Secrets of your car insurance

[Mandat]

Anyone watched this on ITV tonight?

Did you learn anything new about car insurance and associated scams & fraudulent claims that we didn't know about already?

I wonder what measures / laws can be implemented to curb the proliferation of spurious personal injury claims, which apparently make up to 75% of the claims costs.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mandat said:

Anyone watched this on ITV tonight?

I wonder what measures can be implemented to curb the proliferation of spurious personal injury claims, which apparently make up to 75% of the claims costs.

I don't crash into people. It's worked for me thus far.

[caelite]

Mandat said:

I wonder what measures / laws can be implemented to curb the proliferation of spurious personal injury claims, which apparently make up to 75% of the claims costs.

Legislate against no-win-no-fee legal services (which seem to cause problems in EVERY industry in the UK). Ban unwarranted solicitation of legal services (read: Ambulance chasers)

OR

Remove the medical aspect from car insurance in non-serious colisions (DfT already has a pretty detailed method of defining 'serious' collisions ). If you want to claim for your injury then you must get health insurance on a 1st party basis (which will suit the current leadership well as it would ease the process of fking our national health service sideways if people are already enouraged to have private insurance). This would do much to take us back to the 'good old days' where minor accidents where cheap claims with only a few £100s of bodywork repairs rather than £10,000 of 'mental anguish' and 'whiplash' compensation.

OR

Like much of Russia and some other parts of eastern Europe encourage insurers to require dash camera's in order to assess claims & the severity of accidents. But remove the polices right to view there contents without owners consent, in Russia your camera is your property, you turn it over to your insurer under your own will if you wish to make a claim or defend yourself from being claimed against, said camera's can not be siezed by police without consent of the owner as it would 'impede there use'. Impeding the use of dashcams was made illegal in Russia as of 2009.

OR

Implement internment camps and swift execution for anyone who holds a valid law degree or currently practices law.

Edited by caelite on Friday 2nd September 01:20

[PurpleMoonlight]

That cheat at the end was a joke, blaming everyone else for her fraudulent claim.

My suggestions:

The like for like should just be size, not make and model, and it should be for the insurers to arrange not the AMC's. That would keep the cost down.

Wiplash is a short term discomfort, compensation should be capped at say £200.

Anyone submitting a false claim should be automatically prosecuted and fined if found guilty, and if guilty the AMC/solicitor should be required to meet the costs of prosecution.

[Jakarta]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Wiplash is a short term discomfort, compensation should be capped at say £200.

Really?
Following an accident at 17, my own stupid fault I might add, I still have a stiff neck and cannot watch TV for extended periods other than 'Head-on'. I have mildly restricted mobility at present, I suspect as I get old and wrinkly that this will be extremely discomforting.

I'm now 40.
Whiplash is not necessarily short term!

Mine was a result of hitting a tree sideways at significant speed, so not the generic shunt up the rear, however, my condition still remains just that, a condition that I have to manage.

[irocfan]

Jakarta said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Wiplash is a short term discomfort, compensation should be capped at say £200.

Really?
Following an accident at 17, my own stupid fault I might add, I still have a stiff neck and cannot watch TV for extended periods other than 'Head-on'. I have mildly restricted mobility at present, I suspect as I get old and wrinkly that this will be extremely discomforting.

I'm now 40.
Whiplash is not necessarily short term!

Mine was a result of hitting a tree sideways at significant speed, so not the generic shunt up the rear, however, my condition still remains just that, a condition that I have to manage.

Glad you posted that J, similar situation. Accident causing whiplash over 20 years ago exacerbated an existing condition (got reared ended at speed)

[llewop]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Wiplash is a short term discomfort, compensation should be capped at say £200.

Anyone submitting a false claim should be automatically prosecuted and fined if found guilty, and if guilty the AMC/solicitor should be required to meet the costs of prosecution.

for whiplash comment - similar to some else has already stated: accident over 20 years ago, both my wife and I still have the affects from the whiplash to live with.

Having said that - the second of your points I don't disagree with: but alongside that I'd suggest the injury assessment/medico-legal process is flawed as the consultants assessing soft tissue injuries (whiplash etc) are rubbish at it. One we saw stated that he expected our symptoms to clear up once we had the cheque! Osteopaths, chiropractors etc have a much better understanding of soft tissue injuries. Better assessment of 'injuries' would weed out the ambulance chasing chancers.

For context: our accident was when stationary at the end of a slip road off of a motorway - stationary due to traffic on the road we were trying to join - when car behind ploughed into us as he was busy looking over his shoulder to pick a gap in the traffic on the road we were trying to join, rather than looking at the road ahead....

PS - the 'compensation' was rubbish and to be honest, you could have it back in an instant vs the pain in the neck & back!

[CoolHands]

I think whiplash should be accepted as part of the risk of being in a vehicle, so if you get it and suffer, unlucky. If you don't want to risk it don't go in vehicle. Problem solved, and scammers defeated.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

CoolHands said:

I think whiplash should be accepted as part of the risk of being in a vehicle, so if you get it and suffer, unlucky. If you don't want to risk it don't go in vehicle. Problem solved, and scammers defeated.

Why stop at whiplash. If injury is part of the risk you must accept, then surely damage should follow. After all, injury is more important than damage. So if you're out driving your car and me, being an idiot, crashes into you, it's down to you to repair your own car and sort your own whiplash out.

[anonymous-user]

CoolHands said:

I think whiplash should be accepted as part of the risk of being in a vehicle, so if you get it and suffer, unlucky. If you don't want to risk it don't go in vehicle. Problem solved, and scammers defeated.

So basically you are happy to penalise all the law abiding drivers just to get rid of some scammers?

[bad company]

CoolHands said:

I think whiplash should be accepted as part of the risk of being in a vehicle, so if you get it and suffer, unlucky. If you don't want to risk it don't go in vehicle. Problem solved, and scammers defeated.

Yes, great idea.

Not had a whiplash injury have you.

[R E S T E C P]

irocfan said:

Jakarta said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

Wiplash is a short term discomfort, compensation should be capped at say £200.

Really?
Following an accident at 17, my own stupid fault I might add, I still have a stiff neck and cannot watch TV for extended periods other than 'Head-on'. I have mildly restricted mobility at present, I suspect as I get old and wrinkly that this will be extremely discomforting.

I'm now 40.
Whiplash is not necessarily short term!

Mine was a result of hitting a tree sideways at significant speed, so not the generic shunt up the rear, however, my condition still remains just that, a condition that I have to manage.

Glad you posted that J, similar situation. Accident causing whiplash over 20 years ago exacerbated an existing condition (got reared ended at speed)

Not as severe as either of yours - but my wife got hit from behind at about 15mph while stationary. Damage to car wasn't too bad, just needed a new bumper, but her head was turned at the time of impact and the twisting force caused bad whiplash.
Severe pain for a month, moderate pain for 6 months, and over a year later she still gets the occasional twinge but not nearly as bad any more.

Some people on PH see whiplash as an excuse and love to moan about it. Instead of moaning about the crash-for-cash criminals, or the drivers who literally go into the back of a parked vehicle that they could have seen from miles away.... They want blood from people who were injured through literally no fault of their own.

I know three people who suffered whiplash but chose not to claim. I only know one person who did claim - my wife - and trust me, the money is not good enough to make the injury worthwhile.

[bad company]

I had a whiplash injury following a riding accident so nobody to sue except myself or the horse. It was bloody painful tho and I was off work for a few days. I worked in an office so went back soon after the accident but it would have been much longer if I did a physical job.

[beko1987]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't crash into people. It's worked for me thus far.

I do this as well!

I only have fully comprehensive insurance as it was the same price as TPF&T. My excess is £350, my car is worth £250 and would be written off if I tried to claim for a wing mirror...

If someone drives into me the first thing I will ascertain (providing I don't need hospital treatment etc) is if they are the sort of people that would happily give me £300 and hear no more on the matter... Depending on the damage I will then either pocket the cash and kick the dent out/just leave it, or spend £300 on a new steed.

Sadly the sort of people who will drive into me will do so in £300 a month worth of new metal, so will need to claim on their insurance as they have no choice, and then the bum raping my side will begin...


I tried to reduce our insurance when I bought my current car as it went up by £300 over the remainder of the policy. I mentioned that I have a 'keypad immobiliser', and would that help? He said no, as they don't take security devices into account. Possibly a good thing as it doesn't work and I never lock the car as a window costs more than anything I keep in it, and no one wants a shed of a xantia estate for joyriding

[Mandat]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't crash into people. It's worked for me thus far.

But presumably insurance premiums would be cheaper all round if spurious and fraudulent claims were reduced.

[TankRizzo]

What about offering a discount for a dashcam? Surely that would go a little way to eliminating some spurious claims by third parties.

[rampageturke]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't crash into people. It's worked for me thus far.

good advise until someone crashes into you

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mandat said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't crash into people. It's worked for me thus far.

But presumably insurance premiums would be cheaper all round if spurious and fraudulent claims were reduced.

They would be cheaper still if people looked at the car in front, kept a good distance from it, and didn't run up the back of it. And at roundabouts, not move off until they looked ahead of them, instead of assuming that the bloke in front has gone.

[Mandat]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Mandat said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't crash into people. It's worked for me thus far.

But presumably insurance premiums would be cheaper all round if spurious and fraudulent claims were reduced.

They would be cheaper still if people looked at the car in front, kept a good distance from it, and didn't run up the back of it. And at roundabouts, not move off until they looked ahead of them, instead of assuming that the bloke in front has gone.

Yes, they would but those kinds of claims arise due to poor driving standards, which are not necessarily related to fraudulent claims. They are not mutually exclusive.

[anonymous-user]

I don't have too much of a problem with insurance companies, but the thing that does annoy me is your premium increasing through no fault of your own if someone else hits you.

My girlfriend was sat at some traffic lights when a pizza delivery guy hit her from behind. He was looking at the address of where he was supposed to be going and just didn't notice the stationary traffic. He held his hands up, admitted responsibility no problem at all, his insurance company arranged to have the GF's car repaired.

Later in the year when she came to renew her premium had increased because 'she had been in an accident'. The insurance company acknowledged fully that it wasn't her fault but said her premium was still going up...

That was really, really fking annoying.