My Car gets Stolen from Honda and my Insurance gos up? Why

[vxrandy]

Have you spoken with Honda uk, they may be able to lean on the dealer.

[Batlamb]

LeoSayer said:

I'm struggling to understand how your insurance company can justify loading your premium for your car getting stolen when 1) it wasn't in your care at the time 2) it was covered by the garage's insurance 3) you haven't claimed 4) it was stolen whilst being repaired under their insurance.

How much extra are they charging you for the fact that it was stolen?

At the moment an extra £50 as I am driving a Ford Ka. But if I decided to change it to a Audi TT or a Boxster who know how much it will go up.

[Batlamb]

vxrandy said:

Have you spoken with Honda uk, they may be able to lean on the dealer.

I have been in contact with them about it and they dont want anything to do with it as in their eyes it is down to the dealer and not themselves to deal with it.

[Truffles]

You have suffered loss due to the garage's negligence. They are liable. If they won't compensate you for increased future premiums, take them to court. It is very easy nowadays. Start at https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome. I doubt they will bother to defend the action, in which case you get judgement in default.

[croyde]

It's this whole business of non fault claims which I would imagine will cause us that suffer from it to try and claim the increased cost of premiums off the original third party's insurer.

Thus insurance will cost even more.

Currently my company do not load for non fault claims but then they are not the cheapest.

[snowy slopes]

LeoSayer said:

I'm struggling to understand how your insurance company can justify loading your premium for your car getting stolen when 1) it wasn't in your care at the time 2) it was covered by the garage's insurance 3) you haven't claimed 4) it was stolen whilst being repaired under their insurance.

How much extra are they charging you for the fact that it was stolen?

This is how insurance companies work. It doesnt matter that it got stolen from a dealers, as far as the insurance is concerned, it got stolen, therefore you instantly become a risk and your premium gets loaded accordingly.

[frosted]

Have the insurance companies accepted who was liable for the crash ?
I knew that insurance premium doesnt normally go up till renewal, I stand to be corrected

[Batlamb]

Truffles said:

You have suffered loss due to the garage's negligence. They are liable. If they won't compensate you for increased future premiums, take them to court. It is very easy nowadays. Start at https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome. I doubt they will bother to defend the action, in which case you get judgement in default.

Cheers Truffles. I will see what happens and I might go down this road. I shall keep you all posted.

[The Wookie]

Hang on a tic, if the OP got the money from the Honda dealer he clearly hasn't made a claim on his insurance, so presumably the claim has been made by the Honda dealer, on the Honda dealer's own insurance.

If the OP hasn't made a claim of any sort, not even a third party claim... why would it appear on his records, and why would it have any relevance?

[Animal]

The Wookie said:

Hang on a tic, if the OP got the money from the Honda dealer he clearly hasn't made a claim on his insurance, so presumably the claim has been made by the Honda dealer, on the Honda dealer's own insurance.

If the OP hasn't made a claim of any sort, not even a third party claim... why would it appear on his records, and why would it have any relevance?

1) It is a material fact that the OP owned a car that was stolen.
2) This becomes a piece of statistical information that motor insurers use to base their pricing on. If motor insurance policies were underwritten on an individual basis (i.e. by an underwriter with a calculator) they would probably cost an awful lot more than they do now.
3) No claim was made against the OP's policy and so his insurers are not out of pocket (aside from the incidental costs of amending their records etc).
4) However, their records show that he has had a car stolen and therefore he represents an increased risk - to keep their (and therefore our) costs as low as possible there is little flexibility in their systems to allow for this sort of situation.
5) The OP should shop around for renewal terms.
6) The OP could claim against the dealer for any future financial loss resulting from increased premiums - but he'd then become part of the 'claim culture'...

[jains15]

I think if I was in the OP's position, I wouldn't be declaring this at all, and would argue that the car was never stolen from 'me' it was stolen from the dealer (in their care at the time) and that I have been compensated for the loss of the item. The dealer could have parked it anywhere and you'd have no control, the dealer had the keys (spare keys not withstanding). If the possesion of keys can be used in court against motorists I would say that the dealer's possesion of keys exonerates the OP.

However he's mentioned it now and may well have to swallow it until the time limit on these things runs out, 3 or 5 years. I wouldn't think the company would remove the reference and forget about it. It's useful that it's on here so we can all think and learn about it though.

OP if I were you I would be pushing for more compo than just the value of the lost car, I would be wanting money to cover these extra costs which happened due to their negligence (I presume, why were the keys not in a safe?), try Honda UK and threaten watchdog?

It's disgraceful from start to finish IMHO

[Stitch]

Papa Hotel said:

Well the way they look at it is that you tend to leave your car in places where it is likely to be stolen.

Suck it up I'm afraid, you had a car stolen and I'm sure they can trot out any number of surveys and statistics that say you're more likely to have another one stolen. That's life. I know that's not what you want to hear but you'll not hear anything more positive.

Edited by Papa Hotel on Tuesday 23 November 23:03

^ This.

Daft as it sounds, this is the way they will look at it.

My uncle's car was once hit my a nutter in a taxi running a red light. It actually went to court with the police prosecuting the guy but my uncle's insurance still went up. Basically the insurer's view was that a safer/more cautious driver would have checked for traffic running a red light and so avoided the accident.

[The Wookie]

Animal said:

1) It is a material fact that the OP owned a car that was stolen.
2) This becomes a piece of statistical information that motor insurers use to base their pricing on. If motor insurance policies were underwritten on an individual basis (i.e. by an underwriter with a calculator) they would probably cost an awful lot more than they do now.
3) No claim was made against the OP's policy and so his insurers are not out of pocket (aside from the incidental costs of amending their records etc).
4) However, their records show that he has had a car stolen and therefore he represents an increased risk - to keep their (and therefore our) costs as low as possible there is little flexibility in their systems to allow for this sort of situation.
5) The OP should shop around for renewal terms.
6) The OP could claim against the dealer for any future financial loss resulting from increased premiums - but he'd then become part of the 'claim culture'...

A good explanation, although one could argue that if the OP was not involved in the claim and therefore his insurance have not been subject to any cost then it is a statistic with little relevance. Regardless of the fact he has owned a car that has been stolen, the car has not been stolen from him it has been stolen from the dealership.

Presumably the garage's insurance company have increased their premium due to their loss and the deduction that security is an issue at their premises, so aren't the insurance industry effectively losing once and 'winning' twice? The insurance industry is making a deduction on the OP's likelihood to have another car stolen, based on the assumption that his personal security/area safety is questionable, which is usually correct in some way shape or form, but in this case the only fact is that the OP is only more likely to have his car stolen from the dealer he's already had it stolen from, who will once again recompense him outside of his own insurance!

Obviously your explanation is the status quo, but it's difficult to understand it logically and morally, but then this is the insurance industry which seems to regularly ignore both.

[pestman77]

Insurance companies will always find a way or reason to charge you more, I had a claim go against me last year that I did not even know about til it had gone through!! seriously!! App I went into the back of BMW on the M4, 1st I knew about it was when I renewed my insurance, couldnt believe it...

The insurance company said that they had sent letters and had no reply, heaven forbid they try and use a telephone!!! Tried to fight it ...No joy!!!

Any one out there fishing around for insurance avoid AUTONET insurance....

Unfortunatley I had other vehicles insured with them that I dont even drive, guess what?? the premiums went up on those as well.....

To top it off insurance companies are no better than the taxman, the government, London parking officers and the DEVIL......

[Batlamb]

pestman77 said:

Insurance companies will always find a way or reason to charge you more, I had a claim go against me last year that I did not even know about til it had gone through!! seriously!! App I went into the back of BMW on the M4, 1st I knew about it was when I renewed my insurance, couldnt believe it...

The insurance company said that they had sent letters and had no reply, heaven forbid they try and use a telephone!!! Tried to fight it ...No joy!!!

Any one out there fishing around for insurance avoid AUTONET insurance....

Unfortunatley I had other vehicles insured with them that I dont even drive, guess what?? the premiums went up on those as well.....

To top it off insurance companies are no better than the taxman, the government, London parking officers and the DEVIL......

Oh my lord Pestman, that is bad. Is there nothing you can do like go to the police as that sounds like a clear case of fraud?

[saaby93]

pestman77 said:

App I went into the back of BMW on the M4, 1st I knew about it was when I renewed my insurance, couldnt believe it...

The insurance company said that they had sent letters and had no reply, heaven forbid they try and use a telephone!!! Tried to fight it ...No joy!!!

cross posted in SP&L
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[clonmult]

pestman77 said:

Insurance companies will always find a way or reason to charge you more, I had a claim go against me last year that I did not even know about til it had gone through!! seriously!! App I went into the back of BMW on the M4, 1st I knew about it was when I renewed my insurance, couldnt believe it...

The insurance company said that they had sent letters and had no reply, heaven forbid they try and use a telephone!!! Tried to fight it ...No joy!!!

I had similar a few years back; found out when the renewal claim through that I still had an outstanding claim against me. Apparently a BMW that somehow matched mine (black, T plate 318iS) had driven into someone around London.

Was ever so slightly gobsmacked when it actually got sorted out - it was a made up claim, but I never got the bottom of how they got my cars details in order to make the fraudulent claim.

[Muzzer]

OP - it's a third party claim.

Regardless of fault, your premium will go up.

Much the same way that if you were rear-ended by a third party and totally blameless, your premium would subsequently rise (as mine has)

Honda UK and the Dealer can do nothing and shouldn't have to do anything.
Your car was stolen from the dealer's premises and they have compensated you (presumably through their insurance) for the value of the car. You can't claim against them again for your insurance premium going up otherwise everyone would sue every third party for premium increases as a result of 'negligence'

Suck it up I'm afraid.

[saaby93]

Muzzer said:

OP - it's a third party claim.

I'mnot sure it is - Isn't it a 4th party claim?
The garage lost his car and has paid him for it. Nothing to do with OP or his insurance.
Who is the 1st and 2nd party?

[LeoSayer]

Muzzer said:

Much the same way that if you were rear-ended by a third party and totally blameless, your premium would subsequently rise (as mine has)

It's not the same. The car wasn't in the OP's possession, his responsibility or even under his insurance at the time of the theft.

Edited by LeoSayer on Tuesday 30th November 13:40