Insurance

[crockers]

Must be quite lucrative, waiting around for people careless enough to drive into him!

If the car needs a repair (and most Councils inspect licensed vehicles cosmetically), it will need time off the road, which will incur loss of income. £250 isn't unreasonable, and who wouldn't be angry if it was their own pride and joy that was hit (having just had a taxi driver drive into mine!)?

OP did bump into the back of his car though, for the sake of £250 I'd just cough up to save NCB and to draw a line under it.

Fair comments...but why is he so reluctant to provide an estimate / quotation. That is what I would object to...No problems in paying up - but not an arbitrary amount that he has asked for, smacks as more of a "fine" than a repair....but that's me - we're all different.

 

[MD5]

I think insurance companies have a lot to answer for under these circumstances. In the event of a claim, they ask us potentially to be deceitful (by saying do not admit liability, even if we know we should), and then load a policy, if a non fault claim hasn't been settled, as if it was a fault claim at renewal time. Even non fault claims are 'scored'. If the innocent party is prepared to offer the easy option, I would count my blessings and wouldn't want to inconvenience them further if their offer was acceptable.

I have to praise Peter Best insurance at this point, after Mrs D's non fault bumper to bumper with a taxi last week. She is a named driver on my 124 Cabriolet, and its insurance (with Adrian Flux) was due for renewal today. I advised Adrian Flux of the bump before renewing, and they increased the renewal price. Peter Best took the view that they would load it if she was found to be at fault, but not until then, and also bettered the renewal price. No contest!

 

[Dryce]

I think insurance companies have a lot to answer for under these circumstances. In the event of a claim, they ask us potentially to be deceitful (by saying do not admit liability, even if we know we should),

That's not deceitful. It's looking after their interests because *you* are paying *them* to take care of the liability.

It's not a case of lying. It's a matter of leaving the admissions and negotiations for the cold light of day after any shock/emotion have been overcome and the facts can be looked at.

and then load a policy, if a non fault claim hasn't been settled, as if it was a fault claim at renewal time

Again. It's not over until it's over. The underlying problem is the time it takes - particularly if there is a dispute and even worse if it goes to court.

It would be better if there was a faster disputes reconciliation scheme. Anything over 3 months and there should be a penalty of some sort and additional goodwill to the party that is 'wronged' by the delay.

Even non fault claims are 'scored'.

Yeah. Pretty sh*tty of them.

 

[MD5]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MD5
I think insurance companies have a lot to answer for under these circumstances. In the event of a claim, they ask us potentially to be deceitful (by saying do not admit liability, even if we know we should),

That's not deceitful. It's looking after their interests because *you* are paying *them* to take care of the liability.

It's not a case of lying. It's a matter of leaving the admissions and negotiations for the cold light of day after any shock/emotion have been overcome and the facts can be looked at.

Sorry, but facts are facts, and witholding the truth, denying it or being economic with it is what slows the process down. I call that deceit, not looking after their interests. Claims are dealt with on economic and convenience grounds where there is a dispute, often leaving the wronged party out of pocket.

Quote:
and then load a policy, if a non fault claim hasn't been settled, as if it was a fault claim at renewal time
Again. It's not over until it's over. The underlying problem is the time it takes - particularly if there is a dispute and even worse if it goes to court.

See 1st reply! Interesting that Adrian Flux loaded my renewal premium, which perhaps most would have, but Peter Best didn't. When I went back to Adrian Flux to say I wouldn't be renewing, they gave the impression they could better their new quote. I think insurers do alright looking after their own interests, and I don't see why we should be assist them further by deceit.

It would be better if there was a faster disputes reconciliation scheme. Anything over 3 months and there should be a penalty of some sort and additional goodwill to the party that is 'wronged' by the delay.

See 1st reply!!

Quote:
Even non fault claims are 'scored'.
Yeah. Pretty sh*tty of them.

Agreed!

 

[Baron_Samedi]

I think the fact that non-fault claims are scored is more to do with the actuarial issue that you are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident...

 

[proser]

I had someone run into the back of me last week. We done an initial inspection and swapped details. several day later the OP rings me up to see if we could settle without the insurance as he believed that the crack in the very lower section of the bumper was a bolt on trim piece, when I told him that the bumper is actually a one piece moulding and that my insurance company was already dealing with it and have already spoken to his insurance; he went 'Ah, okay, I'd better give them a ring then' - looks like he hadn't informed them

 

[kwakdonut]

I had something similar happen to me a handful of years back.

I had to call the Police as the guy got vary lairy and I had to lock myself in the car!

Because of this, we did not exchange details although I could clearly see that no damage had been caused to either car (well, certainly none to his). I contacted my insurance company just in case and they just said that they would 'wait and see if the other party tried to make a claim'.

About 6 weeks later I got a letter saying that the other party had indeed made a claim against me.

I spoke to my insurance company and told them what had happened. I also said there was no damage to either car as the impact was very low speed. Apparantly, this guy tried to claim that not only was his bumper irreparably damaged but my car had also bent the chassis on his car too!!!

I told my insurance company that if they were going to go ahead that I wanted the car properly inspected.

Funnily enough, I never heard any more and my premium never went up! My insurance company told me that when they pushed for a full, independent inspection, this guy pulled his claim!

You pay for insurance - so use the company and stop worrying about losing NCB or having an increased premium!! Normally, a loaded premium only lasts for the year after the accident anyway.

Also, I would (hypothetically of course!) check with the council that this ahem, 'taxi', is properly licensed and in date....

Good luck!

 

[MD5]

I think the fact that non-fault claims are scored is more to do with the actuarial issue that you are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident...

Well, I guess it's just me that's fed up with insurance companies then! I would see it as statistically having been involved in a non-fault accident. At which point is the innocent party likely to 're-offend', as it were?

 

[corned]

There was a post on here (I think) a while ago, in which the poster offered a possible explanation as to why non-fault claims can sometimes affect premiums.

It went along the lines of the insurance companies assess that the 'victim' (for want of a better word) might be partly to blame in the sense that had they read the situation better and had better anticipation, they may not have got themselves into the situation in the first place. I.e. if one goes about not thinking what one is doing, eventually one may find onesself in an awkward spot - whether the final impact was their fault or not.

By the way - in posting this I am not offering any judgement on the rights and wrongs of this explanation - clearly it cannot apply to every situation - and neither am I suggesting any poster here necessarily deserves this to be applied to them.

 

[Baron_Samedi]

Well, I guess it's just me that's fed up with insurance companies then! I would see it as statistically having been involved in a non-fault accident. At which point is the innocent party likely to 're-offend', as it were?

Believe me, MD5 my insurance got loaded because of two non-fault accidents....

And the loading won't completely disappear until three years (depending on insurer).....

A cynic would say that insurers use any possible reason to accept more money from their customers.

 

[Dryce]

Sorry, but facts are facts, and witholding the truth, denying it or being economic with it is what slows the process down. I call that deceit, not looking after their interests. Claims are dealt with on economic and convenience grounds where there is a dispute, often leaving the wronged party out of pocket.

It doesn't involve "witholding the truth" - just simply not admitting liability. The fundamental is that you pay the insurance company to deal with it and as it becomes their liability (assuming that you are truthful to them) and they pay up.

Consider the situation where some idiot either mistakenly admits liability or gets bullied into it at the scene.

It has absolutely nothing to do with deceit.

 

[crockers]

Insurance is based on risk...and a premium is based on the amount of risk you bring to the table.

To quote from an old CII book..

Insurance premiums are commensurate to the amount of risk one brings to a common pool of risk.

So if a person has more "no fault" claims - he/she brings a more risk to the common pool.

I know it sound unfair it you are that person ..

 

[219]

In the OP's 'hypothetical' situation , I wonder if there would have been any witnesses ?

If none , and in light of the guy's attitude , I might be inclined just to ignore him and his demands for cash . " What bump ? No damage to my car . PROVE IT ! "