Non-fault claim or notification of incident?
Discussion
Recently my car was reversed into in a supermarket carpark by a third party. The third party denied liability initially but an independent witness was there at the scene and the third party's insurer is holding their policyholder at fault. I've notified my insurer for notification purposes only. Only minor damage to the front nearside corner - seems to be superficial.
The third party's insurer has contacted me to offer their services (car repair and hire car). I've been informed by the third party's insurer that this is an accident but not a claim, won't affect future policies and can declare it as notification only or no claim made. They initially told me that I wouldn't even need to declare it as notification only, but I was wary of this and suspected this was incorrect advice.
For future policies, would I need to declare this as notification only/no claim made, or non-fault claim? According to the third party's insurer, it's not a claim because I haven't claimed on my policy. Would appreciate any advice.
The third party's insurer has contacted me to offer their services (car repair and hire car). I've been informed by the third party's insurer that this is an accident but not a claim, won't affect future policies and can declare it as notification only or no claim made. They initially told me that I wouldn't even need to declare it as notification only, but I was wary of this and suspected this was incorrect advice.
For future policies, would I need to declare this as notification only/no claim made, or non-fault claim? According to the third party's insurer, it's not a claim because I haven't claimed on my policy. Would appreciate any advice.
Pegscratch said:
Strictly speaking their terminology (on the bit you suspect to be correct) is right; you aren’t claiming on your policy. However, you are claiming on someone else’s policy so you declare it as a non-fault claim where costs are recovered.
That's not correct.A non fault claim where costs are recovered involves making a claim with your insurer who then recovers the costs from the third party (or their insurer).
The OP isn't making any insurance claim. Legally he can't claim on someone else's policy as he has no contract with the other person's insurer. He is recovering his own costs from the third party. The third party is choosing to use his own insurance to pay those costs.
The advice the insurer has given you is correct.
AndrewT1275 said:
The OP isn't making any insurance claim. Legally he can't claim on someone else's policy as he has no contract with the other person's insurer. He is recovering his own costs from the third party.
Whilst the OP has no contract with the tp insurer, this does not mean he isn't claiming. He clearly is, as the tp has a contract with his insurers that covers claims from people he hits, and the Op is claiming off the tp insurer. I can claim damages from anyone who acts negligently towards me. I don't need a contract with them. Sorry to hijack but I’m confused now myself.
3 years ago a 3rd party hit my works van, the 3rd party admitted fault and the whole process went through my
Employers insurance.
However ever since I’ve been declaring a non fault accident on my personal insurance, have I been stitching myself up or is what I’ve done correct?
3 years ago a 3rd party hit my works van, the 3rd party admitted fault and the whole process went through my
Employers insurance.
However ever since I’ve been declaring a non fault accident on my personal insurance, have I been stitching myself up or is what I’ve done correct?
10 years ago my car was hit while I wasnt even in it, it was a non-fault claim and the 3rd parties Insurance sorted it.
However for 5 years I had to declare it as a non-fault claim and it effected my premium apparently "You are more likely to make another claim according to the insurance systems"
The entire system needs an overhall.
However for 5 years I had to declare it as a non-fault claim and it effected my premium apparently "You are more likely to make another claim according to the insurance systems"
The entire system needs an overhall.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Whilst the OP has no contract with the tp insurer, this does not mean he isn't claiming. He clearly is, as the tp has a contract with his insurers that covers claims from people he hits, and the Op is claiming off the tp insurer. I can claim damages from anyone who acts negligently towards me. I don't need a contract with them.
I was genuinely surprised when I saw who had written this as normally I agree 100% with everything you write about this subject.TwigtheWonderkid said:
I can claim damages from anyone who acts negligently towards me. I don't need a contract with them.
Agreed. But in this instance the tp insurer hasn't acted negligently towards you so you can't claim damages from them.You can claim damages from the tp.
The tp has a contract with his insurer and he can either pay up the damages himself or use his contract with the insurer to settle the claim on his behalf. You are still not claiming from the tp's insurer.
It's a bit of semantics and the net outcome for the injured party is the same.
AndrewT1275 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Whilst the OP has no contract with the tp insurer, this does not mean he isn't claiming. He clearly is, as the tp has a contract with his insurers that covers claims from people he hits, and the Op is claiming off the tp insurer. I can claim damages from anyone who acts negligently towards me. I don't need a contract with them.
I was genuinely surprised when I saw who had written this as normally I agree 100% with everything you write about this subject.TwigtheWonderkid said:
I can claim damages from anyone who acts negligently towards me. I don't need a contract with them.
Agreed. But in this instance the tp insurer hasn't acted negligently towards you so you can't claim damages from them.You can claim damages from the tp.
