Parked car hit and run - I'm at fault?
Options
andyca
Posts: 163 Forumite
I picked up my first ever brand new car last year, and a couple of weeks later I was parked in a hospital car park and someone drove into it while it was unattended. It was dark and lashing it down with rain when I got in to drive home so I didn't notice, but the next morning I discovered well over £1000 of damage.
I notified my insurance company, the police and tried to negotiate with the hospital for CCTV footage, but ultimately it was a dead end. The police said they would not be doing anything to try and locate the driver.
My insurance has just come up for renewal and it's doubled. I did a comparison (Through MSE obviously) and my same insurer came up at half the price! I accepted the quote but I've just received a letter through saying I mis-declared the accident. I put other driver at fault, where the CUE database shows I was at fault.
I'm going to call my insurers underwriters in the morning to try and sort this out but I was wondering if anyone can offer any advice?
Am I at fault in the eyes of the insurers?
Can I get this overturned?
The difference in my fault vs. the other driver is £600! At that rate they will have their money back for the claim in 2 years, and I'll still be declaring it for another 3!
I notified my insurance company, the police and tried to negotiate with the hospital for CCTV footage, but ultimately it was a dead end. The police said they would not be doing anything to try and locate the driver.
My insurance has just come up for renewal and it's doubled. I did a comparison (Through MSE obviously) and my same insurer came up at half the price! I accepted the quote but I've just received a letter through saying I mis-declared the accident. I put other driver at fault, where the CUE database shows I was at fault.
I'm going to call my insurers underwriters in the morning to try and sort this out but I was wondering if anyone can offer any advice?
Am I at fault in the eyes of the insurers?
Can I get this overturned?
The difference in my fault vs. the other driver is £600! At that rate they will have their money back for the claim in 2 years, and I'll still be declaring it for another 3!
0
Comments
-
You claimed off your insurer. The third party you say did the damage was unidentified
Thus your insurer had no one to get their outlay on your claim back from
This means (in insurance speak) you have a "fault" claim to disclose.
"fault" not meaning "blame".
The CUE database is correct0 -
Thanks for the quick reply Quentin, although I don't like the answer
Am I wasting my time by calling he underwriter in that case?
The claim was about £1200 and that is the same as my new quote!
Doubling an insurance premium for something that really wasn't my fault just doesn't seem fair, there is no chance i'm going through insurance in the future, (which will actually be to the insurers benefit which is even more annoying) it's a terrible system which just rewards dishonesty. I really wish I hadn't claimed or called the Police. 0 -
you have to declare any accident anyways, whether you claim or not."It is prudent when shopping for something important, not to limit yourself to Pound land/Estate Agents"
G_M/ Bowlhead99 RIP0 -
Thanks for the quick reply Quentin, although I don't like the answer
Am I wasting my time by calling he underwriter in that case?
The claim was about £1200 and that is the same as my new quote!
Doubling an insurance premium for something that really wasn't my fault just doesn't seem fair, there is no chance i'm going through insurance in the future, (which will actually be to the insurers benefit which is even more annoying) it's a terrible system which just rewards dishonesty. I really wish I hadn't claimed or called the Police.
You could reimburse your insurer to change it to a no fault claim which sounds could be cost effective especially if you don't protect your NCD0 -
NCD was protected, but i’ll see about reimbursing that sounds like it might be a cheaper option.
The galling thing is insurance is supposed to be based on how much of a risk I am to insure. Had the police found the person, or if they had left a note I would have paid probably £3000 less over the next 5 years. Neither of these actions have any baring on how much of a risk I am as an individual.
And yes cgsohan4 you do “have” to report all accidents but if I didn’t I would be more than £2000 better off. (My excess was £275!)
I think my new motto is; When it comes to car insurance dishonesty gets you the best policy.0 -
i suspect that applies to various types of insurance. Take 2 people on holiday together. Both become ill. One has a successful claim because he has never had any medical tests done so doesn't know that he has a particular problem and pays a lower premium. The other one declared pre- existing conditions but forgot to mention 1 which happens to be the cause of his illness on holiday so his claim is refused.NCD was protected, but i’ll see about reimbursing that sounds like it might be a cheaper option.
The galling thing is insurance is supposed to be based on how much of a risk I am to insure. Had the police found the person, or if they had left a note I would have paid probably £3000 less over the next 5 years. Neither of these actions have any baring on how much of a risk I am as an individual.
And yes cgsohan4 you do “have” to report all accidents but if I didn’t I would be more than £2000 better off. (My excess was £275!)
I think my new motto is; When it comes to car insurance dishonesty gets you the best policy.0 -
Did you try making a complaint to the hospital?
Just because they accept no responsibility doesn't mean they have none.
If they failed to co-operate with the police you should complain to the hospital and ask for them to reimburse you.
They might reconsider if you start making a fuss and find the CCTV in order to shift the blame to the person responsible.Changing the world, one sarcastic comment at a time.0 -
As mentioned, "fault" in insurance jargon refers to whether your insurer ended up paying for the repairs themselves, or whether they were able to recover their costs from some other party. In most cases this does actually mean the same as "blame" as if the other driver is to blame (and you can prove it) then the costs will ultimately be recoverable from his insurers. However it does have the side effect that things like theft, hit and runs and trees falling on your car end up being recorded as "fault", even though you may be blameless, just because there's nobody else to recover costs from.
I agree that the use of the word "fault" is misleading and it would be better if insurers just asked something like "did your insurer make recovery from another party". However on the broader point there is a logic to classifying claims like this. It is at least clear and objective - two people can have very different views over who was to blame for an accident, but either your insurer recovered its costs or it didn't - there's no room for argument there.
Perhaps insurers should have separate categories for hit and runs, thefts etc ve genuine fault accidents (or at least, accidents where no recovery was made from a known third party), and indeed some do ask for one of those categories rather than simply asking "fault or no fault". However that would have problems of its own. Talking of rewards for dishonesty, if you damaged your car driving into a tree there would be a massive incentive to claim that it was hit in the street by an unknown driver, if doing so made a big difference to your ongoing premiums...
In terms of what you can practically do now, have you repeated the price comparison with the accident declared as a fault claim? You may find someone cheaper than what your current insurer is asking for. Different insurers have different target markets and different attitudes to risk, so the cheapest insurer for you with a no fault claim will not necessarily be the cheapest for you with a fault claim.0 -
Their CCTV system was decades old, the security guy said they had never managed to get a number plate from any car. I asked the hospital facilities manager about getting hold of CCTV and he refused on the basis that he would only be legally obliged to send footage of me, not my car and as such would not send me any footage from the car park while I was not in frame which would have been useless. he would only release footage of the carpark to the police but again he said it would be useless unless the person who hit me were in a sign written van with 3' lettering on the side.Did you try making a complaint to the hospital?
Just because they accept no responsibility doesn't mean they have none.
If they failed to co-operate with the police you should complain to the hospital and ask for them to reimburse you.
They might reconsider if you start making a fuss and find the CCTV in order to shift the blame to the person responsible.
While the car park had did have terrible markings for the bays and no existent traffic flow system, I'm not a fan of the idea of trying to make a hospital pay out for a dishonest motorist. They have better things to spend money on, besides it was nearly a year ago now.
I did follow up with the police but as I've already mentioned they said it was not something they would dedicate any resources to. More than hitting my car and damaging my property this person in effect has stolen over £3000 from me as well! If someone simply stole £3000 form a bank or post office i'm willing to bet the police would have dedicated at least some resource into finding the person responsible.
Love the tagline BTW stator
0 -
As mentioned, "fault" in insurance jargon refers to whether your insurer ended up paying for the repairs themselves, or whether they were able to recover their costs from some other party. In most cases this does actually mean the same as "blame" as if the other driver is to blame (and you can prove it) then the costs will ultimately be recoverable from his insurers. However it does have the side effect that things like theft, hit and runs and trees falling on your car end up being recorded as "fault", even though you may be blameless, just because there's nobody else to recover costs from.
I agree that the use of the word "fault" is misleading and it would be better if insurers just asked something like "did your insurer make recovery from another party". However on the broader point there is a logic to classifying claims like this. It is at least clear and objective - two people can have very different views over who was to blame for an accident, but either your insurer recovered its costs or it didn't - there's no room for argument there.
Perhaps insurers should have separate categories for hit and runs, thefts etc ve genuine fault accidents (or at least, accidents where no recovery was made from a known third party), and indeed some do ask for one of those categories rather than simply asking "fault or no fault". However that would have problems of its own. Talking of rewards for dishonesty, if you damaged your car driving into a tree there would be a massive incentive to claim that it was hit in the street by an unknown driver, if doing so made a big difference to your ongoing premiums...
In terms of what you can practically do now, have you repeated the price comparison with the accident declared as a fault claim? You may find someone cheaper than what your current insurer is asking for. Different insurers have different target markets and different attitudes to risk, so the cheapest insurer for you with a no fault claim will not necessarily be the cheapest for you with a fault claim.
Thanks for this reply, yes I've spent the day doing just that and I've found a few approx £400 more expensive so it's getting a bit cheaper but I'm having to work for it and they tend to be companies I've never heard of.
My insurance company did not refuse to cover me, they just put up the price, so according to their letter I have to pay a £55 cancellation fee if I want to cancel the policy.
I'm not ticking the "have you ever had insurance declined, cancelled, voided or special terms imposed" checkbox on these new comparison quotes... does this count as having "special terms imposed"?
I don't even want to know what ticking that box will do to my premiums! 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards