Non fault claim - affecting my insurance premiums
Discussion
Guys, looking for a little bit of advice...
On Saturday my car was involved in a minimal car park ding that I thought would be sorted out out with the insurance. Long story short, the girl who bumped her door into mine wants it to go through the insurance.
I had Direct Line's engineer out today and he said they will give me £173 for the damage (it is a tiny mark, but noticeable)
Anyway, I've run quotes through for my other insurance policies and it does make a difference to the quoted price, but Direct Line are refusing to meet any differences. In fact, the increase in my premiums is considerably more than the £173 they're offering. For a completely non-fault claim that their driver has admitted!
Is there anything I can do? or do I have to just suck it up and pay the £173 myself to fix the damage, even though they have fully admitted liability
ETA - the quotes I have run have all been on the basis of the claim being fully settled by the other insurance co.
On Saturday my car was involved in a minimal car park ding that I thought would be sorted out out with the insurance. Long story short, the girl who bumped her door into mine wants it to go through the insurance.
I had Direct Line's engineer out today and he said they will give me £173 for the damage (it is a tiny mark, but noticeable)
Anyway, I've run quotes through for my other insurance policies and it does make a difference to the quoted price, but Direct Line are refusing to meet any differences. In fact, the increase in my premiums is considerably more than the £173 they're offering. For a completely non-fault claim that their driver has admitted!
Is there anything I can do? or do I have to just suck it up and pay the £173 myself to fix the damage, even though they have fully admitted liability
ETA - the quotes I have run have all been on the basis of the claim being fully settled by the other insurance co.
It's ridiculous though.. Why should ayone be out of pocket by any amount when someone hits their car and fully admitted liability?!
Gets really painful when you have multiple cars because it obviously affects all vehicle policies.
Does anyone know, would an accident management company deal with this and recover the increased premiums?
(I'm loathe to use one, especially as Direct Line have been quite on the ball and they WANT to deal with it themselves, but if that's the only choice other than paying to fix my car myself, then so be it)
Gets really painful when you have multiple cars because it obviously affects all vehicle policies.
Does anyone know, would an accident management company deal with this and recover the increased premiums?
(I'm loathe to use one, especially as Direct Line have been quite on the ball and they WANT to deal with it themselves, but if that's the only choice other than paying to fix my car myself, then so be it)
To be completely clear, my car wasn't actually in a 'normal' car park. I was at the ToughMudder event in Dumfries and as such my car was parked in a 'temporary' car park in a field.
I left more than enough room to the car to my left (doors could be opened fully without contact to the other car) - however the car to the right of mine parked just close enough for their door just to 'kiss' mine when it was fully open. Honestly, if they had parked 1cm over, the door wouldn't have touched my car.
With regards to insurance, this is my first non-fault claim but I have also made a fault claim within the last year.
When I run through quotes for all my policies with my fault claim, and then run them through with the non-fault claim added it works out to £261 more this year over my policies (some insurers don't change their prices for the non-fault claim but they're much, much higher than the other quotes in the first place)
I left more than enough room to the car to my left (doors could be opened fully without contact to the other car) - however the car to the right of mine parked just close enough for their door just to 'kiss' mine when it was fully open. Honestly, if they had parked 1cm over, the door wouldn't have touched my car.
With regards to insurance, this is my first non-fault claim but I have also made a fault claim within the last year.
When I run through quotes for all my policies with my fault claim, and then run them through with the non-fault claim added it works out to £261 more this year over my policies (some insurers don't change their prices for the non-fault claim but they're much, much higher than the other quotes in the first place)
itcaptainslow said:
If it's just a door ding, won't a paintless dent repair man be able to sort it for £50 or so? Far easier and cheaper than involving insurance companies.
Yes, you're probably right, although I think it will still cost more than £50 (the insurance claims bloke out today reckoned more like £100)It's just frustrating that my car, 12 year old Mercedes ML500 that doesn't have ANY marks onthe bodywork (rare on one of these), gets a stupid ding that I have to pay for even though the girl fully accepted liability.
Mandat said:
ikarl said:
this is my first non-fault claim but I have also made a fault claim within the last year.
Doesn't this statement support the insurer's assumption (however correct or incorrect that might be) that someone making a claim is likely to make a second claim within a year?The fact that I crashed a car avoiding a motorbike, did not make it more likely that some stupid bint would throw her door open damaging my car.
She didn't apologise, although at the scene she admitted full liability and said she would prefer to deal with it out with the insurance. She then contacted Direct Line the next day and started the claim. She told me at the scene her excess was £400 so I found it strange when I got the call the next day from her insurers
LoonR1 said:
The fault accident is a nice bit of extra info to throw in at this stage.
She has no excess to pay on a TP claim. This gets covered many, many times in here as well.
Sorry Loon, you'll need to help me with this....I don't have your knowledge of these things.She has no excess to pay on a TP claim. This gets covered many, many times in here as well.
Yes, I have had an accident, however, that was my fault and I fully expect to be penalised for that come renewal time, I should've hit the motorbike rider instead of off-roading my car trying to avoid him. Ho-hum my choice I guess!
My issue is that I'll be financially disadvantaged because someone hit my car because of their stupidity in this incident. So, even if I take away the fact that I've claimed off my insurance, I would still be penalised due to a non fault claim.
So why is that a nice bit of extra info?
Again, you know these things better than I do, so if you say she won't pay any excess, ok.... I didn't know that.
This is crazy. Someone has hit my car, admitted liability, I decide not to claim but I'm going to be financially impacted because they contact their insurance co.
Surely that's not right?!
I may as well go through an accident management company, get an ML63 for a few days, get the car repaired by a merc approved insurer etc....cost a couple of £k and it's still the same impact to me.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Surely that's not right?!
I may as well go through an accident management company, get an ML63 for a few days, get the car repaired by a merc approved insurer etc....cost a couple of £k and it's still the same impact to me.
Absolutely ridiculous.
LoonR1 said:
Get an ML63 and enjoy the bill that's coming your way. You can't get like for likening a prestige car over 6 years old unless you've got a very, very good reason. Oh and an AMC can't successfully chase for your increased premium either.
I know you don't want to hear it, but shouting louder won't change the facts.
You're right, I don't want to hear it, but thank you for your words... I know you're right!I know you don't want to hear it, but shouting louder won't change the facts.
I will need an equivalent vehicle that has a low range as I do visit site and require decent'ish off-road capabilities, a crv won't cut it.
It's just a bit of an ass that the insurance industry works like this. Its forcing me to claim for something I don't want too.
and this is what I struggle to understand.
I was parked somewhere I will not be visiting again, total 1-off, I wasn't even at my car and another car put a tiny mark on my door, they contacted their insurance company and even though they won't be claiming....and I wasn't wanting to claim their insurance company for any damage, my insurance and their insurance is going up.
How am I an increased risk of another 'incident' and claiming when I wasn't even wanting to claim for this one.... well, I wasn't going to, now I may as well claim because I'm screwed if I do, screwed if I don't.
I was parked somewhere I will not be visiting again, total 1-off, I wasn't even at my car and another car put a tiny mark on my door, they contacted their insurance company and even though they won't be claiming....and I wasn't wanting to claim their insurance company for any damage, my insurance and their insurance is going up.
How am I an increased risk of another 'incident' and claiming when I wasn't even wanting to claim for this one.... well, I wasn't going to, now I may as well claim because I'm screwed if I do, screwed if I don't.
gruffalo said:
No he is correct as you would expect.
Insurance companies do lose money on the car insurance side of their business but make more on other things like property.
Car insurance is a bit of a loss leader really.
Not sure I understand the logic behind this..... I know why supermarkets have loss leaders, once you're in you'll buy all your weekly shopping etc, but is that the same with insurance? Really?Insurance companies do lose money on the car insurance side of their business but make more on other things like property.
Car insurance is a bit of a loss leader really.
My home insurance has never been with the same co I insure my cars/bikes with, and without seeing something to back it up, I don't believe that there are millions of customers in the UK that have all their insurances under one roof, making it so beneficial to the companies to sell a loss leader.
So, Why don't companies just stop selling car insurance if it's such a loss leader? If their prices were cheaper for other policies, they would probably get many, many more customers for the policies where they make money
I know you're not talking for the whole industry Loon, but talk of Gentlemens Agreements don't sit right with me.
In a truly competitive environment these shouldn't exist. Basically you're saying that the insurance companies are in 'cahoots' to artificially keep insurance prices high.
In a truly competitive environment these shouldn't exist. Basically you're saying that the insurance companies are in 'cahoots' to artificially keep insurance prices high.
BORN2bWILD said:
Regardless of what Looney Loon says on here back to the point:
OP had a small dink in a car park, 100% the other drivers fault who's insurer is paying the £173, so very minor damage.
OP is told he is now a higher risk and this justifies his insurer to increase his premium.
I say this is simply not true and another case of Loons insurance buddies ripping the innocent motorist off.
It's actually a little bit better (or worse) than that..... I didn't even want to claim for the £173! I've even told the insurance company that I'll live with the damage but that's it, it's on my record and it will financially impact me so I may as well claim the moneyOP had a small dink in a car park, 100% the other drivers fault who's insurer is paying the £173, so very minor damage.
OP is told he is now a higher risk and this justifies his insurer to increase his premium.
I say this is simply not true and another case of Loons insurance buddies ripping the innocent motorist off.
Countdown said:
Apologies if this has been asked before....
It's a free market. If his insurer is unfairly increasing the premium (above the market rate) then surely OP would turn to other providers to get a cheaper rate?
Correct, I can find a.n.other insurer but the companies that (on comparethemarket) do not load for this non-fault claim are already priced out of my business.It's a free market. If his insurer is unfairly increasing the premium (above the market rate) then surely OP would turn to other providers to get a cheaper rate?
I.e. £504 pre non-fault, £570 with the non-fault incident added
The companies that do not load for this start at £740, so realistically, they're not aiming for my business anyway.
Countdown said:
ikarl said:
Correct, I can find a.n.other insurer but the companies that (on comparethemarket) do not load for this non-fault claim are already priced out of my business.
I.e. £504 pre non-fault, £570 with the non-fault incident added
The companies that do not load for this start at £740, so realistically, they're not aiming for my business anyway.
So, even with the non-fault loading, they're still cheaper than others? But you want them to be even cheaper? I.e. £504 pre non-fault, £570 with the non-fault incident added
The companies that do not load for this start at £740, so realistically, they're not aiming for my business anyway.
If they were intent on ripping you off why would they be the cheapest provider?
There are quite a few insurers (all under £740) that have increased their premiums. The lowest priced insurer for this particular vehicle has increased the premium to £570.
I'm not sure why you're confused. I'm disgruntled that the policy (for this one vehicle) could have been bought for £66 less, prior to this person hitting my car in a car park, them fully admitting liability, and then neither of us claiming from the insurance company!
Again, this is regarding this one vehicle... I have other policies I will have to disclose this incident for and the total 'jump' in premiums is over £200 this year.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But an excess doesn't apply on damage done to a tp. So you may want to avoid insurance, but you can't tell the tp what to do. If they damage your car and they want to put it thru their insurance, because they don't want to pay it and they will have no excess to pay, that's their choice.
And that's the situation I'm in..... The TP wanted it to go through the insurance. So I have no choice. The fact that I didn't want the claim to proceed is neither here or thereLeoSayer said:
ikarl said:
And that's the situation I'm in..... The TP wanted it to go through the insurance. So I have no choice. The fact that I didn't want the claim to proceed is neither here or there
If you wanted the TP to pay for the damage then you left it in her hands. Did you offer to 'forget it'?LoonR1 said:
What are you talking about? I didn't edit 40% out. I stated "that's what they see in their own claims histories". Why has PH suddenly started to have an influx of people who struggle with comprehension?
Let's have another go shall we to help you with this.
60% of insurers do not load their premiums for anyone making their first non-fault claim, as their own claims experience does not show a correlation to make a subsequent claim
The rest do load, as their data, on their own claims, does see a correlation between the first claim and a subsequent propensity to claim.
The OP says that his insurer is charging more, but remains cheaper than the rest still. How is that ripping anyone off?
Everybody retains the right to go to any other insurer in the marketplace at renewal, so what their current insurer does is almost irrelevant, as they can easily let their feet do the talking.
What are your views on the moon landings, or Elvis' death?
Sorry Loon, but I haven't said that anywhere, although at 8 pages long I don't expect you to remember every post.Let's have another go shall we to help you with this.
60% of insurers do not load their premiums for anyone making their first non-fault claim, as their own claims experience does not show a correlation to make a subsequent claim
The rest do load, as their data, on their own claims, does see a correlation between the first claim and a subsequent propensity to claim.
The OP says that his insurer is charging more, but remains cheaper than the rest still. How is that ripping anyone off?
Everybody retains the right to go to any other insurer in the marketplace at renewal, so what their current insurer does is almost irrelevant, as they can easily let their feet do the talking.
What are your views on the moon landings, or Elvis' death?
My insurance has a few months left to run, but if my 'renewal time' was now, my current insurer doesn't look competitive when compared against the rest of the market (without this non fault claim being added)
However, when adding this incident the range of insurance premiums that I would've liked to purchased (pre incident) all increase.
I do feel like I'm being ripped off. Even with MY car damaged and me NOT wanting to claim, and she doesn't want to claim, I have to pay an increased premium for something I could've got cheaper if she hadn't phoned her ins co and told them she hit my car! The ONLY people that make money in this situation is the insurance companies. NO money claimed for but they increase both our insurance prices.
Edited by ikarl on Thursday 2nd July 18:21
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff