Gt4 rear ended , repair/self/ accident management co.

[BertBert]

Well as you have shown, the point of insurance is not to put you back in the pre accident position. It's to do what the policy says, not what you hope it says, nor think it should say.
Bert

Granfondo said:

I totally agree with you!
The point of insurance is to put you back in the position you were before the accident.
Well they can't give you back an un repaired car
They can't give you back the time you lost in hospital or arranging the repair
They can't give you back the time without your GT4

You have already let them off the hook for a hire car so the only way really to compensate you is with this dirty thing that ph'ers hate in case it puts 50p on next years premium is money!
Hope your car comes back to your full satisfaction!

[Granfondo]

BertBert said:

Could you explain what you mean please?

[HoHoHo]

doneitnow said:

Two things a lot of people do not realise, firstly, your premium will go up after a non fault claim even with protected no claims, the premium is calculated before the ncb is applied, and even a non fault puts your premium up. Secondly, has anyone else noticed that the insurers are now asking if you have had any personal injury claims when you get a quote now, I dare say if the answer is yes, then your premium will be higher as they will see you as a higher risk, just like they do if you have had a non fault claim.

In my experience that's simply not true.

When my wife's X5 was hit by a hail storm in France in 2013 and the damage amounted to nearly £20000 to repair. It was classed as non-fault etc.

Her premium went down the following year.

Move on to last year and a driver hit the rear of her new car, his fault and fixed through BMW with their recommended agent helping with a loan car etc. (much to the annoyance of some on here it would appear)

Her premium does not seem to have been affected albeit she's recently got a new car so it's difficult to confirm exact costs.

As you suggest, the NCB is however misunderstood by most drivers, that's simply a discount of the premium and doesn't keep the premium at any given level.

[Beaky59]

Seriously, A £100k GT4, not you fault accident and you are wondering if you should go through the insurance!

[doneitnow]

HoHoHo said:

In my experience that's simply not true.

When my wife's X5 was hit by a hail storm in France in 2013 and the damage amounted to nearly £20000 to repair. It was classed as non-fault etc.

Her premium went down the following year.

Move on to last year and a driver hit the rear of her new car, his fault and fixed through BMW with their recommended agent helping with a loan car etc. (much to the annoyance of some on here it would appear)

Her premium does not seem to have been affected albeit she's recently got a new car so it's difficult to confirm exact costs.

As you suggest, the NCB is however misunderstood by most drivers, that's simply a discount of the premium and doesn't keep the premium at any given level.

You must have a very understanding insurance company, if you speak to most insurance companies,(all that I deal with), they will tell you that you are considered a higher risk of having another claim if you have had a non fault claim! Don't ask me how they work it out, apparently, statistics dictate.

[Magic919]

Not all insurers charge extra following a non fault claim. That suggests it's not a simple matter of statistics.

[HoHoHo]

doneitnow said:

HoHoHo said:

In my experience that's simply not true.

When my wife's X5 was hit by a hail storm in France in 2013 and the damage amounted to nearly £20000 to repair. It was classed as non-fault etc.

Her premium went down the following year.

Move on to last year and a driver hit the rear of her new car, his fault and fixed through BMW with their recommended agent helping with a loan car etc. (much to the annoyance of some on here it would appear)

Her premium does not seem to have been affected albeit she's recently got a new car so it's difficult to confirm exact costs.

As you suggest, the NCB is however misunderstood by most drivers, that's simply a discount of the premium and doesn't keep the premium at any given level.

You must have a very understanding insurance company, if you speak to most insurance companies,(all that I deal with), they will tell you that you are considered a higher risk of having another claim if you have had a non fault claim! Don't ask me how they work it out, apparently, statistics dictate.

Direct Line......are they known for being understanding?

Edited to add, my wife gets a renewal cost from Direct Line and then apples for a new insurance policy which is always cheaper than the renewal cost.

It may be true if you simply review it's more expensive.

Edited by HoHoHo on Sunday 29th May 14:54

[xjay1337]

MrBarry123 said:

Jay is completely fair in his assessment OP (and he's absolute pain for anything paint/body related*).

If you don't want advice that may not be exactly to your liking then don't ask questions on an Internet forum.

I'm unsure of what you want compensation for? Provided the body shop provide you with a repaired car that looks perfect, I don't believe you should be entitled to anything.

*no offence mate!

Edited by MrBarry123 on Friday 27th May 22:09

Im surprised sam. You agree with me! Haha

Also read the post after saying he is likely not getting compensation but this "isn't fair".

:-(

• insert the underdog picture here*

[BertBert]

Granfondo said:

BertBert said:

Could you explain what you mean please?

Yep. The insurance policy is there to do a specific set of things. One is to repair the car (for example). It cannot take the bent car and make it so it was never bent. So not only is it impossible to put you back in the position you were, but also that's not what it says it does. It does what the policy doc says. If you break bones, the insurance policy cannot make them not broken and as it they were never broken.
Bert

[BertBert]

I don't think it's a terribly hard piece of logic to understand. You can imagine that for loads of non-fault claims, there are circumstances that make it a likely thing to have happened, not a completely random event. It might be a slight increase in liklihood over completely random, but it's there.

Maybe someone parks where it's narrow but fast. So the parking shunt was more likely because a person parked there. Loads of cases.

So if you put together all the people who have had a non fault accident in one group and all the people who haven't had an accident, which group is likely to have more non-faults in the future?

The mistake in logic is to think that non-fault equates to completely random when in fact it doesn't.

Bert

doneitnow said:

You must have a very understanding insurance company, if you speak to most insurance companies,(all that I deal with), they will tell you that you are considered a higher risk of having another claim if you have had a non fault claim! Don't ask me how they work it out, apparently, statistics dictate.

[Granfondo]

BertBert said:

Granfondo said:

BertBert said:

Could you explain what you mean please?

Yep. The insurance policy is there to do a specific set of things. One is to repair the car (for example). It cannot take the bent car and make it so it was never bent. So not only is it impossible to put you back in the position you were, but also that's not what it says it does. It does what the policy doc says. If you break bones, the insurance policy cannot make them not broken and as it they were never broken.
Bert

I agree, but if the car is worth less due to the repair and they can't give him back the time lost from work being at the hospital and organising things and can't give him a GT4 to run when his is off getting repaired.

In what way can he be compensated?