Cannot get insured anymore due to a non-fault accident.
Discussion
Marvtec said:
What are the realistic ramifications if OP doesn't declare the non-fault claim? I assume if the insurer found out about it at a later date they would claim for the difference in premium? Would they be likely to find out given the claim is not in his name?
Not that I'm advising that, of course.
Thanks for the suggestions people.Not that I'm advising that, of course.
They scan through a database and it details everything, found that out the first time over the phone..
Marvtec said:
What are the realistic ramifications if OP doesn't declare the non-fault claim? I assume if the insurer found out about it at a later date they would claim for the difference in premium? Would they be likely to find out given the claim is not in his name?
Not that I'm advising that, of course.
Potentially or the could void the policy & only pay their 3rd party liability. So you could end up with no payout & having to declare you have had insurance cancelled.Not that I'm advising that, of course.
Exact same happened to a family member of mine. Young driver, golf r, not at fault accident followed by a hefty insurance increase at renewal time. Sounds like you're doing all you can.. research around, comparison websites, contact those not on the comparison sites and hopefully you'll find a deal you find reasonable, if not there may only be one other option!
funkyrobot said:
I know it's the way it is, but I have never understood this logic. Yes, maybe a fault claim could result in another. However, a non-fault? Odd.
I have had one non-fault claim. I was parked waiting at a junction. Someone drove into the side of my car as it was snowing and they didn't understand simple physics. They were also a banned drink driver at the time. The car was insured though.
According to the statistics, I am a higher risk driver.
Logic says you travel in an area where someone might drive into you again.I have had one non-fault claim. I was parked waiting at a junction. Someone drove into the side of my car as it was snowing and they didn't understand simple physics. They were also a banned drink driver at the time. The car was insured though.
According to the statistics, I am a higher risk driver.
Another example. I was coming to to a queue at traffic lights on a dual carriageway. Queue on Lane 2 shorter so that's where I would normally be. However the car at the front had reversing lights on. I went Lane 1. A woman in a newer golf went Lane 2 and sat behind the reversing lights. As it happens car went forward so no issue. But if it had been in reverse, it would have been a non-fault crash for the golf. But the Golf had every chance of avoiding a collision by reading the road ahead..... Higher risk driver? you decide.
To an extent, males between the ages of 35 and 60 subsidise males under the age of 25. Told to me by a chap in a major insurance company when I was researching an article on whether women drivers had fewer accidents than males.
I pointed out that this was unfair - I was in the higher age group - and he pointed out that he didn't care.
I pointed out that this was unfair - I was in the higher age group - and he pointed out that he didn't care.
Derek Smith said:
To an extent, males between the ages of 35 and 60 subsidise males under the age of 25. Told to me by a chap in a major insurance company when I was researching an article on whether women drivers had fewer accidents than males.
I pointed out that this was unfair - I was in the higher age group - and he pointed out that he didn't care.
Hasnt it been ruled that its sex discrimination to have differeent rates for men and women therefore women are subsidising men!I pointed out that this was unfair - I was in the higher age group - and he pointed out that he didn't care.
Chrisgr31 said:
I read somewhere that the reason insurance premiumtax was going up was because premiums were coming down due to reduction in payouts for dodgy medical claims.
No, it's going up from 6% to 9.5% because the government spend a shedload more each year than they get in. You might have heard something about that.surveyor said:
Logic says you travel in an area where someone might drive into you again.
Another example. I was coming to to a queue at traffic lights on a dual carriageway. Queue on Lane 2 shorter so that's where I would normally be. However the car at the front had reversing lights on. I went Lane 1. A woman in a newer golf went Lane 2 and sat behind the reversing lights. As it happens car went forward so no issue. But if it had been in reverse, it would have been a non-fault crash for the golf. But the Golf had every chance of avoiding a collision by reading the road ahead..... Higher risk driver? you decide.
After the accident, I hardly ever used that road again. I haven't been down there for years and years.Another example. I was coming to to a queue at traffic lights on a dual carriageway. Queue on Lane 2 shorter so that's where I would normally be. However the car at the front had reversing lights on. I went Lane 1. A woman in a newer golf went Lane 2 and sat behind the reversing lights. As it happens car went forward so no issue. But if it had been in reverse, it would have been a non-fault crash for the golf. But the Golf had every chance of avoiding a collision by reading the road ahead..... Higher risk driver? you decide.
For 'x' amount of time after the accident, and despite not using that road anymore, I was penalised. Their logic failed.
Vaud said:
Mandat said:
popeyewhite said:
Soov535 said:
Of course it's legal - no one is obliged to insure you.
But you are legally obliged to be insured. And taken advantage of, it seems.popeyewhite said:
It's acceptable to be ripped off because you want to drive and are legally obliged to have insurance? Right.
1 ) There is no rip off. It's a very buoyant market with lots of supply and very competitive. The OP has been unfortunate to have been in an accident, but he is now in a category of risk that is now reflected in his insurance premium.2 ) No-one is forcing him to drive an S3 with 1 years experience. Whilst I think it's great, he still has the ability to drive and can get a less powerful car with more affordable premiums.
3 ) Sometimes stuff just happens and life deals you a set back. It's not the fault of the insurer, or necessarily the OP.
Vaud said:
popeyewhite said:
It's acceptable to be ripped off because you want to drive and are legally obliged to have insurance? Right.
1 ) There is no rip off. It's a very buoyant market with lots of supply and very competitive. The OP has been unfortunate to have been in an accident, but he is now in a category of risk that is now reflected in his insurance premium.2 ) No-one is forcing him to drive an S3 with 1 years experience. Whilst I think it's great, he still has the ability to drive and can get a less powerful car with more affordable premiums.
3 ) Sometimes stuff just happens and life deals you a set back. It's not the fault of the insurer, or necessarily the OP.
The purpose of insurance is to put the innocent party back in the same position they would have been had the collision not occurred.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff