These are the words my father used to impress upon me the need to be careful when I started driving. His point was that it did not matter if some tool drove into me, what mattered was that no claims were made on the policy.

13 years later I'm wondering whether that is correct.

does an insurance company work on the basis of their discounts with customers being on a "no blame bonus" basis or a "no claim bonus" basis.

If there is anyone in the trade who would answer this question I would appreciate it (although without roughing up my dad!)

As far as I'm concerned, the whole no claims bonus is a bit of a farce. All it gives you is a 'discount' off the premium, it doesn't actually make any difference to the premium that is calculated for you (i.e. if you have an accident but still retain NCB then they'll still factor in the accident to the price).

Insurance companies say that the data they use show that if you have a non-fault accident then you're more likely to have an at fault one, which is why your premium is loaded.

Is it true? Well, statistics don't lie, but they don't necessarily tell the truth either.

Well, adding my girlfriend onto my policy lowers the price, but what annoys me is that after she was involved in an accident where someone drove into the back of her while she was stationary, our premium has gone up!

And statistics always lie, always.

Not when manipulated *ahem* fiddled *ahem* by 'real market researchers

1 none fault claim wont effect you anymore will ususally.
ncb protection will protect your bonus Not your price

That isn't the case for the Admiral group in my experience ...

thats why i put usually. even 1 non fault can slightly effect the quote sometimes it is unusual though, admiral may have used your non fault claim as an excuse for a premium increase where as if you didnt have it your price may have gone up anyway