Insurance premiums after accident...

[Donbot]

I wouldn't have thought that even the most money-grabbing lawyer would bother working with a whiplash claim from someone in a vehicle which was hit by a bike at low speed. There would be very little energy in the collision.

On the insurance side of things, making a claim can be a right bd. I gave up driving for a year after a fault accident as the insurance was prohibitive

[mak]

Donbot said:

I wouldn't have thought that even the most money-grabbing lawyer would bother working with a whiplash claim from someone in a vehicle which was hit by a bike at low speed.

I would, I rolled up to some in a beet up van a few years back in my van and nudged them, not even a scuff on my bumper,

My insurers paid the s out over 12k for whiplash and repairs even after sending out an engineer to inspect my van and conclude it hadn't been in an accident.
My own insurance company then suggested I may have repaired my own van myself to cover up any damage WTF, im fully comp

Needless to say don't make common sense assumptions,

[Dog Star]

Donbot said:

I wouldn't have thought that even the most money-grabbing lawyer would bother working with a whiplash claim from someone in a vehicle which was hit by a bike at low speed. There would be very little energy in the collision.

(

WRONG!
My sister hit a taxi driver up the rear. There was a mark on his bumper and my sister had a broken off sliver of front numberplate (1966 Beetle).

My dad had photos of the lot - even went round to his address to get more photos.

Bloke claimed all sorts of panel damage, new lights, whiplash and compensation because he couldn't go on his hajj.

Despite being provided with all the photos my sisters insurer ponied up.

[Donbot]

I guess it is worse than I thought. I assumed the low speed / little damage payouts happened because there wasn't photographic proof of the incident

[Dog Star]

Donbot said:

I guess it is worse than I thought. I assumed the low speed / little damage payouts happened because there wasn't photographic proof of the incident

My parents had an even more ridiculous incident - we were on holiday in Spain (they were in their Landcruiser having taken down the caravan, and we had gone down in our car). Got a phone call to bring their documents which they'd left in the caravan and they'd been in an accident.

My mum was driving, my dad was videoing the scenery (he's one of those folk who video *everything*, je has thousands of tapes). They were driving down a straight road, nice and wide ( this... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.9364274,3.133004... ), no other traffic apart from a little with 205 butchers van coming the other way. Next thing as it's approaching them the butchers van suddenly swerves and crashes into the side of the Landcruiser (luckily only cosmetic damage).

Police attended, docs checked, on their way. Now bear in mind that all this is on video, it's clear as day what has happened.

My parent's insurer, Saga, despite having been sent a copy of the video paid out the other driver, my parents lost excess and NCD. There is no logic to them whatsoever - I can only assume that when they make these crazy payouts that they simply cannot be bothered.

[Wildfire]

I’ll be going through the same thing since someone decide that red lights didn’t apply to them and stopping when you’ve hit someone didn’t either.

Unfortunately the police went interested as no one was injured.

£4K Damage was too much to absorb myself.