My insurance company want to write my car off

[Noger]

supermono said:

There are reliable stats showing life expectancy so there's no question about that.

Once again motor insurance risk is based on fairy dust risk profiling, we all know that someone randomly crashing into someone's car doesn't affect your risk just because it happens to be your car. Postcode loading perhaps but the collective database will take care of that.

And this isn't trolling it's asking difficult questions of insco folks to make them explain their (apparently) profiteering ways.

SM

Why are the stats on life expectancy vs marital status more reliable than cost of claims ? Paying £100 seems solid enough to me.

The same calculations are done for both, you try to isolate a single factor (age, sex, marital status, being a smoker).

It is perfectly possible to be negligent in parking your car. You don't have to be in it. If you don't park it somewhere that it could be crashed into, then you have less risk.

It is repeatedly asking the same question (it isn't difficult, I have explained it on numerous occasions), so will continue to report you.

[LoonR1]

supermono said:

There are reliable stats showing life expectancy so there's no question about that.

Once again motor insurance risk is based on fairy dust risk profiling, we all know that someone randomly crashing into someone's car doesn't affect your risk just because it happens to be your car. Postcode loading perhaps but the collective database will take care of that.

And this isn't trolling it's asking difficult questions of insco folks to make them explain their (apparently) profiteering ways.

SM

Classic. Google "Motor insurance losses 2010" and then "2011" and you'll see that motor insurance is far from profitable. Admiral are the exception, alhough their business model is somewhat removed from what you would call an insurance model and heavily dependant on confused.com and referal fees.

Other insurers may be very profitable, but they would be even more so without UK motor insurance which is usually a small fraction of their global business.

[supermono]

Noger said:

Why are the stats on life expectancy vs marital status more reliable than cost of claims ? Paying £100 seems solid enough to me.

The same calculations are done for both, you try to isolate a single factor (age, sex, marital status, being a smoker).

It is perfectly possible to be negligent in parking your car. You don't have to be in it. If you don't park it somewhere that it could be crashed into, then you have less risk.

It is repeatedly asking the same question (it isn't difficult, I have explained it on numerous occasions), so will continue to report you.

Perhaps his risk is better now because he's learned not to park badly? Lower premium?

Mods will see a person asking the same question and getting no straight answer, report away. You're probably on their killfile anyhow.

SM

[LoonR1]

supermono said:

Perhaps his risk is better now because he's learned not to park badly? Lower premium?

Mods will see a person asking the same question and getting no straight answer, report away. You're probably on their killfile anyhow.

SM

You're getting answers from two people who know exactly what they're talking about, Just because the answers aren't what you want, then you're sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going "la la la la". It doesn't change that we're right and you're wrong.

[supermono]

LoonR1 said:

You're getting answers from two people who know exactly what they're talking about, Just because the answers aren't what you want, then you're sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going "la la la la". It doesn't change that we're right and you're wrong.

As always, all you need to do is give the link showing the study that proves the counter-intuitive assertion you're making (that someone crashing randomly into a parked car that happens to belong to you makes you a higher risk than the chap owning the next car along)

In the meantime thanks for giving me the opportunity to highlight yet another dark area of insurance profiteering.

SM

[TwigtheWonderkid]

supermono said:

As always, all you need to do is give the link showing the study that proves the counter-intuitive assertion you're making (that someone crashing randomly into a parked car that happens to belong to you makes you a higher risk than the chap owning the next car along)

In the meantime thanks for giving me the opportunity to highlight yet another dark area of insurance profiteering.

SM

It may not make you a higher risk than the chap owning the next car along, but asking "have you ever been parked next to someone whos car was hit" is a bit pointless, because you can never check the truthfullness of the negative answer.

The fact is statistics show you are a higher risk than the average, hence the extra premium. Although not all insurers charge extra fo a non fault claim, it depends on their individual stats.

I wish people would stop moaning that insurance isn't fair. It's not meant to be fair. Is it fair that someone with cancer pays a fortune for life insurance, compared to someone who is in good health?

[LoonR1]

supermono said:

As always, all you need to do is give the link showing the study that proves the counter-intuitive assertion you're making (that someone crashing randomly into a parked car that happens to belong to you makes you a higher risk than the chap owning the next car along)

In the meantime thanks for giving me the opportunity to highlight yet another dark area of insurance profiteering.

SM

Why would a company share data that is effectively its competitive advantage? Have you heard of the Competition Act? Companies do not willingly share this data and if they did would expect to get screwed either by their competitors or the Government regulators.

Do you see other companies sharing the minutiae of their profit / loss breakdown or their pricing structures?

And still you state "profiteering here's the link for you tomake life easier for you:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=motor+insurance+losses+2010

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=motor+insurance+losses+2011

[Noger]

supermono said:

Perhaps his risk is better now because he's learned not to park badly? Lower premium?

Maybe. But then insurance is pooled risk not individual risk so the effect would be tiny.

Sadly, you can't get your head round this.

[Noger]

supermono said:

As always, all you need to do is give the link showing the study that proves the counter-intuitive assertion you're making (that someone crashing randomly into a parked car that happens to belong to you makes you a higher risk than the chap owning the next car along)
SM

It doesn't make them a higher risk. Because we don't price to the individual, but the group. Over time. Years in fact.

So we have plenty of time for the chap that parks next him to also get hit

[Devil2575]

LoonR1 said:

You're getting answers from two people who know exactly what they're talking about, Just because the answers aren't what you want, then you're sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going "la la la la". It doesn't change that we're right and you're wrong.

People who have already decided they know, without any shadow of a doubt, the truth will not be persuaded otherwise no matter how much evidence or facts you put before them.

My advice is to stop arguing with them, you are wasting your time.

[peterzoom]

Lordy Lordy! This is all geting complicated and heated.

For clarity I was in the car at the time, car in front moved off on green light, drilled the anchors and stopped. Not a problem, I had it in hand, and was still half a car length back and stopped, easily clear. Driver in front slotted into reverse and drove straight back into to me. She said later that she was confused about what to do at our traffic lights as they are different to what she is used to in South Africa!!! Thank God for the witnesses that were good enough to give statements, can`t thank them enough!

Anyway, thanks again for the input.

I am forming the opinion that `cash in lieu` or telling the insurer I want to keep the car and buy it back from them is the way to go.
I guess I am not alone in having much more than a financial interest in my vehicles. If that wasn`t so, they would be just like white goods with no soul and I would have to hang up my Pisonhead hat.

I have done a load of research on similar vehicle offered for sale right now. And, all emotion aside, none match mine. When I factor in new Bridgestones all round on fully refurbished wheels, new mohair soft top, new ABS unit, Major service, 12 months Road Fund Licence and fresh MOT all within the last month. Then the additional costs of transferring the number and the loss of my Residents parking permit( not tranferable or refundable!) it is gut wrenching to even consider the car being at the end of its life! Especially as it really did look and drive like it had just left the factory yesterday.

I will keep you posted as to how it all works out in the end.

On a slightly different tack. How much different would this position have been if I had insurance with one of the `classic` type broker/ policy types that proliferate in Classic and Sportscar/ Octane/ etc etc? Anyone with any real life experience on these types ?

[LoonR1]

peterzoom said:

Lordy Lordy! This is all geting complicated and heated.

For clarity I was in the car at the time, car in front moved off on green light, drilled the anchors and stopped. Not a problem, I had it in hand, and was still half a car length back and stopped, easily clear. Driver in front slotted into reverse and drove straight back into to me. She said later that she was confused about what to do at our traffic lights as they are different to what she is used to in South Africa!!! Thank God for the witnesses that were good enough to give statements, can`t thank them enough!

Anyway, thanks again for the input.

This kind of info is invalauble,a s PH has a tendency to go off at tangents at the drop off a hat.

peterzoom said:

I am forming the opinion that `cash in lieu` or telling the insurer I want to keep the car and buy it back from them is the way to go.
I guess I am not alone in having much more than a financial interest in my vehicles. If that wasn`t so, they would be just like white goods with no soul and I would have to hang up my Pisonhead hat.

I have done a load of research on similar vehicle offered for sale right now. And, all emotion aside, none match mine. When I factor in new Bridgestones all round on fully refurbished wheels, new mohair soft top, new ABS unit, Major service, 12 months Road Fund Licence and fresh MOT all within the last month. Then the additional costs of transferring the number and the loss of my Residents parking permit( not tranferable or refundable!) it is gut wrenching to even consider the car being at the end of its life! Especially as it really did look and drive like it had just left the factory yesterday.

I will keep you posted as to how it all works out in the end.

I'd still recommend doing this directly with theother side's insurer. They are much more likely to be flexible, especially with a cash in lieu settlement, although if it's already on MIAFTR you're going to have difficulty unpicking it.

peterzoom said:

On a slightly different tack. How much different would this position have been if I had insurance with one of the `classic` type broker/ policy types that proliferate in Classic and Sportscar/ Octane/ etc etc? Anyone with any real life experience on these types ?

Unikely to be any different, as the process is the process. Given these are specialist brokers or at least a bigger boker with a specialist brand / line, then there's no guarantee they have delegated claims handling so any cliam would be dealt with by the underwriter.

The key here is to use the flexibility of the TP insurer not your own.

[daz3210]

What is MIAFTR?

And if at the point an insurer suggests it could be a total loss, what happens if you then say forget it I won't claim then? Unless there is a payout, there is no loss.

How would the OP stand if he decided to authorise the repairs himself, and then sue the third party? If he had more than one quote to show repair cost was reasonable, could he potentially win?

[LoonR1]

daz3210 said:

What is MIAFTR?

And if at the point an insurer suggests it could be a total loss, what happens if you then say forget it I won't claim then? Unless there is a payout, there is no loss.

How would the OP stand if he decided to authorise the repairs himself, and then sue the third party? If he had more than one quote to show repair cost was reasonable, could he potentially win?

