Insurance company refused claim
Discussion
I was recently parked up in my car (Porsche 992) when a woman who was trying to park in front of me, reversed into
Me and chipped the front splitter. Not much damaged but a new splitter is £600.
She is insured with Hastings who sent someone to my house and I then got an email saying the claim was rejected as she can’t have caused the damage. I was sat in the car when she reversed into me, as was my daughter, and she admitted liability at the time and by text later.
If the insurers refuse to pay what are the next options ? I assume small claims court ?
Me and chipped the front splitter. Not much damaged but a new splitter is £600.
She is insured with Hastings who sent someone to my house and I then got an email saying the claim was rejected as she can’t have caused the damage. I was sat in the car when she reversed into me, as was my daughter, and she admitted liability at the time and by text later.
If the insurers refuse to pay what are the next options ? I assume small claims court ?
No interest in getting my insurance involved for that value for obvious reasons.
Happy to go small claims if needed.
Have send further details to her insurers but obviously if I can’t change their mind then I will need to sort alternatively. I suspect she will probably pay up if I started action personally on the basis of the text I have.
Just annoying.
Happy to go small claims if needed.
Have send further details to her insurers but obviously if I can’t change their mind then I will need to sort alternatively. I suspect she will probably pay up if I started action personally on the basis of the text I have.
Just annoying.
OutInTheShed said:
Read your insurance documents and find out whether you've agreed to let them handle such matters.
If so, will you honour your obligation or not?
Hastings may be wise to people who try to go outside the insurance system.
We didn't get to the bottom of this last time you mentioned that possible clause in insurance terms and conditions. Do you have an example of an insurer that does that?If so, will you honour your obligation or not?
Hastings may be wise to people who try to go outside the insurance system.
They are saying the height from the ground of her back bumper (ie the bit that hit my car) is too high to have hit my splitter, and thus rejected the claim.
I went back to them detailing where the incident took place, showing google images with a car projected over, clearly showing where she parked mean the front of her car were on a pavement area thus lifting the front and dropping the rear. I'm awaiting their response. I also mentioned how did they know what height the Porsche was set at as has the ability to lower and lift the suspension which they seemed confused at.
I'm hoping they reverse their decision based on the everything I sent, but clearly just want to wangle their way out of it, hence me think county court seems the obvious route and don't think the other person would want to have to deal with that to be honest so would likely settle.
The annoyance of it all really is that the place in front of where I was parked wasn't a parking space, its where the pavement cuts back into the road at 45 degrees, so is just dead space. I parked where I did intentionally as didn't want to be in the Porsche but the wife had pinched the other car to take my eldest daughter to school who had slept in. I parked there so I could avoid the whole manic school drop situation. As the woman started reversing I beeped my horn at her, she got out and I told her that the space wasn't a parking space and her car wouldn't fit. She said it was fine, then continued to reverse into my car, after which she accepted she'd hit my car but couldn't understand why I was so annoyed with her damaging my 3 month old car (even if the damage is really minor) and said it was nothing and was fine, and that she couldn't afford to pay for the repair.
Its this reason I won't be letting it go. I can't stand idiots.
I went back to them detailing where the incident took place, showing google images with a car projected over, clearly showing where she parked mean the front of her car were on a pavement area thus lifting the front and dropping the rear. I'm awaiting their response. I also mentioned how did they know what height the Porsche was set at as has the ability to lower and lift the suspension which they seemed confused at.
I'm hoping they reverse their decision based on the everything I sent, but clearly just want to wangle their way out of it, hence me think county court seems the obvious route and don't think the other person would want to have to deal with that to be honest so would likely settle.
The annoyance of it all really is that the place in front of where I was parked wasn't a parking space, its where the pavement cuts back into the road at 45 degrees, so is just dead space. I parked where I did intentionally as didn't want to be in the Porsche but the wife had pinched the other car to take my eldest daughter to school who had slept in. I parked there so I could avoid the whole manic school drop situation. As the woman started reversing I beeped my horn at her, she got out and I told her that the space wasn't a parking space and her car wouldn't fit. She said it was fine, then continued to reverse into my car, after which she accepted she'd hit my car but couldn't understand why I was so annoyed with her damaging my 3 month old car (even if the damage is really minor) and said it was nothing and was fine, and that she couldn't afford to pay for the repair.
Its this reason I won't be letting it go. I can't stand idiots.
See what they come back with after your explanation. If you're still unhappy, log a formal complaint (Can take up to 8 weeks to resolve as per FCA rules) and if you're still not happy, go to FOS. If you want, you can go to FOS out of spite anyway because it costs the insurance company £650 (if memory serves) just for getting involved, regardless of whether or not they rule in your favour.
I assume you've sent them the text message proof of her admitting liability. Did you get any pictures at the scene with the driver or car? With reg numbers involved would be the best
I assume you've sent them the text message proof of her admitting liability. Did you get any pictures at the scene with the driver or car? With reg numbers involved would be the best
BertBert said:
OutInTheShed said:
Read your insurance documents and find out whether you've agreed to let them handle such matters.
If so, will you honour your obligation or not?
Hastings may be wise to people who try to go outside the insurance system.
We didn't get to the bottom of this last time you mentioned that possible clause in insurance terms and conditions. Do you have an example of an insurer that does that?If so, will you honour your obligation or not?
Hastings may be wise to people who try to go outside the insurance system.
KungFuPanda said:
Yep small claims but you’re going to have to issue against the woman directly as the named Defendant.
Alternatively, claims against your own insurance and let them pursue the third party for their outlay.
These are the 2 correct options. I'd be going with option 1. Write to the person who hit you giving her 7 days to settle your claim. If no money, get your car fixed and sue via small claims court. From memory, you'll have to get your car fixed first. You can only sue for an actual expense (loss) suffered, not an expense to be incurred in the future. Until you've paid to have your car fixed, you've lost no money. Alternatively, claims against your own insurance and let them pursue the third party for their outlay.
Trax said:
BertBert said:
OutInTheShed said:
Read your insurance documents and find out whether you've agreed to let them handle such matters.
If so, will you honour your obligation or not?
Hastings may be wise to people who try to go outside the insurance system.
We didn't get to the bottom of this last time you mentioned that possible clause in insurance terms and conditions. Do you have an example of an insurer that does that?If so, will you honour your obligation or not?
Hastings may be wise to people who try to go outside the insurance system.
I suggest reading your own documents, and if you find them ambiguous, as your broker, not some group-think bunch on the interweb.
RazerSauber said:
See what they come back with after your explanation. If you're still unhappy, log a formal complaint (Can take up to 8 weeks to resolve as per FCA rules) and if you're still not happy, go to FOS. If you want, you can go to FOS out of spite anyway because it costs the insurance company £650 (if memory serves) just for getting involved, regardless of whether or not they rule in your favour.
You can only complain to the FOS about your own insurance company. They will not entertain a complaint about a third party claim.TwigtheWonderkid said:
From memory, you'll have to get your car fixed first. You can only sue for an actual expense (loss) suffered, not an expense to be incurred in the future. Until you've paid to have your car fixed, you've lost no money.
I don't think that's correct. Case law has it that you're not actually claiming for the expense of repair at all - what your claiming for is the loss in value that your property suffered as a result of the other party's negligence. https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2013/12/coles-...
The cost of repair is only relevant because in most cases it will be a reasonable way if measuring the loss in value - ie a £10000 car that needs a grand of repairs doing would probably sell for an amount not a million miles away from £9000.
As it's not the cost of repairs that you incurred that you're actually claiming for, it follows that there's no requirement to have the car repaired first, or even at all. If you're happy to live with the dent, or bodge your cracked bumper up with gaffer tape, you're still entitled to claim what the repair would have cost, as compensation for the fact that your car is now worth less and doesn't look as nice as it did.
Same principle I suppose as saying that if your car is written off (a) you can only claim it's market value - not necessarily the amount you actually spend on a replacement and (b) you don't have to buy a replacement at all - if you decide to go without a car and spend the write-off cheque on a holiday instead that's all fine and dandy.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
These are the 2 correct options. I'd be going with option 1. Write to the person who hit you giving her 7 days to settle your claim. If no money, get your car fixed and sue via small claims court.
Presumably once the MCOL is issued, the owner will pass it to their insurer, who will look at the claim again, and decide whether to pay out or defend the claim. Is that how it works?
Mandat said:
Presumably once the MCOL is issued, the owner will pass it to their insurer, who will look at the claim again, and decide whether to pay out or defend the claim.
Is that how it works?
And then will the reversing woman's insurers share that information with the claimant's insurers who will have words with the claimant?Is that how it works?
Mandat said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
These are the 2 correct options. I'd be going with option 1. Write to the person who hit you giving her 7 days to settle your claim. If no money, get your car fixed and sue via small claims court.
Presumably once the MCOL is issued, the owner will pass it to their insurer, who will look at the claim again, and decide whether to pay out or defend the claim. Is that how it works?
OP didn't you get any photos at the time surely that's proof enough of the height of the two vehicles.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff