Insurance claim 6 months after 'incident'
Discussion
My step daughter had a small 'bump' in April whilst driving to college. Her car rolled into the back of another car at about 5 mph at a set of traffic lights. The guy got out of his car (which she'd hit) shouting and screaming at her. As an 18 yr old and recent driver, she was upset and didn't really know what to do. The guy ranted and took her details, even though there was no visible damage to either car. She had a passenger that witnessed the event. The guy didn't give my step daughter his details (he didn't volunteer them and in fairness, she didn't ask as she was upset). As there was no damage, she didn't hear anything from the guy nor his or her insurers.
Fast forward 6 months to yesterday and she receives a renewal from her insurers for £5.5k (1st yr was £2.2k) ... coincidentally, her insurers call her and explain that the guy's car she hit had his car MOT'd and discovered some 'damage' and is lodging a claim. Clearly, neither she or am I happy.
My thoughts are to inform the insurers that he didn't leave his details, nor did he report the incident .... also to ask him/his insurers for an independent engineers report in the damage in case this did not occur at the same time ...
Thoughts please?!
Fast forward 6 months to yesterday and she receives a renewal from her insurers for £5.5k (1st yr was £2.2k) ... coincidentally, her insurers call her and explain that the guy's car she hit had his car MOT'd and discovered some 'damage' and is lodging a claim. Clearly, neither she or am I happy.
My thoughts are to inform the insurers that he didn't leave his details, nor did he report the incident .... also to ask him/his insurers for an independent engineers report in the damage in case this did not occur at the same time ...
Thoughts please?!
She drove into a stationary car, and gave the driver her details.
He has claimed from her insurer, who has accepted liability.
Her insurance renewal is now much more expensive as a result of that claim.
Those are the only relevant bits.
He has claimed from her insurer, who has accepted liability.
Her insurance renewal is now much more expensive as a result of that claim.
Those are the only relevant bits.
JEA1K said:
Clearly, neither she or am I happy.
She probably shouldn't drive into any more cars, then, whether they're stationary or not.Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 15th October 11:45
TooMany2cvs said:
She drove into a stationary car, and gave the driver her details.
He has claimed from her insurer, who has accepted liability.
Her insurance renewal is now much more expensive as a result of that claim.
Those are the only relevant bits.
This is 100% correct. OP, forget it and move on. You'll waste a whole load of time and effort otherwise and nothing you do is going to change anything.He has claimed from her insurer, who has accepted liability.
Her insurance renewal is now much more expensive as a result of that claim.
Those are the only relevant bits.
TooMany2cvs said:
Her insurer have already agreed it is, by paying for it.
No they havent and would be extremely stupid to.When a claim is made against you your NCD and claim history is adjusted accordingly.
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.
Remember he is claiming she rolled back into him. Unless she had her car in reverse and foot firmly pressed on the accelerator, it would have been mainly superficial damage. Absent any independent witnesses, he will have a hard time convincing anyone with his story.
hora said:
6months after any sort of accident- does that mean I can get my car fixed at the largesse of someone else? Say I have a minor shunt then 6months later I carelessly reverse into a post or nudge forward into a low wall damaging my front radiator and/or bumper?
Another motorists insurer will then pay a cheque to me on the say so of a MOT station/garage 6months after the fact?
Sorry. I don't buy it. You can't be hearing the whole story. Either that or you (her) should be complaining to the insurance ombudsman?
Supposing you got hit in the rear and didn't think there was damage. Then months later you go for an MOT and find out there is. Are you saying you've lost your right to claim off the responsible party?Another motorists insurer will then pay a cheque to me on the say so of a MOT station/garage 6months after the fact?
Sorry. I don't buy it. You can't be hearing the whole story. Either that or you (her) should be complaining to the insurance ombudsman?
The claim is well within the legal timeframe for claiming. The ombudsman wouldn't even bother to look at this.
Eclassy said:
No they havent and would be extremely stupid to.
When a claim is made against you your NCD and claim history is adjusted accordingly.
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.
Remember he is claiming she rolled back into him. Unless she had her car in reverse and foot firmly pressed on the accelerator, it would have been mainly superficial damage. Absent any independent witnesses, he will have a hard time convincing anyone with his story.
She rolled forwards into the back of him is how I read it. And your advice is that she lies to her insurers and commits fraud. That's just great. I hope whoever damages your car next takes your advice.When a claim is made against you your NCD and claim history is adjusted accordingly.
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.
Remember he is claiming she rolled back into him. Unless she had her car in reverse and foot firmly pressed on the accelerator, it would have been mainly superficial damage. Absent any independent witnesses, he will have a hard time convincing anyone with his story.
swisstoni said:
Odd the insurer didn't at least contact the daughter before paying out non? Shirley they would at least want her take on what occurred?
Yesterday was the first time she had heard from her insurer about the claim (via phone), oddly on the same day she received her renewal (by post). hora said:
That doesn't sound right at all. Are you getting the full story?
6months after any sort of accident- does that mean I can get my car fixed at the largesse of someone else? Say I have a minor shunt then 6months later I carelessly reverse into a post or nudge forward into a low wall damaging my front radiator and/or bumper?
Another motorists insurer will then pay a cheque to me on the say so of a MOT station/garage 6months after the fact?
Sorry. I don't buy it. You can't be hearing the whole story. Either that or you (her) should be complaining to the insurance ombudsman?
This is my worry ... but there seems like no way to prove or disprove this has occurred. If my car had been hit, I would have taken it to a garage to establish any damage which wasn't visible ... would have taken a month at the most not six months. 6months after any sort of accident- does that mean I can get my car fixed at the largesse of someone else? Say I have a minor shunt then 6months later I carelessly reverse into a post or nudge forward into a low wall damaging my front radiator and/or bumper?
Another motorists insurer will then pay a cheque to me on the say so of a MOT station/garage 6months after the fact?
Sorry. I don't buy it. You can't be hearing the whole story. Either that or you (her) should be complaining to the insurance ombudsman?
When was this guy's car mot'd and repaired? If it was 6 months after the incident, surely he hasn't got a leg to stand on? Any number of people could have hit him or he reverse into things in that period of time. If there is no time period with which the car must be inspected, then that is crazy 
But then when did fairness and common sense ever come into insurance matters...
But then when did fairness and common sense ever come into insurance matters...Surely the insurers should have asked her to report the accident, rather that relying on the word of a third party. And then paying that third party.
She should have reported it straight away however and told them that there was no visible damage. A decent engineer would have figured out what damage was caused by the accident.
Even if the MOT was the same day, it does not prove that damage was caused by the incident, could have been anything that happened in the past year. What would be looked at on an MOT anyway that would have any bearing on a low speed impact. very dodgy, I would complain to the insurers but not much you can do if they have paid out
She should have reported it straight away however and told them that there was no visible damage. A decent engineer would have figured out what damage was caused by the accident.
Even if the MOT was the same day, it does not prove that damage was caused by the incident, could have been anything that happened in the past year. What would be looked at on an MOT anyway that would have any bearing on a low speed impact. very dodgy, I would complain to the insurers but not much you can do if they have paid out
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.
OP did your daughter report the incident to her insurer?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
swisstoni said:
Odd the insurer didn't at least contact the daughter before paying out non? Shirley they would at least want her take on what occurred?
They have her take. She ran into the rear of someone and they have some damage. What more is there to say about it?swisstoni said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
swisstoni said:
Odd the insurer didn't at least contact the daughter before paying out non? Shirley they would at least want her take on what occurred?
They have her take. She ran into the rear of someone and they have some damage. What more is there to say about it?TwigtheWonderkid said:
swisstoni said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
swisstoni said:
Odd the insurer didn't at least contact the daughter before paying out non? Shirley they would at least want her take on what occurred?
They have her take. She ran into the rear of someone and they have some damage. What more is there to say about it?But when the claim appeared on her insurer's desk they appear to have simply paid out without any more ado. Surely they should have got their client's version of events?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff