I understand why a claim, even no-fault, increases renewal premiums, but would offer some observations.

Driven for 25 years. No accident or claim previously. Admiral tell me that I have 13 years NCD (guaranteed). Insured with them for around 10 years.

Last year a neighbour reversed into my car which was parked outside of my house, in my residents parking space in a barrier entry residents car park. She admitted liability, and did so in writing detailing the incident. An independent witness observed the incident.

My neighbours insurance company conceded liability and Admiral recouped all costs. I had a compulsory and voluntary excess, and paid the voluntary excess myself. Her company promptly reimbursed me when I subsequently claimed this directly from them.

Not surprisingly my renewal premium increased from around £300 to over £1000 this year. I phoned Admiral and asked them to review this (and the circumstances of the claim) to keep me as a customer, but they were unable to alter their offer. My wife’s premium also increased because I was a named driver.

Now I understand the issues around making claims and risk assessment but would ask the following:

I have renewed with RAC for a much lower price. Their policy clearly states that in the event of a no fault claim, renewal premiums will not be affected (nor obviously NCD). This is unusual, but if true is a major advantage.

If I have suffered financial loss (increased premiums) solely due to the negligence of my neighbour (and I can prove their negligence), is there anything to stop me making a claim against my neighbour for the increased costs? Given the promptness with which her insurance company reimbursed me for my voluntary excess (I stated I would instigate legal proceedings against their client if they declined to do so), is there any reason not to submit a claim to them? The issue I can see is quantifying future insurance premium increases as a result of the accident.

What is the real difference between someone with one previous no fault claim paying £1000 for a policy with no NCD, rather than £1000 for a policy with full NCD but a higher premium? I suggest that the NCD is somewhat disingenuous in that the industry will calculate what they consider an appropriate premium for your individual risk (quite rightly). Whether this is presented as a straight premium, or a higher premium with 70% discount applied does not make much difference to the customer. The same applies to reduction of premiums in the absence of a claim. You are simply quantifying (perceived) risk, rather than needing to dress it up as “NCD”.

Some people like me will automatically renew their policy if there are no (unwarranted) substantial changes., just to avoid hassle. To me saving a few pounds is not worth the time and trouble of changing companies. Is the risk assessment of Admiral competent in view of my history with them, my claims record, and the details of this particular no-fault claim? I suggest perhaps not, and they have of course now lost my future premiums. Also some very wierd differences in quotes which I obtained suggests to me that the principles of risk assessment are by no means universally agreed.

Just a few observations from many years experience - part of which has been dealing with the strange world of the motor insurers.

Firstly, most insurers will be very firm on the point that it is 'no claims discount' and not 'no fault discount'. I looked into this years ago and the detailed answer I received was that people making claims when not at fault themselves are nevertheless showing that they indulge in risky behaviours - like they take their car on the road and expose it to other drivers, they park it and expose it to vandals, people who can't manouvre very well etc. etc. Therefore, the reasoning is that by making a claim you are indicating that you are a person with a lifestyle that exposes them and therefore they must increase the premium to compensate for the risk . . . (Yes really!)

For this reason I have stopped ever involving my insurers in clear cut claims preferring to issue proceedings myself.

Which brings us on to the second point, you probably have a claim for damages but only for this year as you have now moved your business to where your future premiums will not be affected. You wife may have a claim also and this may 'taper off' over several years. You will need to quantify these damages and include incidental measurable costs like telephony, postage etc. Draw up the claim papers claiming against your neighbour (use the small claims track papers from the County Court) and then send your 'letter before action' giving fourteen days notice . . . I did that once and the other party paid up rather than involve their insurers. Either way I'd expect you to have a good chance of a positive result.

Good luck! Funforus