VOIDED INSURANCE
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
VonSenger said:
A friend owns a body shop. They had an RS6 estate in last year which was hit head on by a bus. He was displaying an ABT badge on the back. When the assessor from the bus company viewed the car he wrote in his report that the car had been mapped. They refused to payout even after a read out from the ecu, aparantely there was no guarantee it wasn't changed back after the crash.
Sounds like these w
kers are at it again. Fight it as this sounds like a scam. The chap who owned the rs6 paid £10k for the repair out of his own pocket.
This makes no sense. The bus company were the third party. The have no contract with the RS6 owner. So how can they refuse to pay a claim after hitting a car just because the car was chipped?Sounds like these w
kers are at it again. Fight it as this sounds like a scam. The chap who owned the rs6 paid £10k for the repair out of his own pocket. Unless they thought the accident was the Audi driver's fault, in which case their refusal to pay was nothing to do with the chip, but because they didn't think their driver was negligent.
I read it as though the RS6 guy had contacted his own insurer and whose assessor had red carded it, before doing the work and claiming it all back from the bus co, but that isnt what the post says
swerni said:
That's because it never happened
I couldn't give a fk whether you believe it or not. As a 40 year old man, what reason do i have to waste my time lying? You might do that to gain friends but I don't. Plonker. PH has become relentlessly tiring with w
kers like yourself. Bordering unusable. VonSenger said:
saaby93 said:
Agreed it doesnt look right.
I read it as though the RS6 guy had contacted his own insurer and whose assessor had red carded it, before doing the work and claiming it all back from the bus co, but that isnt what the post says
Some self insure Like some car hire firms do. I read it as though the RS6 guy had contacted his own insurer and whose assessor had red carded it, before doing the work and claiming it all back from the bus co, but that isnt what the post says
Like many things I guess, if it's right the RS6 guy could have taken it through the ombudsman process etc but sometimes it's easier to just pay up and move on - which is what they're hoping for
VonSenger said:
I couldn't give a fk whether you believe it or not. As a 40 year old man, what reason do i have to waste my time lying? You might do that to gain friends but I don't. Plonker.
PH has become relentlessly tiring with wkers like yourself. Bordering unusable.
Can you not see that the story, as told, makes no sense at all. k whether you believe it or not. As a 40 year old man, what reason do i have to waste my time lying? You might do that to gain friends but I don't. Plonker. PH has become relentlessly tiring with w
kers like yourself. Bordering unusable. If I'm driving along the road correctly, and get hit by a tp due to their negligence, they are responsible for my damage and injury, even if I'm 5 times over the limit, driving an uninsured modified Lamborghini, and I'm only 14.
My law breaking is a separate issue from their negligence.
I realise this thread has digressed a bit, but ...
My wife had a similar issue a few years back with eSure Insurance. Her car (a completely standard, but top-spec Nissan Micra) was hit in whilst parked in a multistorey car park and she came back to find someone had dragged their car along doors, restyling them for her. We claimed under her own insurance as there was no-one to claim against. Their engineer's report came back and said that the car had been fitted with a "performance exhaust". It hadn't - it was in fact a cosmetic bit of chrome trim and was a 'feature' of her particular model and had come from the factory with it.
They didn't void her insurance but charged her extra for a modification (taken by direct debit without authorisation). I argued it on principal as much as anything, but they wouldn't listen as their "trained mechanic" (their words) had told them it was a performance exhaust, so it must be. In the end, after numerous phone calls and emails I ended up providing them with photographs of all the part numbers which were stamped on the rusty factory-fitted OEM exhaust and a print-out from the Nissan main dealer showing the same part numbers, they finally gave her the money back.
A lot of faffing around for £40 but it was the principal of the whole situation that annoyed me. Not sure who the OP's insurance company was, but I'd never use eSure again for anything after this experience.
My wife had a similar issue a few years back with eSure Insurance. Her car (a completely standard, but top-spec Nissan Micra) was hit in whilst parked in a multistorey car park and she came back to find someone had dragged their car along doors, restyling them for her. We claimed under her own insurance as there was no-one to claim against. Their engineer's report came back and said that the car had been fitted with a "performance exhaust". It hadn't - it was in fact a cosmetic bit of chrome trim and was a 'feature' of her particular model and had come from the factory with it.
They didn't void her insurance but charged her extra for a modification (taken by direct debit without authorisation). I argued it on principal as much as anything, but they wouldn't listen as their "trained mechanic" (their words) had told them it was a performance exhaust, so it must be. In the end, after numerous phone calls and emails I ended up providing them with photographs of all the part numbers which were stamped on the rusty factory-fitted OEM exhaust and a print-out from the Nissan main dealer showing the same part numbers, they finally gave her the money back.
A lot of faffing around for £40 but it was the principal of the whole situation that annoyed me. Not sure who the OP's insurance company was, but I'd never use eSure again for anything after this experience.
Edited by benharris on Wednesday 29th March 09:06
KungFuPanda said:
Yep that story abut the RS6 is total and utter horse st.
First of all, there is no contract between the RS6 owner and the bus company / their insurers. The bus driver is negligent, he caused damage to the RS6. Whether modified or not, the RS6 owner must be put back to his pre accident position. The fact that it was modified, has no bearing on the case whatsoever.
Even if the car was totally uninsured, if the bus hit it, the bus insurers must pay out.
There certainly is some crap bandied about on here.
Fake news on PistionHeads how sad :-(t.First of all, there is no contract between the RS6 owner and the bus company / their insurers. The bus driver is negligent, he caused damage to the RS6. Whether modified or not, the RS6 owner must be put back to his pre accident position. The fact that it was modified, has no bearing on the case whatsoever.
Even if the car was totally uninsured, if the bus hit it, the bus insurers must pay out.
There certainly is some crap bandied about on here.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can you not see that the story, as told, makes no sense at all.
If I'm driving along the road correctly, and get hit by a tp due to their negligence, they are responsible for my damage and injury, even if I'm 5 times over the limit, driving an uninsured modified Lamborghini, and I'm only 14.
My law breaking is a separate issue from their negligence.
True but there was a thread about a month ago where the poster was having trouble with his own insurer about an issue when trying to sort out a third party claim. If I'm driving along the road correctly, and get hit by a tp due to their negligence, they are responsible for my damage and injury, even if I'm 5 times over the limit, driving an uninsured modified Lamborghini, and I'm only 14.
My law breaking is a separate issue from their negligence.
The advice was to cut to the chase and claim direct from the third party.
Besides we've seen in previous threads where a poster has just paid for whatever, rather go through all the procedures and pain to right a wrong.
So although it shouldnt have happened, it could have
liam18james said:
But they are specifically saying it's performance enhancing. When it isn't. It's purely cosmetic.
Ignore most of the comments here and go to the Financial Ombudsman Service's website. Read their advice with regards to dealing with and complaining to insurers and how to take complaints to them. Youre probably dealing with a wally in a contact centre who has made a poor decision, so dont worry unnecessarily, as the insurers seldom try to shaft people (as opposed to their staff).
GC8 said:
Ignore most of the comments here and go to the Financial Ombudsman Service's website.
Read their advice with regards to dealing with and complaining to insurers and how to take complaints to them. Youre probably dealing with a wally in a contact centre who has made a poor decision, so dont worry unnecessarily, as the insurers seldom try to shaft people (as opposed to their staff).
But if you don't ignore most of the comments you'd know the OP has already resolved the issue with his insurer, and they've backed down. Read their advice with regards to dealing with and complaining to insurers and how to take complaints to them. Youre probably dealing with a wally in a contact centre who has made a poor decision, so dont worry unnecessarily, as the insurers seldom try to shaft people (as opposed to their staff).
. Only after posting did I see that the topic was into its second page, but Im not the sort to edit to save face. rainmakerraw said:
GC8 said:
Ignore most of the comments here and go to the Financial Ombudsman Service's website.
Read their advice with regards to dealing with and complaining to insurers and how to take complaints to them. Youre probably dealing with a wally in a contact centre who has made a poor decision, so dont worry unnecessarily, as the insurers seldom try to shaft people (as opposed to their staff).
But if you don't ignore most of the comments you'd know the OP has already resolved the issue with his insurer, and they've backed down. Read their advice with regards to dealing with and complaining to insurers and how to take complaints to them. Youre probably dealing with a wally in a contact centre who has made a poor decision, so dont worry unnecessarily, as the insurers seldom try to shaft people (as opposed to their staff).
and they said they've made a terrible error and have offered the OP £150 for his trouble, an upgrade on a loan car and a box of chocs
Sorry dreaming there - we're talking about an insurer
Cold said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
My law breaking is a separate issue from their negligence.
Depends if you have an MOT or not. No MOT means void insurance, your house will be repossessed and you'll end up in debtors' prison. saaby93 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can you not see that the story, as told, makes no sense at all.
If I'm driving along the road correctly, and get hit by a tp due to their negligence, they are responsible for my damage and injury, even if I'm 5 times over the limit, driving an uninsured modified Lamborghini, and I'm only 14.
My law breaking is a separate issue from their negligence.
True but there was a thread about a month ago where the poster was having trouble with his own insurer about an issue when trying to sort out a third party claim. If I'm driving along the road correctly, and get hit by a tp due to their negligence, they are responsible for my damage and injury, even if I'm 5 times over the limit, driving an uninsured modified Lamborghini, and I'm only 14.
My law breaking is a separate issue from their negligence.
The advice was to cut to the chase and claim direct from the third party.
Besides we've seen in previous threads where a poster has just paid for whatever, rather go through all the procedures and pain to right a wrong.
So although it shouldnt have happened, it could have
Vonsenger may have been told that, and perhaps he's just recounting the story, in which case he was lied to.
It didn't happen.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
saaby93 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can you not see that the story, as told, makes no sense at all.
If I'm driving along the road correctly, and get hit by a tp due to their negligence, they are responsible for my damage and injury, even if I'm 5 times over the limit, driving an uninsured modified Lamborghini, and I'm only 14.
My law breaking is a separate issue from their negligence.
True but there was a thread about a month ago where the poster was having trouble with his own insurer about an issue when trying to sort out a third party claim. If I'm driving along the road correctly, and get hit by a tp due to their negligence, they are responsible for my damage and injury, even if I'm 5 times over the limit, driving an uninsured modified Lamborghini, and I'm only 14.
My law breaking is a separate issue from their negligence.
The advice was to cut to the chase and claim direct from the third party.
Besides we've seen in previous threads where a poster has just paid for whatever, rather go through all the procedures and pain to right a wrong.
So although it shouldnt have happened, it could have
Vonsenger may have been told that, and perhaps he's just recounting the story, in which case he was lied to.
It didn't happen.
benharris said:
I realise this thread has digressed a bit, but ...
My wife had a similar issue a few years back with eSure Insurance. Her car (a completely standard, but top-spec Nissan Micra) was hit in whilst parked in a multistorey car park and she came back to find someone had dragged their car along doors, restyling them for her. We claimed under her own insurance as there was no-one to claim against. Their engineer's report came back and said that the car had been fitted with a "performance exhaust". It hadn't - it was in fact a cosmetic bit of chrome trim and was a 'feature' of her particular model and had come from the factory with it.
They didn't void her insurance but charged her extra for a modification (taken by direct debit without authorisation). I argued it on principal as much as anything, but they wouldn't listen as their "trained mechanic" (their words) had told them it was a performance exhaust, so it must be. In the end, after numerous phone calls and emails I ended up providing them with photographs of all the part numbers which were stamped on the rusty factory-fitted OEM exhaust and a print-out from the Nissan main dealer showing the same part numbers, they finally gave her the money back.
A lot of faffing around for £40 but it was the principal of the whole situation that annoyed me. Not sure who the OP's insurance company was, but I'd never use eSure again for anything after this experience.
This post makes sense. The RS6 one didn't!My wife had a similar issue a few years back with eSure Insurance. Her car (a completely standard, but top-spec Nissan Micra) was hit in whilst parked in a multistorey car park and she came back to find someone had dragged their car along doors, restyling them for her. We claimed under her own insurance as there was no-one to claim against. Their engineer's report came back and said that the car had been fitted with a "performance exhaust". It hadn't - it was in fact a cosmetic bit of chrome trim and was a 'feature' of her particular model and had come from the factory with it.
They didn't void her insurance but charged her extra for a modification (taken by direct debit without authorisation). I argued it on principal as much as anything, but they wouldn't listen as their "trained mechanic" (their words) had told them it was a performance exhaust, so it must be. In the end, after numerous phone calls and emails I ended up providing them with photographs of all the part numbers which were stamped on the rusty factory-fitted OEM exhaust and a print-out from the Nissan main dealer showing the same part numbers, they finally gave her the money back.
A lot of faffing around for £40 but it was the principal of the whole situation that annoyed me. Not sure who the OP's insurance company was, but I'd never use eSure again for anything after this experience.
Edited by benharris on Wednesday 29th March 09:06
In the past, insurers were more relaxed about material non disclosures. It used to be the case with some insurers that if say for example you didn't tell them about 3 points and you needed them to indemnify you and they found out, they'd just ask for the extra premium if the 3 points were known about at inception and they'd continue and deal with any claims as normal. Now they're getting a bit more strict.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff