Timed Out (Fraudulent) Insurance Claim

[V8RX7]

Someone claimed I hit them with my trailer (via letter to my insurer, not at the roadside)

My Insurers were going to pay out

I made a fuss and sent pics, they then sent out an assessor who agreed there was no damage to my trailer (he said inspecting non damaged cars was now the majority of his work)

Their insurers haven't replied since receiving my pictures and as they haven't been heard from for 6 months, my insurers say the file is closed and my no claims is restored

BUT say it will be reopened if the fraudsters get in contact, so where does that leave me ?

It cost me an extra £200 last year as I had "an open claim" - can I get that refunded ?

Do I have to mention this in the future ?

To be clear there was no accident, there was no formal decision, it's been a year since the start, with no contact for 6 months.

[A1VDY]

Had this with my trade ins. Got charged an extra £450 for a claim which never went through.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Yes, if the bonus has been re-allowed and the claim settled, they should issue a refund. But the tp have 6 years to make the claim, so it may not be all over.

[DaveH23]

As your insurer is the company bearing the risk, ask them.

Surely they are the only people who can answer your question.

[V8RX7]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Yes, if the bonus has been re-allowed and the claim settled, they should issue a refund.

But the tp have 6 years to make the claim, so it may not be all over.

The bonus has been reinstated

But the Claim hasn't been settled it's just "timed out"

6 years ! I thought it had all been tightened up these days, when my wife hit someone it was all dealt with really quickly.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

V8RX7 said:

6 years ! I thought it had all been tightened up these days, when my wife hit someone it was all dealt with really quickly.

It's not compulsory to wait 6 years!! I think it's 6 years for property claims, and 3 years for injury. Somebody cleverer might be along to correct me.

[V8RX7]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It's not compulsory to wait 6 years!! I think it's 6 years for property claims, and 3 years for injury. Somebody cleverer might be along to correct me.

I was under the impression there were performance criteria these days, in the past they used to drag it out and now they (generally) seem to want to get it sorted ASAP

I also thought that whilst there may have been time limits to start a claim (ie 6 yrs) surely there are limits once it has been started ?

[Cudd Wudd]

V8RX7 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It's not compulsory to wait 6 years!! I think it's 6 years for property claims, and 3 years for injury. Somebody cleverer might be along to correct me.

I was under the impression there were performance criteria these days, in the past they used to drag it out and now they (generally) seem to want to get it sorted ASAP

I also thought that whilst there may have been time limits to start a claim (ie 6 yrs) surely there are limits once it has been started ?

Yes to 6 years (and 3 for personal injury claims - save for certain exceptions, e.g. under 18 and/or lack capacity); no to being cleverer (as will be evidenced by someone correcting me ); and once proceedings are underway, which will be required to stop the relevant limitation period expiring, a court directions timetable will be implemented to manage the timeframe. This will outline steps the parties need to adhere to and the final stage will be a hearing, unless settlement occurs prior to that.

[CYMR0]

V8RX7 said:

I also thought that whilst there may have been time limits to start a claim (ie 6 yrs) surely there are limits once it has been started ?

As far as the courts are concerned, it hasn't been started. The 6-year limit is when they issue proceedings at court; if they did that and then failed to progress the claim, you could apply for it to be struck out. In this case, they don't have to do anything for six years - albeit on the assumption that it is in their interests to start it sooner rather than later, so it's highly unlikely you'll get a claim issued against you after 5 years and 364 days, given that they are aware of their "ability" to pursue a claim on their version of events.

[V8RX7]

[kestral]

The thing is again! why are insurance companies loading peoples premiums on the bases of "a claim"?. A claim means nothing other than a claim. No payout has been made or agreed so there should be no increase in premium until settlement.

This ridiculouse system whereby someone can issue a claim against a persons insurance company by doing a search against a registration number appears bizarr to me!

Motor insurance industry stinks to the high heavens.

[dukeboy749r]

kestral said:

The thing is again! why are insurance companies loading peoples premiums on the bases of "a claim"?. A claim means nothing other than a claim. No payout has been made or agreed so there should be no increase in premium until settlement.

This ridiculouse system whereby someone can issue a claim against a persons insurance company by doing a search against a registration number appears bizarr to me!

Motor insurance industry stinks to the high heavens.

This

[TwigtheWonderkid]

dukeboy749r said:

kestral said:

The thing is again! why are insurance companies loading peoples premiums on the bases of "a claim"?. A claim means nothing other than a claim. No payout has been made or agreed so there should be no increase in premium until settlement.

This ridiculouse system whereby someone can issue a claim against a persons insurance company by doing a search against a registration number appears bizarr to me!

Motor insurance industry stinks to the high heavens.

This

Why reference motor insurance. Any type of insurance, in any country, due for renewal, would take into account a pending or intimated claim when offering renewal terms They may choose not to charge, depending on circumstances, but it would always be a consideration. .

[kestral]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Why reference motor insurance. Any type of insurance, in any country, due for renewal, would take into account a pending or intimated claim when offering renewal terms They may choose not to charge, depending on circumstances, but it would always be a consideration. .

Motor insurance because.... if you read all my post. My quote: "This ridiculouse system whereby someone can issue a claim against a persons insurance company by doing a search against a registration number appears bizarr to me!"End quote.

I know of no other system with any other form of insurance than motor that has such a bizarr system.

The system mentioned is open to abuse and is abused.

Which can and does results in dishonest and false claims being made against the insured without the insureds knowledge.

That in turn causes inocent people to incur costs they should not occure.

It is an inequitable system that favours insurance companies.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

kestral said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Why reference motor insurance. Any type of insurance, in any country, due for renewal, would take into account a pending or intimated claim when offering renewal terms They may choose not to charge, depending on circumstances, but it would always be a consideration. .

Motor insurance because.... if you read all my post. My quote: "This ridiculouse system whereby someone can issue a claim against a persons insurance company by doing a search against a registration number appears bizarr to me!"End quote.

I know of no other system with any other form of insurance than motor that has such a bizarr system.

I could walk into any shop or business, ask to see details of their liability insurance, which is often displayed in reception or some other public area, take details, and submit a claim. That allegation would be factored into any future premium and possibly result in an additional premium.

[kestral]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I could walk into any shop or business, ask to see details of their liability insurance, which is often displayed in reception or some other public area, take details, and submit a claim. That allegation would be factored into any future premium and possibly result in an additional premium.

But they would know you were doing it and it would be all up front.
The present system with motor vehicle insurance allows an approach to the insurance company without any knowledge of the policy holder.

And I know these 'alegations' and that's what they are alegations nothing more, are taken into account by the insurers but should not be taken into account at all.

Maybe you agree with the system as it is.Maybe you don't.

However I would not want you to commit yourself to an opinion.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

kestral said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I could walk into any shop or business, ask to see details of their liability insurance, which is often displayed in reception or some other public area, take details, and submit a claim. That allegation would be factored into any future premium and possibly result in an additional premium.

But they would know you were doing it and it would be all up front.
The present system with motor vehicle insurance allows an approach to the insurance company without any knowledge of the policy holder.

Not so. My employer has the liability cert on display in reception. Anyone could take that info and submit a claim without our knowledge.

[V8RX7]

That the Assessor told me inspecting NON damaged cars has become the bulk of his work, whereas 20yrs ago it was almost unheard of, tells you all you need to know.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

kestral said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I could walk into any shop or business, ask to see details of their liability insurance, which is often displayed in reception or some other public area, take details, and submit a claim. That allegation would be factored into any future premium and possibly result in an additional premium.

But they would know you were doing it and it would be all up front.
The present system with motor vehicle insurance allows an approach to the insurance company without any knowledge of the policy holder.

And I know these 'alegations' and that's what they are alegations nothing more, are taken into account by the insurers but should not be taken into account at all.

Maybe you agree with the system as it is.Maybe you don't.

However I would not want you to commit yourself to an opinion.

Happy to give my opinion.

I agree that an insurer should be able to factor in pending / outstanding claims into any premium calculation. If it turns out the incident happened, but they don't pay out, they should still be able to factor that in to premium calculations, but still allowing your no claims bonus. If it transpires no incident occurred, then they shouldn't be able to charge you when it is all sorted. Which is exactly what happens now.

[elanfan]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I could walk into any shop or business, ask to see details of their liability insurance, which is often displayed in reception or some other public area, take details, and submit a claim. That allegation would be factored into any future premium and possibly result in an additional premium.

Not quite correct Twig - what should be displayed is an Employers Liability certificate most often it’s a combined liability policy but some companies insure EL and PL separately so it may not be the correct policy. The certificate is meant to be posted for the benefit of the staff to know they are insured and will often be in a staff room or on their notice board (usually a couple of years out of date too). In my experience they are not often posted in public areas.

That said I take your point.

Edited by elanfan on Thursday 5th March 14:50