My daughter would maintain 2nd lane, Daughter was not indicating not sure about other driver. They will doubtless not agree and no independent witness.
Approx £500
Not Known - broken headlamp & wing on P reg Astra
Comprehensive - £100 excess - First year of own Insurance only introductory 1 year NCB.
Mark,
Like most of these incidents there will be 2 sides of the story and there will not be agreement on most facts. However there is agreement from both parties that the other driver attempted to change lanes and the front of her car impacted the side door of daughters car. The damage shows this clearly to be the case..
Take the worst case scenario and assume that daughter had got into LH lane too early and was guilty of bad lane discipline. Can a driver change lanes, hit her amidships and claim it is not her fault? As a layman I would have thought it was similar to running into the back of someone If you do you are at fault.
C
|
Cardew,
I\'ve beaten out this reply fast, as I am pushed for time. I\'ll proof read it in the morning. Let me know if I am unclear somewhere or if I can help further, or if I missed something.
It should be enough points for you to move on.
Good luck,
Mark.
p.s. its long, and perhaps boring.
Ok,Tom has a good point, and I thought I asked it, but it may have been in the post I lost, about where they both entered and left the roundabout.
Essentially whether or not she was ok to be where she was. I realise that this is not the contention you will use, but if you are able to beat the woman at her own game, then so much the better.
Last time I read the Highway Code, it showed acceptable paths around the roundabout. So, decide if she followed one of those. If she did, then that is your first point of argument with the other woman.
The woman would have to say, and don`t jump yet, that she thought your daughter was going into the dual carriageway on the kerb lane and she was intending to use the other lane. So, another point is where the woman came on the roundabout to see if her line was acceptable. If it was not, there is another argument.
Let us then consider the worst case, which is that the woman was on the correct line and your daughter was not.
For the collision to occur the way you said, the woman was slightly behind your daughter who therefore could not be expected to know the route that the woman was intending to take.
Finally, a driver is expected to be able to stop whatever happens in front of them. And that is in front of their line of driving, not necc. in their lane. The woman, as the person initiaiting the manouver has to deal with the hazards.
Ignore anything that any Legal Expenses Insurance section/ division/company ever says to you about anything. I hate them and believe them to be worthless.
They are an administration service. They write letters for you and pursue answers in much the same was as an Admin Asst. will do. If letters do not work, they will stop. The ONLY time they will ever pursue in the courts is when the case is so clear that there can be no argument, in which case the other person would clearly pay if they could, except they have got no insurance and no money and are not worth suing.
If people buy these policies they should really investigate it. I say it again, it is an admin service and nothing more. The only thing they add that you cannot is an address book and a whole bunch of standard form letters.
Approx £500 Not Known - broken headlamp & wing on P reg Astra > Does she have an excess ? How much NCD ?> Comprehensive - £100 excess - First year of own Insurance only introductory 1 year NCB.
Right, first, and not to be clever, unless your daughter\'s car is worth more than GBP 2000 then comprehensive is a waste of money.
I don`t know your premiums or your daughter\'s age, but lets assume it is like this, and you can substitute your actual figures. (excuse the $ sign, I don`t have a GBP sign)
Premium $ 1500
Intro Discount 30% $ 400
She paid $ 1100.
If she claims, next renewal will be
Premium $ 1500
no discount
loading 25% $ 375
She will pay $ 1875
If she does not claim
Premium $ 1500
2 yr discount 40% $ 600
She will pay $ 900
Similar second year, third year and fourth year. Estimated $ 700 delta for those three years. (without a claim the discounts would be 40%, 50% 60% or similar, but with a claim the discounts will be 0%, 30%, 40% plus additional loading)
$ 100 excess.
So, to claim
$ 100 Excess
$ 975 additional second year cost
$ 700 est. additional 3 year cost
$ 1775 cost of claiming
Assuming TPF&T cost is about 50%, then she would have paid about $ 700 premium per year decreasing year by year, which would have saved her another $ 1600, adding up to a total of around $ 3300 for the privelege of claiming for $ 500 of damage.
It just isn`t worth it. Now the initial delta of $ 1775 will go up or down depending on age/car/circumstances etc, as indeed will the difference in cost between TPF&T. But this is the sort of calculation you need to do. Substitute your actual figures and see where it takes you.
What I doubt is that it is worth it for the $ 500 damage for her car.
Now, the lack of witnesses is an issue, but it is an issue for both drivers.
In theory your daughter seems not to be at fault. The trouble is, a Small Claims Court will not decide on a technicality of who, in detail, is at fault or not. If they\'re not sure, they\'ll just make you each pay your own. If the woman was behaving unreasonably, then they might decide in your favour on that basis alone, but its iffy. Sorry.
Here is what I would do, and if you follow my advice its at your own risk;
Officially withdraw the claim from your daughter\'s insurance company. Make sure they mark the claim form as for information only, make sure that they appreciate the claim is withdrawn, and make sure that they understand that her NCD will remain intact and no loading is appropriate. Do not deal with the broker on this, deal with the insurer themselves and do it by phone or in person, confirmed in writing.
Tell the Legal Expenses people to naff off and don`t pay their renewal.
Write the woman a very strong, formal, powerful letter. Use the things that I have said and the things that Tom has said (and anything else that has been added). Explain that you are taking this to court. (You are bluffing, but say it anyway).
Send her a follow up. If you still get nowhere, then my advice is to drop it. Don`t forget, this is not a time for pride or soapbox, this is a time for the best financial decision.
If it is difficult for you to sue, and you are slightly in the right, then it will be impossible for the other woman to get money from you. And if she does issue a small claims court process, then you have your letters setting out your side of the case, and as long as you obey the rules and attend, she has no chance of success. You might have to grit your teeth and live wiht a couple of letters, but wtf.
You`ve saved the $ 1775 and lost the $ 500 damage to your daughter\'s car.
Then, depending on how your calculations have worked out, either cut your daughter to TPF&T or buy her a really expensive car for her birthday making comprehensive worthwhile.
|
Cracking Advice by Mark!!!!!!!!
Still if I had been the driver that hit your daughter I would not be a happy man.
I find that a minor accident and having to deal with all this C**p (my own *'s by the way) will make you a much better driver as you will do anything to avoid having to go through it again.
You can easily spot those who have no accidents as they tend to be arrogent and less willing to accept that people make mistakes and even if it is 100% the other blokes fault it still provides unlimited hastle for you. live and learn
|
|
|
Well, reading that in the light of day I am forced to concede that I will never be an accurate typist, nor can I keep the same thought going from the beginning of a sentance to the end !!
That aside, I think, with the exception of one thing, it covered everything I could have to say.
The one other thing being...
You may well get your money. However, I would still withdraw the claim. Even if your bill was $ 500 and you recovered $ 490, you could still find that your daughter would lose bonus and suffer increased premiums.
Cardew - Did I answer your question ? Any more ?
And can I encourage people to consider some things about their own insurance...
1) Do you really need Comprehensive cover ? Take the calculation above, measure it over four years and consider the cost of claiming even once, considering a typical smack, and a potential write-off, and the value of your car. There is no need to consider TP expenses, since these will affect your insurance whatever cover you have.
2) Watch your excesses. These add to the economics of NOT claiming. There is frequently a policy excess & young driver excess. Cardew's daughter, at $ 100, is fortunate.
3) Before you submit a claim form, consider whether or not you really want to claim. You will still have to submit a claim form, but you can write FYI and Do Not Deal all over it. Its easier than taking it back afterwards.
4) Check your legal expenses cover. You cannot insist they sue or pursue, therefore you are usually paying for admin assistance. Is it really worth it ?
|
Mark,
Thanks for the time and trouble you have taken on this.
To deal with daughter?s specific case first.
Her car is worth approx £5K a 98 Polo 1.4 Auto. She dealt with the insurance company herself initially and got all the reassuring noises that she wouldn?t lose her NCB or £100 excess. The repair has already been completed and she has paid the £100 excess on a repair bill of £588.
The legal expenses company have now written and said that the other driver has denied liability and hence they suggest split liability. Thats when Dad was called in!
I have called company today and after a young girl tried to fob me off, got to speak to a manager. She has promised a full review and that it will be put to the litigation dept. However I am holding out little hope of them doing anything.
As you so rightly say all these companies do is act as an administration service and they have no incentive to try to obtain a settlement in court. It just costs them money to fight the case so they will take the line of least resistance.
Secondly the Comprehensive v Third party economics.
In a low cost area (Shropshire) with car garaged overnight premiums are of a much lower order than your example. My daughter pays £350 fully Comp for the Polo without any NCB she has held full licence for 10 years but rarely driven since passing test as she lived in London and this is first car she has owned. SWMBO pays just £127 for Yaris Verso GLS Auto full NCB with Royal Sun Alliance (More Th
Secondly in recent years the differential in UK between Comprehensive and TPF&T premiums seems to have reduced dramatically and for lower value cars there is very little difference - nowhere near the 50% you have assumed in example - I have checked out a few companies today and premiums are only a couple of % points less. Nonsensical as it seems one quote was higher for TPF&T than Comprehensive. When questioned the man said that the computer often comes up with higher premiums for TPF&T.
Why the gap in premiums has narrowed so much I don?t know (could this be worthy of another thread?) but when I substitute actual figures as you suggest, the arithmetic leans toward Comprehensive.
So I'll wait to see what transpires but I am not hopeful.
Thanks again for your help.
C
PS Of course you were right to delete THAT thread. How could anyone think differently!!!
|
She dealt with the insurance company herself initially and got all the reassuring noises that she wouldn’t lose her NCB or £100 excess. The repair has already been completed and she has paid the £100 excess on a repair bill of £588.
Ok, this $ 100 excess has now become critical to her retaining her bonus and not getting a loading.
Again, ignore anything that the Legal Expenses people say, if they had a clue about insurance they wouldn't be working there.
Split Liability is worthless. Totally. If your daughter cannot prove to her insurers that she has recovered her XS, in full, then she is gonna get hammered. This is one of the unfortunate by-products of the knock-for-knock agreement established some years ago.
The only exception I can think of depends on getting it individually reviewed. It is just about conceivable that a letter from the Legal Expenses place explaining the case, might just persuade the motor insurer not to load. I doubt it, but it might be worth a try.
Sometimes when you get to the underwriter they will override the rules.
She has promised a full review and that it will be put to the litigation dept. However I am holding out little hope of them doing anything.
And you would be right.
So, I would alter my advice slightly...
The primary thing is to prove that this was not her fault and that she recovered her losses.
I would push the letter I suggested even harder, and I would be very strong about the case.
Also, and here you'd have to work a couple of things out, but I would strongly consider actually taking it to the small claims court.
Calculate the 4 year loss, and work out what's at stake. This is what will tell you how hard you should push. Again, IMO any more than about 500 quid and I would be all over it. For less than 250 I wouldn't bother. In between would depend on my mood.
I don't know what the current cost of a CC summons is, but its not that great. And you have a reasonable chance that they will find in your favour. Regrettably not strong, but reasonable. For this you need to get all over Tom's suggestions of photographs and plans and descriptions - as comprehensive as possible.
However, you then need to choose - send it to the other woman and you might scare her (or her insurer) and she will pay up. However if she doesn't, maybe she will arrive to court as well prepared as you, which would be a pity.
Secondly the Comprehensive v Third party economics.
Mmm, I was beginning to realise this. I will find out why, but I don't know at the moment. When I left Theft was becoming the prevalent risk, but I really didn't realise it had gone this far.
I'm not surprised about SWMBO, and perhaps I am less surprised about your daughter now that I realise she must be at least 27, but the premiums are still lower than I would expect.
Mind you, a 350 premium with discount is still 525 without and 650 with a loading. But you´re right, the figures are low enough to change the perspective.
So I'll wait to see what transpires but I am not hopeful.
Another thing which might help you decide which path to take...
Ring up A.N.Other broker and ask for a quote for your daughter. Say its for renewal now, but disclose the accident, comment that the uninsured loss was not recovered, and see what you get. I would be interested to know also.
Do it again with A.N.Other 2 but this time without accident and 1yr Intro and 1 year actual bonus and see what you get.
The difference might help to decide how hard to push.
PS Of course you were right to delete THAT thread. How could anyone think differently!!!
I cannot think of anything either cutting enough, or witty enough, to say in response to this. Suffice to say that I am smiling about it, but I *will* have my revenge in the future !!!
;-) ;-)
|
Mark,
Thanks. I will ring around and get some comparative quotes as you suggest and let you know.
On a different subject have you noticed that the word "wouldn't"
in my post came out correctly. However when you used the "quote original message facility" the apostrophe changed to "’" in your post.
C
|
I know, irritating isn't it.
It seems to be related to the fact that there are many different characters on different keyboards that look like apostrophes, and some of them are interpreted correctly in all cases, and some are not.
Don´t
Don`t
Don't
Are the three different on my keyboard alone.
Same for quotes
¨hello¨
"hello"
I haven't spent much time investigating it, other than being irritated by it.
|
|
Understood and I fell foul of this problem earlier. However this is not the same as you(presumably) didn't type but used the quote original message facility. This shouldn't (sic) happen so I will use the quote original message facility to reply to this.
|
Understood and I fell foul of this problem earlier. However this is not the same as you(presumably) didn't type but used the quote original message facility. This shouldn't (sic) happen so I will use the quote original message facility to reply to this.
How is this?
|
|
Mark
Just for info and to verify Cardew's comment about the relative costs of TPFT vs Comp insurance.
I was amazed when I renewed my insurance in Feb to find that my broker suggested that if I wanted to reduce my premium that I should consider going Comp. Previously I had kept to TPFT as I only do about 4K a year in my old Fiesta worth about £1500, all my other driving is in a company van, and like you I had worked out the economics and certainly wouldn't fault your logic with the figures you give as examples. However, broker came up with some surprising figures, all for £100 XS, full NCD, off road parked in Essex; best TPFT £214, best Comp £205 and best Comp if I added SWMBO as named driver £197.
Needless to say took the full Comp and added SWMBO to my policy. I thought it defied logic, broker argued that someone who is prepared to go Comp is looked upon as someone who cares a bit more for their vehicle and therefore is more careful?? Also adding SWMBO reduced it because she has her own insurance with full NCD, is in a better risk occupation and therefore logic says a percentage of the miles will be driven by a driver who is a better risk than me!!
You probably understand insurance company logic better than I but I must admit every time I tell someone about it they scratch their heads and have a little chuckle, just to humour me, I think!!
Cockle
|
The logic escapes me.
I can see how it would be close, but less ?
Clearly the best TPF&T and the best Comp are with different companies. But someone must be pricing wrongly, or at least unwisely.
I wonder how Comp & TPF&T compare when both quotes sre from the same insurer. Any idea ?
Even allowing for the atrocious claims experience on TPF&T, I still don't understand.
I am in the UK next week, I will take it upon myself to find out why.
|
Mark
Admittedly, I don't know the other companies that the broker was quoting but I did end up with the same company that had insured me TPFT the year before (for more than this year). Because of that I have probably wrongly assumed that they were all from one and the same.
Might it also have something to do with the fact that I was moving from 44 years old to 45 the following month, perhaps different companies treat those of us on the cusp a little differently?
But I'm glad you are scratching your virtual head about the logic as well!!!
I'll be interested if you get a sensible answer to your query.
Out of interest I ran my details through two of the online quote sites and the quotes didn't vary by more than about £10-£15 either way between TPFT, Comp and Comp with SWMBO.
Cockle
|
>>Might it also have something to do with the fact that I was moving from 44 years old to 45 the following month, perhaps different companies treat those of us on the cusp a little differently?
It may be relevant.
Essentially if you consider the main age changes of
18, 21, 25, 30, 35, 40 etc. etc. then all insurers will change somewhere near. But it is very common for their ranges to be different...
21 - 24, 25 - 29, 30 - 39
as against
21 - 25, 26- 34, 35 - 44.
So unless you are chaning from somethingty-2 to somethingty-3, it is always worth considering.
Ditto partner/child's age. Age of car, level of NCD, excess amount, Postcode etc.
But as I always say, requote *every* year. Don't expect the broker to do it for you, and get quotes from more than one broker.
Still doesn't explain the rating similarity between different covers though.
Curious.
|
Mark/Cockle
Another instance of illogical pricing is SWMBO's Yaris Verso registered in her name. Her premium is only £127 fully Comp. However to get it that cheap I had to be the main driver with SWMBO the additional driver. To have it the other way round would cost an extra £40.
I am 3 years older and we both are conviction and accident free in the last 5 years. I have my own car.
I understood that females were statistically a better risk. However hopefully reality has dawned and it is now appreciated that men are better drivers! (ducks for cover)
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
