At fault... or not?

leitmotif · 13 July 2017 at 4:32PM

A couple of years ago some punk crashed into my parked car on the street in the middle of the night. The police couldn't be bothered to come out or even look at the CCTV footage. The council wouldn't release the CCTV footage to me for data protection reasons. The council wouldn't release the CCTV footage to the insurer saying 'we can't find it'. Anyway, the perpetrator was never identified, and because of that we are deemed 'at fault'.

Now, I understand that's just the terminology used. If there's no third party found from which to recover the money, then you're 'at fault' even if the accident was through no actual fault of your own.

But I was speaking with a solicitor today who deals in these matters, and she said that sometimes in circumstances such as mine, if a case is argued cogently, an insurer will change the status from 'at fault' to 'not at fault' because it's clear that despite there being no prospect of money being recovered from a third party, the claimant was not actually to blame for the accident. Obviously she said this with the caveat that she cannot predict how they would respond to such a request. Does anyone have a similar experience?

DUTR · 13 July 2017 at 4:48PM

It doesn't show at/not fault on the renewal though, it shows claim full/part/no recovery, the insurers have solicitors too.

Senseicads · 13 July 2017 at 5:04PM

I though that was what the MIB was for though? to provide a right of recovery for people in these circumstances?

https://www.mib.org.uk/

As far as I know your insurers can make a claim against the MIB if they can't trace the at fault party. Insurers all pay into the MIB to fund these claims.

Your claim isn't going down as an at fault claim, it goes down as a claim made(your bonus is prejudiced). Because your insurance company has paid out some money. until they recover the money then your policy has had a claim paid out on it.

Same happens with a theft. despite it not being your fault that your vehicle has been stolen, you still lose your new claims because a claim has been made against the policy. It's nothing to do with a "fault" hope that makes some sense?

Quentin · 13 July 2017 at 5:46PM

"Fault" when used by insurers does not mean "blame"

It is used to indicate that the insurer paid for the claim and was unable to get reimbursed.

leitmotif · 18 July 2017 at 8:58AM

DUTR wrote: »

It doesn't show at/not fault on the renewal though, it shows claim full/part/no recovery, the insurers have solicitors too.

Correct, but the renewal price was over £2,000, so I was forced to shop around. When shopping around, you have to declare the claim and specify whether it is categorized as either 'at fault' or 'no fault', and as Quentin rightly confirms, 'at fault' means that the insurer was not able to recover the money from a third party.

Senseicads wrote: »

I though that was what the MIB was for though? to provide a right of recovery for people in these circumstances?

I submitted a claim to the MIB, but it was rejected as it didn't satisfy the criteria laid down in Clause 5(1)(a) of the 2003 Untraced Drivers' Agreement, which stipulates that the vehicle has to be identifiable.

EDIT: I just spoke with the MIB to double-check, and it is indeed the case that unless a full number plate was taken at the scene and this checks out, then they won't pay out for property damage (i.e. damage to the vehicle). They could still pay out for personal injury, but that's a separate matter. In short, the 2003 Untraced Drivers' Agreement allows claims involving an unidentifiable driver, not an unidentifiable vehicle.

Senseicads wrote: »

Your claim isn't going down as an at fault claim, it goes down as a claim made(your bonus is prejudiced). [...] It's nothing to do with a "fault" hope that makes some sense?

It might have nothing to do with a fault/blame on my part, but as Quentin rightly confirms, there are only two categories here: 'at fault', where the insurer has been unable to recover the money from a third party, and 'no fault', where the insurer has been able to recover the money from a third party. As the insurer was not able to recover the money from a third party because the vehicle was never identified, I am currently categorized as being 'at fault'. This was also confirmed by the solicitor representing AXA, though she has said that sometimes insurers will change this status to 'no fault' as a gesture of goodwill where it is clear that the driver was not to blame. And it's on this topic in particular that I'm looking for more information, and I thought this site might be a good place to find people who have been in a similar situation.

At fault... or not?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free