Why has my insurance gone up? The accident wasn’t my fault

26 October 2018

Moneywise helps a reader with increased insurance premiums

My husband had a minor accident last year when a man opened his car door suddenly so my husband drove into him. But despite it not being his fault, the next year the insurer doubled his premiums.

Is it common practice for insurers to up the premiums after an accident when it isn’t the driver’s fault?


The situation seems very unfair, but I’m afraid innocent drivers often become a victim all over again when their insurance premium is hiked after a no-fault accident.

Having talked to insurance insiders, they point out that if someone has had an accident, even if it wasn’t their fault, it suggests that they may have been driving or been parked in an area where accidents are more likely to happen.

In other words, if you’ve been hit by someone else, insurers reckon the chances are higher than you could be involved in another accident in the future.

The higher they reckon the odds of you being in an accident, the more expensive your premium will be. It stinks, doesn’t it?

According to the Association of British Insurers: “Industry data shows that policyholders who have had a no-fault accident are 40% more likely to make a claim in the future, so some insurers will consider this when setting the price for customers.

“This is just one factor that insurers take into account when calculating a customer’s motor insurance premium and, as always, people should shop around to find the best deal.”

It’s worth noting that not all insurers do this.

OUTCOME: No joy for this ‘no fault’ driver

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

I was hit by a cyclist who came off the pavement into the side of my car £1200 in damages. The cyclist is not insured so I get done for an at fault claim because the insurance company cannot claim from the cyclist. The cyclist did not go to the police, however, I did just in case he tried to report the incident. I am insured on 3 vehicles ( mine, hubby and work) the insurance on all 3 has almost doubled because of this claim. So unfair I might as well not even bothered to claim the cost in premiums is now far in excess of the amount of damage. It's about time, cyclists were forced to have insurance, They are very quick to moan and complain , after all they use both the pavements and the roads which I and other road users pay for in their road tax. Ombudsman you need to get a grip on this .

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

NCD so called yes but your premium will go up until if the other sides Insurers admit and pay out on the claim, then your premium should revert to original (subject to increases on renewal inline with policy) = you pay your money and hope for the best sums it up!

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

well we know the response from the insurance companies is unconscionable, it surmises to the amount of if you were not passing it would not have happened> (stupid as it would seem) Joe Public taken for a ride ( excuse the Pun) again, the insurance industry needs a complete overall from beginning to the end, all end up out of pocket with so called valuations against type vehicle age etc etc and a similar replacement, the pay out on most cars etc is the same amount as paid for the Insurance, let alone, after an accident the case is farmed out to commissioners deal with the details and repairs, adding the cost into insurance premiums etc etc could go on and on but businesses here need to learn what their industry is all about and stop the pricing corrupt nonsense,m A customer not at fault then that is a fact not fiction> per se

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

So there is no such thing as NCD protection? Why do insurance companies advertise such? Does this not count as misrepresentation?

In reply to by kate (not verified)

You dont pay road tax. its an emissions tax!Thats why bikes dont pay any tax.Neither do EVs pay tax.

Industry data legit?

I notice the article says:

'According to the Association of British Insurers: “Industry data shows that policyholders who have had a no-fault accident are 40% more likely to make a claim in the future, so some insurers will consider this when setting the price for customers.'

How is the public to trust this 'industry data' if it comes from the insurers themselves? Should this be independently verified to avoid conflict of interest? How else is the public to trust that the methodology behind the statistical data they are basing this claim on is valid?

Stationary non fault accident

I was hit by a car while stationary, which took off my wing mirror. I reported as an accident for information purposes only, but didn't claim.
Renewal has come through and is noted as "Driver hit third party" At fault-yes.
How can I be at fault when I was stationary? Also my premiums have gone up. Was told by insurance that as the "Claim" is still active,once closed my premiums will revert back to what was quoted on my original renewal, but in the meantime I need to pay the increase until this has been actioned.
My concern is the "at fault" that is now recorded on the database, that is going to affect any future insurance renewals.

Add new comment