The Motor Insurers Anti Fraud Theft Register. It's where all total losses are logged by the insurance market to prevent ringing and ensure people don't accidentally buy a write off without having somewhere to check against. HPI draw their results from this database.

If you make a claim and the insurance assess it as a total loss then they will log it on here. If you then withdraw the claim it does not alter the fact that the car is a write off and any future buyer should be made aware of this.

If the OP reports the car himself then he can sue the other side if he wants. He'll need to know what he's doing though. He'll also struggle to justify his loss as he's not mitigated his losses which is a legal prerequisite.

Having a few quotes and picking the cheapest does not automatically mean he hass chosen the right route to mitigate.

[peterzoom]

Thought I would update on the outcome of this question which started the thread.
As suggested I went directly to the 3rd party insurer and after their engineer had viewed the car and estimate we agreed, after some good natured haggling, on a CIL (cash in lieu) payment.
I advertised the car and sold it with the bump in place for more or less the the price I would have secured pre bump.
Overall it worked out fairly. But only after I had taken advice, from here (Thanks Loon) and pressed home with the 3rd party.
For the record my own insurer were next to useless. Extremely slow responses (typically 4-6 days!)Very reluctant to have me use my regular bodyshop, outrageously low value on my car ( half!!!!!!!! of what the 3rd party rated it)and seemed to be keener for me to use their `legal assistance` package, who are still calling me every few days asking after my health, than to deal with my main problem. They were less than admiral, in my opinion!
Anyway, now hunting down a replacement.
Thanks to everyone for your time and input, it really helped.

[Red Devil]

LoonR1 said:

Those who have made a claim in one year are statistially more likely to make another claim in the follwing year when compared to those who haven't. The risk increases significantly based on liability stance, but even a non-fault makes you more likely to claim statistically.

Fireblade69 said:

In the last 7 years I've had a rock drop from a lorry smashing my roof, some idiot driving into me on the M4, some thieving git freewheeling a stolen car down the road and ramming my parked car, some stupid cow doing a 3 point turn into my parked car, some knob turning right from the left lane of a roundabout via the side of my car and someone accusing me of reversing into their car in Southend when I was in Derby with 10 other people and the reported car was actually my motorbike which I was on; they took down the number wrong.

Apart from the last incident (vehicle wrongly identified) I think the post above supports the point LoonR1 was making!

[Mr Happy]

To be fair though, the argument of 'if you've claimed before, you're statistically more likely to claim again' is about as meaningful as saying 'if you lose your virginity, you're statistically more likely to have sex again'

[onesickpuppy]

Red Devil said:

LoonR1 said:

Those who have made a claim in one year are statistially more likely to make another claim in the follwing year when compared to those who haven't. The risk increases significantly based on liability stance, but even a non-fault makes you more likely to claim statistically.

Fireblade69 said:

In the last 7 years I've had a rock drop from a lorry smashing my roof, some idiot driving into me on the M4, some thieving git freewheeling a stolen car down the road and ramming my parked car, some stupid cow doing a 3 point turn into my parked car, some knob turning right from the left lane of a roundabout via the side of my car and someone accusing me of reversing into their car in Southend when I was in Derby with 10 other people and the reported car was actually my motorbike which I was on; they took down the number wrong.

Apart from the last incident (vehicle wrongly identified) I think the post above supports the point LoonR1 was making!

Well, if I owned an insurance company I sure as fk wouldn't want him on the books at any price!

[oyster]

supermono said:

ZOLLAR said:

You don't have to be in a car at the time for you to have had an incident,accident, loss etc against your driving history.

Insurers may view the fact that he parks his car in an area which is at high risk of cars hitting unattended cars possibly due to poor road layout etc etc it produces the risk of one of those drivers leaving the scene and op having to make a claim with no chance of recovery.

Post codes will rate such a risk to spread it around those affected. Victimising the OP is a bit unethical and opportunist?

SM

How would a postcode help?
One postcode can include several hundred houses. And in that area there could be many different places to park that have different levels of risk of an unattended collision.

It's a fact that drivers who claim once are more likely to claim again. Not on an individual basis perhaps, but over the millions of insured cars that insurers take stats from.

[SMcP114]

B4rker said:

State to the insurance company that you would like to keep the vehicle even if it is written off.

What will then likely happen is the insurance company will make you an offer for the vehicle say £2,000 and then say the scrap vaule is £200. They will then deduct the £200 from the amount and give you a cheque for £1800 plus the vehicle.

If the vehicle is classed as a Cat D write off, all you will need to do is re MoT the vehicle after to satisfy the insurance company that it is road worthy and the DVLA will not have to be told although you will have to disclose it when selling the car.

If it is classed as a CAT C the vehicle will need to have an engineer's report before the insurers are likely to insure it again.

I asked in the feedback section if we could have a sticky on damage classification. This is why.

Cat D does not need to be re-MOT'd, nor do you 'have' to disclose it.

Cat C does not need an engineer's report. A simple VIC test is all it needs.