Last weekend, Jeff Prestridge published a really interesting article in the Mail on Sunday. Having read it, the moment that really matters is this.
A driver is quoted £485. The quote is withdrawn after a non-fault incident is discovered. The price rises to £546, justified by “higher future risk”. He reapplies via a different comparison site, declaring the same incident. The same insurer then offers £510.
Nothing changed in the risk.
Now I get the point that the insurer makes about maths and non-fault claims. They have done the maths, and they think it is a valid rating factor.
The bit that makes no sense, and I mean zero, is that the same person who has been refused cover or had the price adjusted at the point of purchase is then able to get a quote and go on cover through the same insurer at a lower price.
Outside the industry, it fails the Granny at Sunday lunch test. Can you explain it to Granny at Sunday lunch without her thinking that either you or she has lost her mind?
“You told me the price had to go up because the risk was higher. Then you sold it to me for cheaper five minutes later.”
That is why these stories land as “sneaky excuses”. Not because the maths is wrong, but because the explanation is incomplete, or impossible.
As pricing becomes more complex and more automated, this gap will only widen. Explainability is no longer optional. If you cannot explain why someone was rejected on Monday and welcomed back on Tuesday, you do not have a pricing problem. You have a trust problem.