The tp has a contract with his insurer and he can either pay up the damages himself or use his contract with the insurer to settle the claim on his behalf. You are still not claiming from the tp's insurer.
It's a bit of semantics and the net outcome for the injured party is the same.
But either way, you've made a claim, if you're asked.
KillerHERTZ said:
10 years ago my car was hit while I wasnt even in it, it was a non-fault claim and the 3rd parties Insurance sorted it.
However for 5 years I had to declare it as a non-fault claim and it effected my premium apparently "You are more likely to make another claim according to the insurance systems"
The entire system needs an overhall.
No it doesn't. UK insurance is dirt cheap for most people, and we're quite happy with it. However for 5 years I had to declare it as a non-fault claim and it effected my premium apparently "You are more likely to make another claim according to the insurance systems"
The entire system needs an overhall.
And they are not saying you are more likely to make another claim. How do they know, as they don't know you from a stray cat in the street? What they are saying is that you now fall into a group that is more likely to make another claim, which is demonstratively true. 1000 people with a non fault claim will make more claims going forward than 1000 people who have never made a claim. Because within that group of 1000, there will be a percentage whose circumstances make them more likely to claim again (they park often in a dark tight car park, they hit the worst roundabout in town every morning at 8:30, they often park on a bend in a very narrow road to visit their mum, they are a hesitant driver who often brakes overly harshly, etc, etc.
Some people in the 1000 who have never made a claim will also fall in the category of being more likely to claim, even though they haven't done so yet, but fewer of them.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No it doesn't. UK insurance is dirt cheap for most people, and we're quite happy with it.
And they are not saying you are more likely to make another claim. How do they know, as they don't know you from a stray cat in the street? What they are saying is that you now fall into a group that is more likely to make another claim, which is demonstratively true. 1000 people with a non fault claim will make more claims going forward than 1000 people who have never made a claim. Because within that group of 1000, there will be a percentage whose circumstances make them more likely to claim again (they park often in a dark tight car park, they hit the worst roundabout in town every morning at 8:30, they often park on a bend in a very narrow road to visit their mum, they are a hesitant driver who often brakes overly harshly, etc, etc.
Some people in the 1000 who have never made a claim will also fall in the category of being more likely to claim, even though they haven't done so yet, but fewer of them.
Why should I (and everyone else) be penalised for 5 years, for an incident which I wasnt even in the car for, nor did I claim on my own insurance?And they are not saying you are more likely to make another claim. How do they know, as they don't know you from a stray cat in the street? What they are saying is that you now fall into a group that is more likely to make another claim, which is demonstratively true. 1000 people with a non fault claim will make more claims going forward than 1000 people who have never made a claim. Because within that group of 1000, there will be a percentage whose circumstances make them more likely to claim again (they park often in a dark tight car park, they hit the worst roundabout in town every morning at 8:30, they often park on a bend in a very narrow road to visit their mum, they are a hesitant driver who often brakes overly harshly, etc, etc.
Some people in the 1000 who have never made a claim will also fall in the category of being more likely to claim, even though they haven't done so yet, but fewer of them.
The operator on the phone told me I was statistically more likely to make another claim once this had happened which makes no sense at all.
KillerHERTZ said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No it doesn't. UK insurance is dirt cheap for most people, and we're quite happy with it.
And they are not saying you are more likely to make another claim. How do they know, as they don't know you from a stray cat in the street? What they are saying is that you now fall into a group that is more likely to make another claim, which is demonstratively true. 1000 people with a non fault claim will make more claims going forward than 1000 people who have never made a claim. Because within that group of 1000, there will be a percentage whose circumstances make them more likely to claim again (they park often in a dark tight car park, they hit the worst roundabout in town every morning at 8:30, they often park on a bend in a very narrow road to visit their mum, they are a hesitant driver who often brakes overly harshly, etc, etc.
Some people in the 1000 who have never made a claim will also fall in the category of being more likely to claim, even though they haven't done so yet, but fewer of them.
Why should I (and everyone else) be penalised for 5 years, for an incident which I wasn't even in the car for, nor did I claim on my own insurance?And they are not saying you are more likely to make another claim. How do they know, as they don't know you from a stray cat in the street? What they are saying is that you now fall into a group that is more likely to make another claim, which is demonstratively true. 1000 people with a non fault claim will make more claims going forward than 1000 people who have never made a claim. Because within that group of 1000, there will be a percentage whose circumstances make them more likely to claim again (they park often in a dark tight car park, they hit the worst roundabout in town every morning at 8:30, they often park on a bend in a very narrow road to visit their mum, they are a hesitant driver who often brakes overly harshly, etc, etc.
Some people in the 1000 who have never made a claim will also fall in the category of being more likely to claim, even though they haven't done so yet, but fewer of them.
The operator on the phone told me I was statistically more likely to make another claim once this had happened which makes no sense at all.
The operator was sort of right, insomuch as you now fall into a group which is statistically more likely to claim again. As I explained above.
I understand what you are saying, but regarding my insurance increasing, this has no reflection on the fact I wasnt even in my car, nor did I claim agaist my own insurance.
This cannot be compared to a Teenager driving - they are actually driving/making claims. I didnt claim on my insurance so my insurance shouldnt be effected - what incentive is there to report non-fault incidents to your own insurance?
By this logic, just because someone drove into my parked car, this automatically means it will happen again or somthing else will happen to me.
This cannot be compared to a Teenager driving - they are actually driving/making claims. I didnt claim on my insurance so my insurance shouldnt be effected - what incentive is there to report non-fault incidents to your own insurance?
By this logic, just because someone drove into my parked car, this automatically means it will happen again or somthing else will happen to me.
KillerHERTZ said:
I understand what you are saying, but regarding my insurance increasing, this has no reflection on the fact I wasnt even in my car, nor did I claim agaist my own insurance.
You fall into a group who have had their car hit whilst parked. Within that group, there will be people who are more likely to have that happen again, because they often park in a place where the chances of getting hit are higher (a badly designed work car park). Next time, the guilty party might just drive off.KillerHERTZ said:
This cannot be compared to a Teenager driving - they are actually driving/making claims.
Nope, individual teenagers fall into a group that are. You have no idea if a particular teenager will claim, neither of my sons did. KillerHERTZ said:
By this logic, just because someone drove into my parked car, this automatically means it will happen again or somthing else will happen to me.
No, no one knows your particular circumstances or lifesytle. But you now fall into a higher risk group. You may be higher risk, or not. You seem determined to take it personally.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, no one knows your particular circumstances or lifesytle. But you now fall into a higher risk group. You may be higher risk, or not. You seem determined to take it personally.
Well the insurer certainly seems to take it personally for some reason. Why do they assume he falls into a higher risk group - Assume makes an "Ass" of "U" and "Me" after all! Or haven't you done that course?
I had a non-fault event in 2011 and claimed from the insurer of the car that rear-ended me and I didn't declare it until the next renewal (because I had no duty to do so), by which time the other insurer had settled my claim. Non-fault claim already settled so it wasn't an issue.
Don't tell your insurer unless you have to would be my advice! But then I only spent 30+ years in general insurance claims.
Insurance quotes ask about accidents or incidents not claims.
Furthermore, the risk of the accident being logged in CUE is high, which over 90+% of insurers use last time I saw a stat. It holds info on claims and potential claims, so it might get flagged for non-disclosure if you don't declare on a new policy.
Example insurance quote question
Furthermore, the risk of the accident being logged in CUE is high, which over 90+% of insurers use last time I saw a stat. It holds info on claims and potential claims, so it might get flagged for non-disclosure if you don't declare on a new policy.
Example insurance quote question
Edited by Ninja59 on Thursday 4th March 02:20
Years ago I had my car hit while it was parked. Third party disappeared into the night, never to be seen again. Only minor damage, barely more than a paint scratch. I decided to take it to a local body shop and have the bumper resprayed, never got insurance involved or even informed them. The excess alone would have been the same as the bill from the body shop, let alone several years of being shafted for making a claim, for what was somebody else causing a 3” scratch.
Not sure whether I should have told them or not, but should it ever happen again I would still sort it myself away from insurance. AFAIC insurance companies are sharks, a necessary evil and I like to keep them at arms length.
Not sure whether I should have told them or not, but should it ever happen again I would still sort it myself away from insurance. AFAIC insurance companies are sharks, a necessary evil and I like to keep them at arms length.
Mr Tidy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No, no one knows your particular circumstances or lifesytle. But you now fall into a higher risk group. You may be higher risk, or not. You seem determined to take it personally.
Well the insurer certainly seems to take it personally for some reason. Mr Tidy said:
Why do they assume he falls into a higher risk group - Assume makes an "Ass" of "U" and "Me" after all! Or haven't you done that course?
Because some insurers have statistical evidence to indicate as much. Which is why some insurers charge more following a non fault accident. Mr Tidy said:
Don't tell your insurer unless you have to would be my advice!
That would be my advice too. Don't tell them unless you're asked, either on an initial application or as part of the renewal requirements. However, I think around 100% of people will be asked.
Muddle238 said:
Years ago I had my car hit while it was parked. Third party disappeared into the night, never to be seen again. Only minor damage, barely more than a paint scratch. I decided to take it to a local body shop and have the bumper resprayed, never got insurance involved or even informed them. The excess alone would have been the same as the bill from the body shop, let alone several years of being shafted for making a claim, for what was somebody else causing a 3” scratch.
Not sure whether I should have told them or not, but should it ever happen again I would still sort it myself away from insurance. AFAIC insurance companies are sharks, a necessary evil and I like to keep them at arms length.
In this case you could argue, if asked about being involved in any accidents or making any claims, that you weren't involved in the accident, and you certainly made no claim. Not sure whether I should have told them or not, but should it ever happen again I would still sort it myself away from insurance. AFAIC insurance companies are sharks, a necessary evil and I like to keep them at arms length.
Thanks for the replies. I spoke to both my insurer (Direct Line) and the third party's insurer's third party care team (Aviva). They both pretty much said the same thing - if I get the repair done privately or walk away, then I could declare the incident as notification only if future insurers that I go with offer this option. If an insurer doesn't offer a claim type as notification only or no claim made, then I'll need to declare the incident as a non-fault accident, even if I get the repair done privately and don't claim.
The third party's insurer is keen to handle the matter and repair the damage to the bumper. I've been offered a choice of three repairers but I've narrowed it down to two as one of them didn't have good reviews. I'm trying to decide whether to go with RGM in Swansea or SJ Fuller in Bridgend. The third party's insurer will offer a lifetime warranty on the repair for as long as I own the car.
I'm a bit nervous about having the repair done as I've had to get remedial work done in the past for another car that I owned; two separate incidents - I used my own insurer for one incident and the third party's insurer for the other incident. The damage to my car appears to be superficial - it looks like the paint has cracked but the plastic hasn't cracked - but I'm not 100% sure that there is no damage behind the bumper, so I think it might be best to leave the insurer handle it just in case.
There is the choice of getting the repair done privately but as the third party probably won't claim for his own damage (car is a lot older than mine and is marked), then he wouldn't have to pay an excess. If he isn't claiming for his own damage and therefore no costs to pay, then I can't see him willing to pay for my repair to be done privately.
Would it be best to leave the third party's insurer deal with the matter or get my insurer to sort it? Can I insist on the car going to a repairer of my choice or would it be best to send it to one of the insurer's approved repairers for the lifetime warranty and in case there are issues with the repair where the insurer can then step in?
The third party's insurer is keen to handle the matter and repair the damage to the bumper. I've been offered a choice of three repairers but I've narrowed it down to two as one of them didn't have good reviews. I'm trying to decide whether to go with RGM in Swansea or SJ Fuller in Bridgend. The third party's insurer will offer a lifetime warranty on the repair for as long as I own the car.
I'm a bit nervous about having the repair done as I've had to get remedial work done in the past for another car that I owned; two separate incidents - I used my own insurer for one incident and the third party's insurer for the other incident. The damage to my car appears to be superficial - it looks like the paint has cracked but the plastic hasn't cracked - but I'm not 100% sure that there is no damage behind the bumper, so I think it might be best to leave the insurer handle it just in case.
There is the choice of getting the repair done privately but as the third party probably won't claim for his own damage (car is a lot older than mine and is marked), then he wouldn't have to pay an excess. If he isn't claiming for his own damage and therefore no costs to pay, then I can't see him willing to pay for my repair to be done privately.
Would it be best to leave the third party's insurer deal with the matter or get my insurer to sort it? Can I insist on the car going to a repairer of my choice or would it be best to send it to one of the insurer's approved repairers for the lifetime warranty and in case there are issues with the repair where the insurer can then step in?
Edited by lloydyyy on Sunday 7th March 15:03
KillerHERTZ said:
Why should I (and everyone else) be penalised for 5 years, for an incident which I wasnt even in the car for, nor did I claim on my own insurance?
The operator on the phone told me I was statistically more likely to make another claim once this had happened which makes no sense at all.
I own a small Transport Business and have found myself in various situations over the years both when one of my drivers have been to blame and also where third parties have been to blame . Firstly there is no such a thing as a no fault claim even when there is no actual claim made . As soon as an Insurance Company is merely notified about an Incident , then this will have to be declared come renewal time . " Have you been involved in any accidents or incidents " tends to be the phrase most commonly used . My advice always , is to sort any accidents out with the other driver without any reference to eithers Insurance Company as both Parties will end up being penalised if they are informed . We now live in a world where Insurance is only used to prove to the Authorities that you are legal to be on the road , unless you want to be penalised for the next five years , its clearly not for claiming against .The operator on the phone told me I was statistically more likely to make another claim once this had happened which makes no sense at all.
Edited by reddiesel on Sunday 7th March 16:51
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff