More insurance nonsense - they just take the Mickey!

[MSS]

Originally Posted by mss

But, I will say that you seem to have a misunderstanding of the basics of liability following third party damage. I suspect this is at the root of your frustrations.

Originally Posted by Avulon

Errr, what?

1. You only need 3rd Party Insurance... Why?
2. To pay damages to a 3rd Party who you might cause property damage or injury. ... How does that work?
3. The third party makes a claim against the party that caused the damage - for claim which they are insured against. The insured party by taking out insurance waives their rights to contest claims themselves by contract with their insurer who decides how and when to contest claims.

So in the case the person 'injured' claims against the party that injured them - or their representative - (their insurance company). Why would you claim against your own insurance and negate any no-claims bonus you may have accrued with them? .

Originally Posted by Avulon

...............


(liability isn't being argued here - that is down to individual cases)

Ok - let's deal with the salient points and ignore the fluff.


My original post to which you responded (both quoted above) was about one point only - liability. You now say that liability is not being argued here. But you are arguing against my only point, which was about liability!

Originally Posted by Avulon

Doesn't really matter what you want. Either provide your insurance details or end up being chased for thousands in damages. Up to you isn't it?

Actually, if another person has been injured then you must provide your insurance details. Also regardless of injury you must report the accident to the police within 24 hours. RAC advises that you provide your insurance details anyway.

................

You are now acknowledging that a driver does not have to provide his insurance details after being involved in an accident.


You are wrong about the "must provide your insurance details" in the second paragraph. There is no such requirement. Ref. https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance...in-an-accident


Being advised to do something by a commercial organisation does not mean that you must.

Originally Posted by Avulon

.............


How wrong can you be? The only thing the driver being claimed against can do is to counter-claim. Call that contesting if you will, but basically it boils down to making a statement about the circumstances of the accident. At some point the insurers will agree a balance of blame and divide compensation in line with that ratio.
....................

That is contesting. In my experience, the insurer will reserve a decision on the claim until the act of contesting has reached a conclusion. The claim and contesting can be done in a court. Insurance contracts can not override your basic legal rights.


So, to summarise, my original point was only about liability., which you now accept is no longer being argued. So, we shall leave it there.

[Darcydog]

Originally Posted by Rick-sta

So towards the end of last year my fiance's car was shunted from behind by a young girl who failed to stop at a roundabout and went straight into the back of Deanna's car. Luckily Deanna was in her Fiesta Mk7, and I was in front of her in her TF so I stopped as well after this happened. Damage caused was a split in the rear bumper, broken fog light mount as that is now loose and a large scratch across the back of the bumper. The bumper has now also gone all flimsy in the across the middle after the impact (you can push the bumper in really easily in the middle section and it just bows in easily), whereas it used to be pretty rigid prior to this. The insurance was made aware of all this damage.

The girl although was being a pain in the back side about it has since admitted liability to the insurance. Just had the insurance assessor come out today to take a look at it at Deanna's place of work, guy was pretty genuine and noted down the damage but said that the claim has been noted down as a low impact collision on the claim file back at the office which Direct Line (the insurance company) don't pay out on. WHAT KIND OF GARBAGE IS THAT?!

I've never heard such nonsense from an insurance company, so what they're saying is she didn't get hit hard enough and didn't cause enough damage to get her car repaired??? So if that's the case, if someone scrapes my car in a carpark at 2mph and admits liability they won't pay out for that either?

It wasn't even low speed impact, the girl must have been doing at least 20mph still at point of impact as she hit Deanna's Fiesta so hard it pushed her car forwards into the roundabout. I was amazed that there wasn't more damage. Deanna was also in pain in her back for a few days after this due to whip lash and went to minors later that afternoon just to get checked. Deanna knew it was whip lash straight away as she's been through it all before, albeit 10x worse last time, but just to be on the safe side we took her to be checked anyway. So I hardly class that as low impact!

The guy said he'll speak to the claims team to get the repair approved.. damn right you will. What's the point of having the insurance policy and paying out all that premium then?

All sounds dodgy to me, as Deanna is insured by Direct Line and so is the girl who hit her, so sounds like another case of the Insurance company not wanting to pay out as they insure both cars.

Has anyone ever heard of such "no.2" from an insurance company?

Another dodgy thing Direct Line said when we first called them to inform them of the incident, what I done when my ZT was hit this time last year was phone my insurance and inform them of the incident but state that I do not want to claim off my own policy and want the insurance details of the guy who drove into me, as I want to claim directly off their policy. Which was all fine. Direct Line however turned around and said to us that we are not allowed to do this and must claim through Deanna's own policy and the costs will then be recovered off the other party's policy, and refused to give the other party's insurance details. I mean unless something's changed since when I claimed last year, that is absolute garbage as well. Again probably because Direct Line insure both cars so being funny about it.

Just waiting to hear back from them now, I will be going mental at them if they turn around and say they're not paying out for the repair, leaving Deanna with a split bumper, loose fog light and a nice scratch across the back of the bumper. + I doubt the bumper would hold out so well again if the same were to happen another time. All we're claiming for is for the rear bumper to be replaced, not even making a whiplash claim or any nonsense like that or a courtesy car.

Could have been worse though, luckily I had just pulled away at the roundabout when Deanna was hit, otherwise if I was still in the queue of traffic potentially the shunt would have pushed the Fiesta straight into the back of the TF. That would have been both of Deanna's cars damaged due to one girl's stupidity!

Yet again it seems like another case of where the driver who rear ended Deanna's car was texting on the phone, we don't know for sure, but Deanna has a feeling she was on her phone, as when she looked up in her rear view mirror after the impact, the girl driving the car behind looks like she was frantically looking for something on the floor of the car, most likely her phone which she probably dropped after the impact. I mean there's no way you can't see us stopped at the end of a long straight section of a 50mph dual carriage way at a roundabout when we'd been in the queue for the roundabout for around 10 seconds before she came along.

Rick - have PM’d you

[Avulon]

Originally Posted by mss

Ok - let's deal with the salient points and ignore the fluff.


My original post to which you responded (both quoted above) was about one point only - liability. You now say that liability is not being argued here. But you are arguing against my only point, which was about liability!






You are now acknowledging that a driver does not have to provide his insurance details after being involved in an accident.


You are wrong about the "must provide your insurance details" in the second paragraph. There is no such requirement. Ref. https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance...in-an-accident


Being advised to do something by a commercial organisation does not mean that you must.





That is contesting. In my experience, the insurer will reserve a decision on the claim until the act of contesting has reached a conclusion. The claim and contesting can be done in a court. Insurance contracts can not override your basic legal rights.


So, to summarise, my original point was only about liability., which you now accept is no longer being argued. So, we shall leave it there.

Liability - as in where the legal responsiblity lies for managing a claim against the driver? (vs apportioning the blame in an accident) You'll find that is reserved by the insurer by the terms of the insurance contract, the only exception being if the contract is voided for some reason (in which case the driver will now quite possibly be counted as uninsured - an offence in itself). As every insurance contract I've taken out there's a stipulation that I must inform the insurer of all material facts - whenever anything new is a material fact I must tell them. Having an accident is undisputedly a material fact: so the insurance must be informed. From there I've never ever known them allow a claim against the driver be settled without them. Perhaps you have? i.e. been involved in an accident where the other driver claims, met your obligation to inform the insurer, and then settled privately, with the insurer 100% fine with that? I know what happens in the real world and private settlements are common. I'm not aware that these are being knowingly allowed by the insurers. (on an individual case basis).



Given that anyone with the registration number of the vehicle can obtain the insurance details from askMID I don't see any point in withholding the information. Regardless of what legal obligation to do so there may, or may not, be. It's very clear that the system doesn't intend basic insurance information (name of insurer and policy number) to be secretive.

[Avulon]

Section 154 Road Traffic Act 1968

[Nick Greg]

Originally Posted by mss View Post
If you read between the lines, the OP's case appears to be one where the two parties involved in an incident have given different inputs to their respective insurers about the severity of the incident. That is most likely why the insurer would have marked the case as a "low impact collision".

Always bad to read between the lines. If you look between the lines you will see there is nothing there....

[bl52krz]

Originally Posted by bendrick

A few years ago I had a knock on the door and the postman said that he had bumped into my parked car outside in the road and handed me the details of who to call to sort out the insurance and repair.


The Post Office insure themselves but when I contacted them they said that I had to go through my own insurance company who would claim the money back off Royal Mail.

I wasn't happy at all as I see no reason whatsoever to even get in touch with your own insurance company when you are claiimning off another party.


Reluctantly I contacted my own insurance company who said that this procedure was correct and that basically I would be claiming through them and they would recover the money off Royal Mail.

When I naturally asked what would be the situation with my no claims, my own company sauid that I would temporarily lose it while the whole matter was sorted out and that it would be restored in full as soon as Royal Mail settled up.

To say that I was getting a touch tetchy at this point would be the understatement of the century.

I pointed out that my insurance renewal premium was due in two weeks time and surely if my no claims was temporarily removed that I would through no fault of my own have to come up with a wacking big increase in my premium if even for a short time until the no claims was restored.

My insurance company confirmed that i would have to initially pay an increased premium due to a reduced no claims bonus but everything would be fine as I would be reimbursed as soon as Royal Mail settled with them.


Bursting a gasket at this point and wondering why on earth i was dealing with the idiots at my insurance company instead of just sorting it out with Royal Mail I recontacted Royal Mail and played merry hell until they backed down and said that they would just sort it out themselves.


I still can't believe that my own insurers wanted to get involve ( they said that this was the industry standard procedure) and were quite prepared to remove my no claims whilst a 'no fault of mine' claim was sorted out with a third party.

Tongue in cheek comment:- you are nieve. Money is involved. Anytime money is involved, those at the top of the tree always concoct various stories so they can keep their grubby hands on the filthy lucre. They can come up with numerous idea’s (excuses) to be at the top of the pile. If you care to notice also, that is why they are where they are, and you and I are where we are.

[MSS]

Originally Posted by Nick Greg

Originally Posted by mss View Post
If you read between the lines, the OP's case appears to be one where the two parties involved in an incident have given different inputs to their respective insurers about the severity of the incident. That is most likely why the insurer would have marked the case as a "low impact collision".

Always bad to read between the lines. If you look between the lines you will see there is nothing there....

Sometimes, the only useful information is to be found "between the lines"

Originally Posted by bl52krz

Tongue in cheek comment:- you are nieve. Money is involved. Anytime money is involved, those at the top of the tree always concoct various stories so they can keep their grubby hands on the filthy lucre. They can come up with numerous idea’s (excuses) to be at the top of the pile. If you care to notice also, that is why they are where they are, and you and I are where we are.

Excellent.

Is your real name Baldrick by any chance?

[clf]

Originally Posted by mss

Sometimes, the only useful information is to be found "between the lines"

errrm surely that is opinion?

same old story when it comes to most collisions, or 3 stories. side (opinion?) 1, side (opinion?) 2 and the truth (facts?).

[MSS]

Originally Posted by clf

errrm surely that is opinion?

same old story when it comes to most collisions, or 3 stories. side (opinion?) 1, side (opinion?) 2 and the truth (facts?).

I subscribe to a different set of scenarios. 1) Tantrums which carry no useful information and occur when someone doesn't get their way - you have to look between the lines to gain useful information on what is probably happening; 2) "Facts" form self declared armchair experts - usually wrong; 3) Views from word dissecting armchair experts - not really worth bothering with other than for a bit of sport and 3) Considered approaches to dealing with situations and recognising that everyone else is probably not an idiot.

The problem with "truth" is that everyone has their own that is different from everyone else's.

[clf]

Originally Posted by mss

I subscribe to a different set of scenarios. 1) Tantrums which carry no useful information and occur when someone doesn't get their way - you have to look between the lines to gain useful information on what is probably happening; 2) "Facts" form self declared armchair experts - usually wrong; 3) Views from word dissecting armchair experts - not really worth bothering with other than for a bit of sport and 3) Considered approaches to dealing with situations and recognising that everyone else is probably not an idiot.

The problem with "truth" is that everyone has their own that is different from everyone else's.