Insurance claim 6 months after 'incident'
Discussion
JEA1K said:
ZOLLAR said:
3 years.
OP did your daughter report the incident to her insurer?
She did not as there was no visible damage to either car. OP did your daughter report the incident to her insurer?
The insurer can't dispute something they're not aware of, claim comes in 6 months down the line and your daughter confirms there was an incident she didn't report doesn't put her in the best light.
The insurer will deal with the claim as they see fit and will mitigate their losses i.e. pay the claim before the costs rise any further.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Quoted for people that didn't bother to read it first time.
They haven't paid a penny yet ....
To add: I am not aware of what stage this claim is at (it was late when I arrived home and had tears!) but as they have already increased her premium, does this suggest that they'e already made their decision? They haven't paid a penny yet ....
thoughts for OP - firstly focus on her being at fault rather than some deluded crash bang wallop compo culture fraud default setting - now with your sensible heads on liaise with insurers to see what if any damage he substantiates and they may wish to inspect her car - moving forward daughter needs to be more careful and if it happens again disclose it to her insurers at the time
hora said:
Flame me but what if your daughters recollection feels like she was forced under-duress/felt threatened by this bloke and possibly he suggested that she had rolled into him, whilst she was trying to balance her clutch when infact he could have been impatient, decided to set off and not realised she had moved but not moved completely and paused?
Ergo- did she REALLY roll back? Or mistaken? Easy when someone flares up/scares/panic.
behaveErgo- did she REALLY roll back? Or mistaken? Easy when someone flares up/scares/panic.
JEA1K said:
To add: I am not aware of what stage this claim is at (it was late when I arrived home and had tears!) but as they have already increased her premium, does this suggest that they'e already made their decision?
They have likely just loaded the premium because they have been notified of a potential claim without any knowledge of the value. They won't have assessed the validity of that claim yet.ZOLLAR said:
hora said:
Yes- there must be some sort of time/period that is reasonable to put in a claim. It just smacks of a small garage scam to me. The guy could be geniune but how the hell does he know who parked against his car overnight/used his car for parking distance control/how he parks etc.
Anyone who gets out and starts shouting at a woman doesn't colour himself well.
I've been rear-ended twice. First time quite heavily in my old MX5. I got out and the lad apologised. Gave me his details and I was calm.
Secondtime was the accident management Honda Jazz whilst the MX5 was being repaired. I was sat at lights in Rochdale and a young asian lad belted me. I got out (calmly again) and he said 'oh no not again'. I laughed long and hard and didn't explain the irony, got it and drove off.
Anyone who gets out shouty- hmmm. Anyway.
3 years.Anyone who gets out and starts shouting at a woman doesn't colour himself well.
I've been rear-ended twice. First time quite heavily in my old MX5. I got out and the lad apologised. Gave me his details and I was calm.
Secondtime was the accident management Honda Jazz whilst the MX5 was being repaired. I was sat at lights in Rochdale and a young asian lad belted me. I got out (calmly again) and he said 'oh no not again'. I laughed long and hard and didn't explain the irony, got it and drove off.
Anyone who gets out shouty- hmmm. Anyway.
I really struggle to see how so many posters haven't understood what has happened, when the OP was perfectly clear.
1. She rolled forward into his car. She didn't roll back. She wasn't hit by the tp. She hit him.
2. Insurers have increased renewal premium following a claim made by the tp. They haven't paid the claim yet.
Why are people going on about her rolling back into the tp or about insurers paying the claim without reverting to her, when neither of these things have happened??
1. She rolled forward into his car. She didn't roll back. She wasn't hit by the tp. She hit him.
2. Insurers have increased renewal premium following a claim made by the tp. They haven't paid the claim yet.
Why are people going on about her rolling back into the tp or about insurers paying the claim without reverting to her, when neither of these things have happened??
Shnozz said:
ZOLLAR said:
hora said:
Yes- there must be some sort of time/period that is reasonable to put in a claim. It just smacks of a small garage scam to me. The guy could be geniune but how the hell does he know who parked against his car overnight/used his car for parking distance control/how he parks etc.
Anyone who gets out and starts shouting at a woman doesn't colour himself well.
I've been rear-ended twice. First time quite heavily in my old MX5. I got out and the lad apologised. Gave me his details and I was calm.
Secondtime was the accident management Honda Jazz whilst the MX5 was being repaired. I was sat at lights in Rochdale and a young asian lad belted me. I got out (calmly again) and he said 'oh no not again'. I laughed long and hard and didn't explain the irony, got it and drove off.
Anyone who gets out shouty- hmmm. Anyway.
3 years.Anyone who gets out and starts shouting at a woman doesn't colour himself well.
I've been rear-ended twice. First time quite heavily in my old MX5. I got out and the lad apologised. Gave me his details and I was calm.
Secondtime was the accident management Honda Jazz whilst the MX5 was being repaired. I was sat at lights in Rochdale and a young asian lad belted me. I got out (calmly again) and he said 'oh no not again'. I laughed long and hard and didn't explain the irony, got it and drove off.
Anyone who gets out shouty- hmmm. Anyway.
You can bring a claim within 3 years of the incident.
I really don't understand why this happens.
As a young driver your daughter is fair game for all the conmen who frequent the roads these days.
If your daughter bumps into someone the game these days seems to be to try and get as much money of the insurance companies as possible.
The premiums on young drivers these days are astronmical and I assume you are quite happy to pay the 5K?
Fair do's if so, but my two teenage sons will not be let loose in a car unless there is an HD recording device monitoring the front and rear of the car from the time they turn the key till about three minutes after they turn off.
There will be no 'his word vs her word' that could potentially cause me another 3K a year.
The price of this piece of mind. In my case it was £30.
I really think you want to consider this.
As a young driver your daughter is fair game for all the conmen who frequent the roads these days.
If your daughter bumps into someone the game these days seems to be to try and get as much money of the insurance companies as possible.
The premiums on young drivers these days are astronmical and I assume you are quite happy to pay the 5K?
Fair do's if so, but my two teenage sons will not be let loose in a car unless there is an HD recording device monitoring the front and rear of the car from the time they turn the key till about three minutes after they turn off.
There will be no 'his word vs her word' that could potentially cause me another 3K a year.
The price of this piece of mind. In my case it was £30.
I really think you want to consider this.
PurpleMoonlight said:
They have likely just loaded the premium because they have been notified of a potential claim without any knowledge of the value. They won't have assessed the validity of that claim yet.
This is probable - I had a pending claim and my renewal considered me at fault until proved otherwise (at which point my premium would have been adjusted).pork911 said:
moving forward daughter needs to be more careful and if it happens again disclose it to her insurers at the time
It may be by the book, but sorry she'll have been mad to report a non-incident, especially at her age. I reported a non-fault no damage incident (somebody nudged my rear bumper at <5 mph) to cover my back in the past, and as a result my premiums were loaded for the next 3 years to the same extent to as if my car had been completely totalled (I checked this by playing with online quotes) - I won't be making that mistake again. At 18, she could be a few £thousand out of pocket over the 3-5 years you declare incidents.
julian64 said:
I really don't understand why this happens.
As a young driver your daughter is fair game for all the conmen who frequent the roads these days.
If your daughter bumps into someone the game these days seems to be to try and get as much money of the insurance companies as possible.
The premiums on young drivers these days are astronmical and I assume you are quite happy to pay the 5K?
Fair do's if so, but my two teenage sons will not be let loose in a car unless there is an HD recording device monitoring the front and rear of the car from the time they turn the key till about three minutes after they turn off.
There will be no 'his word vs her word' that could potentially cause me another 3K a year.
The price of this piece of mind. In my case it was £30.
I really think you want to consider this.
In this case there is no his word v hers. She was at fault and admits it.As a young driver your daughter is fair game for all the conmen who frequent the roads these days.
If your daughter bumps into someone the game these days seems to be to try and get as much money of the insurance companies as possible.
The premiums on young drivers these days are astronmical and I assume you are quite happy to pay the 5K?
Fair do's if so, but my two teenage sons will not be let loose in a car unless there is an HD recording device monitoring the front and rear of the car from the time they turn the key till about three minutes after they turn off.
There will be no 'his word vs her word' that could potentially cause me another 3K a year.
The price of this piece of mind. In my case it was £30.
I really think you want to consider this.
Given that young drivers are statistically going to be at fault for about 95% of the accidents they are involved in, the last thing I'd want in their car is a recoding device. The police can and will seize it in the event of an accident and thus it will provide evidence for prosecution that they otherwise might not have pursued.
julian64 said:
I really don't understand why this happens.
The premiums on young drivers these days are astronmical and I assume you are quite happy to pay the 5K?
£5.5k ... no, I certainly won't be funding this. She was assisted in her first year, after that she was told she was on her own so if her premium does increase as suggested then she'll have to sell the car and catch a bus to college, simple.The premiums on young drivers these days are astronmical and I assume you are quite happy to pay the 5K?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
In this case there is no his word v hers. She was at fault and admits it.
Given that young drivers are statistically going to be at fault for about 95% of the accidents they are involved in, the last thing I'd want in their car is a recoding device. The police can and will seize it in the event of an accident and thus it will provide evidence for prosecution that they otherwise might not have pursued.
Well yes you do have to consider your child isn't some sort of car driving loony. But applied to the op, it would show a minor bump mismatched to a large degree of rear end damage.Given that young drivers are statistically going to be at fault for about 95% of the accidents they are involved in, the last thing I'd want in their car is a recoding device. The police can and will seize it in the event of an accident and thus it will provide evidence for prosecution that they otherwise might not have pursued.
If I had the lack of trust you speak of, I wouldn't fork out to allow my children in a car in the first place.
I've had someone drive into the back of me at a set of traffic lights with the result being no external visible sign of damage. However, lift the boot carpet and the boot had been deformed and the polystyrene stuff inside the bumper had also been completely deformed. Modern bumpers can be quite resilient at times, doesn't mean there's no damage behind them.
JQ said:
I've had someone drive into the back of me at a set of traffic lights with the result being no external visible sign of damage. However, lift the boot carpet and the boot had been deformed and the polystyrene stuff inside the bumper had also been completely deformed. Modern bumpers can be quite resilient at times, doesn't mean there's no damage behind them.
While thats undoubtedly true I thought there was a european directive to say all car manufacturers had to produce cars where a bump <5mph would cause no damage. I could of course be wrong.Matthen said:
I don't understand - How will the guy she rolled into prove he hasn't reversed into a post since? Seems a bit fishy.
Well the guy didn't put in a whiplash claim immediately and didn't put in a damage claim immediately, and the way the damage has been discovered appears plausible. I'm inclined to believe him.Eclassy said:
...
Not the most honest thing to do but I'd be advising her to claim she has absolutely no knowledge of any such incident. 6 months is a bloody long time to wait to make a claim.
...
Your advice is "be dishonest"? Great!Not the most honest thing to do but I'd be advising her to claim she has absolutely no knowledge of any such incident. 6 months is a bloody long time to wait to make a claim.
...
The limitation period is six years for property damage, three years for personal injury.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff