refused car insurance (motabilty)

korky69

ive been driving a motability car just over 5 years and 2 years into the current contract,
however the car is no longer suitable for my dad,
he now needs a wheelchair and struggles to get in/out of the car,
i emailed motability and within 10 mins they rang and said we could exchange asap no quibble, great we thought.
however on applying for the next car, rsa have refused me insurance because of past claims,
this is where it gets complicated.
i had a couple of bumps in 2007 in the previous car, i never hit another car, just damage to ours, but too expensive for me to pay privately,
and another claim where the dealer refused to sort out under warranty a knocking on the front axel because of a tiny scratch on a wheel i could hardly see and had to go via insurance!

i was initially refused insurance on this car but took an advanced test and rsa agreed to insure me again,

in the current car, last december when we had the bad weather i skidded on some ice and clobbered the wheels on a kerb,
that goes down as a strike even though id say it was more bad luck not bad driving considering half the country was covered in snow/ice.

now for the big problem,

just over 2 years ago, we'd only had the car a week, i was driving on a r'bout i go on nearly everyday,
its a big one, 5 exits with lights all over,bus lanes and looks a nightmare, but i know it like the back of my hand,
on exiting it, a car in the lane on my right cut over and caught my rear wheel arch, we both stopped, nobody injured so i told him to drive further up to a layby so we wouldn't cause a jam,
we exchanged details, i took a couple of pics of both cars, mine was easily the worse for damage, he'd just bumped his front wing (over £5k to repair!) and we went on our way.
i reported it and left it at that for a couple of months and rang rsa to ask when id get my excess back,
they told me he'd got a witness to say i cut him up! nobody else stopped i swear!

an investigator was sent, but the witness refused to talk, all they had was his surname and mobile number,
i was forwarded a copy of the statement and did a bit of digging online,
the next bit is only MY suspicions, but does make sense to me.

the other driver who looked like a "rep type" lives about 100 miles south from the incident, and i also had the business address from his card,
i also had the "witness" name and number, no address, and found out the 2 companies could easily trade together due to the nature,
both had offices 5 miles apart some 50 miles west from my area, witness also has an office around 20 miles from the drivers home which i said is 100 miles south. what are the odds eh?
i know its not proof, but my insurers refuse to investigate the possibility, i don't know what powers they can use to check to be fair, but it definitely looks dodgy,
to cap it off, his insurers have offered a 50/50 split even though they have a witness if i admit liability??
now my insurers are accepting my liability on my behalf against my wishes and wont back me up, and it will put another strike on my file making it even longer to get the strikes down
if i want to take it further i must get my own solicitor which i cannot afford, and without concrete proof as i dont know how they can prove the 2 know each other, and i think 1 firm has since ceased trading.

can they force me to accept it?

sorry for the length, but its a mixture of problems.

Quote

When you insure a vehicle you're pretty much saying to your insurers, "If I have a claim, can you sort it out for me?" Ask yourself why would your insurers pay out for a claim they don't need to pay out for? Insurance companies are businesses not charities. They have procedures to follow and with most claims precedents have been set. You might have a beef about the whole thing, but it's just the way it is.

Insurance is a lot like life. It's not particularly fair.

korky69

Quote wrote: »

When you insure a vehicle you're pretty much saying to your insurers, "If I have a claim, can you sort it out for me?" Ask yourself why would your insurers pay out for a claim they don't need to pay out for? Insurance companies are businesses not charities. They have procedures to follow and with most claims precedents have been set. You might have a beef about the whole thing, but it's just the way it is.

Insurance is a lot like life. It's not particularly fair.

my insurers are more than happy to pay out on what they shouldn't.
only my g/f and i (along with the other 2) know who was really at fault, they dont even seem bothered about fraudulent claims and false witnesses, and if you ever saw his car, you would be amazed on how it cost £5200+ for his repair, he must have had a ferrari courtesy car!
but would you admit to it if you were 100% certain?

Quote

I understand your frustration, although I would stress that the amount of the claim isn't usually relevant as far as your premium is concerned. Have you reached the end of the line with your insurers? Have you spoken to them today?

korky69

Quote wrote: »

I understand your frustration, although I would stress that the amount of the claim isn't usually relevant as far as your premium is concerned. Have you reached the end of the line with your insurers? Have you spoken to them today?

yes, actually they got a law firm in to deal with the claim in the end, they told me last week they would tell rsa to accept the 50/50 offer, but it did say i would be held 100% at fault? rsa told me today they will go with their recommendation.
i probably might still have too many claims against me, but come next april-ish most would have spent, this 1 i insist is not my fault will likely add another year or even more before they will insure me, assuming its 3 strikes and out as ive read

Quentin

Whether you are held 50% or 100% makes little difference as far as you having a "fault" claim on your record. I think that is what they may have been trying to say regarding "50/50" and "100%".

The (small) consolation for you is that with 50/50 you can get back 50% of any uninsured losses (excess/car hire/misc expenses/etc) from the third party.

The "law firm" will be advising accept the 50/50 because in their opinion that is what a judge would end up deciding if it went to court (as both sides have conflicting stories), (though going to court would mean more expense for everyone), thus although not "just" it is the most economic way of resolving the matter.

korky69

Quentin wrote: »

Whether you are held 50% or 100% makes little difference as far as you having a "fault" claim on your record. I think that is what they may have been trying to say regarding "50/50" and "100%".

The (small) consolation for you is that with 50/50 you can get back 50% of any uninsured losses (excess/car hire/misc expenses/etc) from the third party.

The "law firm" will be advising accept the 50/50 because in their opinion that is what a judge would end up deciding if it went to court (as both sides have conflicting stories), (though going to court would mean more expense for everyone), thus although not "just" it is the most economic way of resolving the matter.

i understand that, but it still puts a black mark on my record when i know it shouldn't, all i would get back is £38.50! and an extra few years wait

PNPSUKNET

All these accidents will be a high concern, maybe worth extra lessons

korky69

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

All these accidents will be a high concern, maybe worth extra lessons

i'm not going to go into too much detail, but only 1 was my purely my negligence, another debatable and another just bad luck, how many are experts on skidding on ice?
another i wish i'd contested.
i am not a bad driver, though my history does not reflect it.
my original point is been penalized for 1 that i know 100% is not my fault,
thats the advice im seeking.