Neighbour's reversed into car - procedure?
Discussion
The opposite neighbour has managed to reverse off her drive and directly into my mums car which was parked on the road opposite.
The neighbour is one of her friends and we don't live in scumsville so I'm not anticipating any issues as the neighbour came right over after doing it and said her insurance will handle it etc.
It's not a little scratch that will polish out, there's a giant sodding dent in the rear wing and door and the car's a 14 plate so I'm assuming there's more than a couple of hundred quids worth of of damage.
My Mum has literally never had to claim so has full NCB and neither have I so before she picks up the phone and calls her insurance I wanted to check for any do's and dont's.
Her insurance is with the car manufacturers own insurance scheme so I'm not too worried about them trying to "cheap out" on where the repair is done, but some of the horror stories on here about s
t like hire cars makes for grim reading.
The neighbour is one of her friends and we don't live in scumsville so I'm not anticipating any issues as the neighbour came right over after doing it and said her insurance will handle it etc.
It's not a little scratch that will polish out, there's a giant sodding dent in the rear wing and door and the car's a 14 plate so I'm assuming there's more than a couple of hundred quids worth of of damage.
My Mum has literally never had to claim so has full NCB and neither have I so before she picks up the phone and calls her insurance I wanted to check for any do's and dont's.
Her insurance is with the car manufacturers own insurance scheme so I'm not too worried about them trying to "cheap out" on where the repair is done, but some of the horror stories on here about s
t like hire cars makes for grim reading.I am sure that the driver who hit hers insurer would sort it out without involving your mothers insurer in the repair work.
When someone ran into the back of my company car their insurer dealt with it and provided me a loan car, as I assume it is cheaper for them to administer the claim than a claims handling company working for another insurer.
When someone ran into the back of my company car their insurer dealt with it and provided me a loan car, as I assume it is cheaper for them to administer the claim than a claims handling company working for another insurer.
Contact the other persons insurance. You don't need to claim off yours if the other person is admitting liability.
That ^^^ and, if it's just a dent, with no scratches or creases, you could always try a sink plunger. Clean the car first, then use soapy water to get the plunger to seal and give it a good pull. Dents come right out. Nothing to lose...
That ^^^ and, if it's just a dent, with no scratches or creases, you could always try a sink plunger. Clean the car first, then use soapy water to get the plunger to seal and give it a good pull. Dents come right out. Nothing to lose...
SonicShadow said:
Is there any paint damage? No point going through insurance if you can get a paintless dent repair done. Shouldn't be too expensive, less hassle for everyone involved and I'm sure your neighbour will appreciate it too.
If it's as he describes then it sounds a bit much for PDR. Having said that, I've seen some impressive debts come out using the PDR chap I know.bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I took it down the local bodyshop and the chap there had a quick look and thought there's around £700 worth give or take - not a quote just wanted to get an idea if it was a "200 quid for the dent man" job.
Sounds about right if it's as you described.Best pass it to the insurance unless the other party really wants to pay £700 instead of going through insurance.
Always worth asking!
V8A*ndy said:
It will be non fault she won't lose out.
with 95% of insurers she WILL loose out as she has higher premiums for the next few years as pathetically a non fault claim supposedly makes you a higher risk of making a future claim.Personally I think its bulls
t. But the insurers are never going to release the statistics or formula they use to come up with that reasoning so we will never be able to find out if its true or just the figures being bent to cash in. i suspect insurers are even better at bending statistics to show anything they want than politicians.
NinjaPower said:
SonicShadow said:
Is there any paint damage? No point going through insurance if you can get a paintless dent repair done. Shouldn't be too expensive, less hassle for everyone involved and I'm sure your neighbour will appreciate it too.
If it's as he describes then it sounds a bit much for PDR. Having said that, I've seen some impressive debts come out using the PDR chap I know.SonicShadow said:
Indeed, it's mad what they can do these days. Got to be worth investigating at least, and sharpish too. If OP wants to go through insurance then that needs to happen sooner rather than later!
I went to the bodyshop one night when my PDR mate was working on a 1 year old Seat that had been badly damaged. The owner was a college tutor and some of his students had taken it upon themselves to kick his car to pieces one day. They had basically caved in all 4 doors and one of the rear quarters. It was a right mess.He was absolutely adamant that he wasn't phoning his insurers so it ended up at my mates shop.
Amazingly the dent guy got all the panels 95% straight and they sorted the rest with a very light skim of filler. Came out perfect in the end... Still cost the poor guy about £1000 though.
Psycho Warren said:
with 95% of insurers she WILL loose out as she has higher premiums for the next few years as pathetically a non fault claim supposedly makes you a higher risk of making a future claim.
Personally I think its bullst. But the insurers are never going to release the statistics or formula they use to come up with that reasoning so we will never be able to find out if its true or just the figures being bent to cash in.
i suspect insurers are even better at bending statistics to show anything they want than politicians.
The irony is, if I was to make a no fault claim and the third party pay up fully, say the repair costs £1000 - my insurance company would add their admin charges to that and the bill to the 3rd party would be more likely be double the repair cost. So, my ins co would actually MAKE money by me claiming.... yet my renewal would go up. Robbing barstewards!!Personally I think its bulls
t. But the insurers are never going to release the statistics or formula they use to come up with that reasoning so we will never be able to find out if its true or just the figures being bent to cash in. i suspect insurers are even better at bending statistics to show anything they want than politicians.
Psycho Warren said:
with 95% of insurers she WILL loose out as she has higher premiums for the next few years as pathetically a non fault claim supposedly makes you a higher risk of making a future claim.
Personally I think its bullst. But the insurers are never going to release the statistics or formula they use to come up with that reasoning so we will never be able to find out if its true or just the figures being bent to cash in.
i suspect insurers are even better at bending statistics to show anything they want than politicians.
Wondered how long it would take. Personally I think its bulls
t. But the insurers are never going to release the statistics or formula they use to come up with that reasoning so we will never be able to find out if its true or just the figures being bent to cash in. i suspect insurers are even better at bending statistics to show anything they want than politicians.
Neighbour has spoken to her insurer who will speak to my mums insurer.
The damage is too much for the neighbour to just pay especially as "around £700" might mean £600 but could also mean £800.
My mum is recovering from an operation so won't be able to drive for a few more weeks anyway, so no loan car is needed and the vehicle was stationary and unoccupied.
On that basis you'd hope it would all be sorted rather quickly and straightforwardly with no fuss.
The damage is too much for the neighbour to just pay especially as "around £700" might mean £600 but could also mean £800.
My mum is recovering from an operation so won't be able to drive for a few more weeks anyway, so no loan car is needed and the vehicle was stationary and unoccupied.
On that basis you'd hope it would all be sorted rather quickly and straightforwardly with no fuss.
Psycho Warren said:
with 95% of insurers she WILL loose out as she has higher premiums for the next few years as pathetically a non fault claim supposedly makes you a higher risk of making a future claim.
Personally I think its bullst. But the insurers are never going to release the statistics or formula they use to come up with that reasoning so we will never be able to find out if its true or just the figures being bent to cash in.
i suspect insurers are even better at bending statistics to show anything they want than politicians.
Excellent, so as insurers are so good at bending stats, I'm sure you will be whiter than white. Also, you love the idea of transparency and berate the insurers for not sharing commercially sensitive data. Personally I think its bulls
t. But the insurers are never going to release the statistics or formula they use to come up with that reasoning so we will never be able to find out if its true or just the figures being bent to cash in. i suspect insurers are even better at bending statistics to show anything they want than politicians.
Can we see your market research to support your claim that it will cost more with 95% of insurers.
LoonR1 said:
Psycho Warren said:
with 95% of insurers she WILL loose out as she has higher premiums for the next few years as pathetically a non fault claim supposedly makes you a higher risk of making a future claim.
Personally I think its bullst. But the insurers are never going to release the statistics or formula they use to come up with that reasoning so we will never be able to find out if its true or just the figures being bent to cash in.
i suspect insurers are even better at bending statistics to show anything they want than politicians.
Excellent, so as insurers are so good at bending stats, I'm sure you will be whiter than white. Also, you love the idea of transparency and berate the insurers for not sharing commercially sensitive data. Personally I think its bulls
t. But the insurers are never going to release the statistics or formula they use to come up with that reasoning so we will never be able to find out if its true or just the figures being bent to cash in. i suspect insurers are even better at bending statistics to show anything they want than politicians.
Can we see your market research to support your claim that it will cost more with 95% of insurers.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/16/no-fa...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff