end, you are given a discount corresponding to the amount of NCD you have.

Of course you say all this but have you spent a month on the phone everyday to try and claim for an accident that wasn't your fault? I did only to receive the worst service I've ever spent £430 on and I'm not the only one out there that has either.
You might like to think that insurance is all fun and games until you have to make a claim then get royally owned, then offered less than you want for the car even when the value has been agreed, even worse if you are not the one at fault.
So, thanks for your take on the subject but I don't appreciate your opinion that I will crash in 5 years because according to 'actuarial data' other people do. Are you agreeing that YOU should be getting bent over and paying for other people's mistakes if you get hit.... let's hope someone doesn't run into you so you have to find out.

Okay, apparently this is now all my fault for some reason. YOU asked why your insurance goes up when you have a non-fault accident and I gave you the answer. I don't care whether you like the answer or not. If you have an accident of any variety, you are more likely to have another one inside the next five years. This is why your insurance goes up. Ranting to me about it won't change this.


Your last sentence is just puerile - and don't make the mistake of assuming you've experienced more of life than anyone else.

 

[superturbo]

Nicely hostile response there. I apologise for stating facts, and won't make that mistake again.



If you haven't made a claim against your insurance, you get a discount. The clue is in the name.

NCD applies after your premium has been calculated - from risk data associated with you, your car and where you live. A non-fault accident is risk associated with you. This is factored into the premium. THEN, at the end, you are given a discount corresponding to the amount of NDD you have.



Okay, apparently this is now all my fault for some reason. YOU asked why your insurance goes up when you have a non-fault accident and I gave you the answer. I don't care whether you like the answer or not. If you have an accident of any variety, you are more likely to have another one inside the next five years. This is why your insurance goes up. Ranting to me about it won't change this.


Your last sentence is just puerile - and don't make the mistake of assuming you've experienced more of life than anyone else.

Why are you getting upset? when did I say it was your fault.

The first question was rhetorical. But thank you, for explaining the 'facts' for me, well done you.

So I'm hostile because I have a difference in opinion now am I?

puerile?!

You seem to agree with paying for other people's mistakes, you didn't answer me directly but I gather you do, if the same has happened to you and you're paying the extra then fair play for being so happy about it.

Don't make assumptions about me, please, I did not say I have experienced more life than anyone else.

We have a difference of opinion on the matter, I resent paying more because of a bad situation I had no control over, you need to get off your high horse and accept that instead of attacking my posts.

 

[Famine]

Why are you getting upset?

Who's getting upset? Straw man - take it elsewhere.

The first question was rhetorical. But thank you, for explaining the 'facts' for me, well done you.

You genuinely seem not to know how insurance works - so it's quite hard to tell the difference between what you don't know and what you're pretending not to know.

So I'm hostile because I have a difference in opinion now am I?

Yes.

You seem to be mistaking my response for an opinion. Note:

We have a difference of opinion on the matter

I don't appreciate your opinion

I didn't offer an opinion. I answered your question for you and you attacked me for doing so. If you didn't want it answered, why did you ask it?

You seem to agree with paying for other people's mistakes

That's what insurance is!

Really, this would work a lot better if you understood how insurance works from the ground up. A lot of people in the UK don't, so you aren't alone here.

Don't make assumptions about me, please, I did not say I have experienced more life than anyone else.

Notice that not only did I not make any assumptions about you, but upbraided you for making assumptions about others. Here's an example:

Of course you say all this but have you spent a month on the phone everyday to try and claim for an accident that wasn't your fault? I did only to receive the worst service I've ever spent £430 on and I'm not the only one out there that has either.
You might like to think that insurance is all fun and games until you have to make a claim then get royally owned, then offered less than you want for the car even when the value has been agreed, even worse if you are not the one at fault.
So, thanks for your take on the subject but I don't appreciate your opinion that I will crash in 5 years because according to 'actuarial data' other people do. Are you agreeing that YOU should be getting bent over and paying for other people's mistakes if you get hit.... let's hope someone doesn't run into you so you have to find out.

In these two paragraphs you have to assume that I haven't had to claim on a motor insurance policy, otherwise your diatribe has no point or structure. Since personal experience isn't actually relevant to fact, I haven't bothered to address this.

We have a difference of opinion on the matter

No. YOU have a difference of opinion. I offered fact, not opinion. I'll help you out:

Fact: Data shows that drivers who have been involved in one collision of any variety are more likely to be involved in another collision inside the next 5 years than drivers who have not.
Fact: A driver who has been involved in a collision of any variety is a higher insurance risk for the next 5 years than a driver who has not.
Fact: Higher risk = higher basic premium, before NCD is applied.

I'm not entirely sure why you disagree with this, but it's irrelevant if you do.

you need to get off your high horse and accept that instead of attacking my posts.

I'm fairly sure I don't need to do anything. However, you might like to learn how to differentiate fact from opinion and accept that instead of attacking me.

 

[superturbo]

Who's getting upset? Straw man - take it elsewhere.



You genuinely seem not to know how insurance works - so it's quite hard to tell the difference between what you don't know and what you're pretending not to know.



Yes.

You seem to be mistaking my response for an opinion. Note:



I didn't offer an opinion. I answered your question for you and you attacked me for doing so. If you didn't want it answered, why did you ask it?



That's what insurance is!

Really, this would work a lot better if you understood how insurance works from the ground up. A lot of people in the UK don't, so you aren't alone here.



Notice that not only did I not make any assumptions about you, but upbraided you for making assumptions about others. Here's an example:



In these two paragraphs you have to assume that I haven't had to claim on a motor insurance policy, otherwise your diatribe has no point or structure. Since personal experience isn't actually relevant to fact, I haven't bothered to address this.



No. YOU have a difference of opinion. I offered fact, not opinion. I'll help you out:

Fact: Data shows that drivers who have been involved in one collision of any variety are more likely to be involved in another collision inside the next 5 years than drivers who have not.
Fact: A driver who has been involved in a collision of any variety is a higher insurance risk for the next 5 years than a driver who has not.
Fact: Higher risk = higher basic premium, before NCD is applied.

I'm not entirely sure why you disagree with this, but it's irrelevant if you do.



I'm fairly sure I don't need to do anything. However, you might like to learn how to differentiate fact from opinion and accept that instead of attacking me.

I see they are giving out troll jobs to admin now are they.

HERE WE GO: when I say 'why?' I am being rhetoric REALISE THIS.

FACT is there are about 10 different categorizes for no fault claims ranging from someone keying your car (vandalism) to someone driving into it and driving off (losses not recovered) to people driving into you and you getting their details and them admitting liability (losses recovered) then there is a percentage of losses recovered (ie 50/50 claim) and SOME insurers choose to charge more for total loss recovery than others. Some of these effect your insurance, some don't it's not as cut and dry as you make out. You assume that I know nothing because you have seen a question mark at the end of a post or misinterpret what I am getting at.

Your are naive or very young, or both I assume; you say you are covered for your cars and legal eventualities but in reality you have a piece of paper that is only really a promise for services which 'may' be rendered in the event of an accident. When you come to make a claim you will see how well YOUR company deals with the case.

You seem to like winding people up.

The fact still remains that I was treated badly, I had no courtesy car, instead H*** Hire phoned and wanted me to sign a 1 month contract for £189 per week for a Corsa, if the losses were covered through the other guy's insurance then I would get this back, if not I have £756 to pay at the end of the term. While this is going on what do you think my insurance company was doing to give me the confidence to arrange a £756 deal on courtesy car my insurance had told me I would get for free anyway? Sweet FA, in the end I traced the guy down and forced him to give me his insurance details. I was paying £430 for a service I didn't receive and to add insult to injury I was told to pay more for this guy's mistake for 5 years! You think this is ok somehow.

Read your posts back to yourself and think; if you had this as a conversation with someone face to face, who had been involved in a nasty accident which wasn't their fault yet is still paying for it and had physical injuries resulting to them and their partner, what that person might make of your 'facts', I would say you are being hostile and clumsily blunt, almost in a childlike manner, in your responses. I really hope you are in fact a keyboard warrior and not like this in reality.
I don't really like to say this, but the best lessons are always learned first hand: WHEN this happens to you, and it will at some point, THEN you can get off your high horse, use the search facility to read your posts back to yourself and see how much of a pompous, arrogant little man you sound, concluding that in reality you have to experience something to have a realistic point of view about it.

 

[Famine]

I see they are giving out troll jobs to admin now are they.

I wouldn't know - I'm not an Admin.

You seem incapable of making a rational post without insulting someone and making yourself look foolish. In the first two weeks you were here someone who didn't agree with you was called a moron and a homosexual. Now I've told you something you don't like and I'm called a troll and wished injury.

You asked WHY your insurance went up after a non-fault collision. I told you. This wasn't an opinion - but still you reacted angrily to it.

Why are you so angry?

I know more than you that is FACT.

No, that's opinion. It's also an unfounded one based on an assumption you've made. Oh, but you wouldn't do that, right?

Don't make assumptions about me, please,

FACT is there are about 10 different categorizes for no fault claim's

How can I possibly argue in the face of a FACT which is so vague?

Also, seeing as you know more than me, I've amended my language knowledge from your example to include a "z" in "categories" and to use apostrophes to denote plurals.

Your are naive or very young, or both I assume

Don't make assumptions about me, please,

My age is in my profile. Though seeing as you know more than me, you already knew that.

You seem to like winding people up.

You seem to be wound up easily. Remember, this started because YOU didn't want to accept the notion that a no-fault claim makes you a statistically higher risk, which pushes your premium up.

All of your whining and insults still haven't altered this fact.

The fact still remains that I was treated badly, I had no courtesy car, instead H*** Hire phoned and wanted me to sign a 1 month contract for £189 per week if the losses were covered through the other guy's insurance then I would get this back, if not I have £756 to pay at the end of the term. While this is going on what do you think my insurance company was doing? Sweet FA, in the end I traced the guy down and forced him to give me his insurance details. I was paying £430 for a service I didn't receive and to add insult to injury I was told to pay more for this guy's mistake for 5 years! You think this is ok somehow.

All of this story is completely irrelevant to the question you asked and the answer I provided. Also, I haven't offered an opinion on your story (because it's irrelevant), so your final conclusion is flawed.

Read your posts back to yourself and think; if had this as a conversation with someone face to face who had been involved in a nasty accident which wasn't their fault yet is still paying for it and had physical injuries resulting to them and their partner then I would say you are being hostile.

Read my original post back to yourself. You asked a question and I provided the answer. I don't really care if you don't like the answer.

I would never normally say this but I kind of hope you do have a bad accident like me and sustain injuries to yourself and your partner, then I hope you prove your theory right and have another one in around 5 years time also. I hope your insurance does nothing to help you and you end up on the phone everyday, without a car and unable to work, trying to sort it out and I hope get a rubbish price for your car even when the value was agreed and was on your schedule. When this happens you can get off you high horse then use the search facility to read your posts back to yourself and see how much of a pompous, arrogant little man you sound.

Thank you for wishing injury upon me and other disinterested parties for simply answering your question.

Let's revisit this:

Even now my insurers had to know about the claim I made off his insurance, known as a 'no fault claim' although my NCB wasnt effected I was told I still have to declare a no fault claim for 5 years and was also told it puts my policy up! How that was my fault! I'd love to have someone explain that!

Actuarial data shows that people who have a collision - regardless of fault - will tend to have another during the next 5 years. This makes you an elevated insurance risk, so your premium is more expensive to cover this level of risk.

Apparently this exchange somehow arrived in your head as hostility and, as a result, I'm a troll, dumber than you, pompous, naive, arrogant, young, on a high horse and my fiancee deserves a physical injury. Because I answered your question. To quote you:

Why are you getting upset?

Note that at no point have I insulted you - I merely provided a genuine answer to a question. You, on the other had, have done nothing but insult me. I hope you aren't such an angry person in reality and it's just the supposed privacy of a screen emboldening you.

 

[superturbo]

Hey look, you started with the name calling and the attack on me personally, the other thread was an attack on me too, why is it I have to be so careful about offending people but not you or others.

The point I am making is that you think, for some reason, that i know less than you. therefor you are in my eyes arrogant.

I am annoyed about the situation, sure, I don't like paying for someone else's mistakes but worse than that being told I am lightly to crash again in the future by some person who doesn't know me. You are basically saying the same accident will happen to me again within 5 years but seem annoyed when I tell you there is a possibility it will happen to you. Double standards.

If you meet me Famine, at the pub or anywhere you will find I'm no different.. What you read, this is me.
I have no time or interest in making up false personalities, I realize my short comings as a person and get wound up easily by **** sure comments, I always have and I'm too old to change for someone I don't know. We've both had our say, that is the end of it now.

 

[Famine]

Hey look, you started with the name calling and the attack on me personally

Really? Please point it out to me.

The point I am making is that you think, for some reason, that i know less than you. therefor you are in my eyes arrogant.

You've demonstrated that you do. You've also demonstrated that you react badly to reality.

I am annoyed about the situation, sure, I don't like paying for someone else's mistakes but worse than that being told I am lightly to crash again in the future by some person who doesn't know me.

See, this is where you've got it just plain wrong. It tells me you just don't know how insurance works.

Data shows that when you have a crash of any variety, the chances of you having another one inside 5 years is more than it would be if you hadn't had a crash. This isn't my data. It's not me saying "You are likely to crash". I'm not willing you to have a collision. This is insurance data - data collected by insurance companies.

Since you've had a crash, the chances of you having another inside 5 years is higher than it would be if you hadn't.

Since the chances of you having another crash are higher, you are a higher risk to insure.

Since you are a higher risk to insure, your premium is adjusted to reflect it.

So because you've had a crash - even one which wasn't your fault - your premium goes up.

This is a whole, complete answer to your question as to why your premium has gone up since you had a non-fault collision. This is not me saying you're crap at driving.

You are basically saying the same accident will happen to me again within 5 years but seem annoyed when I tell you there is a possibility it will happen to you. Double standards.

No. I'm saying your insurance company classes you as a higher risk for another collision, because their data shows that people who have a collision are more likely to have another one.

The difference:
I say your insurance premium goes up because you're statistically more likely to have a crash since you've already had one.
You say you want me to crash and injure myself and my partner, for no reason.

I have no time or interest in making up false personalities, I realize my short comings as a person and get wound up easily by **** sure comments

That's the thing. You're getting wound up by a clear, complete answer to your question, which in no way calls your ability or personality into question. You wished injury upon my partner because I told you why your premium is higher. Tell me how that's rational.

 

[Scaff]

I've locked this thread for a rather simple reason.

Superturbo - if you ask someone a question and don't like the answer that they give you (a factual one at that), it does not give you grounds to start a personal attack on that member.

Nor will you find that threats, attempts at intimidation or swearing will get you very far here at GT Planet. I've taken the time to review your post history here and quite frankly I am not impressed at all. I will be issuing you with a formal warning for the AUP swear filter violation and strongly advise you to take the time to think before you post.

To attempt to raise the 'keyboard warrior' claim at Famine is rather ironic given the hostile and unpleasant nature of your posts. I will be rather blunt in regard to this, either change your attitude and the manner in which you post or leave, GT Planet neither needs nor will tolerate behaviour such as this.

The choice is now ultimately yours, but be very aware that should you continue in this vien, then that choice will be taken for you.

Scaff