None fault crash - Uninsured loss claim
Discussion
It's about an extra £300 - and I think we can see exactly why.
My car is my pride and joy, and I absolutely despise leaving it on the streets in London - for this exact reason. So I avoid it most of the time, often if I'm required to be in head office I'll get the train down. I spoke to my insurers about this when taking the policy out and they said it's where the car is registered to and will spend the larger % of it's time, there was no option to sub-declare a secondary parking location.
My car is my pride and joy, and I absolutely despise leaving it on the streets in London - for this exact reason. So I avoid it most of the time, often if I'm required to be in head office I'll get the train down. I spoke to my insurers about this when taking the policy out and they said it's where the car is registered to and will spend the larger % of it's time, there was no option to sub-declare a secondary parking location.
The Surveyor said:
How do you, and the insurance companies actually know that. I'd hate to think that an 'inconvenience payment' was being applied to all claims on the basis that it 'seems pretty reasonable'!
It's not that unreasonable though surely.An innocent third party has to spend hours of their time sorting out a car repair when they could be doing something else they want to do.
I think a fixed inconvenience payment is perfectly reasonable.
PurpleMoonlight said:
It's not that unreasonable though surely.
An innocent third party has to spend hours of their time sorting out a car repair when they could be doing something else they want to do.
I think a fixed inconvenience payment is perfectly reasonable.
No, because that's profiting from a loss which is contrary to the principles of insurance law.An innocent third party has to spend hours of their time sorting out a car repair when they could be doing something else they want to do.
I think a fixed inconvenience payment is perfectly reasonable.
Put that to one side and you've just increased the cost of every claim by £x. This now needs to be recovered so assuming a simple 1:10 claim ratio we are all now paying an extra £0.1x on our premiums. Well done.
LoonR1 said:
No, because that's profiting from a loss which is contrary to the principles of insurance law.
Put that to one side and you've just increased the cost of every claim by £x. This now needs to be recovered so assuming a simple 1:10 claim ratio we are all now paying an extra £0.1x on our premiums. Well done.
It's not profiting, it's compensation for their time and inconvenience.Put that to one side and you've just increased the cost of every claim by £x. This now needs to be recovered so assuming a simple 1:10 claim ratio we are all now paying an extra £0.1x on our premiums. Well done.
Premiums are far higher because of the way insurers force people through AMC's.
PurpleMoonlight said:
It's not profiting, it's compensation for their time and inconvenience.
And where people have incurred an actual loss, they can recover that as part of their uninsured losses. What you are asking for is another level of compo based on nothing but a 'seems reasonable'. If I'm older than you, and statistically closer to death, is my time more valuable than yours and therefore should I get more compo than you, for example? Given the universal hatred of the 'compensation culture' (yourself excepted!), its a ridiculous notion!
The Surveyor said:
What you are asking for is another level of compo based on nothing but a 'seems reasonable'. If I'm older than you, and statistically closer to death, is my time more valuable than yours and therefore should I get more compo than you, for example? Given the universal hatred of the 'compensation culture' (yourself excepted!), its a ridiculous notion!
I am not suggesting time and inconvenience compensation is evaluated on a personal basis, a fixed sum of £100 for example would suffice.
PurpleMoonlight said:
You can receive compensation for personal injury, irrespective of whether or not that injury involves a loss. It is for your suffering and inconvenience.
I am not suggesting time and inconvenience compensation is evaluated on a personal basis, a fixed sum of £100 for example would suffice.
What if Ive got a demonstrable loss of more than £100? I've just lost out through no fault of my own?I am not suggesting time and inconvenience compensation is evaluated on a personal basis, a fixed sum of £100 for example would suffice.
Edited by LoonR1 on Thursday 16th April 16:41
hornetrider said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Calza said:
It's just a small local garage so I don't think they have any courtesy cars, no?
Yes, they will. They might not be great, but they will.
k do you know? There's gazillions of garages without courtesy cars - it's how they keep costs down.PurpleMoonlight said:
The Surveyor said:
What you are asking for is another level of compo based on nothing but a 'seems reasonable'. If I'm older than you, and statistically closer to death, is my time more valuable than yours and therefore should I get more compo than you, for example? Given the universal hatred of the 'compensation culture' (yourself excepted!), its a ridiculous notion!
I am not suggesting time and inconvenience compensation is evaluated on a personal basis, a fixed sum of £100 for example would suffice.
I would much prefer that the existing situation remains and that we all benefit from relatively low insurance policies. The alternative using your suggestion being that we all take a hit with the premiums, only seeing the £100 cash-back when we're lucky enough to be involved in an accident. As before, it's a ridiculous idea no mater which way you look at it.
The Surveyor said:
To make a claim for compensation for a personal injury, there should actually be an injury. That is then assessed on the impact that injury actually has. What you're suggesting is nothing like that, its a payment regardless of inconvenience or loss. I hope you can see the fundamental difference.
No I don't to be honest.Whiplash claims have historically paid simply on the basis of someone claiming they have back/neck ache. No further proof, no impact assessment, just a cheque for £2000 in the post.
I would argue that no innocent third party suffers no inconvenience whatsoever. The insurers don't work for free yet the innocent victim is expect to. Hardly fair.
Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Thursday 16th April 16:37
PurpleMoonlight said:
The Surveyor said:
To make a claim for compensation for a personal injury, there should actually be an injury. That is then assessed on the impact that injury actually has. What you're suggesting is nothing like that, its a payment regardless of inconvenience or loss. I hope you can see the fundamental difference.
No I don't to be honest.Whiplash claims have historically paid simply on the basis of someone claiming they have back/neck ache. No further proof, no impact assessment, just a cheque for £2000 in the post.
I would argue that no innocent third party suffers no inconvenience whatsoever. The insurers don't work for free yet the innocent victim is expect to. Hardly fair.
What you are suggesting is that regardless of loss, if you are involved in a accident you receive a fixed compensation payment for any inconvenience caused. That's the key difference. One is compensation determined by the measurable loss, the other is compensation regardless of any loss.
The Surveyor said:
What you are suggesting is that regardless of loss, if you are involved in a accident you receive a fixed compensation payment for any inconvenience caused. That's the key difference.
If there is no loss there would not need to be a claim and therefore no inconvenience.The Surveyor said:
desolate said:
What he is claiming seems pretty reasonable.
How do you, and the insurance companies actually know that. I'd hate to think that an 'inconvenience payment' was being applied to all claims on the basis that it 'seems pretty reasonable'!t Tax" on the bloke who didn't report the claim.OP could have legitimately hired a car and sent the bill. Instead he tried to sort out a s
tty situation at minimal cost.Will the insco pursue their insured for the extra costs? Will they heckers-like.
There a loads of reasons why insurance premiums are what they are, but cases like this aren't one of them.
TooMany2cvs said:
I very much doubt there is a single garage in the country, one-man bands included, who can't sort at least one courtesy car. It might not be available for every customer, purely because it might be already out, but I doubt there are any without at least one. They'd be out of business in minutes flat.
The garage I use to work on my cars doesn't have courtesy cars.Neither does the place that does all our MOTs for work that also does mechanical repairs.
TooMany2cvs said:
I very much doubt there is a single garage in the country, one-man bands included, who can't sort at least one courtesy car. It might not be available for every customer, purely because it might be already out, but I doubt there are any without at least one. They'd be out of business in minutes flat.
sorry to have to say it, but thats one of the most silly posts of recent times....I can think of at least 20 local garages just off the top of my head that have no courtesy cars and nor would they like to have any with the added running and insurance costs etc... in fact the only ones that I can think of that do are either large dealers or bodyshops..
desolate said:
The Surveyor said:
desolate said:
What he is claiming seems pretty reasonable.
How do you, and the insurance companies actually know that. I'd hate to think that an 'inconvenience payment' was being applied to all claims on the basis that it 'seems pretty reasonable'!t Tax" on the bloke who didn't report the claim.OP could have legitimately hired a car and sent the bill. Instead he tried to sort out a s
tty situation at minimal cost.Will the insco pursue their insured for the extra costs? Will they heckers-like.
There a loads of reasons why insurance premiums are what they are, but cases like this aren't one of them.
The Surveyor said:
Nope, you're still very wrong. If you think you can simply pluck a figure out of the air and say, "I want this much" without any substantiation, and that this will somehow make up for all that you think is wrong with the car insurance industry, then I'm not sure what else to add....
I don't think I am wrong. They will have spent more than they save arguing the toss.They should pay him out and give their client a kicking.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff