We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
no fault claim = car insurance doubling!!!
Comments
-
I could just say
No they aren't, as that is the principle of small claims. and I suggest you have a look in the fees above.
When you post this patronising "suggestion" you do so in an authoritative manner which seems to suggest to us you know all about county court fees, and that I am wrong.
You already have the link showing all the fees, and cannot bring yourself to stand corrected and move on!
If you use MCOL (the cheapest way) to issue a claim over £1000, then the issue fee is £70. To pay for the hearing is £100. Total £170.
If the claim is over £1500, then the issue fee is £80, the allocation fee £35 and the hearing fee £150. Total £265.0 -
Before taking up this advice and offer take some advice over your prospects of winning! (Or get vaio to sponsor you through the court!)
When you go to the scc you have to pay all the court costs upfront, these are non refundable.
If you win your case then the defendant will be ordered to refund you your costs.
But if you lose, not only have you lost all the court costs you will have paid upfront, (but will have to pay the defendants expenses incurred over the case).
(Though were you to win, you'd have managed to set a precedent!)
Nah, local county courts can’t set precedents, they have to follow precedents set by the higher courts (hence me banging on for a link to a reported case that the local court would have to follow).
In the absence of a precedent from a higher court the local judge will generally settle for what he feels is a fair outcome (hence me banging on for some logical argument as to why the costs detailed in my post #23 shouldn’t be paid)
With no precedent and no argument I’d guess it will go……
The OP says to the judge “these are the extra costs caused solely by the accident, in line with the long established principle in tort that I should be put back in the position I would be in had the accident not taken place I’d like the defendant to pay them”
TP insurance company say “Nah, we don’t pay them”
Judge says “and your argument for this position is?”
TP says “none really, we just don’t pay them, we’ve never paid them”
Cue suppressed judicial laughter followed by a full award to the claimant
In my case, Direct Line were arguing that because they didn’t load for non faults they shouldn’t have to pay for the NF loading that Elephant had applied to me. This view changed when I sent them a copy of the un-submitted county court papers together with a letter that unless I got a cheque within 14 days I’d send the papers to the court for service.
Now, it might be that they were cowed into submission by my brilliant legal logic or it might be that they decided that the cheapest option was to just give me my £300 so I’d go away, either way I got my money and was restored to the position I would have been in had the accident not taken place (which is the important bit)0 -
My reference to the OP setting a "precedent" was intended as a jocular comment. Were he to win the case he would certainly set a personal "precedent"!
As previously posted, for whatever reason you were "lucky" they chose to nod your claim through.
Normally it just doesn't happen - and were it a possibility, then it would be on the list of successes the no win no fee merchants have getting compensation for innocent victims.
In fact they will all tell you they cannot recover this, and don't suggest anywhere they can.0 -
This is an interesting debate, and I would like to hear from someone who has successfully got compensation from a rise in renewal costs. There was a program on watchdog about car insurance, and I'm sure someone from some insurance body claimed a non fault crash would not affect your own premium - yet we all know it does, and we can easily prove otherwise.
Edit: I've just done an insurance quote for my car, and it comes out £113 more if I declare the non fault accident.0 -
I've seen that claim about statistics only recently.
It never used to be a statistic when I had a claim about 20 years ago, as being hit by a third party was seen as a random event that could happen to anyone, a second sooner or later and it would have been the driver in front or behind you.
Can you give me a link to the source of this?
I dont have a link to the exact statistics - I know about it as I work as a claims handler at a car insurance company and thats what I've been told during my training!
But so many insurance companys state the above (that statistically, non fault accidents mean more likely to have a fault accident) that its doubtful its a made up statistic - surely the FSA (the regulator for insurance companys) would have picked up on it and banned it if it was completely untrue!
In my personal opinion, I can see how its true, from the experiences I've had when handling claims.
Now, I agree that some claims ARE completely non fault (before somebody says 'this happened to me ..' and challenges me to find a way it was their fault !
Not in all cases, but quite a lot, the 'non-fault' party wasnt exactly the safest / most considerate driver!
For example, somebody (1) pulls from a side road and collides with third party (2) on main road.
In official insurance records, 1 was at fault and 2 will declare it to insurer as a non fault incident.
However, I constantly have my at fault customers protest that 'TP was speeding'.
This is ignored by insurance companys because 1. speed can rarely be proved and 2. even if its proved, case law has ruled speed isnt necessarily negligence (i.e. it needs to be VERY excessive speed + proven to be took into account during liability!).
However, I'm inclined to believe most of them- people rarely pull straight from side roads without stopping and looking first. They tend to have stopped, thought they had enough time and pulled out.
Wouldnt you agree that the most likely reason they misjudged it, is that the TP was speeding and 1 didnt realise until it was too late ?
And people who speed are obviously more likely to have fault incidents .
A lot of incident in carparks (e.g. somebody reversing slowly out a space and colliding with the person driving past).
If your driving through a carpark slowly, keeping an eye out for (very often VERY SLOW) reversing cars, its likely you'll be able to stop in time to avoid a collision (even if you technically shouldnt have to as its 'your right of way'). You have to admit, speeds are generally very slow in a carpark and it takes a split second to stop your car.So most accident in carparks can be avoided if your paying full attention to whether anyone is pulling out.
However, some drivers cruise through carparks casually, mainly looking for their own parking space and wouldnt notice a car reversing out until it was too late.
Unfortunately, liability doesnt take into account rudeness / ignorent drivers, it is established by who had right of way!
But this 'non fault' accident could indicate that the non fault party is maybe not the most careful of drivers.
Thats just a couple of examples, not sure if I've explained them very well! Again, thats just my unbiased opinion - its not like I use these 'excuses' to try and settle our claims as non fault ! They're just thoughts I have as I deal with liability disputes sometimes.0 -
With no precedent and no argument I’d guess it will go……
The OP says to the judge “these are the extra costs caused solely by the accident, in line with the long established principle in tort that I should be put back in the position I would be in had the accident not taken place I’d like the defendant to pay them”
TP insurance company say “Nah, we don’t pay them”
Judge says “and your argument for this position is?”
TP says “none really, we just don’t pay them, we’ve never paid them”
Cue suppressed judicial laughter followed by a full award to the claimant
Nope, they would give the arguement I explained in post 30.
Its not the TP crashing into you that has made them increase your premium. It is the fact that YOU had a non fault accident that makes them increase the premium, thats the crucial difference.0 -
Nope, they would give the arguement I explained in post 30.
Its not the TP crashing into you that has made them increase your premium. It is the fact that YOU had a non fault accident that makes them increase the premium, thats the crucial difference.
No, it's the fact a random event happened, which you choose to allocate blame for. It's a bit like standing at a bus stop, and being hit by a motorist mounting the pavement. Then you blame the pedestrian for not watching the traffic, and moving out of the way in time.0 -
...
I kind of agree with this thinking (and new this would be the arguments of the insurance companies), but don't think it's right as they are penalising everyone because of the few, e.g. me in my case.
I do think you should be able to get compensation though, I don't believe you can for increased premiums unless you know different?
However, overall I don't blame people for claiming whiplash compensation etc and/or exaggerating claims (I never claimed for anything like this). From the woman driving into me has cost me over £500, which makes me rather angry.0 -
OP. Thanks for raising this, and apologies for hopping into your thread.
I'd also be interested to hear from anyone who has successfully argued this in Court and/or made a recovery from the insurance company for a no fault claim. My parents were driven into... TP admitted liability on the spot, everything was fixed, lovely. But their premium has DOUBLED (with Saga). I had a lunatic reverse into me ... TP admitted liability on the spot, everything was fixed, lovely, even had a letter from Direct Line saying that it wasn't my fault, that the TP had admitted liability, NCD unchanged. BUT my premium has also doubled (Direct Line), and my husband's insurance has also increased (Hastings Direct) (I am a named driver). We know that all these increases are due to the "no fault claim" because we input details both with and without the "no fault claim".
I do not consider that my parents should absorb those costs, and I don't think I should either. And (referring to Lauren's post above) these accideents were both completely NOT our fault, and liability by the TPs were admitted on the spot with no arguments.
I strongly feel that if a Court were to be presented with the evidence, the DJ would struggle to find against a Claimant in these circumstances, but equally I do not feel happy about making a claim with no legal basis.
Anyway. If anyone's got any experience of this type of claim, I'd be grateful to hear it !0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards