When is 'non fault' actually not my fault?
Discussion
As you might have seen from my other posts, some kind soul in an X5 hit my Golf GTI whilst it was parked outside KFC as I was queuing for some artery-thickening chicken.
My insurer have been rubbish to say the least. This is over a month ago and they've since lost the details of the witness and have only just requested CCTV from the KFC.
The footage clearly shows the car hitting mine, and driving off, but is not apparently clear enough to show the number plate. I asked as that now there was footage showing I was not to blame, if it will go down as a "no fault" claim. The claims handler has told me that, in no uncertain terms, that unless they can recover cash for the repairs, it will go down as my fault.
This sounds grossly unfair and something I intend to pursue. My question is, is this typical of insurers? I've been driving for over ten years now and this is the first time I've ever had an accident of anyone's fault.
My insurer have been rubbish to say the least. This is over a month ago and they've since lost the details of the witness and have only just requested CCTV from the KFC.
The footage clearly shows the car hitting mine, and driving off, but is not apparently clear enough to show the number plate. I asked as that now there was footage showing I was not to blame, if it will go down as a "no fault" claim. The claims handler has told me that, in no uncertain terms, that unless they can recover cash for the repairs, it will go down as my fault.
This sounds grossly unfair and something I intend to pursue. My question is, is this typical of insurers? I've been driving for over ten years now and this is the first time I've ever had an accident of anyone's fault.
eybic said:
What is worse is that even if they do recover all expenses and it goes down as "non fault" you will still have to let future insurers know and you will still be penalised financially for years to come as you will be seen as higher risk for it to happen again.
This.I was hit while at traffic lights (rear-ended), insurance all sorted and paid and it's gone down as a non-fault claim.
Whilst my current insurer (Tesco) don't penalise for non-fault claims on my Premium - others DO! There's suddenly a lack of low insurance quotes when using the likes of GoCompare vs. what there used to be. If I take the claim off, run the quotes again, it's back to "normal" - so it's undoubtedly the non-fault claim causing Premium quotes to be higher.
TooMany2cvs said:
It ceases to be "non-fault" at the point at which your insurers hands have to go into their wallet. That is the only thing they care about.
And for completeness, it becomes "non-fault" again when they get their money back from the other party (or his insurers). Unfortunately without the numberplate that's unlikely to happen.Insurers use the word "fault" to classify claims in a counter-intuitive way - if they end up with a net outlay it's a fault claim, and if they don't it's non-fault. In a "normal" accident that does roughly correspond with blame, as if the other driver is demonstrably to blame they'll (eventually) recover the money they payout from his insurers and it will end up as a non-fault claim for you. However it does mean that if your car is stolen, crushed by a falling tree or hit by an untraced driver it ends up as a "fault" claim even though you may have been "blameless". FWIW I agree that the word fault is misleading and that insurers should probably use a different term, in their dealings with the public at least, but it's standard practice.
CallorFold said:
eybic said:
What is worse is that even if they do recover all expenses and it goes down as "non fault" you will still have to let future insurers know and you will still be penalised financially for years to come as you will be seen as higher risk for it to happen again.
This.I was hit while at traffic lights (rear-ended), insurance all sorted and paid and it's gone down as a non-fault claim.
Whilst my current insurer (Tesco) don't penalise for non-fault claims on my Premium - others DO!
You start your post with "This" and then go on to say Tesco didn't charge any extra.
Some do and some don't. Some have stats to show it makes you a higher risk, and the stats of others show it's not significant.
Different insurers have different views on different things. That's a good thing, and makers for healthy competition.
AFAIK it's a fault claim until you recover your excess and other expenses from the other party.
Been there done that, took over a year though and eventually recovered it by sending the £1500 bill direct to the driver (he'd been driving a company car) and got a full settlement within the week.
I'd have liked to have been a fly on the wall during the conversation with his transport manager.
Been there done that, took over a year though and eventually recovered it by sending the £1500 bill direct to the driver (he'd been driving a company car) and got a full settlement within the week.
I'd have liked to have been a fly on the wall during the conversation with his transport manager.
Well this thread has got the wibblist amd myth mongers out in force (except Twig).
A claim is classed as non-fault when the insurer recovers all of their outlay. It has nothing at all to do with your excess, that's your own problem.
Premiums sometimes go up, sometimes go down and sometImes stay the same with a non-fault on record.
As for "taking it further" mentioned in the OP, well in the spirit of Taken, good luck. Check your T&Cs it's quite clear and it's the same across the whole industry. Not to worry though, I'm sure you'll change it with your threats.
The problem with your claim isn't your insurers btw, it's the culture of lying and denying when crashes occur nowadays. Have a look at half the insurance threads and you'll see PHers trying to wriggle out of being at fault and plenty of PHers actively supporting them too.
A claim is classed as non-fault when the insurer recovers all of their outlay. It has nothing at all to do with your excess, that's your own problem.
Premiums sometimes go up, sometimes go down and sometImes stay the same with a non-fault on record.
As for "taking it further" mentioned in the OP, well in the spirit of Taken, good luck. Check your T&Cs it's quite clear and it's the same across the whole industry. Not to worry though, I'm sure you'll change it with your threats.
The problem with your claim isn't your insurers btw, it's the culture of lying and denying when crashes occur nowadays. Have a look at half the insurance threads and you'll see PHers trying to wriggle out of being at fault and plenty of PHers actively supporting them too.
Edited by LoonR1 on Tuesday 20th January 00:16
In May 2013 some friendly character reversed their car into mine whilst it was parked in a hotel car park. The driver then proceeded to drive off without leaving a note. Luckily a member of the public spotted this and got the attacking car's numberplate.
My insurer (Diamond - who were fantastic throughout the process) confirmed that the incident would be recorded as non-fault regardless of the financial result of the claim. What they did however confirm was that if 100% of the claim's value was not recovered, I would lose my NCB. Luckily, and because of the witness, all costs were recovered from the other driver and as such, I kept my NCB.
My renewal cost me £86 more as a result of my recorded, non-fault claim.
My insurer (Diamond - who were fantastic throughout the process) confirmed that the incident would be recorded as non-fault regardless of the financial result of the claim. What they did however confirm was that if 100% of the claim's value was not recovered, I would lose my NCB. Luckily, and because of the witness, all costs were recovered from the other driver and as such, I kept my NCB.
My renewal cost me £86 more as a result of my recorded, non-fault claim.
Edited by MrBarry123 on Monday 19th January 23:30
Edited by MrBarry123 on Monday 19th January 23:31
LoonR1 said:
Well this thread has got the wibblist amd myth mongers out in force (except Twig).
A claim is classed as non-fault when the insurer recovers all of their outlay. It has nothing at all to do with your excess, that's your own problem.
Premiums sometimes go up, sometimes go down and sometImes stay the same with a non-fault on record.
As for "taking it further" mentioned in the OP, well in the spirit of Taken, good luck. Check your T&Cs it's quite clear and it's the same across the whole industry. Not to worry though, I'm sure you'll change it with your threats.
The problem with your claim isn't your insurers btw, it's the culture of lying and denying when crashes occur nowadays. Have a look at half the insurance threads and you'll see PHers trying to wriggle out of being at fault and plenty of PHers actively supporting them too.
Honestly, my post might be naive, but this just seems generally argumentative. A claim is classed as non-fault when the insurer recovers all of their outlay. It has nothing at all to do with your excess, that's your own problem.
Premiums sometimes go up, sometimes go down and sometImes stay the same with a non-fault on record.
As for "taking it further" mentioned in the OP, well in the spirit of Taken, good luck. Check your T&Cs it's quite clear and it's the same across the whole industry. Not to worry though, I'm sure you'll change it with your threats.
The problem with your claim isn't your insurers btw, it's the culture of lying and denying when crashes occur nowadays. Have a look at half the insurance threads and you'll see PHers trying to wriggle out of being at fault and plenty of PHers actively supporting them too.
Edited by LoonR1 on Tuesday 20th January 00:16
danm2k said:
LoonR1 said:
Well this thread has got the wibblist amd myth mongers out in force (except Twig).
A claim is classed as non-fault when the insurer recovers all of their outlay. It has nothing at all to do with your excess, that's your own problem.
Premiums sometimes go up, sometimes go down and sometImes stay the same with a non-fault on record.
As for "taking it further" mentioned in the OP, well in the spirit of Taken, good luck. Check your T&Cs it's quite clear and it's the same across the whole industry. Not to worry though, I'm sure you'll change it with your threats.
The problem with your claim isn't your insurers btw, it's the culture of lying and denying when crashes occur nowadays. Have a look at half the insurance threads and you'll see PHers trying to wriggle out of being at fault and plenty of PHers actively supporting them too.
Honestly, my post might be naive, but this just seems generally argumentative. A claim is classed as non-fault when the insurer recovers all of their outlay. It has nothing at all to do with your excess, that's your own problem.
Premiums sometimes go up, sometimes go down and sometImes stay the same with a non-fault on record.
As for "taking it further" mentioned in the OP, well in the spirit of Taken, good luck. Check your T&Cs it's quite clear and it's the same across the whole industry. Not to worry though, I'm sure you'll change it with your threats.
The problem with your claim isn't your insurers btw, it's the culture of lying and denying when crashes occur nowadays. Have a look at half the insurance threads and you'll see PHers trying to wriggle out of being at fault and plenty of PHers actively supporting them too.
Edited by LoonR1 on Tuesday 20th January 00:16
The only thing you can be upset about is me taking issue with your "I'll take it further" comment. So what are you going to do? The FOS will have no interest in this, you'll have to spend a fortune challenging the contract you signed amd are extremely unlikely to win.
heebeegeetee said:
Not really, it's easy to understand. If you claim on your insurance policy, you lose your no-claims bonus or other benefits. It's no-claim, not no-blame, and that's the way it's always been.
Has it always been that though?.... was there a time when if somebody hit you then the claim would be made on their insurance and not yours? Or has it always been that you make a claim on your own insurance regardless?
AA999 said:
Has it always been that though?.... was there a time when if somebody hit you then the claim would be made on their insurance and not yours?
Always been like that. Note that if you make a claim through your insurer they may try to pass the claim onto the other party's insurer. So, if you are rear ended, and claim from your insurer, what they will do is investigate and if the facts speak for themselves will pass the claim on to the other insurer to pay. It counts as a fault claim initially until the other party accepts full liability, and then the claim is reclassified as non-fault.
The temporary classification as fault can be avoided by claiming directly from the other party's insurer and avoiding yours.
Remember that a claim on your insurance is no-fault only when a 3rd party has accepted full liability for negligence and they (or their insurer) has paid in full. If you are partially or wholly negligent it cannot be no-fault. If there is no negligence (for example a lorry tyre blows out on the motorway and the carcass hits your car) it cannot be no-fault. If a third party cannot be traced, it cannot be no-fault. If the vehicle is damaged or lost through crime, fire or natural disaster then these will usually be fault claims.
Edited by WatchfulEye on Thursday 22 January 09:59
AA999 said:
heebeegeetee said:
Not really, it's easy to understand. If you claim on your insurance policy, you lose your no-claims bonus or other benefits. It's no-claim, not no-blame, and that's the way it's always been.
Has it always been that though?.... was there a time when if somebody hit you then the claim would be made on their insurance and not yours? Or has it always been that you make a claim on your own insurance regardless?
If you claim on your insurance and the insurer does not recover ALL of the money they paid out. Then the claim is a fault (no money recovered) or a split fault (some, but not all, money recovered) and you lose a portion of your NCD, the industry norm is 2 years for 1st claim in a policy year, the rest you lose for a second claim in the same policy year. There are variations to this, but the norm is pretty standard. Obviously with protected NCD you don't lose any NCD for a couple of crashes.
If you claim on your insurance and your insurer recovers ALL of the money they laid out, then it is a non-fault claim.
A theft claim is therefore a fault claim, as there is nobody to recover the money from
A hit and run is often a fault claim, as there is nobody to recover from. If the other driver is found amd the money recovered, then it's a non-fault claim.
LoonR1 said:
AA999 said:
heebeegeetee said:
Not really, it's easy to understand. If you claim on your insurance policy, you lose your no-claims bonus or other benefits. It's no-claim, not no-blame, and that's the way it's always been.
Has it always been that though?.... was there a time when if somebody hit you then the claim would be made on their insurance and not yours? Or has it always been that you make a claim on your own insurance regardless?
If you claim on your insurance and the insurer does not recover ALL of the money they paid out. Then the claim is a fault (no money recovered) or a split fault (some, but not all, money recovered) and you lose a portion of your NCD, the industry norm is 2 years for 1st claim in a policy year, the rest you lose for a second claim in the same policy year. There are variations to this, but the norm is pretty standard. Obviously with protected NCD you don't lose any NCD for a couple of crashes.
If you claim on your insurance and your insurer recovers ALL of the money they laid out, then it is a non-fault claim.
A theft claim is therefore a fault claim, as there is nobody to recover the money from
A hit and run is often a fault claim, as there is nobody to recover from. If the other driver is found amd the money recovered, then it's a non-fault claim.
In all, but the Insurance Industry term it is not the Policyholders 'fault' if someone drives into his car and then drives off.
The Insurance industry would be clearer splitting the meaning of fault and irrecoverable payout. I appreciate that won't happen, so we'll just have to deal with it.
WatchfulEye said:
Always been like that. Note that if you make a claim through your insurer they may try to pass the claim onto the other party's insurer.
So, if you are rear ended, and claim from your insurer, what they will do is investigate and if the facts speak for themselves will pass the claim on to the other insurer to pay. It counts as a fault claim initially until the other party accepts full liability, and then the claim is reclassified as non-fault.
When an old chap rear-ended us on the motorway, his insurers were in touch the next morning to arrange repairs before I'd even spoken to mine. So, if you are rear ended, and claim from your insurer, what they will do is investigate and if the facts speak for themselves will pass the claim on to the other insurer to pay. It counts as a fault claim initially until the other party accepts full liability, and then the claim is reclassified as non-fault.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff