Getting ripped off with claim

[prprandall51]

I have NEVER had insurance with NU - too many horror stories. I also try to avoid Admiral now too for the same reason.

How's this for an NU horror story:

I ride a bike - insured by NU. I was knocked off at a roundabout by a car driver - also insured by NU. Despite the case being clear cut in my favour, the other party disputed liability.

My NU case officer said to me - and this is almost verbatim: "I can see clearly from the case notes that the other party is 100% liable and, if the other party were insured by any any other insurance company we would take this to court for you. But we have a policy of not pursuing court action against ourselves and, as we have to pay for both parties anyway, it is our policy to settle disputed claims where we insure both parties on a 50/50 basis unless one party willingly admits full liability."

I had to involve solicitors in the end, which added an extra £10,000 to NU's total costs when they had to cough out.

 

[kwakdonut]

I had to involve solicitors in the end, which added an extra £10,000 to NU's total costs when they had to cough out.

Good! Money grabbing bar stewards.....

 

[kusanku]

Sorry to be the voice of doom here but if the damge was to the rear OS of his car and the NSF of yours what were you doing as he pulled across you?

As you say you were only doing 20mph, could you not stop in time? Could you not have swung right and avoided him?

The fact that the majority of his vehicle was in front of you does, unfortunately put you in a less favourable position (no pun intended).

As others have said without independant witnesses, it's you word against his and the insurance company has to weigh the evidence on the damage sustained.

I was driving straight ahead at the time, and he was on my left, accelerating. As he accelerated, I noticed he was coming towards me, so I did indeed apply the brakes and pull to the right. In fact, my braking was probably the reason that the damage was further towards the back of his car, and at the front of mine. From the way it seemed at the time, I thought he was attempting to go right, although he of course denies this. He said at the time he was going home, and to get to the address he gave me you would turn right at the roundabout, not go straight ahead. Of course that is not what he told his insurance company.

In the absence of witnesses, I had anticipated this might go 50/50, but I still do not see how they can say I am 100% liable. I feel that I have just been completely stitched up here.

 

[crockers]

So in fact this is a "side swipe" accident. Do you have any photos of your damage? If so ask for the photos of his - most insurance assessors use photographic evidence rather than visit car repairers.

When you have all this to hand - then ask NU (in writing) -
How they have come to their judgement based on the photographic evidence to hand?
How can he be suffering whiplash when he has side swiped your car?
How can the motorist pulling into a lane on his right be in the right over a motorist already in that lane?
Ask for details of his claims record to date? All details are shared on the insurers database. (Just to see if he has a habit of whiplash claims)
Then inform them (if you intend to proceed) that you will be requiring the use of their legal aid team to proceed to court.

The bottom line is that even with NCD protected you will have your base premium loaded at renewal. Then the NCD applied. So if you are 100% sure and only YOU can be the judge of that, that you are in the right you ought to proceed to court.

All IMHO - good luck

 

[kusanku]

Thanks for all the feedback. The way I see this is that it was indeed a "side swipe", and it seems to me bizarre that anyone is saying otherwise purely on the basis of the location of the damage, which is entirely consistent with a side swipe.

Thanks Crockers, I will ask for exactly all the information you mention, because I definately smell a rat here, and would not be surprised if the damage in the photos of his car does not correspond to that acquired during this incident. No doubt NU will not be very happy to provide me with this, as they do not seem very happy to anything at all for their money.

My legal cover is actually provided by Albany, rather than NU, so I suppose NU won't care if I go to court because someone else will be covering all that.

 

[crockers]

The give Albany a call and talk it through with them.....

 

[Smiley]

Aside from the legal requirement you take out insurance so that you have peace of mind - when something goes wrong, whether it's your fault or not, you're covered.

Something has gone wrong and you're covered. You have protected no claims so, apart from the principles involved, it makes little difference to you as to where blame is apportioned. Insurance companies take a pragmatic view and settle accordingly, sometimes they'll win and sometimes they'll lose.

You're covered, let them get on with it, chill and get on with more important things.

In some respects you are right. But that is not the point - if we all followed this defeatist approach we would be overrun with low lifes taking advantage and telling lies on the basis that it does not matter - the insurance will pay.
Fight the scumbag (not the one on this forum ) and take him to court.

 

[Dryce]

Thanks Crockers, I will ask for exactly all the information you mention, because I definately smell a rat here,

Well cases I have come across:

1) driver accused of reversing her car into another driver. Damage was on the nearside front wing of the car.

2) A manually operated car park barrier causing roof damage being called an 'act of god'.

3) After minor repair on almost brand new car driver receives notification that car has been written off.

Part of the problem is the pond life call centre effect. The insurance companies would appear to contract out the claims handling and the quality of the work is low opn smaller claims. It's not helped by the number of customers who don't fight if they're wronged by their own insurer. A cynical insurer will probably factor that into their strategy to reduce claims handling costs.

NCD protection gives people a false sense of assurance that they're still not losing out even if a blatant misattribution of liability/blame occurs.

(One might wonder if from an industry point of view that NCD protection actually saves money for the insurer by reducing the likelihood of a dispute).

 

[Aoraki]

That's not what bothers me, although NU will not get my business again. It is way this bloke who drove into me can get away with being so dishonest.

They will if you want to keep your "protected NCD" and lower premiums, as protected NCD does not transfer to other insurance companies. If you swap, you will lose 2 years NCD and be loaded for the accident.
All in all, what a pain, I do hope you get sorted in your favour.

 

[Dryce]

They will if you want to keep your "protected NCD" and lower premiums, as protected NCD does not transfer to other insurance companies. If you swap, you will lose 2 years NCD and be loaded for the accident.

My wife managed to transfer her protected NCD a couple of years ago.

 

[Rory]

There's not enough detail to be sure what happened, and, with the best will in the world, we only have your side of the story. However, if you were in a specifically marked lane and he tried to move into that lane without checking it was safe to do so then I can't imagine how you would be in any way at fault.

 

[Biscuit]

the other factor that might give you a bit of courage is that if someone is lying (or only telling part of the truth) to their insurance company reps it is one thing. keeping that lie or part truth going in front of judge or at least mechanism of legal machinery is a lot harder.

I say if you are sure of yourself and are being totally honest with yourself then go for it.

one other thing - what about drawing it out for someone impartial whose judgement you trust. give them everything and see what they say, fresh eyes and all that.

 

[jeremytaylor]

I don't understand why NU have taken the other drivers word against yours. Surely if there were no witnesses to back up the other guy's story they would just deal with it on a 50/50 knock-for-knock basis?

If you are sure of your ground, and it is just your word against his with no other photos, witnesses, etc. I would fight to at least get a 50/50.

 

[whitenemesis]

Trouble is 50/50 or 100% it still counts as a claim against you..

 

[timskemp]

Trouble is 50/50 or 100% it still counts as a claim against you..

50/50 is win win for the insurers, both drivers get fleeced next year.

 

[kusanku]

There's not enough detail to be sure what happened, and, with the best will in the world, we only have your side of the story. However, if you were in a specifically marked lane and he tried to move into that lane without checking it was safe to do so then I can't imagine how you would be in any way at fault.

That is exactly the way I see it, but his story appears to be that he was in the marked lane and I tried to move into his lane. There is no suggestion as to why I would have possibly wanted to do this, and I still do not see how they can say the damage to the cars is more consistent with his account than mine. The relative postions of the cars means I was probably in his blind spot, but he was not in my blind spot, which is why I saw him and attempted to brake. The whole whiplash side of things is completely ridiculous.

I agree that in the absence of an independent witness, it is his word against mine, so it may not be possible for someone independent to decide. But what they are saying is a decision has been made, and that his account is more plausible. That is what I do not understand, and what is making me so angry.

These posts do raise one or two questions though.

If it were 50/50, does that mean my premium will go up just as much?

I am now wondering what the protected no claims actually means. I was told it meant you can have two at fault claims in five years without the NCD being affected. However, one of the post here mentions they will just put up my basic premium anyway. How much does that go up by? If it is a minor increase, that is one thing, but if the premium more than doubles or something stupid like that, then that is pretty serious stuff.

Is the protected NCD only valid if you stay with the same underwriter? Although I am insured with NU, it is via Kwik-fit as the broker. Surely the protected no claims will be valid if my next policy is via the same broker, even if it is not recognised by a completely separate insurance company? I really do not want to give NU any more business. No wonder they are having to change their name to get any more business.

Sorry to ask all these stupid questions, but in 25 years of driving, and several minor accidents, this is the first time I have ever been considered liable.

 

[Smiley]

You have an advantage over a large proportion of the population in that you are able to articulate your point clearly in writing. If I were you I would make use of that and respond to NU in writing setting out why you do not accept their decision and tell them they are WRONG. There was some good advice early in the thread I think from Crockers - follow it up in writing and fight it - it is not right.

 

[Dieselman]

Go to the scene of the collision and take some pictures and make detailed drawings.
Soem years ago I had soemone hit the side of my car in a fashion similar to the way the other party has described your collision, they then later on proceded to say I was at fault as I cut across them.

By using the pictures and drawings I was able to prove their postioning of the collision was incorrect, and the insurance companies settled for 50/50.
As the value of the damage was below the excess value the car was repaired without a claim being made. It was a company car and they couldn't be bothered to persue for any further costs.
My own insurers knew about this collision and refunded me the additional premium they had charged once the claim was dropped.

 

[crockers]

I am now wondering what the protected no claims actually means. I was told it meant you can have two at fault claims in five years without the NCD being affected. However, one of the post here mentions they will just put up my basic premium anyway. How much does that go up by? If it is a minor increase, that is one thing, but if the premium more than doubles or something stupid like that, then that is pretty serious stuff.

Is the protected NCD only valid if you stay with the same underwriter? Although I am insured with NU, it is via Kwik-fit as the broker. Surely the protected no claims will be valid if my next policy is via the same broker, even if it is not recognised by a completely separate insurance company? I really do not want to give NU any more business. No wonder they are having to change their name to get any more business.

Sorry to ask all these stupid questions, but in 25 years of driving, and several minor accidents, this is the first time I have ever been considered liable.

Read this post

http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=550466&postcount=6

 

[kusanku]

Well, things appear to be going from bad to worse with this claim. However, I am now increasingly convinced that the reasson lies with Norwich Union rather than simply being a case of the other driver not telling the truth.

I wrote a letter to NU last week, asking for various pieces of information, and stating that under no circumstances would I admit liability, and that I will go to court.

The response was a phone call from an irate-sounding man at NU, who is evidently the person called in when there is a dispute. He explained why they consider me to be at fault. Interstingly, the other drivers account is not that different to my own. He was indeed turning right, which by definition would require him to cross my lane: I had thought he was denying this. However, NU consider me to be at fault because they say I was in the wrong lane?!?!?! This I do not understand. There are two lanes. I was in the right hand lane, and the third party was in the left. Both lanes are clearly marked M5 north. I have driven round there many times, and I know full well that traffic from both lanes goes straight ahead as the M5 slip-road has two lanes. However, despite this, and photos to show the lanes are marked in this way, NU say the highway code states that any vehicle leaving a roundabout must be in the left-hand lane, therefore I was in the wrong lane, and should have moved into the left-hand lane before leaving the roundabout. The other driver was therefore correct to assume I was going to turn right, even though I was indicating that I was leaving the roundabout, and the fact that he collided with me when he moved into my lane whilst I was driving straight ahead means it was my fault for not keeping a safe distance.

I simply cannot understand this interpretation. Does the highway code really say this? Can it apply to this situation when the lane is clearly marked for going straight ahead?

The NU man said I have no chance of winning this if I go to court, and that it will only mean I will end up paying legal costs, and that my insurance premium will go up even more than if I just accept liability. NU clearly do not want me to fight this.

Interestingly, I also phoned Albany, who are provide my legal cover for recovery of uninsured losses. They have access to all the same information, and said that they are still holding the third party responsible. They also said, and this bit has shocked me, that the third party initially offered a 50/50 settlement, but that NU were the ones who rejected it. NU have told me the complete opposite of this, and said that they proposed a 50/50 but the third party insurer rejected it. This looks like NU have made no effort to actually fight this case for me. Albany have promised to review things and call me back tomorrow.

What do people make of this? Any comments welcome, even if you do think I am at fault here.