Insurance claim 6 months after 'incident'

[Mound Dawg]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Eclassy said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So, having got away with insurance fraud, and happy to boast about it, I take it you have no issue with dodgy whiplash claims and cash for crash scams.

I was waiting for the first clueless one to say this.... You are obviously smarter than my insurer's claim handlers who decided to pay out... Even overpaid.

I have buildings and contents cover and decided to claim back my damaged contents which I wouldnt have claimed for if a claim wasnt dubiously pinned on me.

Can you tell me where the fraud took place?

The items you claims for were all already broken and up in the loft. If they were broken by wear & tear then they are not covered, and if they were broken by other means then you were liable for the policy excess on each and every occurrence. But you told them the items were damaged as a result of the water ingress, which is fraud.

Unless I misunderstood your story.

Not forgetting-

Mr Honest and Upstanding Citizen said:

They even overpaid and kept chasing me for a part refund. I ignored them.

[anonymous-user]

Not forgetting also:-

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.
...

[Eclassy]

It is dishonest to claim on my own contents insurance but honest of insurers to record a claim against me for making an inquiry.

I am sure you lot are aware that you have to notify your home insurers of every thing that may affect your premium and I am sure you honest chaps do this. This includes but is not limited to things like that leaking kitchen tap (future ingress claim), that exploding kebab in the oven (future fire claim)

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/sep/30/insur...

Edited by Eclassy on Thursday 16th October 14:51

[anonymous-user]

Insurers insure risk. If you tell them that a risk eventuated, that may alter their evaluation of the risk insured.

You are entitled to claim for loss and damage covered by the insurance, not to use the policy as an opportunity to claim for random broken stuff.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eclassy said:

It is dishonest to claim on my own contents insurance but honest of insurers to record a claim against me for making an inquiry.

Yes. Hope this helps.

The fact that you've had an incident, such as a leaking roof, means that even though you haven't claimed for it, you are more likely to have further issues in the future. Therefore it is a valid rating consideration. Nobody is forcing you to insure with that firm, or insure your house at all. It isn't compulsory.

That's nothing like claiming for a whole load of items saying they were damaged by water when they were all broken anyway. That's fraud, pure and simple.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eclassy said:

Can you tell me where the fraud took place?

Errr...in your house.

[Eclassy]

Random broken stuff indeed.

These were my own gadgets which were damaged accidentaly in my house and covered by my insurers. Although I had no plans to claim for them at the time of damage, I did anyway at a later date because my insurers pinned a dubious claim on me.

Take me to jail!

[Carnage]

What an asset to Pistonheads you are.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eclassy said:

Random broken stuff indeed.

These were my own gadgets which were damaged accidentaly in my house and covered by my insurers. Although I had no plans to claim for them at the time of damage, I did anyway at a later date because my insurers pinned a dubious claim on me.

Take me to jail!

Assuming you have accidental damage to contents cover on your policy, did you make this clear to your insurers and agree to pay the excess for each and every accidental breakage:?

Because if not, there's a word for that. FRAUD.

[TooMany2cvs]

Eclassy said:

Random broken stuff indeed.

These were my own gadgets which were damaged accidentaly in my house and covered by my insurers. Although I had no plans to claim for them at the time of damage, I did anyway at a later date because my insurers pinned a dubious claim on me.

Take me to jail!

You really do live up to your name, don't you?

[StuntmanMike]

TooMany2cvs said:

Eclassy said:

Random broken stuff indeed.

These were my own gadgets which were damaged accidentaly in my house and covered by my insurers. Although I had no plans to claim for them at the time of damage, I did anyway at a later date because my insurers pinned a dubious claim on me.

Take me to jail!

You really do live up to your name, don't you?

That video he posted of the angry motorist the other week, could that have been his insurance investigator.

[JEA1K]

Drawweight said:

I hope you would have been shopping around for insurance regardless of whether she'd had an accident or not.

Of course. She knew her policy was coming up for renewal and had looked at some other insurers which were quoting £6-700 (before she knew about the claim) .... an increase of £400 - £500 isn't 'that' bad considering.

[julian64]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

julian64 said:

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.

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.

It's got nothing to do with honesty, but a lack of ability. Your kids are far more likely to cause an accident than to be the victims of someone else's stupidity. That's a fact, even for decent young people. They make stupid errors. If and when they do, your recording device is giving the authorities the evidence they will need to hit them with a careless driving charge, when without it, they may not have pursued it.

And thats exactly the thought I want in their heads when they are out driving by themselves.

[LucreLout]

julian64 said:

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.

...

The price of this piece of mind. In my case it was £30.

May I ask which system this is please Julian? Sounds like something I might like my wife's car to have.

[BertBert]

LucreLout said:

May I ask which system this is please Julian? Sounds like something I might like my wife's car to have.

I can't help but think it's a really bad idea. It's bad enough having a vid on your race car showing all those "driving like a tt" moments - but at least it's a an actual race! For your road car, I bet there's far more "I wish I hadn't done that" incidents than the other way around.
Bert

[julian64]

LucreLout said:

julian64 said:

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.

...

The price of this piece of mind. In my case it was £30.

May I ask which system this is please Julian? Sounds like something I might like my wife's car to have.

Mine looks like this

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HD-Dual-Lens-170-1080P-D...

mine had a rear camera lead that was over twenty feet long though. This one looks a bit short. The best mount is the flat plate mount which means there is no vibration in it as its effectively one with the window. On my cars it sits behind the rear view mirror and wired into the car above the mirror so it virtually disappears. The rear view sits in the rear window and the connecting lead is pushed up into the headlining above the passenger and drivers door. Once done its pretty invisible with n otrailing leads.
It records vision and sound on an up to 32GB microsd (approx £11). This gives about three days of continual recording for me.

I suspect you can buy better but for me its adequate for the job, and a no brainer. With no trailing lead and the size of it I doubt unless it was a fatal accident bib would even notice it was there. You certainly can't see it from outside the car, and you can't see it from the drivers seat.

[LucreLout]

BertBert said:

I can't help but think it's a really bad idea. It's bad enough having a vid on your race car showing all those "driving like a tt" moments - but at least it's a an actual race! For your road car, I bet there's far more "I wish I hadn't done that" incidents than the other way around.
Bert

It's her driving I'm hoping to improve

[BertBert]

LucreLout said:

It's her driving I'm hoping to improve

Yep, understood that. I's fair to say that pretty much all my efforts to achieve that lofty goal have not gone well