Minimising impact of non-fault claims

[bigbob77]

One of our cars was hit while parked in a car park - we weren't there. There was a witness and the other drive accepted full liability straight away.

It still added a couple of hundred to our insurance.

I found that there are a couple of insurance companies who don't care about non-fault claims. We went with LV. They don't even ask for the details of non-fault claims.

[Howard-]

Artey said:

Like what

Like driving erratically or unpredictably. Let's say you slam your brakes on because you did not notice an obstruction up ahead until it was nearly too late. Perhaps you weren't paying as much attention as you should have been. You manage to stop short, but someone goes into the back of you. Their fault, but you could have prevented it by braking more gently, sooner.

Poor road positioning which could lead to giving another driver the wrong impression is another example, perhaps with the mis-use of indicators. There are millions of examples of ways that you can cause undue confusion to other road users through poor awareness and observation.

A lot of the time people tend to just drive themselves into trouble. I see so many dashcam videos of people galloping onto little mini roundabouts with poor visibility and when some poor sod dares to emerge from the left and nearly hit them, it's ONLY their fault and the dashcam driver "couldn't have possibly done anything to lessen the chances".

I'm sure there are a million other scenarios one could cite.


In terms of being hit whilst parked, it could be argued that you may have parked badly or inconsiderately. If your poor parking causes somebody to drive into you, then it was again preventable on your part.

Edited by Howard- on Tuesday 31st May 15:16

[fourspoons]

bigbob77 said:

One of our cars was hit while parked in a car park - we weren't there. There was a witness and the other drive accepted full liability straight away.

It still added a couple of hundred to our insurance.

I found that there are a couple of insurance companies who don't care about non-fault claims. We went with LV. They don't even ask for the details of non-fault claims.

Thanks for that I will make sure to give LV a look.

[mgv8]

If you out of pocket for no-fault claim could you not try and claime for that?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

bigbob77 said:

One of our cars was hit while parked in a car park - we weren't there. There was a witness and the other drive accepted full liability straight away.

It still added a couple of hundred to our insurance.

I found that there are a couple of insurance companies who don't care about non-fault claims. We went with LV. They don't even ask for the details of non-fault claims.

Car parks are high risk places for getting hit. Some people's lifestyle means they never park in car parks. Insurers now know that you're not one of them. Next time you get hit, there may be no witness.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

mgv8 said:

If you out of pocket for no-fault claim could you not try and claime for that?

No.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Artey said:

Howard- said:

That, and the fact that whilst someone who is involved in a non-fault claim did not cause the accident, there often is something that they could have done to prevent it.

Like what

In the OP's case, like not buying a house with a shared driveway.

[TooMany2cvs]

Artey said:

Apparently this whole non fault loading premium racket is caused by the fact that due to human rights we can't have parties at fault bearing all cost because that could price them out of the market and that means they couldn't drive and that means they couldn't support their families. So you're just supporting other people's kids. Be happy.

I'm happy in the knowledge that you're either trolling or a complete and utter muppet. Can you confirm which, please?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

TooMany2cvs said:

Artey said:

Apparently this whole non fault loading premium racket is caused by the fact that due to human rights we can't have parties at fault bearing all cost because that could price them out of the market and that means they couldn't drive and that means they couldn't support their families. So you're just supporting other people's kids. Be happy.

I'm happy in the knowledge that you're either trolling or a complete and utter muppet. Can you confirm which, please?

Don't indulge the fool.

[Artey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Artey said:

Apparently this whole non fault loading premium racket is caused by the fact that due to human rights we can't have parties at fault bearing all cost because that could price them out of the market and that means they couldn't drive and that means they couldn't support their families. So you're just supporting other people's kids. Be happy.

I'm happy in the knowledge that you're either trolling or a complete and utter muppet. Can you confirm which, please?

Don't indulge the fool.

It's funny how a simple blatantly obvious statement which is not in line with common belief always attracts shills. No matter what subject.

That statement wasn't mine BTW, just quoting some other shill on here who in defense of the industry ages ago stated that costs need to be shared in order to keep everybody's premiums low.

So both of you can suck a big fat dick as far as I'm concerned.

[Artey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Artey said:

Howard- said:

That, and the fact that whilst someone who is involved in a non-fault claim did not cause the accident, there often is something that they could have done to prevent it.

Like what

In the OP's case, like not buying a house with a shared driveway.

Or not driving at all to avoid being rear ended. Don't be ridiculous.

[TooMany2cvs]

Artey said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Artey said:

Apparently this whole non fault loading premium racket is caused by the fact that due to human rights we can't have parties at fault bearing all cost because that could price them out of the market and that means they couldn't drive and that means they couldn't support their families. So you're just supporting other people's kids. Be happy.

I'm happy in the knowledge that you're either trolling or a complete and utter muppet. Can you confirm which, please?

Don't indulge the fool.

It's funny how a simple blatantly obvious statement which is not in line with common belief always attracts shills. No matter what subject.

There's just one small detail: It's complete and utter bks. Untrue. A lie. Contradicts reality.

[Artey]

TooMany2cvs said:

There's just one small detail: It's complete and utter bks. Untrue. A lie. Contradicts reality.

Which bit

[TooMany2cvs]

Artey said:

TooMany2cvs said:

There's just one small detail: It's complete and utter bks. Untrue. A lie. Contradicts reality.

Which bit

The entire post...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Artey said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Artey said:

Howard- said:

That, and the fact that whilst someone who is involved in a non-fault claim did not cause the accident, there often is something that they could have done to prevent it.

Like what

In the OP's case, like not buying a house with a shared driveway.

Or not driving at all to avoid being rear ended. Don't be ridiculous.

I've no doubt there are a few people who insure cars just in case they use them during the year but don't. They will not get hit in the rear so will not be loaded for non fault claims. Which seems fair to me.

Glad you finally get it.

[Artey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I've no doubt there are a few people who insure cars just in case they use them during the year but don't. They will not get hit in the rear so will not be loaded for non fault claims. Which seems fair to me.

Glad you finally get it.

Wha? Is that an answer to a question that nobody asked? Because it sure doesn't answer my question, "what can somebody do to avoid being rear ended in order not to have their premiums loaded through somebody elses stupidity"

[Artey]

TooMany2cvs said:

Artey said:

TooMany2cvs said:

There's just one small detail: It's complete and utter bks. Untrue. A lie. Contradicts reality.

Which bit

The entire post...

So you're saying that those who are not at fault do not get their premiums loaded come renewal (i.e. get penalised for not their mistake). Is this right?

[TooMany2cvs]

Artey said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Artey said:

TooMany2cvs said:

There's just one small detail: It's complete and utter bks. Untrue. A lie. Contradicts reality.

Which bit

The entire post...

So you're saying that those who are not at fault do not get their premiums loaded come renewal (i.e. get penalised for not their mistake). Is this right?

Here's a reminder of the post I was replying to...

Artey said:

Apparently this whole non fault loading premium racket is caused by the fact that due to human rights we can't have parties at fault bearing all cost because that could price them out of the market and that means they couldn't drive and that means they couldn't support their families. So you're just supporting other people's kids. Be happy.

[Ninja59]

bigbob77 said:

One of our cars was hit while parked in a car park - we weren't there. There was a witness and the other drive accepted full liability straight away.

It still added a couple of hundred to our insurance.

I found that there are a couple of insurance companies who don't care about non-fault claims. We went with LV. They don't even ask for the details of non-fault claims.

Not correct, LV definitely do have an option (and helpfully state it above the question about fault or not).



The only REAL benefit of LV, at least in the instance of one non-fault claim is they do not load the premium, it stays the same, as for a second one not sure, sorry.

As for those suggesting "non-disclosure" that could get you in real hot water (up to and including voiding your insurance), the "database" that many insurers use (not all) is the Claims Underwriting Exchange (CUE), which covers any form of claim including motoring ones.

Edited by Ninja59 on Tuesday 31st May 17:35

[Artey]

TooMany2cvs said:

Artey said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Artey said:

TooMany2cvs said:

There's just one small detail: It's complete and utter bks. Untrue. A lie. Contradicts reality.

Which bit

The entire post...

So you're saying that those who are not at fault do not get their premiums loaded come renewal (i.e. get penalised for not their mistake). Is this right?

Here's a reminder of the post I was replying to...

Artey said:

Apparently this whole non fault loading premium racket is caused by the fact that due to human rights we can't have parties at fault bearing all cost because that could price them out of the market and that means they couldn't drive and that means they couldn't support their families. So you're just supporting other people's kids. Be happy.

Well, if you get penalised for someone elses's mistake you share the cost of their mistake. If it wasn't for their stupidity you wouldn't be affected. How the fk isn't this what's happening and how isn't this a racket. If you get robbed do you go to jail for a couple of days sharing the cell with the criminal that robbed you as a reminder and deterrent to avoid being robbed in the future? How come we are one of few countries that allow st like that with car insurance (using statistics as an excuse but forgetting one of basics of statistics - i.e. correlation does not imply causation).