About 18 months ago I bumped a parked car when I slid on ice. due to driver error on my part. (A valuable lesson was learnt about ice and roads.) So I sent in a report to my insurer just in case I had caused damage. Well no claim was made by the other driver. I now have on my Statement of Insurance a summary of that 'accident' as follows:
damage to own car = £0.00
damage to other car = £0.00
injury = None
Loss of NCB = No
Is this really an 'accident'? Why is this on the statement? Am I legally entitled to request the insurer remove the 'accident' from my records? Am I obliged to inform other insurers about this when asking for quotes? (I have done 'cos I don't want to be prosecuted.)
FYI It seems to make a difference to my next insurance premium of about £15.
|
I think you'll find if you read the small print on the proposal form, it says words to the effect "..any accident, whether damage was caused or not...". Hence you should report it, otherwise they could refuse to pay out in the event of claim. The £15 is probably to cover the extra cost of the ink for recording the details of the 'accident'. LOL!!!
Richard
|
|
Richard. Thanks. Seems to be so. Leif.
|
A couple of years ago I 'had' an accident. I was stationery at a roundabout and someone drove into the back of me. Completely not my fault, I had an independant witness to prove it, the other driver admitted it was his fault on the spot. Why is this recorded on my insurance policy, why do I have to tell insurance companies when I'm ringing around for car insurance about it.
The whole car insurance industry is a rip off.
|
Did the insurance company pay out ? Remember, the discount involved is a no CLAIM discount, not a no BLAME discount.
Having an accident, even when not your fault, is relevant to your insurance.
To be extreme, if I am looking at two 21yr old risks. One is clean, the other has had 10 accidents, none of which were his fault; which would you think is more likely to have an accident in the next 12 months ?
No fault accidents may suggest that you drive without forethought, in high risk places, aggressively, whatever - but clearly for some reason you are a higher risk than someone who has never had *any* incident.
As for "The whole car insurance industry is a rip off" - you might say it, you might even think it, but I doubt you know why its a rip off, or even whether it actually is one or not.
Its just a "cool" thing to say.
|
If you'd have read the details of my accident you can see that I wasn't at fault. I doubt whether I was driving aggressively seeing as I was stationery at the time.
This accident happened a month before my car insurance came up for renewal. It had been proven that it wasn't my fault but because it was still being processed my no claims discount was taken back to 2 yrs and my insurance premium rose accordingly.
I couldn't go with any other insurance company because it would have cost even more and I had my old insurance company dealing with the accident. When it was eventually resolved I was refunded back part of the insurance cost and my no claims was reinstated.
The problem was that what I had been refunded and the total amount I had paid out meant that I was left with a difference of about £200 (compared to what I should have paid with 5yrs no claims).
You're telling me that this isn't a 'rip-off'? Let's call it 'insurance company policy'. Maybe time for a re-think.
While we're on it, I have full no claims, but because I'm under 25 I have to pay an extra £100, on top of my £403 policy, to protect my no-claims. Is that right?
Also, have you seen the rate of insterest you'll be paying to spread the costs of your payments over 12 months?
|
While we're on it, I have full no claims, but because I'm under 25 I have to pay an extra £100, on top of my £403 policy, to protect my no-claims. Is that right?
You can have a no-claims discount, for which you qualify by not having an accident for the specified number of years and which doesn't involve paying any additional premium. Have an accident and you lose some of the qualifying years. To "protect" your no-claim discount you have to pay extra, and you can only have "protection" once you have qualified for the maximum discount. Seems simple enough to me. If you've got a protected no claim discount, beware of buying a new car which gives you, say, a year's free insurance. It is likely that this will not give you "protection". If you forsake your previous insurer and have an accident during the period of the free insurance, it is likely that you will lose some of your qualifying years when you go back to your original insurer. The reason I know this is because it happened to me ~ and the accident wasn't my fault. At the time, my car was in a car park, and I was elsewhere.
|
|
|
>>If you'd have read the details of my accident you can see that I wasn't at fault.
If you're eyes were as fast you'd have read what I said more carefully.
|
|
|
|
"No fault accidents may suggest that you drive without forethought, in high risk places, aggressively, whatever - but clearly for some reason you are a higher risk than someone who has never had *any* incident."
A good point.
|
|
I meant to also say that it answers the original question.
|
Some years ago a friend had someone back into his car whilst in a car park.
The other driver told him and they exchanged details.
Claim put in to his own insurance company with the admission from the other driver.
Insurance company paid out for repairs and he had to go the other company for the excess.
They made him offers and finally he accepted with about £10.00 short of his excess.
Matter forgotten until his renewal a few months later and found his no-claim discount had been reduced.
Enraged he got on the phone to his insurer who told him that because he had failed to aquire the full excess off the other insurer, in insurance terms this meant that he had accepted that he was admitting to being partially to blame.
After that he would never take an excess on his car insurance.
alvin
|
Alvin, I don't understand what went on here. If they've accepted liability, then they are liable for the excess. If they haven't, they are not.
I can't see why there's any negotiation. And to end up just £10 short is nothing short of ridiculous.
I can see the insurers' logic; but like him I also prefer having no excess. Made life very straightforward when my wife's car was written off - just one settlement from our own insurer rather than having to mess around with the TP's insurer.
|
having no excess may not a good idea
whilst i have little sympathy for insurers - they are currently losing money and thus need to turn things around
anyone who has renewed a policy in the last twelve months will know that they are increasing premiums to change this situation, but most people don't know what they are doing to their staff.
in order to cut cost most insurers are making their older more experienced staff (who are paid well) redundant, and replacing them with young staff with very little training (who can be paid less)
so lets say you have a claim, and the other guy appoints a decent solictor, there is not much chance of the young kid at the insurance company knowing all the necessary case law and road traffic law to win the claim for you - so you lose and thus your NCB is affected. even if they do win it will take longer than it could have done
personally i opt for an excess, and in the event of a claim i will be the other guy with a decent solictor appointed to recover my excess.
by making a full recovery of my excess, my insurer will be forced to re-instate my NCB, even if they haven't got their money back yet!
it's a bad world out there.
|
|
|
Marky, I think many of our problems dates back many years ago when Insurance companies adopted the knock for knock policy and simply pay out for their own customers car repairs or write off. Previously an accident would bring them directly into the fray to ascertain who was to blame and obviously be on your side to save themselves money.
The scenario today is that excesses are normal which deters one from making small claims and also cuts down the amount they have to pay out.
Then, unless you have taken out insurance to have your excess recovered you are entirely on your own.
The company you are trying to recover your excess from will not willingly pay out unless they are ultimately forced into this position.
I have heard of others who have had great difficulty in recovering the excess from the other company.
You also will have seen in the small print of your insurance documentation that you must never admit liabilty.
I presume that with the knock for knock principle where they will be paying for your car they are also thinking ahead that the other driver may be trying to recover his excess as well as 3rd party claims.
I think that in insurance as in other products you get what you pay for and some of these cheaper companies cut the corners in paying out where they are able to do so.
alvin
|
|
|
|
|
|
