Would this be cheeky?
Discussion
I have a car on third party insurance. Collected a large rock on the windscreen, (made a big pit and about an inch crack in driver visibilty area, enough to cut a bit out of the wiper when it wipes, MOT fail I reckon). Found out the third party insurance does not cover windscreen. Insurance is due next month. If I leave the windscreen as is for the moment, and renew insurance next month to fully comprehensive, which I have found would cost the bloody same amount anyway, my broker should have told me that 
,then claim for the damaged glass on the new comprehensive policy, would that be considered fair play, or a bit caddish?
,then claim for the damaged glass on the new comprehensive policy, would that be considered fair play, or a bit caddish? 
G'kar said:
Cheeky? Maybe.
Posting about it on a public forum? Perhaps a little silly, Mr Stuart Gray from Fife.
(Happy to delete on request - you get the point though)
Doesn't bother me in the slightest, I have no paranoia problem. A flat denial always works. That is why my details are visible, there are quite a few Stuart Grays in Fife if you search harder.. Anyway, back to the question. It is doable isn't it? Posting about it on a public forum? Perhaps a little silly, Mr Stuart Gray from Fife.
(Happy to delete on request - you get the point though)
Tunku said:
G'kar said:
Cheeky? Maybe.
Posting about it on a public forum? Perhaps a little silly, Mr Stuart Gray from Fife.
(Happy to delete on request - you get the point though)
It is doable isn't it? Posting about it on a public forum? Perhaps a little silly, Mr Stuart Gray from Fife.
(Happy to delete on request - you get the point though)
When I was a retention agent with a phone company, customers always tried this. They would smash their phone during anger, then realize a new one would cost a few hundred. So they figured they would put insurance on it and then the next day claim it lost. What they didnt realize is that not only can we see the usage of the phone, but the insurance company mandates 1 full month before any claims can be established from mid point coverage.
LotusACBC said:
Tunku said:
G'kar said:
Cheeky? Maybe.
Posting about it on a public forum? Perhaps a little silly, Mr Stuart Gray from Fife.
(Happy to delete on request - you get the point though)
It is doable isn't it? Posting about it on a public forum? Perhaps a little silly, Mr Stuart Gray from Fife.
(Happy to delete on request - you get the point though)
When I was a retention agent with a phone company, customers always tried this. They would smash their phone during anger, then realize a new one would cost a few hundred. So they figured they would put insurance on it and then the next day claim it lost. What they didnt realize is that not only can we see the usage of the phone, but the insurance company mandates 1 full month before any claims can be established from mid point coverage.
Tunku said:
Anyway, back to the question. It is doable isn't it?
Yes, and so is Amy Winehouse......but that doesnt mean it should be done
However, at least Tunku is actually paying his insurance in the first place and I dare say always has.
Its those who think they can get away without paying in the first place that need stringing up!
I'm sure we all feel we have paid more than our fair share for car insurance over the years.
Do what you think is best.
grumbledoak said:
You pay extra to upgrade from third party to fully comprehensive, then claim on the windscreen. Somehow, I suspect they've 'heard that one' before.
I'd do a bit of research on what a new screen would cost.
Filling the hole would cost @ £70, replacing the screen would be @ £400.
Tunku said:
G'kar said:
Cheeky? Maybe.
Posting about it on a public forum? Perhaps a little silly, Mr Stuart Gray from Fife.
(Happy to delete on request - you get the point though)
Doesn't bother me in the slightest, I have no paranoia problem. A flat denial always works. That is why my details are visible, there are quite a few Stuart Grays in Fife if you search harder.. Posting about it on a public forum? Perhaps a little silly, Mr Stuart Gray from Fife.
(Happy to delete on request - you get the point though)
Citroen ZX 1.9D
Peugeot 205 1.8D
Ford Mondeo 1.8i Verona
Keep diggging....
Anyway, I think you'll "probably" be ok but if they check it won't take too much investigation. Aslo, how "old" will the crack be? The windscreen fitters may report back to insurers that crack is at least 1/2/3/4/etc. months old.........
Dracoro said:
Tunku said:
G'kar said:
Cheeky? Maybe.
Posting about it on a public forum? Perhaps a little silly, Mr Stuart Gray from Fife.
(Happy to delete on request - you get the point though)
Doesn't bother me in the slightest, I have no paranoia problem. A flat denial always works. That is why my details are visible, there are quite a few Stuart Grays in Fife if you search harder.. Posting about it on a public forum? Perhaps a little silly, Mr Stuart Gray from Fife.
(Happy to delete on request - you get the point though)
Citroen ZX 1.9D
Peugeot 205 1.8D
Ford Mondeo 1.8i Verona
Keep diggging....
Anyway, I think you'll "probably" be ok but if they check it won't take too much investigation. Aslo, how "old" will the crack be? The windscreen fitters may report back to insurers that crack is at least 1/2/3/4/etc. months old.........
Tunku said:
I have a car on third party insurance. Collected a large rock on the windscreen, (made a big pit and about an inch crack in driver visibilty area, enough to cut a bit out of the wiper when it wipes, MOT fail I reckon). Found out the third party insurance does not cover windscreen. Insurance is due next month. If I leave the windscreen as is for the moment, and renew insurance next month to fully comprehensive, which I have found would cost the bloody same amount anyway, my broker should have told me that ,then claim for the damaged glass on the new comprehensive policy, would that be considered fair play, or a bit caddish?
why don't you find out the cost of replacing the screen yourself rather than mug yourself off on here? ,then claim for the damaged glass on the new comprehensive policy, would that be considered fair play, or a bit caddish? Edited by sleep envy on Thursday 6th November 20:08
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff