Car hit while parked

[Cooper2]

I haven’t yet made it a year since I got my license and my car got hit from behind by another vehicle while attempting to parallel park. I wasn’t in but my dashcam saved the clip. I have watched the video last night and it is still quite dark to see if there is any damage. It seems it was a minor bumper hit but need to check later on.
My question is, what is the procedure to follow? If no visible damage do I just let it go? If visible damage use a website like AskMID to get her insurance details?
Thanks in advance for any help/advice

[kiethton]

If you’re a new driver I’d even consider letting it go full stop (unless damage caused is ££££)

The cost of even a non-fault claim on next year’s insurance premium (and subsequent years) will likely be a good chunk more than some superficial bumper scuffage, usually fixable for <£200 with a smart repair

[Cooper2]

kiethton said:

If you’re a new driver I’d even consider letting it go full stop (unless damage caused is ££££)

The cost of even a non-fault claim on next year’s insurance premium (and subsequent years) will likely be a good chunk more than some superficial bumper scuffage, usually fixable for <£200 with a smart repair

I was under the impression if I go through her insurance they will be liable and it wouldn’t affect my insurance premium.

[Steve57]

Sadly even a non-fault claim adds to your insurance, your a higher risk so they assume

[anonymous-user]

This is true. Non fault accidents put you in a higher risk group for a while. (Nonsense when you are not even in the car, but what can you do?)

[Ceejay73]

My own reply, copied and pasted from a very similar recent thread.

Ceejay73 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It might, not will.

I am not a fan of insurance companies and have been known to refer to them in impolite terms but have to agree with Twig here.
I had a non fault claim in October when somebody ran into my TVR.
I have since renewed 4 policies, 3 are my own vehicles (including the TVR) and on 1 I am a named driver. All are with different companies, all are comprehensive cover.
I was worried but NONE were loaded due to the claim.


So it is definitely a case of might, not will, as so many often spout.

[bones33]

Above is all correct.

I myself had my car hit whilst not in it and driver drove off no witness. Damage is about 2k so had to go via my insurance (23 years of driving not 1 claim) and was told by them ever though it was not my fualt my insurance will be hit next year as I will be seen as a high risk driver. In my case I had to do it but in yours if your damage is not much get it fixed yourself.

[BertBert]

RogerDodger said:

This is true. Non fault accidents put you in a higher risk group for a while. (Nonsense when you are not even in the car, but what can you do?)

It is not nonsense, just misunderstanding of the word fault. Clearly there are many circumstances which vary each driver/car's risk that can't be asked about. Do you park a lot in public car parks for example. Those that do are at a higher risk of car park bumps that those who don't. Having a non-fault accident is a very good proxy to assess that risk.

If you take drivers and split them in two groups (discarding the ones who've had fault accidents), those that have had no accidents and those that have had non-fault ones, which group do you think has a greater prevalence of the circumstances that cause or contribute to non-fault accidents?

The stats behind it isn't rocket science (it can't be it's only degree level, well it was when I did it many many years ago). Some insurers will increase premiums, some won't.

Bert

[hutchst]

A good rub down with T-Cut will sort out a lot of minor parking scuffs. (or am I too old fashioned?)

[Cooper2]

I had a drive and there was a rattling noise for 5 minutes, couldn’t see any damage yet. I would say she was driving at 2 mph when she hit me which I would assume wouldn’t have cause any visible damage.
The video shows the driver walking off without acknoledging the accident. Unsure on whether to have the car inspected just in case or just let it go.

[DaveH23]

Steve57 said:

Sadly even a non-fault claim adds to your insurance, your a higher risk so they assume

My only ever at fault claim that nearly wrote the car off didn't effect my premium. Was the same price come renewal time.

I think it will totally depend on the insurer.

OP try running some quotes using dummy details both with and without the claim and see how the price differs.

Legally you need to tell them but as other have said it may not be in your best interests to do so.

[BertBert]

DaveH23 said:

Legally you need to tell them

<pedant>I think legally you need to answer their questions...</pedant>

[popeyewhite]

BertBert said:

If you take drivers and split them in two groups (discarding the ones who've had fault accidents), those that have had no accidents and those that have had non-fault ones, which group do you think has a greater prevalence of the circumstances that cause or contribute to non-fault accidents?
Bert

The ones you program the statistics to show? Further, you have no idea if the other share's those circumstances, just that they haven't yet been an innocent party in an accident!

[48k]

RogerDodger said:

This is true. Non fault accidents put you in a higher risk group for a while. (Nonsense when you are not even in the car, but what can you do?)

It's not nonsense though. You've demonstrated that you park the car in an area of increased risk of being hit whilst parked. So to the insurance company your risk profile has increased.

[markjmd]

48k said:

It's not nonsense though. You've demonstrated that you park the car in an area of increased risk of being hit whilst parked. So to the insurance company your risk profile has increased.

I can see how this might hold true if insurance companies actually collated any data on the risk of parking dings occurring in any given area (over and above what's already calculated in regards to the stock "is your car usually parked at night on a driveway, street outside house, street away from house", etc, and which would already be reflected in the OP's premium), AND the OP happened to have been parked in an area deemed at higher than average risk. Based on what the OP has told us here though, we have no reason to believe or assume that either are true. For all we know, he may have been parked in a very low-risk area, and just had the mischance to get dinged by an incompetent, careless or poorly-sighted driver.

[tony wright]

If you have her info why not contact her directly and ask for a contribution to the costs, if damaged. Sure she would rather pay a little to you rather than go through her insurance and possibly lose her excess. Will also act as reminder for her not to just bog off and take no responsibility for her actions.

[popeyewhite]

48k said:

It's not nonsense though. You've demonstrated that you park the car in an area of increased risk of being hit whilst parked. So to the insurance company your risk profile has increased.

It's complete nonsense as the risk doesn't exist until you've been hit, and when you have been hit your risk 'value' increases because you fit a profile, not because you're physically taking greater risk. It's a typical ins. co dodge.

[48k]

popeyewhite said:

It's complete nonsense as the risk doesn't exist until you've been hit,

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word risk.

[popeyewhite]

48k said:

popeyewhite said:

It's complete nonsense as the risk doesn't exist until you've been hit,

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word risk.

Oh don't you?

Anyway I understand if you're hit on your drive your premium and risk rises. Does this also mean that anyone who when buying their policy states they keep their car on their drive find they are automatically placed at a higher risk level?

Just wondering.

[BertBert]

popeyewhite said:

BertBert said:

If you take drivers and split them in two groups (discarding the ones who've had fault accidents), those that have had no accidents and those that have had non-fault ones, which group do you think has a greater prevalence of the circumstances that cause or contribute to non-fault accidents?
Bert

The ones you program the statistics to show? Further, you have no idea if the other share's those circumstances, just that they haven't yet been an innocent party in an accident!

I'm wondering whether you read what I wrote by way of explanation? If so, did it make no sense (perfectly possible)? Did it make sense, but you don't believe it? Or some other reason you disagree.

I'm not trying to be argumentative But it seems really obvious to me that the group having 1 or more no-fault claims are a higher risk than the group that don't have any claims. Many of the no-fault claims might be completely random (if such a thing exists, subject of a different topic), but others have circumstantial factors which increase risk. There's loads. Here's another...doing all your 10k miles per year on the motorway will be lower risk than 10k miles in urban traffic. The insurance company could assemble all the risk factors and ask a million questions and really annoy people. Or they could just use non-fault claims which some it seems do.

Bert