no fault claim = car insurance doubling!!!

vaio

from an earlier post......

"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)the legal basis"

The legal basis I threatened Direct Line (who back then didn't load for NF) with was the standard damages in tort principle that I should be put back in the position I would have been in had the accident not happened and so any costs (subject to the duty to mitigate & document) incurred solely due to the negligence of the TP should be paid by the TP. As above they wriggled but settled before it got to court.

My claim was just for my policy, two years and totalled under £300

**curlywurly**

Vaio, thanks for that. So, just to be clear, you got the money from the TP's insurer, which was Direct Line ? And did you deal directly with Direct Line, or did you go through your insurer, or did you contact the TP first? Sorry for all the questions !

vaio

Yep, I dealt direct with Direct line, my insurance company (Elephant) did nothing other than send me a letter confirming the NF loadings

**curlywurly**

Thanks Vaio, v grateful. That's good to know. I am wondering how long my premiums will be high for. I think most companies ask a question like "have you had an accident or claim regardless of fault within the last 5 years". If it's £20 a year I'm not going to be bothered. But if it amounts to a few hundred then I definitely will.

The accident I had was in November and was sorted out extremely efficiently by Direct Line. But even then, I spent nearly two days on the phone, travelling to garages and hire car companies, filling in forms etc.

I think TP insurers should pay a fixed amount to cover inconvenience, stress, phone calls, etc. At the time of the accident I was grateful not to be injured, and also grateful that Direct Line sorted it all out with minimum fuss. But now, I am going to be even further out of pocket and I'm annoyed! If I had randomly reversed into someone I would be mortified if I thought that person was going to be out of pocket.

Anyway, thanks once again Vaio. V grateful.

Quentin

**curlywurly** wrote: »

I think TP insurers should pay a fixed amount to cover inconvenience, stress, phone calls, etc.

Why would you want a fixed amount?

The current system whereby you can claim your actual costs for these expenses plus an amount for the inconvenience is surely more beneficial?

**curlywurly**

Well, I can't claim for my time, nor did I calculate exactly how much I spent on phone calls, letters, mileage, re-arranging plans, and generally running around due to someone else's admitted incompetence. And I don't feel confident about claiming a sum for inconvenience because it's difficult to put a price on it.

However, as Vaio has suggested, I can actually work out my increase in premiums, so that's a claim which is relatively straightforward to make.

I just don't see why I should suffer at all for someone else's incompetence really. I know it's just a pipe dream thought !!!

Quentin

**curlywurly** wrote: »

However, as Vaio has suggested, I can actually work out my increase in premiums, so that's a claim which is relatively straightforward to make.

As you will have read in this thread, Vaio was lucky to get recompensed for this! It isn't normally considered a claimable expense.

But the other costs you list are! And compensation for the inconvenience caused is regularly claimed (and paid)!

**curlywurly**

Interesting. I would have definitely thought it would be the other way round. After all, an increase in premiums is quantifiable. Most of the other stuff isn't.

At the time, I was so grateful (a) that the other driver admitted liability and didn't try and wriggle out of it (b) that I was not injured and (c) that Direct Line dealt so swiftly with it, I didn't really consider all the extra costs and time adding up, and I didn't consider claiming it.

I wonder whether, now the claim is closed, I have lost the chance of re-opening it and claiming the increase in premiums and all the other stuff (which all adds up).

Thanks for your input everyone. Interesting discussion.

Quentin

**curlywurly** wrote: »

At the time, I was so grateful (a) that the other driver admitted liability and didn't try and wriggle out of it (b) that I was not injured and (c) that Direct Line dealt so swiftly with it, I didn't really consider all the extra costs and time adding up, and I didn't consider claiming it.

Shame you "did it yourself" instead of instructing a solicitor/claim handler etc.

They are au fait with what can/can't be claimed and make sure all headings are covered.

It wasn't in Direct Line's interest to ensure you were claiming everything you could have done, but they can't be blamed for not pointing this out to you. It's for reasons like this (to try and cut out "innocent victims" using a solicitor) that liable third party insurers seem anxious to help out!

sevepally

It sounds like you were lucky, and they just nodded your claim through.