Why is NCD capped at 9+ years?

[Kev_B]

Hi.
Just wondered if any of the insurance companies on here can give me an explanation...

I've been driving for 38 years. I've had one car broken into in a hospital carpark in 1992 and one claim 14 years ago for a minor carpark dent, both covered by NCD protection... so in theory I have 38 years NCD. So why oh why is it always down as 8+ or 9+ years? I find this very unfair when I have (compared to many others) a very good no claims history.
Why is this?

 

[kcpism]

I suppose from a business standpoint they have calculated the ‘risk’ and 9 years is the maximum they are willing to give otherwise we would all be paying pennies for tens of thousands of potential ‘insurance’ which would/could potentially open the floodgates for claims so to speak. Just my 2p worth...

 

[voorhees]

Self governing like the MP's who fiddled the expenses,if they give everyone the correct NCD they would be less profitable.

 

[ChrisKnottIns]

It's because it's a stepped discount. The discount is so many percent for each year. If you gained it over a longer period the per year discount would be less. You've been claim free for 38 years and been on the maximum discount for 31 of those then - you're actually better off as a result.

 

[Kev_B]

I understand that, to a certain degree, but surely there should be some way to highlight the fact that I am a better risk than someone who has made more claims than I have. I have claimed on my insurance twice in 38 years.... someone else could've claimed a lot more times during the same period yet still be classed the same risk as myself.. ie 8+ or 9+ years NCD (depending on the insurer).... Unfair.
Also, on many online quote forms a dropdown menu goes up to 20 years NCD, why is this there if it doesn't actually exist? I could select that figure yet not have any proof because every year my renewal form will only show 8 or 9 years NCD.
I have earned a good No Claims history yet am not allowed to take advantage of it because insurance companies do not want to acknowledge it. There are many factors that affect insurance prices yet a good history is virtually ignored. Again, unfair.

 

[-Ju-]

I understand that, to a certain degree, but surely there should be some way to highlight the fact that I am a better risk than someone who has made more claims than I have. I have claimed on my insurance twice in 38 years.... someone else could've claimed a lot more times during the same period yet still be classed the same risk as myself.. ie 8+ or 9+ years NCD (depending on the insurer).... Unfair.
Also, on many online quote forms a dropdown menu goes up to 20 years NCD, why is this there if it doesn't actually exist? I could select that figure yet not have any proof because every year my renewal form will only show 8 or 9 years NCD.
I have earned a good No Claims history yet am not allowed to take advantage of it because insurance companies do not want to acknowledge it. There are many factors that affect insurance prices yet a good history is virtually ignored. Again, unfair.

I feel exactly the same pal.
Up until 3 years ago I'd not had any need to claim for 30 years.
I had a very minor scrape when a truck refused to let me in even though I was merging into his lane before he got there and the insurance company wouldn't challenge the other party. Apparently he wouldnt have been able to see me in his truck, so it's my fault and I've been penalised every year since.
I also get loaded for my postcode and pay sometimes double what people half my age pay for the same car. I've lived here all my life and as said before, never had to claim.
Insurance is just so unfairly loaded at times.

 

[ChrisKnottIns]

Imagine you passed your test at 18 and drove until you were 88 for example. Doing it your way, if you were claim free for all those years you'd earn less than a 1% discount each year (maximum is 65%). Wouldn't you rather be able to reach 65% discount by the age of 27 and have it applied for the remaining 61 years? I would.

 

[-Ju-]

Imagine you passed your test at 18 and drove until you were 88 for example. Doing it your way, if you were claim free for all those years you'd earn less than a 1% discount each year (maximum is 65%). Wouldn't you rather be able to reach 65% discount by the age of 27 and have it applied for the remaining 61 years? I would.

No I think I'd rather earn 65% after 9 years and then rightfully continue earning more discount after that

 

[Flowrider99]

Because you haven't yet had an accident makes you more likely, not less likely, to have an accident in the future.

 

[ChrisKnottIns]

No I think I'd rather earn 65% after 9 years and then rightfully continue earning more discount after that

Ah right, so how much discount would you like each year thereafter? At what point would you like it to be free?

 

[-Ju-]

Ah right, so how much discount would you like each year thereafter? At what point would you like it to be free?

Haha, now were talking lol

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

 

[Goner]

The insurance game..

The only service where you pay through the nose for it, don't claim on it and yet it still goes up when they (the insurer/broker) sees fit.

Absolute con merchants in my opinion that said though i have found Chris Knott insurance to be the more competitive of the lot so that's a plus point to the thread.

 

[Kev_B]

Because you haven't yet had an accident makes you more likely, not less likely, to have an accident in the future.

Hmmmm... so by this theory, the knife thrower that has never killed any of his assistants in his 30 years of performing daily, is more likely to kill in his next performance than the one who has killed all of his assistants in his 8 years of performing....
Errrr.... I detect a slight flaw in this reasoning....
I know which one I'd trust.....

 

[Flowrider99]

Hmmmm... so by this theory, the knife thrower that has never killed any of his assistants in his 30 years of performing daily, is more likely to kill in his next performance than the one who has killed all of his assistants in his 8 years of performing....
Errrr.... I detect a slight flaw in this reasoning....
I know which one I'd trust.....

Insurance companies don't trust anyone. Think about the logic, it's the law of probability.