|
If you settle 'claims' privately, then they're not claims! People who settle claims privately are taking responsibility for their actions, keen to protect the NCD, and generaly disinclined to make inflated 'new for old' claims in the future. All of which is generally favourable from the POV of the insurer.
The declaration asks for things that are documentable; car, age, endorsements etc.. If there's no documentation, then it didn't happen!
Insurance companies are very keen to stress that collected premiums do not cover insurance payouts. This is slightly misleading since it implies that the insurance companies are running at a loss and are altruistically keeping premiums artificially low. Neither is correct. What ABI fail to mention is that the gap is made up from scandalous referral fees to parastic leeches such as accident management companies, credit hirers etc.
Only about a quarter of each claim is spent on repairing cars. The rest is fees and personal injury claims.
Since insurers are happy to be economical with the truth-then so am I.
|
|
The insurance company doesnt need to know about anything which hasnt cost them, or any other insurance company any money. If you settle a claim privately, nobodies claimed on any insurance and no insurance company has lost money. ie its none of their business
I dont buy the explanation above that its for them to further assess the risk you pose. You can be the most sensible non-idiotic 17 year old in the world who's never done a thing wrong but they'll still charge you a million pounds based purely on your age, believing anything additional doesnt matter. Its only when you start qualifying for cheaper premiums is when they're keen to hear more about you, ie to find an excuse to put it up
Edited by jamie745 on 28/07/2011 at 00:32
|
|
|
|
|
Why does the insurer need to form an opinion? They already do that with the hour-long process of applying for insurance. They form an opinion based on your age, your postcode, your marital status, your estimated annual mileage and even by the job that you hold.
If it isn't documented it didn't happen. If you are stupid enough to report to your insurance company that your car recieved a "love-tap" from another car which added little to no damage, then you deserve your premiums to go up.
If you ring a few insurance companies up and ask why the premiums have gone up, you'll find a multitude of different answers. This is just another way to exploit their customers who lack the common sense to make a decision about what the should and shouldn't be telling their Insurance Company, so that they can increase the premiums further.
|
If you are stupid enough to report to your insurance company that your car recieved a "love-tap" from another car which added little to no damage, then you deserve your premiums to go up
And if you are stupid enough NOT to report what they ask for, then you deserve to be told "we are not paying your claim".
|
|
And how are they going to PROVE that the accident happened if there is no documentation to back up the claim?
We are not talking serious accidents here. What the OP and the mass majority are talking about are those supermarket prangs that leave either little or no damage to the car, and no injuries. If there is any immediately visible damage then you would report it as the cost and the work involved would be intense.
But it is the god given right of every human being in this country to decide what information they wish to share. If someone reverses into your car an cracks the bumper and IS WILLING TO PAY FOR REPAIRS it would be stupid to claim on your insurance and have to consider the excess.
If you have an accident and you are at fault, then the onus is on you to resolve it via informing your insurance at the time or settling away from the Insurance Company. You should not be obligated to tell the Insurance Company (or anyone else for that matter) every single insignificant detail. What this statement from Direct Line does, is attempt to remove the element of common sense and decision making from everyone of their customers.
I have had dealings with Direct Line before, I am still a reluctant customer, but my wife changed providers last year. We was in an accident where somone went straight up the back of her car, writing it off. The police and insurance companies all agreed that the other party was at fault. However, the excess was taken from the pay-out and had to be claimed back, and the year after her premium with Direct Line rocketed.
|
But it is the god given right of every human being in this country to decide what information they wish to share.
In which case don't enter into an agreement where you declare that you have given the insurance co all the info they have asked for, as part of the agreement
The police and insurance companies all agreed that the other party was at fault. However, the excess was taken from the pay-out and had to be claimed back
If she claimed from her insurers of course it would; that is the agreement she has with her insurance co. If she had claimed from the other party or their insurance co she would have been paid in full.
You clearly have a lack of understanding of the concept or the word "agreement"!
|
|
I have a perfect understanding of the word agreement thank you very much. With your condescending tone, anyone would think you are in the Insurance Business.
While I lack the time to play games with you, I will however finish off by pointing out the paradox in which you have left us in.
We are obligated to inform the insurance company of any accident or claim, which we did after the accident. Our insurance company (Direct Line in this case) claimed all costs/expenses back from the other side - their job. Since this cost Direct Line nothing, nor did my wife lose any NCB, the premiums shouldn't have gone up.
This shows that reporting every little incident to DL will ultimately result in higher premiums regardless of fault or expense (including lack of) that the Insurance company has to suffer.
|
anyone would think you are in the Insurance Business
You are correct, although nothing to do with motor insurance.
What I object to (in the context of this thread) is people making false declarations in their part of the contract & then expecting the other party to honour theirs. Why I harp on about it is that in my work I see countless examples of this behaviour
This has nothing to do with insurance, it is about honesty - car insurance, house insurance, bank loan, hireing a car, buying a suit from M & S on a Saturday with the sole intention of takng it back on a Monday, telling the cashier at the shop or pub when she has given you too much change.
You are like most people I come across - honest only when it suits
|
You are like most people I come across - honest only when it suits
Welcome to the real world. Please drive carefully.
|
|
|
|
Honesty? What about insurers whose claim line takes you straight through to an accident management company when their literature says "contact us in the event of an accident".
What about insurers refusing to disclose how much income they earn from referral fees and, misleadingly, quoting the statistic that premiums don't cover claims?
What about insurers refusing to honour your NCD if you don't have a policy for 2 years-yet using your last 5 years' driving licence record as a basis for calculating risk? Even when in the eyes of the law, the points are considered 'spent'?
I haven't got any points (never have) , have never made a claim and, thankfully, I haven't had to settle any incidents privately. But if I do settle a claim privately, I won't be informing the insurer.
However, I don't hesitate to hand back miscalculated change to a shop assistant. They are generally more honourable than insurance companies.
|
|
|
|
And before anyone thinks I am one sided, I've just had a call from an insurance broker asking to quote me home insurance.
They announced themselves as being from a big household name insurance co. Didn't like it when I told them they were lying to me.
Don't think I am saying insurance companies are always honest! But as my mum used to say "two wrongs don't make a right"
|
|
So you're saying insurance companies are honest only when it suits, and they play the system, they play us, they take us for a ride but we're not allowed to do the same? Two wrongs may not make a right but 'what goes around comes around' also rings true.
Did you mother not also tell you to 'treat others how you wish to be treated'?
Edited by jamie745 on 28/07/2011 at 15:54
|
|
|
|
You are like most people I come across - honest only when it suits
You don't know me as a person, so I would suggest you do not question my honesty. You are making the assumption that I have settled an accident privately and not reported it making me 'dishonest' only as per the terms of the agreement. This is not true. What I do believe is that we have choices of what to tell who and when. It is what makes us human.
What I object to (in the context of this thread) is people making false declarations in their part of the contract & then expecting the other party to honour theirs. Why I harp on about it is that in my work I see countless examples of this behaviour
Not informing the insurance company of something either irellevant or unprovable is not making a false declaration. By paying the premiums we pay we are honouring our agreement to pay on time and in full.
This has nothing to do with insurance, it is about honesty - car insurance, house insurance, bank loan, hireing a car, buying a suit from M & S on a Saturday with the sole intention of takng it back on a Monday, telling the cashier at the shop or pub when she has given you too much change.
I have never told a lie to any of these providers or instances. I like to think I am quite honest. While nobody is perfect if I am given change back in excess of what I am due and I notice, I will give it back. I believe it isn't worth the cashiers job since it was an honest mistake. The same goes for the other instances too.
What is dishonest is the way some Insurance Companies tell you different reasons for increasing the cost of a policy by 60% when every part of the previous agreement was met without question, and a whole years fault-free motoring was had. Insurance companies that make claims on TV adverts about how they can save their members money - yet the savings are only to new customers not their exisiting ones.
Edited by GazNicki on 28/07/2011 at 16:21
|
You are making the assumption that I have settled an accident privately and not reported it making me 'dishonest' only as per the terms of the agreement. This is not true
You are corrrect, apologies. I was making the assumption of your "dishonesty" based upon your post:-
If it isn't documented it didn't happen
|
You are making the assumption that I have settled an accident privately and not reported it making me 'dishonest' only as per the terms of the agreement. This is not true
You are corrrect, apologies. I was making the assumption of your "dishonesty" based upon your post:-
If it isn't documented it didn't happen
Which is a statement that is very true and is transferable to any situation. You will have a hard time (if not impossible time) proving anything if there is no documented proof - both for or against your cause.
However, apology accepted - simply a misunderstanding I am sure.
|
|
Not informing the insurance company of something either irellevant or unprovable is not making a false declaration
We disagee then on the meaning of a "false declaration". Far more importently, I'm pretty sure mine will be viewed as correct by the courts
Insurance Companies tell you different reasons for increasing the cost of a policy
This is often because they will rate risk in different ways. For example one underwriter may take a broad look at the first letters in the post code whilst another will drill down to the individual street; one may rate your age bracket (say 40 to 49) whilst another will use the exact age of 44.
But yes, equally they could be lying!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
