They said it's normal as his car was then termed a risk!!!!!!!!!! Needless to say they never got my custom again!!!!!
The trouble is that as far as I know *all* insurance companies work this way which is blatantly unfair. They claim it's because if you've been involved in one accident you're more likely to be involved in another and therefore risk increases.
When I was hit by a driver who was less than 3 months part my test my insurance co said it was not my fault and that they would fight it for me, this was until they spoke to the insurer on the other side, suddenly it was 100% my fault and they weren't interested in fighting. Turned out that the girl who hit my car was on her dads policy as a named driver and not as the main user of the car which she had told me at the scene they'd done to keep the costs of insurance down, she also had told me she was late for work and was in a hurry. It then turned out that her brother worked in the claims dept for the insurance company she was insured with and was arguing for her side but neither insurance company thought this was a problem or unfair!
Quite honestly, insurance companies say costs are high due to fraud, but I'm not sure how they can preach about people acting fraudulently when they act the way they do and treat people poorly.

I did think about an insurance model which made sense to me recently for younger drivers, where they pay a large deposit (in the region of several thousand pounds) to the insurance company and then pay a smaller yearly premium on top. If they were involved in an accident then fault/blame is attributed on a range of percentages between the two parties and then they lose that percentage of the deposit to assist with the cost of the claim. It would certainly give younger drivers an incentive to not drive into other peoples cars!