My insurance company want to write my car off

My insurance company want to write my car off

Author
Discussion

Noger

7,117 posts

248 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
If the value is low it will be a Cat D regardless, assuming it is repairable.

Vince70

1,939 posts

193 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
I had this happen to me a few years ago I got £1800 for my car and bought my car back for £180, it was classed as a cat d, all it needed was a plastic grill and headlight and bonnet.
I went on eBay and even managed to buy the correct colour parts, I think it cost in the region of £80 to do an invisible repair.
I really should thank the dustman for reversing over my bonnet lol.

supermono

7,368 posts

247 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
Question for the insco guy, the OP won't need to mention this on renewal, right? He wasn't involved in the accident so there's no reason for this event to cause a change in premium hence save admin and potential misunderstandings by his insurer by not mentioning it?
(clearly I mean new insurer when he changes next year)
SM

Edited by supermono on Friday 17th August 07:52

TPS

1,860 posts

212 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
supermono said:
Question for the insco guy, the OP won't need to mention this on renewal, right? He wasn't involved in the accident so there's no reason for this event to cause a change in premium hence save admin and potential misunderstandings by his insurer by not mentioning it?
(clearly I mean new insurer when he changes next year)
SM

Edited by supermono on Friday 17th August 07:52
Wrong.

He will need to mention it and it could have an effect on his premium.

Remember hearing this when you ask for a new quote?

Have you had any claims or convictions in the last 5 years whether to blame or not.

supermono

7,368 posts

247 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
TPS said:
He will need to mention it and it could have an effect on his premium
Hmmm. Can you explain why his risk and therefore premium would be affected by someone crashing into his car at random while he wasn't even on the scene?

Surely the only reason they would load his premium would be through a misunderstanding of the facts, and it's therefore safer for your pocket to not bother them with it.

SM

Edited by supermono on Friday 17th August 08:25

TPS

1,860 posts

212 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
supermono said:
TPS said:
He will need to mention it and it could have an effect on his premium
Hmmm. Can you explain why his risk and therefore premium would be affected by someone crashing into his car at random while he wasn't even on the scene?

Surely the only reason they would load his premium would be through a misunderstanding of the facts, and it's therefore safer for your pocket to not bother them with it.

SM

Edited by supermono on Friday 17th August 08:25
Loon would be your man but my understanding is this.

You are more at risk of a claim having been involved in an accident.

supermono

7,368 posts

247 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
TPS said:
You are more at risk of a claim having been involved in an accident.
yes my point. The OP wasn't involved. All that happened was someone damaged his property while he was elsewhere.

But if the insco hear about the claim they may mistakenly (or mischeiviously) think he was and charge wrongly.

SM

TPS

1,860 posts

212 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
supermono said:
TPS said:
You are more at risk of a claim having been involved in an accident.
yes my point. The OP wasn't involved. All that happened was someone damaged his property while he was elsewhere.

But if the insco hear about the claim they may mistakenly (or mischeiviously) think he was and charge wrongly.

SM
peterzoom said:
My weekend runabout was reversed into at speed by another driver. Independent witnesses and formal admition of liability by other driver.
Was he in the car at the time?

The point here is his car has been in an accident and he has been involved in a claim.

ZOLLAR

19,908 posts

172 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
supermono said:
TPS said:
You are more at risk of a claim having been involved in an accident.
yes my point. The OP wasn't involved. All that happened was someone damaged his property while he was elsewhere.

But if the insco hear about the claim they may mistakenly (or mischeiviously) think he was and charge wrongly.

SM
Have you had any accidents, losses, thefts, incidents or claims in the last 3/5 years regardless of fault?

Policyholder has made a claim against his policy and his insurers have recovered from the TPI.
one way to look at it is most people aren't involved when their car is stolen doesn't mean they shouldn't declare it to new insurers.

Fireblade69

628 posts

202 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
supermono said:
TPS said:
You are more at risk of a claim having been involved in an accident.
yes my point. The OP wasn't involved. All that happened was someone damaged his property while he was elsewhere.

But if the insco hear about the claim they may mistakenly (or mischeiviously) think he was and charge wrongly.

SM
It's all a load of old tosh; insurers will win whatever as that's why they are still in business.

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.

All of these were declared to and fully paid for by the insurers, (apart from the stolen car declared but not paid for - minimal damage anyway). Still cost me circa £2,000 in additional premium over the years. rolleyes

supermono

7,368 posts

247 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
TPS said:
The point here is his car has been in an accident and he has been involved in a claim.
Insco use this as a proxy of risk for premium calcs. If the OP wasn't in the car at the time, the proxy isn't a proxy at all. I mean his risk wouldn't be affected if the guy crashed into a different car or no car at all.

SM

ZOLLAR

19,908 posts

172 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
supermono said:
TPS said:
The point here is his car has been in an accident and he has been involved in a claim.
Insco use this as a proxy of risk for premium calcs. If the OP wasn't in the car at the time, the proxy isn't a proxy at all. I mean his risk wouldn't be affected if the guy crashed into a different car or no car at all.

SM
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.

supermono

7,368 posts

247 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
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

ZOLLAR

19,908 posts

172 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
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
Because there are many different ways to rate a premium, one being loading for a particular post code and then others more specific to the driver.
The op has been involved in an incident, made a claim etc to say other wise would be lying to his new insurers.

maser_spyder

6,356 posts

181 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
Ask the loss adjuster for a 'cash in lieu' settlement. He'll know what you mean.

This is where they pay you a compensation figure rather than arrange to have the car repaired.

Based on the fact this figure will be a lot less than a repair, hire car, etc. it's a better deal for the insurance company, they're always happy to do it.

No 'Cat C/D' as there's no accident recorded.

I've done this twice myself with snotters.

Had a really tidy old Toyota when I was a student, worth about £500, but you'd never find another one as good as again. Rear-ended, repairs would have been £1k at least, offered a cash in lieu settlement when the loss adjuster came round, the conversation went something like "Soooo, £800? No way, £300. Ha ha, nice one, £650. £400. £500. Done." I got a cheque in the post a few days later, case closed.

Got a second hand bumper and fitted it myself in an afternoon.

maser_spyder

6,356 posts

181 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
Oh, I should add to that ^^^.

Go direct to their insurer.

Tell your insurer you are not continuing with the claim.

Ask the loss adjuster from their insurer to come and see the car to make a settlement.

Ask for cash in lieu. Haggle.

Get cheque, buy bits, fix car.

Noger

7,117 posts

248 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
There won't be a loss adjuster, just a claims handler and an engineer.

As long as the inspecting engineer hasn't yet made the assessment then above will work.

Once classified on MIAFTR as a potential total loss, it will be difficult to remove.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
supermono said:
Hmmm. Can you explain why his risk and therefore premium would be affected by someone crashing into his car at random while he wasn't even on the scene?

Surely the only reason they would load his premium would be through a misunderstanding of the facts, and it's therefore safer for your pocket to not bother them with it.

SM
Yes.

Insurance is a pooled risk ie the majority pay for the losses of the few. Insurers need to ty to assess each individuals premium as fairly as possible. This is very difficult to do on an individual basis without it costing a fortune to produce the quote and thus impact the premium heavily.

As such they rate based on a ariety of factors, feed it into their own claims experience and come up with a premium that means they are happy to accept the risk of a full policy year.

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.

The rpemium therefore is higher. If it wasn't rated higher then the rest of those in the same pot would need to pay more to offset the lack of premium from the claiming driver.

If a claim is made then he insurer incurs operational costs, the indemnity outlay is recoverable th operational costs aren't, so a non-fault costs the insurer.

Finally, if the OP wasn't in his car, then what happens next time when someone hits his car and drives off without leaving any details? He will claim on his insurance and it is a fault claim as there is nobody to recover the outlay from.

Your argument is very old, it's been done to death several times. Insurance is by its nature a discriminatory product. If ou want it changed to noon-discriminatory then everyone will pay the same fixed premium, which will simply increase every year as there is no benefit to driving safely.

Noger

7,117 posts

248 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
supermono said:
Insco use this as a proxy of risk for premium calcs. If the OP wasn't in the car at the time, the proxy isn't a proxy at all. I mean his risk wouldn't be affected if the guy crashed into a different car or no car at all.

SM
Same troll, different thread rolleyessmile

Half right about the proxy though. We know the risk from actuarial experience, actual data on claims costs vs disclosed policy data. Isolate claims history as a factor, and you get higher costs.

Claims history is a proxy for something though, probably more than one thing.

It is like the fact that married men live longer (and therefore, for a little while at least, have higher annuity costs) - it isn't marriage that causes them to live longer (one would assume the opposite !!) but marital status is a proxy for wealth. Wealthier people are more likely to get married and wealthier people live longer.

Seems unfair, but that is the way of the world.

supermono

7,368 posts

247 months

Friday 17th August 2012
quotequote all
Noger said:
Same troll, different thread rolleyessmile

Half right about the proxy though. We know the risk from actuarial experience, actual data on claims costs vs disclosed policy data. Isolate claims history as a factor, and you get higher costs.

Claims history is a proxy for something though, probably more than one thing.

It is like the fact that married men live longer (and therefore, for a little while at least, have higher annuity costs) - it isn't marriage that causes them to live longer (one would assume the opposite !!) but marital status is a proxy for wealth. Wealthier people are more likely to get married and wealthier people live longer.

Seems unfair, but that is the way of the world.
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