I've had an accident

[fungus]

Yes Dave, you are correct. The little sod rode into the side of my car. I fear that many more have suffered similar injustices though.

[waremark]

The way claims can affect premiums can be unexpected. My son recently discovered that his premium went up more as a result of a no fault incident where he recovered 100% of his uninsured costs from the insurer of the other party than it would have done if he had been liable.

Nigel, I am extremely sympathetic for your bad experience.

[fungus]

Thank you Mark. My daughter had a claim against a third party where his van rolled back across the pub car park where she leaves her car when at work, ( the vets have an agreement with the pub landlord ), due to not applying the handbrake. Although her insurance on her Cooper S is actually only £354 for the next years premium, I don't know whether it has effected her premium.

Talk of injustice, this is not motoring related. A gundog forum that I post on, had a post from a magistrate giving a cautionary warning to any one wishing to socialise their puppy with children. Basically he had asked permission to take his puppy to the local primary school so it could meet children in large numbers. The headmistress would not allow the dog into the school but he could sit on the bench outside the school. This he agreed to, and for two days he sat on the bench when the children came out of school with no problem. On the third day a parent complained to the headmistress about him sitting on the bench with his dog at his feet. Instead of the headmistress explaining the situation the police were called and the man cautioned and his name held on file despite the headmistress knowing what he was doing and why. If this was me, I would be extremely angry with the headmistress for not explaining why I was sat there, and also with the police for holding my name on file.

[Ancient]

Nigel, IANAL (nor a Police Officer and this is not a legal advice forum) but: If the magistrate's friend accepted a caution, that is an admission of guilt for whatever the caution was for. This should have been explained to him at the time. Whilst accepting something so neutrally-named as 'a caution' appeals to many, in order to get past the embarrassment of being arrested; it does nothing of the kind but remains on record as an admission of a criminal offence.

Had the dog owner refused the caution, an investigation would have been necessary and the headmistress' involvement in suggesting his actions would have formed evidence in any case put forward. Instead of having to investigate (and potentially ending with a 'no-crime'), the police achieved a 'solved crime' which improved their statistics.

[zadocbrown]

Cautioned for what?

[fungus]

Well, I received my insurance renewal today and it appears that this incident which has been on my insurance as an at fault pending, is now listed as an at fault accident. This I've been informed has been impacting on my insurance since its renewal in 2011.

It appears that the little sods parents have made a spurious injury claim when his injuries were only grazes. So I suppose that one of the parasitic no win no fee accident claims companies are a few hundred pounds better off.

[martine]

Well, I received my insurance renewal today and it appears that this incident which has been on my insurance as an at fault pending, is now listed as an at fault accident. This I've been informed has been impacting on my insurance since its renewal in 2011.

It appears that the little sods parents have made a spurious injury claim when his injuries were only grazes. So I suppose that one of the parasitic no win no fee accident claims companies are a few hundred pounds better off.

That's really bad and shows the system still needs sorting. It's probably not worth it but I'd be tempted to fight this all the way (and probably be out of pocket).

[fungus]

Well, I received my insurance renewal today and it appears that this incident which has been on my insurance as an at fault pending, is now listed as an at fault accident. This I've been informed has been impacting on my insurance since its renewal in 2011.

It appears that the little sods parents have made a spurious injury claim when his injuries were only grazes. So I suppose that one of the parasitic no win no fee accident claims companies are a few hundred pounds better off.

That's really bad and shows the system still needs sorting. It's probably not worth it but I'd be tempted to fight this all the way (and probably be out of pocket).

I want to know why my insurance company didn't inform me of the claim against my insurance as I think that if it went to court the claimant would have had difficulty in winning the case, but maybe it was cheaper for the insurance company to pay up rather than risk the expense of a court case. After all, they can always load my premium to recoup some of the K6 that they spent on investigators and polic costs.

[martine]

...I want to know why my insurance company didn't inform me of the claim against my insurance as I think that if it went to court the claimant would have had difficulty in winning the case,

Are you going to make an official complaint - I think you are justified? I wonder what the ABI has to say in such circumstances? Informing the insured surely has to be appropriate rather than just paying up and then loading the premium. Do you have legal cover (can't remember if you said this earlier).

[fungus]

...I want to know why my insurance company didn't inform me of the claim against my insurance as I think that if it went to court the claimant would have had difficulty in winning the case,

Are you going to make an official complaint - I think you are justified? I wonder what the ABI has to say in such circumstances? Informing the insured surely has to be appropriate rather than just paying up and then loading the premium. Do you have legal cover (can't remember if you said this earlier).

Yes Martin, I do have legal cover. I am going to complain, and I think that maybe contacting the ABI and the insurance ombudsman might be in order here, but I will contact the insurance company to find out exactly what has happened first. To be honest they have kept me in the dark about this. The only information that I have received is that they've spent in excess of K6 on investigators and the relevent police fees to cover their own backs. And then they pay up without, as it seems, contesting the injury claim.

[Kimosabe]

The way claims can affect premiums can be unexpected. My son recently discovered that his premium went up more as a result of a no fault incident where he recovered 100% of his uninsured costs from the insurer of the other party than it would have done if he had been liable.

Nigel, I am extremely sympathetic for your bad experience.

Same here, it's an outrage! Similar story for a friend. No fault on their part, all losses reclaimed from other insurer. Decades of clean driving history. His insurance premium now reflects the 'No Fault Incident' by way of a £35 annual increase. The reason given to him for this, was to me...odd though predictable if I mentally squint. They told him that as he has been involved in one incident, that even though he was not at fault and no claim was made against his policy, he is now more likely to be involved in another incident and is therefore classed as "being at a higher risk of claiming again"!

It's almost 30 years of no claim driving for me, if I ever do claim, which statistically I won't if I mentally squint at it in a different way, i'd like to hear their reasoning around why it's taken so long to happen and if they can give me the winning lottery numbers, that i'll withold any incidents or accidents for the foreseeable future as a gesture of goodwill. If nothing else, i'm fair

So their 'logic' is that via crystal ball gazing, insurers know that at some point my friend will be involved in more accidents and that the additional £35 to his annual premium is to cover that statistically unproven eventuality?! He shopped around and was told verbatim by loads insurers that this practice "is an industry standard". I also found this to be true with Adelaide via IAM. Not only this but his record now also reflects that he has been involved in an incident where a claim was made. He's contacting the ABI to find out more about where this information is statistically proven. I'm wondering about the incongruence of the IAM not arguing in my favour and against 'the stats', seeing as I have one of their F1rsts and all

[fungus]

Same here, it's an outrage! Similar story for a friend. No fault on their part, all losses reclaimed from other insurer. Decades of clean driving history. His insurance premium now reflects the 'No Fault Incident' by way of a £35 annual increase. The reason given to him for this, was to me...odd though predictable if I mentally squint. They told him that as he has been involved in one incident, that even though he was not at fault and no claim was made against his policy, he is now more likely to be involved in another incident and is therefore classed as "being at a higher risk of claiming again"!

Same thing happened to my daughter. Her car was parked in the pub car park just across the road from her work, (the vets have an agreement with the landlord that their staff can park in the pub car park when at work). A large van was parked opposite and the driver hadn't applied the hand brake. The van rolled across the car park and damaged the bonnet and front bumper on her car, which being a Cooper S wasn't cheap, so the repair went through the van drivers insurance, but this now goes against her as it is deemed that she is more at risk of another claim.

[MGF]

Insurers will not usually share actuarial evidence of risk as it is commercially sensitive. They are however confident that, statistically, a driver involved in a non-fault accident is more likely to be involved in a fault accident in subsequent years.

In fungus's example his daughter might be at greater risk of damage in that particular car park and next time the third-party could disappear without giving details and her insurer is at risk of paying.

[MGF]

Fungus, I would be interested to know how your insurer thought you could be liable in the circumstances of your accident with the cyclist.

[fungus]

Fungus, I would be interested to know how your insurer thought you could be liable in the circumstances of your accident with the cyclist.

So would I, particularly as their invetigator seemed prety certain that the third party would find it very difficult to make a claim given that he rode into the side of my car that was being driven slowly, and parallel to the verge, although at the point of impact there is no verge, only the garden wall that meets with the tarmac at 90 degrees.