Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • garyw73
    • By garyw73 21st Sep 16, 11:55 AM
    • 52Posts
    • 26Thanks
    garyw73
    Car insurance claim - odd situation questiion
    • #1
    • 21st Sep 16, 11:55 AM
    Car insurance claim - odd situation questiion 21st Sep 16 at 11:55 AM
    Hi all,

    We're in a bit of a quandary about an insurance claim we have going through and would welcome any advice you may have.
    My wife (who was a childminder) was involved in car accident, other party have admitted liability so all good there. There were 3 kids in the car at the time all in car seats, which obviously need replacing, but we aren't going to be needing the replacement seats as my wife is no longer going to be doing the aforementioned childminding.
    The insurance co want us to order like for like replacement seats and show proof of purchase for them to reimburse, which is all fine and dandy, but what can we do with the seats once they have reimbursed? Can we ( for example) send them back to the supplier as we don't need them any more? Sell them on ebay? The seats are maxi cosi seats so not cheap.
    We obviously don't want to be committing insurance fraud or getting into any trouble with the insurance co!
    Thanks in advance!
Page 1
    • rs65
    • By rs65 21st Sep 16, 12:25 PM
    • 4,846 Posts
    • 2,276 Thanks
    rs65
    • #2
    • 21st Sep 16, 12:25 PM
    • #2
    • 21st Sep 16, 12:25 PM
    You say they need replacing but you don't need them. Take it you just want cash?

    Is there not consumer law that allows you to return online purchases for any reason?
    • Ms Chocaholic
    • By Ms Chocaholic 21st Sep 16, 12:30 PM
    • 8,288 Posts
    • 48,908 Thanks
    Ms Chocaholic
    • #3
    • 21st Sep 16, 12:30 PM
    • #3
    • 21st Sep 16, 12:30 PM
    Is it John Lewis who have a 90 day return policy. Can you order the seats online, claim the refund from the insurance company and return them to JL. I'm sure the insurance company aren't going to come round and check you still have them.
    Thrifty Till 50 Then Spend Till The End

    You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time but you can never please all of the people all of the time
    • Stevie Palimo
    • By Stevie Palimo 21st Sep 16, 12:32 PM
    • 2,553 Posts
    • 3,721 Thanks
    Stevie Palimo
    • #4
    • 21st Sep 16, 12:32 PM
    • #4
    • 21st Sep 16, 12:32 PM
    Still if the insurance is being used and the kids seats were in the car that should in effect be replaced even if they are not going to be used as the insurance is there for a reason to put you back in the same position as before the accident, I'd get the seats and then sell on privately prior to opening up the boxes.

    You have a claim being processed already so having these refunded as well will make no difference on the renewal policy.
    " I refuse to censor myself because it may offend someone. If you don't like me that's ok, I don't need your approval. "
    • paddyandstumpy
    • By paddyandstumpy 21st Sep 16, 1:41 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    paddyandstumpy
    • #5
    • 21st Sep 16, 1:41 PM
    • #5
    • 21st Sep 16, 1:41 PM
    the insurance is there for a reason to put you back in the same position as before the accident, I'd get the seats and then sell on privately prior to opening up the boxes.
    Originally posted by Stevie Palimo
    If the seats are replaced and then sold unused; the OP is in a better position pre loss. Betterment is not a right under insurance.

    The right thing to do would be to not claim for something you don't need. Ultimately that's insurance fraud, which pushes premiums up for everybody. Sorry to be the naysayer on the forum!
    • Stevie Palimo
    • By Stevie Palimo 21st Sep 16, 3:02 PM
    • 2,553 Posts
    • 3,721 Thanks
    Stevie Palimo
    • #6
    • 21st Sep 16, 3:02 PM
    • #6
    • 21st Sep 16, 3:02 PM
    If the seats are replaced and then sold unused; the OP is in a better position pre loss. Betterment is not a right under insurance.

    The right thing to do would be to not claim for something you don't need. Ultimately that's insurance fraud, which pushes premiums up for everybody. Sorry to be the naysayer on the forum!
    Originally posted by paddyandstumpy
    And if you believe that we would ever get cheaper premiums then you are on another planet, The OP had car seats paid for had an accident and is offered them as a replacement so why not take them as they did pay out when they needed them, There is no way on earth that premiums will ever reduce and even if no crashes or stolen cars happened again we'd still pay the same to line the greedy insurers pockets.
    " I refuse to censor myself because it may offend someone. If you don't like me that's ok, I don't need your approval. "
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 21st Sep 16, 3:18 PM
    • 29,817 Posts
    • 14,033 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #7
    • 21st Sep 16, 3:18 PM
    • #7
    • 21st Sep 16, 3:18 PM

    ......The right thing to do would be to not claim for something you don't need. Ultimately that's insurance fraud, which pushes premiums up for everybody. Sorry to be the naysayer on the forum!
    Originally posted by paddyandstumpy

    This is MSE!


    Ignore this OP - MSE does attract pulpit thumpers from time to time!


    How is it insurance fraud to make a claim for something damaged by a negligent third party?


    The OP is the innocent party here!
    • paddyandstumpy
    • By paddyandstumpy 21st Sep 16, 3:33 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    paddyandstumpy
    • #8
    • 21st Sep 16, 3:33 PM
    • #8
    • 21st Sep 16, 3:33 PM
    How is it insurance fraud to make a claim for something damaged by a negligent third party?
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Because he plans to sell them as unused - which is better than the position he was in pre-loss. I'm not saying don't do it, I fully appreciate this is MSE; I'm simply highlighting that it is technically fraud.

    There is no way on earth that premiums will ever reduce and even if no crashes or stolen cars happened again we'd still pay the same to line the greedy insurers pockets.
    Originally posted by Stevie Palimo
    Is that a fact is it? Given that rates reflect the cost of insuring the market, in fact less than the cost of insuring the market, as most major insurers run Motor books at a COR over 100%. But OK.
    • Stevie Palimo
    • By Stevie Palimo 21st Sep 16, 3:55 PM
    • 2,553 Posts
    • 3,721 Thanks
    Stevie Palimo
    • #9
    • 21st Sep 16, 3:55 PM
    • #9
    • 21st Sep 16, 3:55 PM
    Because he plans to sell them as unused - which is better than the position he was in pre-loss. I'm not saying don't do it, I fully appreciate this is MSE; I'm simply highlighting that it is technically fraud.


    It is not fraud if they are claiming back an item that was damaged, It is solely there own choice to either keep and or sell it on, Nobodies business but there's.

    Is that a fact is it? Given that rates reflect the cost of insuring the market, in fact less than the cost of insuring the market, as most major insurers run Motor books at a COR over 100%. But OK.
    Originally posted by paddyandstumpy
    There was a ban brought in referral fee's from a cmc to solicitors and all the insurers argued that we would get lower premiums, The ban has been in place for referral fee's for a long time and I have yet to see a decrease in my policy, FACT.
    " I refuse to censor myself because it may offend someone. If you don't like me that's ok, I don't need your approval. "
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 21st Sep 16, 4:27 PM
    • 29,817 Posts
    • 14,033 Thanks
    Quentin
    ...... I'm not saying don't do it, I fully appreciate this is MSE; I'm simply highlighting that it is technically fraud.....
    Originally posted by paddyandstumpy
    No.

    You (wrongly) "advised" the op that as he didn't need the seats the " right" thing to do is not to make a claim and to do so would be "fraud"
    • paddyandstumpy
    • By paddyandstumpy 21st Sep 16, 4:41 PM
    • 84 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    paddyandstumpy
    There was a ban brought in referral fee's from a cmc to solicitors and all the insurers argued that we would get lower premiums, The ban has been in place for referral fee's for a long time and I have yet to see a decrease in my policy, FACT.
    Originally posted by Stevie Palimo
    I take that point, however thats not the only thing happening in the market. A steady increase in PI claims is more than offsetting any reduction in CMC costs to an insurer.

    No.
    You (wrongly) "advised" the op that as he didn't need the seats the " right" thing to do is not to make a claim and to do so would be "fraud"
    Originally posted by Quentin
    No I didn't, I said that he was being put into a better position by having new and unopened seats to sell, rather than used ones. Claim embellishment is a form of fraud.
    • rs65
    • By rs65 21st Sep 16, 7:52 PM
    • 4,846 Posts
    • 2,276 Thanks
    rs65
    No I didn't, I said that he was being put into a better position by having new and unopened seats to sell, rather than used ones. Claim embellishment is a form of fraud.
    Originally posted by paddyandstumpy
    Rubbish. They are not embellishing the claim.

    Normal practice is to replace a child seat that has been in an accident. They are not going to replace it with a used one of unknown history.

    The OP is maybe taking slight advantage of the situation but the insurer is no worse off.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 21st Sep 16, 11:10 PM
    • 29,817 Posts
    • 14,033 Thanks
    Quentin

    No I didn't, I said that he was being put into a better position by having new and unopened seats to sell, rather than used ones. Claim embellishment is a form of fraud.
    Originally posted by paddyandstumpy

    You cannot deny what you "advised" - it's still there in your #5:


    The right thing to do would be to not claim for something you don't need. Ultimately that's insurance fraud...



    And now you accuse the OP of the fraud of "claim embellishment"!!


    Just something else he should ignore!
    • csgohan4
    • By csgohan4 22nd Sep 16, 8:31 AM
    • 2,163 Posts
    • 1,344 Thanks
    csgohan4
    I don't think you can replace 3 children so quickly?
    • paddyandstumpy
    • By paddyandstumpy 22nd Sep 16, 9:48 AM
    • 84 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    paddyandstumpy
    @Quentin - my #5 says that he shouldn't claim for something which he isn't going to need. That's unnecessary claim expense. Just because there is an entitlement to replace the seats; in the OP's scenario he admitted he no longer needs them, and would just sell them as unopened, or return them once the insurer has paid out. Either way; he will be getting money which will put him in a better position pre-loss. How is that not betterment?
    • Stevie Palimo
    • By Stevie Palimo 22nd Sep 16, 9:54 AM
    • 2,553 Posts
    • 3,721 Thanks
    Stevie Palimo
    @Quentin - my #5 says that he shouldn't claim for something which he isn't going to need. That's unnecessary claim expense. Just because there is an entitlement to replace the seats; in the OP's scenario he admitted he no longer needs them, and would just sell them as unopened, or return them once the insurer has paid out. Either way; he will be getting money which will put him in a better position pre-loss. How is that not betterment?
    Originally posted by paddyandstumpy
    In simple terms for you here :-

    OP paid for these at point of purchase and requirement.
    Car gets damaged and seats as per law or guidance are required to be binned.
    OP gets the seats reimbursed or replaced.

    Please explain to me what is wrong here as they paid out in the first place and have insurance for a reason, This means that they should be put back in the same position as per prior the accident.

    You argument against the simple fact is pointless and null and void.
    " I refuse to censor myself because it may offend someone. If you don't like me that's ok, I don't need your approval. "
    • QQuaver
    • By QQuaver 22nd Sep 16, 9:59 AM
    • 8,416 Posts
    • 36,808 Thanks
    QQuaver
    Let's not forget, had there been no accident, the OP would have been able to sell the car seats second hand.
    • paddyandstumpy
    • By paddyandstumpy 22nd Sep 16, 10:22 AM
    • 84 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    paddyandstumpy
    Let's not forget, had there been no accident, the OP would have been able to sell the car seats second hand.
    Originally posted by QQuaver
    That's a fair point, however the re-sale value of second hand seats is minimal as the history is always unknown, I know I wouldn't buy a second hand seat for my little one. However I take the point.

    @Stevie, my point (which i will back down on, I've said my piece and am not gong to drag this out); is that the OP is merely looking to get brand new seats, reclaim the cost of these against the insurer, and then return the seats, or sell the seats, as unused. This will put him in a better position pre loss. But I guess for lack of a better suggestion there is no alternative.

    I stand by my comment that unnecessary claims costs increases the cost of insurance for all, there is a mindset of "well I'm entitled to it and others do it", more so with PI claims than anything else. But for peace I'll back down.
    • Stevie Palimo
    • By Stevie Palimo 22nd Sep 16, 10:30 AM
    • 2,553 Posts
    • 3,721 Thanks
    Stevie Palimo
    paddyandstumpy without wanting to drag this out I will let you know that I do know lot's of Solicitors in the PI arena all of which say the same thing no matter what goes on with claims and the insurance industry we will never see a decrease in premiums.

    There is a new law change due to come in and again the insurers are saying as they did when the referral fee ban happened that this will impact on everyone's policy and we will see a reduction per insured car, This again will never happen as quite frankly the people running the insurance firms are not going to pass on any savings to us as they will be simply shared out via directors and share holders alike.
    " I refuse to censor myself because it may offend someone. If you don't like me that's ok, I don't need your approval. "
    • paddyandstumpy
    • By paddyandstumpy 22nd Sep 16, 11:27 AM
    • 84 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    paddyandstumpy
    I'll just finish by reiterating that Motor premiums aren't as high as they need to be to cover the cost of claims paid, at an industry level. Mainstream insurers COR's are about 103%, meaning for every £1 that comes in as premium £1.03 is paid out in running the book. Given how many hundreds of millions is spent on Insurance, this is not a small number!

    The mentality of PI claims, CMC and customers looking to better their prior position is contributing to this.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim's to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,064Posts Today

6,286Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @PapaSlavs: @MartinSLewis hi, how much per month should I typically charge my daughter board & lodgings now she's left uni and become an?

  • RT @EssexHebridean: 13 years, 2 months and 6 days after taking it out, we've just paid the final lump sum off our mortgage. #MortgageFree @?

  • Many first time buyers panicked about Help to Buy mortgage guarantee ending, here's my video on what it really mean? https://t.co/uGD6sG4hvl

  • Follow Martin